This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Obviously biased wording

"Important demographic changes occurred in the country. Between 600,000 and 760,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from the area that became Israel and they became Palestinian refugees.[19] The war and the creation of Israel also triggered the Jewish exodus from Arab lands. In the three years following the war, about 700,000 Jews immigrated to Israel, residing mainly along the borders of the State.[20]"

So Arabs "fled or were expelled" but there was a "Jewish exodus". The latter term is vague and could be construed by the reader simply as Jews deciding to relocate to Israel or US. The fact is that a higher proportion of Jews were expelled or fled unwillingly than was the case for Arabs.Colbyhawkins (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, mirror the grievances, cancel out historical nuance, even make out that the nakba was nothing compared to the expulsion of Mizrahi communities. Both the Yishuv in the 1940s and Israel actively encouraged diaspora communities in the Middle East to abandon their homelands to perform aliyah. The wider Arab community did not encourage the Palestinians to 'flee or be expelled' from their homeland. The involuntary Palestinian 'exodus' occurred over several months. The Jewish exodus, voluntary or involuntary, occurred over more than two decades. The point of collapsing this into two mirror-tragedies is wholly political, to cancel out a wrong done, by the analogy with a right and wrong that received the full encouragement of the state of Israel. Nishidani (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

"Immigrated" is incorrect. Should be "migrated". By the way, I have arranged for the full protection to be lifted, so everyone, unless topic-banned, can make changes. Discussion in advance of changes is still very welcome, but if people want to follow the WP:BRD method, that would also be appropriate. I have some bugbears you may want to consider in order to avoid edit-wars. 1) If you don't have English to native or near-native level, please propose edits here first, and 2) Whatever your level of English, please don't forget the initial capital for ethnic/national/religious groups, and for languages. Using lower case is disrespectful to the point of racism IMHO. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

suspected omission-the strongest Arab army agreed not to attack the Jewish state

"the strongest Arab army agreed not to attack the Jewish state" King Abdulla said whatever was convenient for him at the moment. As a pragmatist ruler, he would attack whenever there was a good chance of wining. The Arab Legion has attacked Jewish targets as early as starting of 1948. "No doubt, the unopposed occupation of the bulk of the West Bank whetted the king’s appetite for bigger and better conquests; for a few days, he even talked about conquering West Jerusalem and Tel Aviv". source: benni morris, 1948, p. 212 . Ykantor (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- It is Benny Morris. I already explained you that you cannot just pick a sentence and make a whole story out of it. Ben Gurion also talked about conquering Syrian and Transjordan in october 1948. That would be nosense to say these are his intentions. Read the full p.212 and report fairly all this. The topic of the intentions of Abdallah is covered in entire books.

What is your source for this : "As a pragmatist ruler, he would attack whenever there was a good chance of wining. The Arab Legion has attacked Jewish targets as early as starting of 1948." ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

""As a pragmatist ruler, he would attack whenever there was a good chance of wining". As an example, at the beginning, Abdulla has told the Jews that he won't attack them. Later, He told them that he can't avoid joining the co-Arab invasion.

And ? Pluto2012 (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

this text "the strongest Arab army agreed not to attack the Jewish state" is a misleading text by a Avi Shleim, who has an agenda and writes accordingly. Looking at Benni moris: "Golda Meir, disguised in an Arab robe, arrived on the night of 10–11 May in Amman for her second secret meeting with Abdullah, the previous months’ understanding about a peaceful Jewish- Hashemite partition was not reaffirmed. On the contrary. Abdullah, cordial as always but “tired and depressed,” now asked Meir to reconsider his original proposal, of an autonomous Jewish canton within a Hashemite kingdom. Why this rush toward statehood? he asked. Meir countered that back in November, they had agreed on a partition with Jewish statehood. Why not abide by the agreement? Abdullah replied that the situation had changed. There had been Deir Yassin, and he was now only one of a coalition of five war-bound Arab rulers, no longer a free agent." ( p. 193) Ykantor (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You are confusing two issues. Abdullah wanted an agreement that involved no fighting and just involved dividing up the country according to the UN plan. But by the time Israel declared independence it was occupying a large part of the Arab portion as well. The non-belligerency agreement was a non-starter, but it remains a fact of history that the Arab Legion did not enter the Jewish part of the UN partition and had no plans to. Shlaim's claim that there was an active agreement is disputed, but it is a strong consensus of historians that he did not plan to attack the Jewish state. For example Yoav Gelber (review of Morris' 1948 in Azure 2008, p119): "The objective of Transjordan’s Arab Legion was the hilly, Arab-populated part of the country—Judea and Samaria—and its outposts at Lydda and Ramle (now Lod and Ramla). This strategy was not, as Morris implies, a last-minute caprice on the part of Abdullah. It had been the king’s objective since the outbreak of the war." Or David Tal (Journal of Israeli History, v24, 2005, 183–202): "The one point of friction was the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem’s Old City, but even that could not be counted as a reason for fighting. All that Abdullah wanted was to occupy the area to the west of his kingdom that had been allocated by the United Nations to be part of the Arab-Palestinian state, an area that the Jews had no intention of acquiring, while the Jews wanted to make the Jewish part of Jerusalem part of their state, even though the United Nations had decided that that area would be internationalized. It seems that the two sides fought so fiercely, with intervals, from May to July 1948 simply because each side had no idea what the other side’s intentions were and consequently acted to frustrate what it assumed was the other side’s plan." And more examples could be given. Zero^talk 03:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

to zero: you are correct. However in my opinion Avi Shlaim sentence ( "the strongest Arab army agreed not to attack the Jewish state" ) is misleading and leads the reader to an understanding which is quite the opposite to your words:

The reader won't pay attention to the difference between attacking the jews and attacking within the planned jewish territory.
The term "the strongest army" is doubtful. It was a good army, but it missed tanks and aircraft, and was a small army.
the term "agreed" is associated with a formal signing, e.g. Molotov- Ribbentrop agreement, while Abdullah just promised that in order to receive a Jewish acceptance to annex the planned Arab territory to his kingdom. Abdullah managed out of his promise once he realized he has a better option. In fact, Abdullah is the winner of the war, even more than Israel who suffered destruction and huge number of casualties. Ykantor (talk) 06:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

We mix information from reliable sources and personal analysis. We cannot move forward that way.

1a. Abdallah's army didn't attack the Jews but the Isralis; 1b. He didn't try to invade areas allocated to the Jewish State by the Partition plan, as we discussed : Gezer was a tactical operation during the Latrun battles. This is explained in Morris.
I agree with you it is discussable that the Arab Legion was the "strongest" in comparison eg with the Egyptian army. Nevertheless, this is what is reported by historians. The reasons are the Arab Legion had numerous advantages : nearly all regiments were mechanized comprised armored fighting vehicles; the Arab Legion had served in the area and new the territory ; it was commanded by British officers.
In more of having common interest with the Israelis, Abadallah had received the British support to annex the Arab State at the condition that he didn't attack Israel and didn't enter the Jerusalem area. He had to comply with the "advices" of the British given he entirely relied on them military speaking. Despite this, he intervened in Jerusalem. As far as I know historians didn't find when the British gave their agreement to this but on the other side, they had no choice because the full city was falling to Israeli hands.

We should focus on a single a precise topic. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

to pluto: Do you have a source for "Abadallah had received the British support to annex the Arab State at the condition that he didn't attack Israel"? it is really strange, since Bevin hated Israel personally. I'll write more later. Ykantor (talk) 09:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It is already in the article here and sourced by French historian Henry Laurens reporting a February 1948's meeting at London. I look for this in English sources.

Ok. It refers to the visit of Transjordan Prime Minister al-Huda on february 1948. Bevin supported Abdallah's plan to annex the Arab State of Palestine but warned : "do not go and invade areas allocated to the Jews." (Rogan and Shlaim, “The” War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948, Cambridge University Press, 2001 p110.

By the way, at the same page, it is reported that Arab Legion was the strongest Arab army. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

to pluto: In my opinion Avi Shleim has an agenda, and writes accordingly. While googling for this note, I found a somehow different version. According to The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews, By Benny Morris, p. 114, Political Science,2003 , The Jordanian prime minister told Bevin that they won't enter a Jewish area, unless the Jews invaded Arab areas. Ykantor (talk) 03:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Morris and Shlaim are both WP:RS sources and Laurens too being an excellent source to give a good summary of all historians work.

In any case, see Morris p.112 - last paragraph of the 1st testimony - : It is essential that the Secretary of State [Bevin] should take this opportunity to give a confidential warning that if Transjordan became involved in hostilities against a Jewish State or blatantly contrary to the UN, we should be under strong pressure to suspend the subsidy and to consider the position of British officers seconded to the Arab Legion.

This is confirmed in the last sentence of the 1st paragraph of next testimony, by the whole section (C) and (D) opens the only "compromise" to this obligation, "compromise" that came to life with Bernadotte.

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

to Pluto: As said in this Benni Morris article, Bevin was happy to hear that the Arab Legion won't attack civilian population (i.e the Jewish and international territories) because he didn't want problems with the U.S and UN. That clarify the mystery why Bevin, the extremely anti Israeli, didn't want Abdulla to attack Israel.

By the way, your quoted lines were an update only to Bevin before the meeting. What has been really said during the meeting ? (top of page 114) Bevin asked if the Jordanian planned to occupy the Arab territories only or attacking Jewish areas too (presumably including Jerusalem ). The Jordanian prime minister replied that they won't attack Jewish areas unless the Jews invaded Arab areas. This is of course a saying that there will be always an excuse to attack the Jews. Ykantor (talk) 05:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The initial question was to know if the Transjordan (the country with the strongest army) had agreed not to attack Israel and the answer is that it had and was also contraint to this because their main ally was against this. More several diplomatic talks had occured with Yishuv officials to try to find a compromise or a 'modus vivendi'. In practice, they didn't attack Israel (Gezer is not such an attack) and it is in fact the Israelis that attacked them at Latrun, al-Ramla and Lydda. Anyway, as you point out, but we enter here in the "blurred area", nobody knows what they would have done if they would have other opportunities because they attacked Kfar Etzion (in Arab territories) and their promise was not 100 % clear. But these are speculations.

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

to Pluto: You are right concerning Ramla and Lyda, but Latrun is a different story. as Abdula told the Yishuv he won't attack the Jews, there were secret and direct contacts at 2 May 1948 between Arab Legion senior officers and Hagana commanders, in which they discussed how to ensure that there won't be any battle between them, including Jerusalem. As a response to a Legion commander question, an Hagana Representative said that if Jerusalem won't be attacked and the way to Jerusalem would be safe, then the Hagana will avoid battles with the Legion. However, about a week later, Abdula told the Jews that he have to join the war together with other Arab states (i.e. he can't fulfill his promise to avoid fighting with them).

Latrun , held by the Legion, has stopped the Jewish transportation to Jerusalem, and the Legion bombed there the water pumps of the only water line to Jerusalem. Thus the Hagana had to attack Latrun, in order to avoid suffocating of Jerusalem.

Thus, it is shown that Abdula was a pragmatist who always looked for his benefits, and his word or signature wasn't worth anything. Ykantor (talk) 08:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It is the Hagana that launched the offensive at Jerusalem with Operation Shfifon and Operation Kilshon. Arab Legion blokaged the road to Jerusalem after and even after intervened in the city. "Thus, it is shown that [Ben Gurion] was a pragmatist who always looked for his benefits, and his word or signature wasn't worth anything".

Anyway, all this translate intentions. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

suspected errors and omissions in the article- general

This thread is almost impossible to follow because of the layout. Ykantor, it would have been preferable to raise one point at a time, not several at once. Pluto, responding point-by-point makes it difficult to see who is saying what. I think the first point made by Ykantor is that the statement that the war ended with Israel possessing 60% of the original territory is incorrect. That is in the lead, and uncited. It is OK to leave points uncited in the lead if they are summaries of referenced statements in the main body. That's not the case here. I suggest that someone simply remove that statement. An article on a war should, however, end with an explanation of territorial changes resulting from that war. So I suggest that someone write a section on that, or expand the section on the demographic aftermath of the war to cover it. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

to Itsmejudith: I accept your note, and those points are separated each one into a paragraph of itself. Hope there is no mistake in the split content. Ykantor (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

How do you explain that all the points that you found go in the same direction ? - by pluto

to pluto: "How do you explain that all the points that you found go in the same direction ?" - The notes are (to my knowledge ) correct. Please tell me if something is wrong.

Do you understand the following that WP:NPoV means that all points of view must be reported fairly and an equilibrated way. If a contributor doesn't understand and doesn't want to comply with this do you understand that he is not welcome on wikipedia. I kindly ask you to answer at length to this question here below or on my talk page. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have access to good sources. If you think that you should change the article based of this small fact, then you should right now focus on the capture of Acre, Jaffa, the conquest of the West coast of Galilee and the captures of the villages between Latrun and Jerusalem.

If not, it means that you don't care about WP:NPoV.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

to pluto: concerning "the capture of Acre, Jaffa, the conquest of the West coast of Galilee and the captures of the villages between Latrun and Jerusalem", some of those points are already written in the article, and if there is a missing one, than it should be added to the article.

In my opinion, you already realized that once you highlight an error of mine, I simply accept it. While reading the article, once I am confident (based on my knowledge) that there is a mistake / omission I write it down here in the talk page and later verify it and modify the article accordingly. I think it is fair and moreover, I try to get your (and other editors) acceptance. What could be the problem in this process? Ykantor (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The problems are the following :

editors are assumed to comply with WP:NPoV. It means they are not expected to unbalance the article in bringing information always in the same direction. What you call errors that you identified are also information that all go to the same pro-Israeli direction. Maybe the article is biaised or maybe you don't understand the importance of WP:NPoV.

Could you please confirm without ambiguity that you read and understand WP:NPoV and that you intend to look for all information by yourself no matter whatever the picture it gives is good or bad for one side or the other ?

a basic rule of WP:NPoV is WP:Due weight. It means that if you enter information, even true, it must not affect the global picture of what is relevant is not. Eg, stating that the ALA had armored vehicules without talking about those of Hagana is wp:undue (It is also false to shift from "antiquated" to "fighting" to talk about ALA vehicules), talking about the "artillery" of the ALA, without specifying the number of 2-inch and 3-inch mortars of the Haganah, is wp:unde, rejecting the idea that Abadallah invaded Israel because of fights is wpu:undue (it is also WP:OR - original reserch and false) if we would not say that the Yishuv invaded (same word) because of the conquest of Acre and Jaffa. (it is also WP:OR).

Do you understand what I mean ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

to pluto: un my opinion, I have already replied to your points. Abyway, I'll try again.

yours: "editors are assumed to comply with WP:NPoV" and the rest of those formal terms. reply: How I have compiled this list? While reading the article, once I am confident (based on my knowledge) that there is a mistake / omission I write it down here in the talk page and later verify it and modify the article accordingly. In my opinion it is complying with those wikipedia rules. It could happen that other people wouldn't agree with me, and then we might try to convince each other, or call for a mediator.
yours: "What you call errors that you identified are also information that all go to the same pro-Israeli direction.". reply: out of 8 points of mine, 2 are pro Israeli ( British diplomacy in support of the Arabs, The war has started as the Arab fighters has attacked) and 6 are plain errors / omissions ( Took control of almost 60% of the area allocated to the proposed Arab state, The Arabs fought the 1948 war to meet Abdullah's political goals, The Arab League blocked recruitment to al Husayni's forces, The Arab leaders reluctantly decided to invade Palestine, The Arab Legion fought only in the areas that King Abdullah wanted to secure for Jordan, the strongest Arab army agreed not to attack the Jewish state). Again, I have identified them based on my knowledge. There could be more errors, which you may find, while initially it seems OK for me.
yours: "stating that the ALA had armored vehicules without talking about those of Hagana is wp:undue (It is also false to shift from "antiquated" to "fighting" to talk about ALA vehicules)". reply: There is a big difference between ALA armored fighting vehicles (even if antiquated) that are used for attacks, and between Hagana comercial trucks with thin steel plates, without fighting capability, that some Hagana fighters called it death trap, which were not suitable even for defense (since the steel plates were too thin). Moreover, at the period we have been talking about- April 1948, the Hagana lost nearly all of those armored trucks, during the convoys disasters of march 1948. However, if you think it is not balanced,in my opinion you may add it to the article

"small Haganah units in lightly armed, cramped, highly inflammable,makeshift armored cars" (benni morris, 1948, p. 108) Ykantor (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

yours: "talking about the "artillery" of the ALA, without specifying the number of 2-inch and 3-inch mortars of the Haganah". reply: Cannons are different from mortars, since a cannon range is much longer and this is a significant advantage for cannons. However, if you think it is not balanced, in my opinion you may add it to the article. ( by the way, 2" mortars are not count as artillery because of the extremely short range).
yours: "rejecting the idea that Abadallah invaded Israel because of fights". reply : what do you mean?
yours: "if we would not say that the Yishuv invaded (same word) because of the conquest of Acre and Jaffa". reply: if you think it is important, in my opinion you may add it to the article.
I will appreciate it if you won't ask me again the same questions that you already asked previously. I have already replied, and it is useless to repeat the same answers again and again. Ykantor (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

suspected omission- British diplomacy in support of the Arabs

"British diplomacy in support of the Arabs...This section relies largely or entirely upon a single source" - One more source is "Palestine 1948: War, Escape And The Emergence Of The Palestinian Refugee Problem By Yoav Gelber, p. 50-51, saying that the ALA units entered Palestine illegally, crossing the Jordan river bridge . The high commissioner Cunningham protested but his colleague in the Arab Countries ignored him. Moreover, Kirkbride protested to Bevin against Cunnigham hostile tone and threat. They said that stopping ALA from entering Palestine illegally, might cause considerable damage to Britain position in the Arab world. Gelber writes (p. 58) that Egyptian volunteers entered Southern Palestine too. Thus the Royal Navy was effectively blocking the Jews from entering Palestine, while on the same time, the British rulers deliberately done nothing to stop armed Arab fighters from entering the country. Ykantor (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- So what ? Pluto2012 (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I would not call it a suspected omission but thank you for raising it. At the moment the section relies nearly exclusively on Karsh and is tagged accordingly. Gelber is a good source for this article, and it would be an improvement to add from him. I would like to see the section retitled simply Britain and moved higher. I would also like to see reference to a general history of British foreign policy in the Attlee administration. Without straying from the topic, we may need to refer to the wider post-war conjuncture and decolonisation. The partition of British India had occurred only months before. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

one more source: "The First Yarmuk Battalion crossed from Transjordan a few days later and pushed inland, bivouacking in Tubas, near Nablus. The six-hundred-man battalion was commanded by Captain Muhammad Safa.153 The British quickly learned of these illegal crossings and were much embarrassed (Cunningham was furious). But they did nothing" (benni moris, 1948, p. 105) Ykantor (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you want to prove by this. This material is already in the article. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

to pluto: since there is a warning that "This section relies largely or entirely upon a single source", here there are 2 more sources (gelber, benni morris), this section can rely on. Ykantor (talk) 09:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"Moreover, Whitehall’s fears that the circumstances of the withdrawal from Palestine might subvert Britain’s standing in the Middle East occasioned a number of major, organized British interventions against the Jewish militias, or noninterventions in face of Arab attack" (benni morris, 1948, p.81) Ykantor (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok but I wonder what material you want to add.

I think we can easily source that :

British supported particularly Abdallah but was opposed to Husseini and didn't care the Palestinians Arabs
British were not opposed to the Jews

Pluto2012 (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

to pluto: Generally speaking, governments don't care about the people of other nations (e.g. the people in Syria nowadays), and only consider their own interests. Looking at The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews, By Benny Morris, p. 114, Political Science,2003 the British interests for - Palestine -Israel at the time were:

to extend indirect British influence in the Arab regions of Palestine by supporting Abdulla planned Annexation
Hiding this support for the sake of keeping good relationship with the Saudis who opposed Abdulla
Trying to hide their pro Arab and anti Jewish attitude, in order not to anger the USA that had subsidized Britain and potentially could stop the embargo on supplying weapons to the Mid East if they realized this Britain support Ykantor (talk) 06:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed but also (see former section here above), as proven by the material in Morris's book and reminded by Shlaim and Laurens, they supported Abdullah plan at the condition that he didn't prevent the implementation of a Jewish State and that he didn't attack it because else he could lose the logistical support of British (which he lost with the embargo) and his British officers. A corridor in the Negev or an exchange between Negev and Galilee being an acceptable compromise...

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem with this section in the article is not the presence of the "single source" tag. One could easily add a source from some similarly biased source and then remove the "single source" tag. The problem with the section is what's covered by the other tag, namely the utter lack of neutrality. The section presents Karsh's view of the subject and no other view. That is not being neutral. The section reads like pro-Israeli propaganda, which is to be expected from Karsh. --Frederico1234 (talk) 10:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

to frederico:the issue is not somone view on the subject (your words) but facts that solidly support this view, and the facts cannot be denied.

the ALA units entered Palestine illegally, crossing the Jordan river bridge . The high commissioner Cunningham protested but his colleague in the Arab Countries ignored him. Moreover, Kirkbride protested to Bevin against Cunnigham hostile tone and threat. They said that stopping ALA from entering Palestine illegally, might cause considerable damage to Britain position in the Arab world. ( from gelber, see before). thus there is one fact that the british havn't opposed the illegal entry af the ALA army (while the british mighty navy effectively stopped jews from entering Palestine). The second fact is the british telegrams of the period, which expose clearly that it was not a negligence but pro Arab motivation for that.
The British were actively looking for illegal Hagana weapons warehouse, while there was no similar searches for Arab warehouses.

If you still don't believe in the british rulers being pro Arab, will it be possible for you to highlight facts (and not views) that support your opinion. Ykantor (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the civil war period preceding this war, Benny Morris writes "But in fact, British policy - as emanating both from Whitehall and from Jerusalem, the seat of the high commissioner - was one of strict impartiality [...]". See "1948: The First Arab-Israeli War", p. 78. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

to Frederico: This is a view ( although a view of very respected history researcher) and not a fact, as mentioned previously. However, reading carefully, One might assume that Benni Morris wrote about a neutral British interventions in battles between Jews and Arabs. Anyway, Benni morris had a different view : "Moreover, Whitehall’s fears that the circumstances of the withdrawal from Palestine might subvert Britain’s standing in the Middle East occasioned a number of major, organized British interventions against the Jewish militias, or noninterventions in face of Arab attack" (benni morris, 1948, p.81)

one more case of British supporting the Arabs: when Egypt invaded Israel at 15 May 1948, the British didn't care. But when [Israel entered Egyptian territory] during Dec 1948 (in order to circulate and trap the Egyptian army, and not in order to conquere ) The British gave Israel an ultimatum. Ykantor (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

One more fact (taken from a british official document) is the british plans to support Abdulla in a taking over a portion of Israel , so called a "corridor" to egypt. The british official must had a sense of humor since he saw a benefit : " This would have immense strategic advantage to us, both in cutting the jewish state, and therefore communist influence... " . The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews, By Benny Morris, p. 113, Political Science,2003

will it be possible for you to present facts that support your view ? Ykantor (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe the Morris quote presented is sufficient to establish that the article section in question, as currently written, violates Wikipedias mandatory policy of Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV), which requires us to represent "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Morris' view is not represented, and he qualifies as a reliable source. Unless Morris' view could be considered a fringe view, the section thus violates WP:NPOV. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

to Frederico: Morris view should be definitely mentioned in the paragraph, although one may wonder what is his view: The p. 78 view (British policy -... was one of strict impartiality) or the p. 81 view ( "Whitehall’s fears ... might subvert Britain’s standing in the Middle East occasioned a number of major, organized British interventions against the Jewish militias").

Since facts are more important than views, I am repeating: will it be possible for you to highlight facts (and not views) that support your opinion? Ykantor (talk) 06:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The only view I've expressed here is that the specific section violates WP:NPOV. I've also provided a fact that support this view (the Morris quote itself). --Frederico1234 (talk) 06:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

@Ykantor :

there was no anti-Yishuv bias by the British. On the contrary the work for the establishment of a Jewish State in providing the support to Abdallah to annex the Arab State at the condition he didn't try to annex the Jewish State. I provided the sources to you.
More, I don't remember who wrote this but it should be Segev (or Morris) : in 1936-1939, British reacted against the Arabs with the highest violence (even taking hostages). Despite the attacks of the IZL and the LHI, despite the numbers of "boys" that were killed and despite the will of the soldiers on the field, they always refused to us similar methods against the Yishuv. That is a pro-Yishuv bias proving the were more anti-Arab than anti-semite.
As you underline yourself, the highest authority of Palestine, the British Cunningham complained to the diplomat Kirkbride that nothing was done to prevent ALA troops to enter its territory. This means he was against this. If they didn't try more, it is because Brisith considered that had lost enough men in Palestine (easy to source).
The British left Haganah conquer Haïfa and didn't try to prevent the exodus of the population. They also leave the IZL (no less) besiege (no less) Jaffa. Only after a complain did they stop the offensive. They didn't intervene at Deir Yassin but the lost one man during the Hadassah massacre.

-> there was no anti-Yishvu or anti-Israeli bias. They were just fed-up. That can easily be sourced too. I am sure I read this in Gelber. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

to Pluto:

you said "there was no anti-Yishuv bias by the British". I have shown here some major aspects in which the British were discriminating the Jews relative to the Arabs.

Blocking Jewish immigration Vs letting Arabs entering Palestine (as opposed to verbal opposition). e.g. ALA units.
The British were actively looking for illegal Hagana weapons warehouse, while there was no similar searches for Arab warehouses.
When Egypt invaded Israel at 15 May 1948, the British didn't care. But when [Israel entered Egyptian territory] during Dec 1948 (in order to circulate and trap the Egyptian army, and not in order to conquer ) The British gave Israel an ultimatum
British plans to support Abdulla in a taking over a portion of Israel , so called a "corridor" to Egypt.
Benni morris, 1948 : The p. 78 view (British policy -... was one of strict impartiality) . The p. 81 view ( "Whitehall’s fears ... might subvert Britain’s standing in the Middle East occasioned a number of major, organized British interventions against the Jewish militias").

you said "On the contrary the work for the establishment of a Jewish State in providing the support to Abdallah to annex the Arab State at the condition he didn't try to annex the Jewish State". Bevin saw it as a British interest (keeping the US calm) and the side benefit for the Jews was the Jordanians said they won't attack Jewish areas, unless.. , and then went forward and attacked Jewish Jerusalem, ignoring their promise, and Bevin didn't care.
you said "in 1936-1939, British reacted against the Arabs with the highest violence ..., they always refused to us similar methods against the Yishuv". It is difficult for me to compare those 2 different periods, since my knowledge of the 1936 to 1939 Arab rebellion is limited. Thus I can't reply here.
you said "the highest authority of Palestine, the British Cunningham complained to the diplomat Kirkbride that nothing was done to prevent ALA troops to enter its territory. This means he was against this. If they didn't try more, it is because Brisith considered that had lost enough men in Palestine ". Cunningham has indeed opposed it (as I cited previously) , but nothing was done to stop it, because of British reluctance to be seen as anti Arab (and not because of lack of soldiers) as I have cited before.
you said "The British left Haganah conquer Haïfa and didn't try to prevent the exodus of the population. They also leave the IZL (no less) besiege (no less) Jaffa. Only after a complain did they stop the offensive. They didn't intervene at Deir Yassin but the lost one man during the Hadassah massacre." The British used to offer the weaker side to leave with there protection. In Tiberias the Arabs accepted this offer and left. In Sefad the Jews refused to this offer, and later won over the battle.

Haifa: see [Battle_of_Haifa]. About 3 weeks before the end of the British mandate, The British commander General stock well decided to pull out of the buffer zone between the Jews and the Arabs, because off lack of soldiers, and told both sides . As the Arab commander heard the news, he immediately drove to Damascus for "reporting". This caused an Arab demoralization. The Jews won over the following battle and General Stockwell has verified that the jewish -arab agreement is fair. The Arabs decided to leave, although the Jewish Mayor have asked them to remain.
Jaffa. I have to learn more at this point. I'll return to this point.
Deir Yassin. [|Deir Yassin.] . "Gelber writes that the British were not keen to take on the Irgun and Lehi, who would have fought back if attacked, unlike the Haganah. High Commissioner Sir Alan Cunningham urged that troops be sent to Deir Yassin, but General Sir Gordon MacMillan, commander of the Palestine Forces, said he would risk British lives only in British interests. The RAF commanding officer offered to fire rockets on the Jewish forces in the village, but the light bombers had been sent to Egypt and the rockets to Iraq.[53] Cunningham later said the RAF had brought a squadron of Tempest aircraft from Iraq to bomb the village, but he cancelled the operation when he learned the Haganah had arrived there and had garrisoned it."
Hadassah convoy massacre, As I recall, the British didn't want to help the jews. I have to check it.

you said "there was no anti-Yishvu or anti-Israeli bias" . The British policy had many aspects, and not in all of them they were against the Jews. But in major aspects, they acted against the Jews (see the first lines of this posting). That was not an incident or a local policy, but a British interest as Bevin saw it. Ykantor (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"assuring the safety of the withdrawing forces had become Whitehall’s chief concern—though, to be sure, a second major interest was maintaining good relations with the Arabs so that Britain’s position in the Middle East would remain robust after the withdrawal from Palestine." (benni morris, 1948, p. 109) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ykantor (talk • contribs) 20:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
"The Mandatory Power shall use its best endeavors to ensure that an area situated in the territory of the Jewish State, including a seaport and hinterland adequate to provide facilities for a substantial immigration, shall be evacuated at the earliest possible date and in any event not later than 1 February 1948.". Britain have not obeyed this UN decision and Jews were not allowed in Palestine, while Arab armed Fighters were easily entering Palestine, and Britain didn't stop it. Ykantor (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
"The termination of the mandate was only part of the story; the paramount aim was to remain on good terms with the Arabs as well as the Americans. The British could not do so as long as Palestine continued to poison the atmosphere. Arab nationalism, frustrated in Palestine, could not be appeased. In British eyes the American failure to curb militant Zionism was at the heart of the trouble. But British perceptions and misperceptions about the motives of the other powers, the nature of Zionism, and the responsibility of the United States all played a part in the outcome. Before the historic UN vote on 29 November 1947 in favour of partition, Ernest Bevin wrote one of his rare personal letters, in which he discussed Soviet motives. Among other things, it reveals that he shared the belief, not uncommon in British official circles, that the Jewish state would eventually become communist:" source: Ends of British Imperialism: The Scramble for Empire, Suez, and Decolonization, 2006, By William Roger Louis ,p.443
"On another occasion, Bevin used the phrase ‘international Jewry’, with its connotation of conspiracy, as an explanation of what had gone wrong. If he did not implicitly subscribe to the equivalent of a conspiracy theory, at least he believed that the Jews might he fitting into (53) [53 See Minutes of Foreign Office Middle East conference, 21 July 1949, FO 371 /75072.] " source: Ends of British Imperialism: The Scramble for Empire, Suez, and Decolonization, 2006, By William Roger Louis ,p.443
"Sir John Troutbeck, the head of the British Middle East Office in Cairo, wrote that ‘Deir Yassein is a warning of what a jew will do to gain his purpose. On the eve of the Arab-Israeli war the British were apprehensive about its outcome, hut virtually no one anticipated the extent of the Arab collapse and the Israeli victory. The British associated themselves with the Arab cause as one that was ultimately compatible with their own sense of mission in the Middle East, and during the course of the war they became convinced that a grave injustice was being perpetrated because of American support of the Israelis. The resentment towards the United States still smoulders in the files at the Public Record Office. It existed as the main sentiment underlying official policy, and it was perhaps most indignantly expressed by Troutbeck, who held that the Americans were responsible for the creation of a gangster state headed by ‘an utterly unscrupulous set of leaders. Even if one disregards such intemperate and indeed unbalanced comments, the anti-Israeli and anti-American tone of the telegrams, dispatches, and minutes cannot be ignored. This sense of moral outrage reached a climax in late 1948 with the collapse of the ‘Bernadotte plan’" source: Ends of British Imperialism: The Scramble for Empire, Suez, and Decolonization, 2006, By William Roger Louis ,p.446. Ykantor (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a good source. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Two comments on the present article

In one place it says that Israel captured 50% of the area allotted to the Arab state, and in another place it says 60%. This should be made consistent using the best available source. Note that Jerusalem was not allotted to either state; some poor sources obfuscate that issue in their calculations. Also, some use the areas given in the UNSCOP report, even though those were adjusted by the UN later. Zero^talk 03:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The use of Karsh's popular (i.e. non-scholarly) 2002 book for many key points is the weakest aspect of this article. Even if Karsh's opinion must be given, one should at least choose those writings of his where he provides evidence for his claims. This 2002 book is junk, anyone can see that at a glance. Zero^talk 03:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

to Zero: If it is a junk , why don't you show what is wrong or biased there? I have repeatedly asked you and other participating editors for that, to no avail. Ykantor (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

British diplomacy in support of the Arabs - more sources

Ends of British Imperialism: The Scramble for Empire, Suez, and Decolonization, by William Roger Louis

p. 434, "the persistent british effort, especially by Ernest Bevin, to support the Arabs and thereby to sustain British power in the middle east" (period= dec 1946)
p 420 - in order for Britain to remain the dominant regional power, both Arab cooperation and the support of the U.S were vital...
p. 427 -for bevin "The Jews, in his eyes, threatened to poison his relations for both the Arabs and the Americans"
p. 419 "paradoxically, there is truth in the view that his pro Arab disposition helped bring about the creation od the state of Israel.

http://books.google.co.il/books?id=cFrYqEEMkEAC&pg=PA140&dq=bevin+%22pro+arab%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=aDiuUd-8KYjBswaTy4HYDA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=bevin%20%22pro%20arab%22&f=false Britain and America After World War II: Bilateral Relations and the ... By Richard Wevill 2012 p. 140 the foreign office was pro Arab and worked on Bevin as soon as he arrived. According to Kenneth Harris,' within a few days of being in the Foreign Office, Bevin went to Attlee and said :Clem, about Palestine, according to my lads in the office we have got it wrong. We have got to think again"
Herbert Vere Evatt and the establishment of Israel: The Undercover Zionist, by Daniel Mandel 2004, p. 11 "Bevin embarkedresolutely on pro Arab policy on Palestine to which he obdurately clung even when it had been revealed as a stark failure"
books.google.com/books?isbn=1935503804 Harry S. Truman, the State of Israel, and the Quest for Peace in the Middle East, Michael J. Devine - 2009 - Page 48 "Above all, it represented Bevin's failure to recruit the United States to a pro-Arab solution of the Palestine conflict"
books.google.com/books?isbn=1597811319 Partners Together in This Great Enterprise -David W. Schmidt - 2011 -

Page 307 In the House of Commons, Bevin kept the House informed of the situation in Palestine. He was openly pro-Arab in his sentiments, declaring, “We must remember that the British sergeants were not hanged from the tree by Arabs". On the same day, Bevin told the Commons, “I do not despair. Britain will be withdrawing on 15th May and when everyone has faced that fact, much may happen. Christopher Mayhew, Bevin’s Parliamentary Under Secretary, noted in his diary Bevin’s low view of the Jews, There is no doubt in my mind that Ernest detests Jews. He makes the odd wisecrack about the ‘Chosen People,’ explains Shinwell away as a Jew; declares the Old Testament is the most immoral book ever written...He says they taught Hitler the technique of terror-and were even now paralleling the Nazis in Palestine. They were preachers of violence and war-’What could you expect when people are brought up from the cradle on the Old Testament?”
p. 263 Attlee's views on the Jews were as harsh as Bevin's , but he refrained from crudely proclaiming them to the public.

books.google.com/books?isbn=186064449X britain and Empire: Adjusting to a Post-Imperial World - Lawrence J. Butler - 2002, Page 78 In London's estimation, Arab goodwill was simply more desirable than the friendship of a future Jewish state
books.google.com/books?isbn=0300116098 Churchill's promised land: Zionism and statecraft - Michael Makovsky - 2007 -Page 227 the new prime minister, Clement Attlee, was anti-Zionist, while Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin was outright hostile ... and they, like Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax in the 1930s, saw British interests served by a pro-Arab policy Ykantor (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote on your talk page, you have to gather all points of view on the topic and not to look for in google some sentences or isolated facts that may prove that your feeling would be right. Zero0000 provided you a full article on the topic : an article will have more weight than gathering quotes.

Pluto2012 (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually I provided two full articles, giving different points of view. Ykantor, you are wasting your time with your quotation hunt. There is so much written on the subject that you can take any point of view you like and find an infinite number of quotations supporting it. That is not the path to a balanced article. Zero^talk 23:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

to zero: Looking at those 2 sources, there are no such citations. Moreover, in my opinion, there is no other view (Arab or elsewhere) since the section describes accurately and objectively the reality of this period.

However, since you are sure that your 2 sources are balancing this supposedly pro Israeli section, why won't you provide citations from those sources? Ykantor (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The section begins with saying that "Britain, which at the time was one of the major powers in the Middle East, supported the Arabs.". The rest of the section is just a collection of facts and quotes to support this view. There is no hint to the reader that there are different views. That is not being neutral, regardless of how many references are added. The section simply can't be made neutral without major surgery, which in practice means raplacing it with a new, neutral version. Until such a neutral version can be worked out on this talk page, the section should stay out. WP:NPOV is not a guideline, it is a mandatory policy which must be followed. --Frederico1234 (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

to frederico: It is amazing, that you are not providing any proof , that there is other view. You have been asked few times for specifics, but you ignore it. By avoiding any hint concerning what is wrong, YOU are offending the WP:NPOV. As an offender, you should be blamed formally, unless you provide a PROVEN alternative view. Ykantor (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I provided proof that there is another view when we discussed it earlier. See this diff. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The quote is : "But in fact, British policy - as emanating both from Whitehall and from Jerusalem, the seat of the high commissioner - was one of strict impartiality" from Benny Morris, 1948 (2008), p.78. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

to frederico: you said "There is no trace of other views, such as Morris' ("But in fact, British policy - as emanating both from Whitehall and from Jerusalem, the seat of the high commissioner - was one of strict impartiality")".

As said before, this sentence could have added to the section , instead of deleting it.
This sentence is taken from a Morris book (1948) paragraph, which starts at mid page 78 to page 81. Reading these pages, it is clear that it relates to the British rule within Palestine, as opposed to British diplomacy, which is the subject of the removed section. (of course, there is some overlapping between those 2 issues). Further within those 4 pages, morris notes this difference, and says : "The further contradiction, between strict impartiality and a desire to maintain Britain’s standing in the Middle East, which required a pro-Arab tilt, led to inconsistent behavior, causing confusion among British officials and officers and among many Arabs and Jews." (p. 79)
Concerning the British policy inside Palestine ( which is not the subject of this section) , Morris mentions: "British troops did not always abide by the guideline of impartiality. Occasionally they indulged in overt anti-Jewish behavior", but does not mention any similar anti Arab policy.(p. 80). Morris's paragraph end lines are: "Moreover, Whitehall’s fears that the circumstances of the withdrawal from Palestine might subvert Britain’s standing in the Middle East occasioned a number of major, organized British interventions against the Jewish militias, or non interventions in face of Arab attack". (p. 81) Again, there are no such an anti Arab events.
In my opinion, you may add another section ( or a sub section) which deals with the British policy inside Palestine. However, it is a separated issue from "the British diplomacy supports the Arabs", for which there are no reasons to delete it. Ykantor (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Great but as has been said to you, you gather facts by yourself to make them conclude something.

Other facts have been given to you in the other direction (eg, the ammunition embargo).

And the solution to all this : gathering all points of view by yourself and providing them at once as been explained to you per WP:NPoV.

Addtionnaly, you have to take care about WP:Undue Weight.

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If as Morris writes and you support by citing it, British policy was inconsistent, why entitle a section 'British policy in support of the Arabs?' Britain's policy was to secure what it could of its empire, stave off the Soviet threat, secure logistical bases and cheap petroleum in the Middle East, and get out of Palestine because it was strapped financially and, with troubles in Greece and Turkey from a Soviet thrust south, the rebellion in Malaya, the troubles in the India/Pakistan partition, with the los of the Raj, and the bigger emergency of reorganizing its forces also before the growing issue of Soviet ambitions in Berlin, of course its policy, here and elsewhere had inconsistencies, just as it had before in establishing a Jewish enclave in Palestine after the Balfour declaration, and in enlisting Haganah elements in their 3 year war against the guerilla insurgency in Palestine in 1936-9, which destroyed the roots for a future efficient Palestinian resistance. The British hummed and hawed for 25 years, caught on the classic horns of a dilemma, as dozens of books recount. They had strong pro-Zionists in the establishment, a foreign office which has a notable Arab tilt, something reinforced by the numerous attempts on the lives of British ground forces, of Bernadotte, Lord Moyne and other lesser ranks. Any selective citations can make out a case for 'a pro-Arb British bias' at this period, but any section of this type should be generic and cover all of the foreign powers which exercised a political, military amd economic impact on the ground as the war began. Unless one does this, the result is caricature by selective use of sources to drive home a thesis, that of the Stern Gang-Irgun-Likud tradition.Nishidani (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

to Nishidani:

there is a big difference between the header of the removed section: "British diplomacy in support of the Arabs" , and between your version of British policy in support of the Arabs. You have not provided even one case in which the British diplomacy was not supporting the Arabs. My conclusion is that the view of the deleted section is fully correct and objective.

How many times do we have to remind you the ammunition embargo on Arab armies, the fact that British conditionned their support to the Arab Legion to the fact they would not attack Israel ? Both these facts are reported by Morris. More, the British diplomacy didn't firmly oppose to the Partition Plan either whereas the Arab were totally opposed to this.

yours: "a foreign office which has a notable Arab tilt, something reinforced by the numerous attempts on the lives of British ground forces, of Bernadotte, Lord Moyne and other lesser ranks". How would you explain Whitehall anti jewish policy, even before those assassinations?

It was already explained to you that the British lost many boys due to Yishuv insurrection after '45. Stop talking about anti-Jewish policy.

the British POLICY inside Palestine is a different issue (with some overlapping). According to Morris it was generally balanced except where the British DIPLOMACY caused some pro Arab steps ( There is no mentioning of pro Jewish acts).

As already have been explained to you, Tom Segev in One Palestine Complete gives the degree of repression against Jews that was much less agressive than the one against ARabs in 1936-39 as an example of favorising Jews despite the fact the officiers on the field asked for such a harder repression. Once more, British didn't oppose to the Partition Plan. That is more pro-Zionist than pro-Arab and this is also anti-Palestinian.

yours: "the guerilla insurgency in Palestine in 1936-9, which destroyed the roots for a future efficient Palestinian resistance". I have seen this view previously, but it seems strange. Whatever the British has done until 1939, there were about 9 years in which the Arabs could recover. It might be a leadership problem, since Al-Husseini's tactics, his abuse of power to punish other clans, and the killing of political adversaries he considered 'traitors', alienated many Palestinian Arabs. Is this lack of proper leadership the main reason ?

This is explained in Gelber. You have been asked several times to read books on the topics fully before performing your ananalysis.

yours: "any section of this type should be generic and cover all of the foreign powers which exercised a political, military and economic impact on the ground as the war began." Why won't you add it? I do not see the need for that addition, but once you write a well supported text (without deleting the DIPLOMACY section), no one will erase it. Ykantor (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Per NPoV. What is added must be neutral and consistent by itself. Your behaviour also refrains other from collaborating. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Pluto wrote:How many times do we have to remind you the ammunition embargo on Arab armies. William Roger Louis says:Bevin telegraphed Kirkbride at July 1948 "I will do my utmost to help king Abdullah...but I cannot... supply of ammunition" since it will "flout the UN..and cause "lifting of the U.S arms embargo on the Jews (The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951: Arab Nationalism, the ...By William Roger Louis,p. 546)

to Pluto: I have opened a note in Dispute_resolution_noticeboard . You can write there your view. Ykantor (talk) 11:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't need to give my view there. There is no dispute with me and this is not "my view". Zero0000, Frederico, Nishidani and Itsmejudith explained you with great details the problems of your view too. Nableezy did so too on another place. And all content issues were answered on this talk page.

More, you wrote on your own talk page : "I do not see why one should waste his time and refer to you anymore."

Pluto2012 (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Should the article include: The ‘missing dimension’ in Britain’s Middle East Policy

The problem is the citations quality.

The article Meir Zamir, The missing dimension in Britain’s Middle East Policy "provides more than 100 previously secret Syrian and British documents obtained by French intelligence in Beirut. The documents, uncovered in French archives, substantiate de Gaulle’s allegations, and shed new light on the covert activities of the British in the Middle East". The article ( and other Zamir articles) are very interesting and provides new views concerning "Greater Syria", Britain, Abdula and Israel, based on those newly discovered documents.

This article ( and more ) appears in Journal: Middle Eastern Studies, published by Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, Issue: Volume 46, Issue 6, November 2010, pages 791 – 899 too. This last link, is Joshua Landis blog, which have published some of those documents.

more:

Should the article include this new view? Ykantor (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Zamir in Middle Eastern Studies is reliable for this article. Blogs aren't. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Is it possible to use prof. Zamir articles ( an expert for this field) in the daily's Haaretz or Jerusalem Post? . This article already use a Magazine and internet sites as sources ( eg. ref 9, 13 ,81) Ykantor (talk) 11:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not impressed by prior examples of source use, since I think this article and many others have too low a standard for sourcing. About this question specifically, articles in Middle Eastern Studies are certainly usable. Zamir's MES article that you mention should be paired with his earlier article "'Bid for Altalena: France's Covert Action in the 1948 War in Palestine" (same journal, 46:1, 17–58), which documents how France conspired with the Zionists, including providing arms to the Irgun. Both of these events incidentally show how much concerned the western powers were with their own interests. I'm not a great fan of using newspaper summaries when the original journal article are available, though Zamir's own articles could help to get the overall picture provided the journal articles are examined for nuances that the newspaper format doesn't allow space for. Zero^talk 13:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply. So unfortunately we cannot write here : "based on British documents provided by the French agent secreted into the British office in Beirut, that Britain intended to continue forcing its White Paper on the Zionist movement and to prevent the establishment of an independent Jewish state. This policy was part of Britain's secret plan to establish a Greater Syria by unifying Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Palestine into a single political entity. " and so on. since it does not appear in the MES articles. Ykantor (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Ykantor (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, you would face an uphill struggle if you tried to get that through. The way that it looks to me is that you're trying to write about British policy using a fire-breathingly anti-British source which contains some rather half-baked ideas. Maybe you should try using something a bit more mainstream? Also, statements such as the one about Britain's intention "to continue forcing its White Paper on the Zionist movement" will garner opposition on the grounds of their being a bit on the POVish side. ← ZScarpia 11:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments by A.S Brown

As the author of the content that has been the subject of this dispute, I can not claim a position of neutrality, but I will try my best to be fair. The title British diplomacy in support of the Arabs was perhaps not the best one, probably British diplomacy in support of Jordan would have been more accurate, but that a poor choice of a section does not seem to be a sufficient reason to remove an entire section, which was properly cited. A great deal of the objections seem to center around my use of Major Efraim Karsh as a source. I will not deny that Karsh's work has been the subject of considerable controversy, but the same can be said about the work of the New Historians, several of which have been cited here in objection to Karsh. Anyhow, even some of the articles that have submitted in opposition to Karsh say that Britain did lean towards Jordan and did not wish to see the Negev in Israeli hands, which is the same thing that Karsh was saying. To the best of my knowledge, there is no consensus that Karsh is a not a RS, and until such a consensus has been reached, I see no reason why Karsh cannot be used as a source. If I understand the rules of Wikipedia correctly, Wikipedia is supposed to present the consensus view of the majority of the relevant savants in the field. Thus, the article on plant Earth should say that the Earth is round because that is what the overwhelming majority of experts believe and the flat Earth theory is regarded as a fringe viewpoint. That presents some problems with history about often is common for historians to be in dispute. This is not that there are no such things as a consensus viewpoint in history, just such a consensus is not as common as many people seem to think. Wikipedia discourages historiography, which is rather unfortunate as such summaries of what different schools of historians think about particular issues can be helpful, and such section would do a great deal to reduce the edit wars that plague Wikipedia. Anyone who has ever done any serious reading about the 1948 war and its origins and consequences will know that this is one of the most fought battlefields of modern history. There are broadly speaking two viewpoints, which cannot be reconciled. The first is that the war was a case of Zionist aggression with Israelis both starting the war and then ethnic cleansing Palestine while the other holds that Israel was the victim of Arab aggression and that the majority of the Palestinians were not expelled, but fled. Karsh definitely is a member of the latter school. My understanding of this historiography about 1948 is there is no historical consensus, and thus one side should not be favored over another. I will admit that basing an entire section using Karsh might had made things a little slanted towards one side in the history wars, but the same can be said about countless other articles around here, often in various sinister ways. I'm of course biased in favor of my own work, but I believe that the section that I wrote back in June 2011 explored a significant aspect of the 1948 war, which the article did not cover. Since some other editors have voiced concern about possible neutrality problems, might I suggest that the best compromise would be to restore the deleted section, and then the cite the viewpoints of some other historians, and explain how their views differ about British diplomacy in 1948. It is a bit cumbersome to do things like that, but it does seem like the best way to address the concerns of the other editors who vehemently objected to the content. Indeed, one might want to do that a step further, and rewrite the entire article in that spirit. At very least, that would let the reader know that historians who write about the 1948 war seem to spent most of their time debating with one another over what actually happened and why. --A.S. Brown (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi A.S. Brown, The problem is not just that the material comes from Karsh. The points that were raised are :

the fact that it comes from Karsh's book of 2002, which cannot be considered as a scholarly work in regard of other publications on the topic. At least, it is "Palestine Betrayed" that should be used to give Karsh's point of view. -> There is already no reason to keep this material per WP:RS. (Nb: The same situaiton is true eg for Ilan Pappe whose 1992's book can be considered a WP:RS whereas his Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine cannot and should be avoided.)
the section was not neutral. It only gives what has become a fringe point of view. By the way, I also disagree with the dichotomy that you give between the different points of view on the topic of the 1948 War. There are numerous analysis. Eg Israeli historians, even among those who disagree with New Historians or Palestinian historias, stop presenting the British position as the one of an antisemite Bevin (that is what you wrote on YKantor's talk page).
the length of this section was too long. Per WP:Undue, the British position is certainly relevant and important but it doesn't deserve to give each little fact or detail on the topic but only the main ones with a global view. Before being controversed, we know that this topic is also very complex.

I add that if there are numerous points of view regarding a lot of issues on the 1948 war, the British position is not among these :

1. British didn't support or harash particularly either the Palestinian Arabs or the Yishuv and wanted first to stop losing boys in Palestine. That's also why they abandonned the Mandate where they had 100,000 men ;
2. they supported their best ally : Abdallah and his annexation plan of the Arab State at the condition he didn't attack Israel (and intervene at Jerusalem, which he did anyway). They also targeted to get Negev back for strategic reasons ;
3. they respected the weapons embargo wanted by the UN which indirectly affected more the Arabs than the Israelis.

I may have forgotten other relevant point but certainly not many. Do you see others ? Before introducing anything in the article, it should be decided what is to be written inside. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

to A.S.Brown : I would advice you not to reply to this offender. It does not matter how many times one will correct his misleading / half truth / lies. He simply rewrite it again. Just one late example: I told him few times that according to Wiki rules, he can not delete the sector, but to add his view. It did not change his vandalism. However since The dispute resolution volunteer has asked for rewriting rather than deletion, he is at a loss (in the meantime). Ykantor (talk) 10:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Stop saying things like advice you not to reply to this offender ... his misleading / half truth / lies. Ill report you myself if I see it again. And no "Wiki rule" comes anywhere close your claim of he can not delete the sector. nableezy - 20:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It is amazing That you defend the offender, pluto2012, by trying to frighten me. He has proven in a couple of deletions, that the title vandal fits him as described: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. However, I felt pity for him, since with his record he might have been banned from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ykantor (talk • contribs) 07:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

@Ykantor : I think you should read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. What you write is particularly offending and unacceptable.

Pluto2012 (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

@A.S. Brown : if you want to discuss I am of course open but please in the process answer my comments as I answers yours. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

British diplomacy in support of the Arabs - Karsh (again)- more sources no. 2

There are some Karsh valuable quotations. Since Karsh is not popular here, the quotes are restricted to quotations sourced from other citations. The book is "Fabricating Israeli History The New Historians". These pages may be viewed on line by clicking the link and using the search box.

p. 140. such a move: ‘If the United Nations took no further action, the people of Palestine would themselves be the only authority capable of determining their country’s future when the Mandate came to an end. In these circumstances, the Jewish population of Palestine would no doubt have a right to try to establish a state in part of the country. But this right would be no better than the right of the Arabs to invite the intervention of the Arab League. The two actions would be legally on an equal footing’.51 Given that it was none other than the British Government that had prevented the United Nations Commission from taking those ‘various steps’ which, if taken, would have validated ‘the Jewish claim to United Nations authority for their state’, this legal sophistry anticipated, if not sanctioned, an Arab (including Transjordanian) attack on the Jewish State. Indeed, the invading Arab States lost no time in parroting Whitehall’s ‘legal’ argument. ‘There was no State there [i.e., in Palestine] recognized by any other State and there was no legal successor to the Mandatory Power’, the Egyptian Prime Minister said in justifying his country’s attack on Israel.52 As late as 14 May, a day before the Arab attack on Israel, Bevin cabled Kirkbride, clearly anticipating Transjordan’s transgression of the boundaries of the newly-established State:" 51 Ibid.; ‘Palestine — Legal position’, Confidential Guidance prepared by the Information Office0 British Embassy in Washington, 20 May 1948. FO 371/68651; Beeley (New York) to Burrows, 3 May 1948, FO 371/68554/E6677. 52 Al-Sharq al-Adna in Arabic, 17 May 1948, ‘BBC Monitoring Service — Summary of World Broadcasts’, III, No. 52, 27 May 1948, p. 56.
p. 141. instruct all such officers to withdraw from and remain outside Palestine. 53 And by way of providing further proof that Bevin never told Abul Huda not to invade the Jewish areas — if such proof is at all needed at this stage — let me conclude this chapter with B.A.B. Burrows’s memorandum of 7 May titled ‘Palestine After May 14’. In this memorandum Burrows assessed that : "the Arab Legion would enter Palestine mainly by the Allenby Bridge, and would attempt to occupy the Nablus, Ramallah and Hebron areas, perhaps including Beersheba and perhaps extending across the southern Jewish area to Gaza (thus severing the Negev from the Jewish State] if the Egyptian Army had not moved in there. They would also no doubt secure the narrow strip of Palestinian territory on the Gulf of Aqaba [awarded by the General Assembly to the Jewish State]". It seems impossible at present to look much further ahead. The Arab Legion could probably hold the central Arab area fairly comfortably but might get into considerable difficulty if it tried to do more than this, e.g., an expedition to Jaffa or Haifa. 53 Foreign Office to Amman, 14 May 1948, telegram 382, FO 371J68852/E6327. See also M.T. Walker’s memo of LI May on ‘British Officers in the Arab Legion’, anticipating a Transjordanian attack on the Jewish State: ‘We should arrange with Sir A. Kirkbride, however that in the event of a Transjordanian attack on the Jewish State, instructions for the withdrawal of British officers should reach them with the least possible delay’. FO 371J68852./E6008.
p. 152. United Nations became a distinct possibility. Suffice it to recall Burrows’ suggestion of 7 May 1948 that the Foreign Office should intimate to Abdullah their acquiescence in his occupation of the Negev in order to see that Britain wished the soon-to-be-born Jewish State no good. The war was seen by the Foreign Office as a golden opportunity to undo the UN Partition Resolution and ‘cut Israel down to size’. On 20 May 1948, five days after the Arab invasion of the newly established State of Israel, Bevin wrote to the British Ambassador in Washington, Lord Inverchapel: "‘I do not (repeat not) intend in the near future to recognize the Jewish State and still less to support any proposal that it should become a member of the United Nations. In this connexion I hope that even though the Americans have recognized the Jewish State defacto they will not commit themselves to any precise recognition of boundaries. It might well be that if the two sides ever accept a compromise it would be on the basis of boundaries differing from those recommended in the Partition Plan of the General Assembly.’18 That these border revisions were not conceived in terms favourable to the Jewish State was evidenced by the tireless British efforts to induce the UN Mediator, Count Folke Bernadotte, who arrived in the Middle East at the end of May 1948, to devise a solution that would reduce Israel to approximately the same size as that envisaged by the 1937 Peel Partition Plan — 18 Bevin to Lord Inverchapel. PREM 8v859, II, telegram 5459 of 20 May 1948.
p. 157. If however, there is uncertainty on this question of the Negeb, it appears to me to be undesirable from our point of view to allow King Abdullah to push his negotiations with the Jews to anything like a conclusive stage. As Sir J. Troutbeck has pointed out (his telegram No. 508 to you) the Negeb is of little value to the Arabs while of strategic value to us, and King Abdullah may well be content to let the Jews have it the moment he sees that he has no prospect of getting Gaza. With all the other Arab States against him, Abdullah may even see advantage in having a wedge of neutral territory between him and Egypt. With the Negeb in Jewish hands moreover, it would be difficult for us to implement our defence obligations under Anglo—Transjordan Treaty save by air or via Aqaba.26 If anything, the above reports vindicate contemporary Jewish suspicions that the British were no less eager to have the Negev incorporated into Transjordan than King Abdullah himself. Dow’s view, also shared by Troutbeck, that ‘the Negeb is of little value to the Arabs while of strategic value to us’ is precisely what was argued by Zeev Sharef in his autobiographical account of the 1947-49 War. Describing the thrust of Zionist thinking following the Meir—Abdullah meeting of 11 May 1948, in which Meir failed to convince the king not to attack the State of Israel at birth, but was nevertheless convinced that he did not contemplate the prospects of battle gladly or with self-confidence, Sharef wrote: 26 From Jerusalem to Foreign Office, 20 December 1948, telegram 697, FO 371J68603.
p. 159. declare forthwith that HMG accepted the report in its entirety’.[30 . Whether a Jewish Statelet along the proposed British lines (see map) — without the Negev, with no land access to its capital, with its main naval outlet severely constrained, and with key economic installations and parts of its transport system controlled by foreign powers and manipulated to the benefit of its Arab enemies — should be defined as a ‘rump of a state’ (or as a ‘compact state’ as cynically termed by Bevin) is a matter of personal taste. What is eminently clear is that this statelet would have occupied a far smaller territory than that awarded by the UN Partition Plan, which in itself is described by Shlaim as anomalous and scarcely viable;[31 hence its economic and strategic position would have been extremely precarious, something of which the Foreign Office was keenly aware. ‘Musa el-Alami would for his part accept the idea of a very restricted Jewish State, limited to the coastal plain’, Burrows reported following a conversation with the ‘moderate’ Palestinian leader. ‘I fancy with the arrière pensée that life for the Jews in such a small State would sooner or later become intolerable and it could be eliminated altogether’[32. But this was precisely the straightjacket in which Bevin and his advisers so tirelessly toiled to restrain Israel. [30 Ibid. 61st Conclusions, 22 September 1948, p. 20. [31 Shlaim, Collusion, p. 117. [32 B.A.B. Burrows, ‘Conversation with Musa el-Alami’, 6 December 1947, FO 371J61585/E1 1764. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ykantor (talk • contribs) 22:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

A problem you face is the many sources which say that the Jewish Agency and Transjordan conspired together to prevent an independent Palestinian state coming into existence, that Bevin told the Jordanians that they should not attack the territory allocated by the UN to a 'Jewish state' and that the British government's main concern, in parallel with the Israelis and Jordanians, was to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state controlled by the Mufti. You also have to deal with the fact that, by the end of the mandate and the start of the Arab-Israeli War proper, Jewish forces had already occupied and cleared areas which were supposed to be in the 'Arab state', meaning that the action of the Arab states was justifiable in terms of their declaration that they would act to protect the Arabs of Palestine.

As far as Transjordan is concerned, you may find the following interesting. Eugene L Rogan and Avi Shlaim, War for Palestine, Rewriting the History of 1948 (2007), p.111-112: "It is worth remembering that the Arab Legion had no intention of fighting a war in Palestine, but of occupying the 'central and largest area of Palestine allotted to the Arabs by the 1947 partition.' This peaceful entry was scuttled by the decision of the Arab League two days before the end of the Mandate to send the armies of Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon into Palestine along with the Arab Legion. While the size, equipment, and discipline of the Legion recommended it for a peace-keeping mission, its 6,000 troops in May 1948 were insufficient to defeat the estimated 35,000 Jewish regulars and irregulars in an all-out war. ... Nothing in the discussions held between King Abdullah and the Jewish Agency had prepared Transjordan for the real battle the Arab Legion was forced to wage in Jerusalem. Instead of a peace-keeping mission, Transjordan was at war with Israel."

And on Iraq, p.133: "Nuri al-Said had by this stage become convinced that the British were unwilling to countenance the take-over of the whole of Palestine by the armed forces of Iraq and Transjordan, as he had once hoped. ... In December 1947, Jabr and Nuri visited Amman on their way back from London and told King Abdullah that Great Britain not only favored partition, but was also in favor of Transjordan taking over the Arab areas of Palestine. They also pledged Iraqi support for such a move."

← ZScarpia 22:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input.

yours "the action of the Arab states was justifiable in terms of their declaration that they would act to protect the Arabs of Palestine." That would be justified if the invading Arab states would have warn the Yishuv that unless the Hagana retreat to the partition borders, They will have to invade. But that didn't happened. Anyway, legally it was not justified at all.
yours "This peaceful entry" of the Arab Legion. The legion was so peaceful that a couple of days before their invasion they have slaughtered the Kfar Ezion people after they surrendered. Avi Shleim is a shame for for the Historians. He forces history to get along with his anti Israeli agenda. As I have shown, he selects facts that fits his ideas and interpret it in a way which humiliates our understanding. e.g. The 6000 legion soldiers Vs 35000 Hagana members!. This is a bullshit. The Hagana members were thinly spread along the settlements, very few of them had any proper training, unlike the legion they didn't have cannons and armored fighting vehicles (at that time) and so on.
yours "told King Abdullah that Great Britain not only favored partition, but was also in favor of Transjordan taking over the Arab areas of Palestine". One more offense against our understanding. If the British support Abdulla annexing Palestinian territories, it is against partition and not "favored partition" . Ykantor (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

So, we're to accept Karsh as a source, but reject Shlaim (note the spelling), or Rogan? ← ZScarpia 21:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote:"Since Karsh is not popular here, the quotes are restricted to quotations sourced from other citations". In my opinion, the usage of Shlaim should be similar. BTW Karsh is disputed, but his opponents here, has not provided yet any error or problem with his writing yet. Ykantor (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, note that I haven't expressed any opinion on the reliability of Karsh myself. A couple of different points, which relate to how neutrality is supposed to be achieved in Wikipedia articles, lay behind my comment. When it comes to the history of the 1948 War, there is marked separation among Jewish writers into two schools, the traditionalists and the revisionists. Wikipedia editors are supposed to try to write neutrally. That is, where there are different interpretations or versions, a balanced presentation of each is supposed to be given. Editors are supposed to try to avoid pushing their favoured versions, the ideal being encapsulated in the idea 'writing for the enemy'. If you pick out rather hardline members of one school as sources and then write scornfully of members of the other, you reinforce the impression that you're either not interested or incapable of writing neutrally. A final point: if you're using notes or citations obtained from Karsh, the source is still Karsh. Whether or not the contents of the cited material is presented accurately depends on Karsh. There is a principle here, that you cite material from where you obtained it, not from where your source says it was obtained. Therefore, whether the material can be used or not depends on the reliability or notability of your source. ← ZScarpia 01:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a content guideline: WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Zero^talk 04:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

to Zero: I comply with this guideline.

to ZScarpia: you are right "that you cite material from where you obtained it". I apologize for my vague writing, and re write it: Since Karsh is not popular here, I quote only his factual sentences (including quotations) and not his interpretation. In my opinion, Shleim should be treated the same. BTW this removed section, which was initially based on Karsh only, was not written by me. Had I written it, I would have chosen a respected source i.e other than Karsh.

yours: "If you pick out rather hardline members of one school as sources and then write scornfully of members of the other, you reinforce the impression that you're either not interested or incapable of writing neutrally". I try to mainly quote sources who are respected by every one here. e.g. Morris, Gelber. But, if I have to quote Karsh (since he is the only one to have these quotation) , I use his factual sentences only, and not his interpretation.
Concerning Shleim, I have shown that some of his interpretation / consequences are flawed. In my opinion, it is better to avoid authors whose interpretation is clearly biased by his anti Israeli agenda, or Golani (I do not think he is an anti Israeli) who tries to present himself as an inventor of new paradigms and more. It is much better to use mainly historians who are acceptable by every one. Ykantor (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
yours "separation among Jewish writers into two schools, the traditionalists and the revisionists". I understand that Morris , Gelber are respected by everyone here, so one can claim that there is a third and balanced school Ykantor (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

British diplomacy in support of the Arabs - Zamir- more sources no. 3

Quotes based on Zamir articles

1 Zamir articles in the "Middle Eastern Studies"- Altelena

Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 46, No. 1, 17–58, January 2010 ‘Bid’ for Altalena: France’s Covert Action in the 1948 War in Palestine

p. 21

French intelligence, for its part, provided Ben-Gurion and Shertok with ongoing details of Arab political and military plans against the Yishuv (the pre-state Jewish community in Palestine), particularly after the UN partition vote, as well as of the secret Anglo-Arab collaboration against the establishment of a Jewish state.

p. 33-34

An examination of the reports and memoranda on Britain’s policy in Palestine, which Bidault received at the time, indicates another motive: to obstruct an Anglo-Jordanian move that would have enabled King Abdullah to take over Jerusalem. Control over Jerusalem, the third France’s Covert Action in the 1948 War in Palestine 33 holiest city in Islam, and the annexation of a large part of Arab Palestine, would have considerably enhanced Abdullah’s prestige. With Britain’s tacit support he would have been in a better position to realize his long-held dream to establish a Greater Syria and attain the Syrian crown. In fact, the Jordanian sovereign had openly announced this goal to the French consul in Amman. On 23 May he told Dumarc¸ay that he ‘was determined to fight Zionism and prevent the establishment of an Israeli state on the border of his kingdom’. He scoffed at the Syrian army’s performance and expressed his hope that ‘the annexation of Palestine, if it went according to his wishes, would be a step toward realization of his great aspiration in Syria’

After years of tracking the intrigues of Abdullah and the British agents in Syria and Lebanon, the Quai d’Orsay and the French security services had gained a deep understanding of their modus operandi. Paradoxically, they received part of the information on the activities of British and Jordanian agents in Syria from intelligence reports prepared by the Syrian Deuxie`me Bureau. They in fact had evidence that Abdullah was being manipulated by the British to further their interests in the region

the French concluded that the British government was switching to the ‘Glubb’ option. They followed the Foreign Office’s attempts to exploit the war in Palestine to realize Britain’s strategic goals in the Middle East and presumed that a union between Greater Jordan, including the strategically important Negev, and Syria was now the focus of British efforts to build a defence system in the region. Iraq was to join at a later stage

Eilat anticipated that Britain would allow Abdullah to occupy Jerusalem and make it his capital, while in the Security Council, British diplomats would seek to obstruct the American efforts for a ceasefire to allow the Arab armies more time to weaken the Jewish state. Britain would then seek to annex the Negev to Jordan and compensate Israel with the Western Galilee. Jordan would thereby gain an outlet to the Mediterranean in Gaza. Indeed, in the following months, Britain acted as the Israeli diplomat had predicted.57

p. 35

The British, however, had to exercise extreme caution and conceal their true goal, as the Americans already suspected that the Arab Legion was being exploited as a British tool. In fact, at the end of April, the American ambassador in London warned the Foreign Office against using the Arab Legion to invade territories allocated to the Jewish state. The Foreign Office was therefore anxious to give the impression that Britain was no longer responsible for the Arab Legion or for its British commanding officers. In the following weeks the British government announced that it would cease providing military and financial assistance to the Arab Legion and that British officers serving in it were to resign from the British army. But only a few in Washington or in the Arab capitals were misled by the British statements – certainly not in Paris

At the end of April, the British authorities in Jerusalem forced the Haganah to withdraw its troops from Sheikh Jarrah, which it had just occupied, claiming that the British army needed the road for the evacuation of its troops from the city. Yet at the same time, Se` ze, the French military attache´ in Beirut, reported that the British had allowed two companies of the Arab Legion to be stationed in British camps in Jerusalem. Moreover, they had accelerated the supply of weapons and ammunition France’s Covert Action in the 1948 War in Palestine 35 from their stocks in the Canal zone to the Arab Legion in the months preceding the Arab invasion.

p. 36

Under Jordanian and British pressure, the Arab armies’ invasion plan, which had originally targeted Haifa, was revised so that the Arab Legion would now focus its attacks in the direction of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

The Arab leaders, he revealed, were willing to accept a last-minute American proposal and delay the invasion, but had to give in to Abdullah, who insisted on sending his forces into Palestine. On 12 May, the Arab Legion, under British command, attacked and occupied the four Jewish settlements in the Gush Etzion block south of Jerusalem, inflicting on Israel one of its worst defeats in its War of Independence...

on 19 May that Alexander Cadogan, the British ambassador to the UN, in collaboration with the Syrian envoy whose country was serving on the Security Council, was obstructing a Franco-American initiative to impose a ceasefire. Indeed, the Foreign Office informed the Quai d’Orsay that Britain would not hesitate to use its power of veto if the American proposal for a ceasefire was approved.... Ykantor (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Quotes based on Zamir articles-Discussion

Do you have any sources which support what Zamir states? As far as the secret documents go, they're mentioned in James Barr's A Line in the Sand (2011), which contradicts some of the things Zamir writes and reaches different conclusions. From my point of view, Zamir's omissions damage his credibility. One is that he does not mention that Britain was a guarantor of the independence given Syria and the Lebanon and therefore bound to oppose post-war attempts to reimpose a French regime. ← ZScarpia 21:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Will it be possible for you to elaborate on the contradictions and omissions? thanks Ykantor (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. And will you be able to find sources backing-up Zamir? ← ZScarpia 00:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I will appreciate it if you highlight Zamir's contradictions and omissions. At the moment, he seems to be reliable but once you let me know the problems, it will be easier for me to be focused and understand what is wrong here. thanks. Ykantor (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on pulling information out of other sources. Whether sources are reliable or not is, of course, a matter of consensus. There are also issues of weight and neutrality to consider, which is why I'm asking if you can provide sources which back Zamir up. ← ZScarpia 01:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Since Zamir sources are these recently discovered french documents it may be that there are no other researchers who deals with these docs. Anyway, I do not know any other supporting sources. I am rather curious to hear your conclusions. If it is possible, would you mind to give me a hint as for possible Zamir's problems? Ykantor (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to be away for most of this week, so I'll give you a quick list of the kind of stuff that I would have mentioned in a full reply:

Abdullah received some of his income from the Jewish Agency with which he co-operated. He passed on information about Arab plans and was perhaps a better source of intelligence than the French.
Whatever he may have told the French about wanting to thwart the creation of a Zionist state, he actually had regular contact with Zionist representatives with whom he reached agreements about taking over the prospective Arab state to prevent it coming into existence under the rule of the Mufti.
Abdullah only approached the British after meeting Zionist representatives multiple times. The British greenlighted Abdullah's plans on the condition that he didn't attack the area consigned to the Jewish state under the partition plan. A warning to that effect was repeated after the Arab invasion of Palestine.
During the Mandate, the British pressurised Abdullah not to harbour Syrian rebels.
When the allies invaded Syria and the Lebanon, the Free French gave promises about independence which the British acted as a guarantor for.
When the French later began reneging on their promises, the British pressurised them to desist.
After the invasion of the French Mandate territories, De Gaulle reinstated some Vichy officials. The latter had a particular animus against the British.
When the French produced copies of missives written by British representatives which showed that they were acting against French interests, the British government ordered those representatives to desist.
Even before the end of hostilities in Europe, the French started giving assistance, including money and weapons, to the Irgun, which was turned on the British.
Between the end of the war and withdrawal of troops from Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, the British government changed, and, along with it, policy and personnel also.
The British government gave repeated assurances to the French that they had no interest in the French mandate territories.
On the withdrawal of troops from the French Mandate territories, the British withdrew theirs at the same time as the French to demonstrate that they had no plans to supplant the French there.
Israeli forces invaded Jerusalem first. Glubb delayed sending in the Arab Legion because he didn't, as the Israelis had done, want to break international law and because he didn't want to commit the Legion to street fighting. When Glubb delayed, Abdullah demanded to know whether he had been ordered to stay out of Jerusalem by the British.
The British were committed by treaty to supply weapons to Iraq and Jordan.
The Arab Legion were sent to the Sinai region during the war when it looked possible that the Germans might have been able to attack Palestine.
After the war, parts of the Arab Legion were kept in Palestine to assist with the British withdrawal. As such, a timetable for the withdrawal of the Legionnaires was included in the overall withdrawal plan.
Jewish forces from the Etzion bloc, which was within the area assigned to an Arab state, fired on Arab, Arab Legion and, perhaps, British military traffic on the Jerusalem-Hebron road, which was an important withdrawal route.
The officer in charge of the Legion attack on the Etzion bloc which started on 12 May was a Jordanian.
Traditional Zionist histories of the Mandate period and its end have always demonised British motives and acts. One of the claims of the revisionist historians was that they "drove a coach and horses" through that narrative.

← ZScarpia 15:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

promising and very interesting. Concerning British promises, generally they were known to give conflicting one. e.g Balfour declaration and McMahon letters. It might be that King Abdullah was doing the same. (not sure about him). Ykantor (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Brilliant. What worries one about the section singling out British interests is the way this isolates one actor from several international powers. It is clear from the foregoing that the only way to handle this would be to redevelop it in terms of American, French, Russian and British interests, as the specific Middle East issue was caught up in larger conflicting designs. As Scarpia's summary points suggest, once you touch this the risk is of expanding, for balance, on section with so many details and sources, that we would have material for a second article. It is extremely difficult to corral the large number of sources a full picture of the diplomatic and imperial clashes here would require. That is why I think Pluto2012's call on WP:Undue is correct. Showcase the British thesis per Karsh and Zamir's use of French docs, and you must then draw in all of the other histories of American, Russian, French calculations to contextualize the complex picture of British actions, making it unwielding within that article. I suggest Ykantor think of a subpage on the diplomatic history of 1948, which is the only way to contain the material.Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The argument is not about whether Karsh and Zamir are perfect. On the contrary, I wrote so many times that if Pluto claims to know other views, he should have added them. But he avoided adding these opinions, and behaved like a vandal in deleting a 100% correct section ( he is very secretive concerning supposed Karsh's errors), against Wikipedia rules.

Your idea of expanding this section to include the influence of other powers is welcomed. However, the British were the rulers of Palestine and very powerful in some of the surrounding countries, thus it is justified to deal mainly with them. Ykantor (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The British were not the "rulers" of Palestine. They were delegated by the League of Nations to carry out a Mandate, which is an entirely different matter from (imperial) rule. The Mandate, and the implications of the Balfour declaration, created an impossible duality in their obligations: they were to secure a homeland for Jews in Palestine, while not prejudicing Arab rights. These two obligations were intriniscally in conflict, and the contradiction runs through British policy. The section Pluto deleted was a caricature of these complexities which used one minoritarian, recycled Irgun/Herut-Zionist reading of part of the record. Either you write a section that shows the extraordinary complications of negotiations and shifts in opinion of all decisive powers at the time, or you are left with a section that blames Britain for trying to protect its geopolitical interests, simply because it had two constituencies and if it sided with just one, it couldn't but compromise its commitments to the other.Nishidani (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the term "rulers" there is very little difference in the context of my previous text. i.e Among superpowers, the British were the most important for this article.

concerning Pluto deletion, since he has not found any error there, his deletion against the rule (see above this rule). it does not matter that (as he claims) the content is biased as he could amend his view , instead of deletion.
You are right in saying that that the mandate rules has positioned Britain in a conflict. But this was true inside Palestine, as opposed to British diplomacy and to British actions not inside Palestine. Have a look at Bevin in the parliament admitting that Britain is supplying arms to Arab states, although some of them said openly they plan to invade Palestine. At the same time the royal navy was blocking the sea so the Haganah could not arm itself. How many Hagana fighters were killed as a result of lack of arms? Very luckily, the ship Nora succeeded to infiltrate at 1.4.48 with 5000 rifles. this ship changed the whole situation.
concerning the content of the deleted section, I have checked it carefully, and every word there is correct. It could be biased, but until Pluto will release this top secret information, there is no way to know if it is indeed biased or not biased. Ykantor (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Pluto's deletion is not based on an error count, for the nth time. Pluto's removal was founded on a WP:Undue assessment of what is widely regarded as a WP:fringe interpretation, based on a POV-pushing scholar, Karsh, in a book of dubious scholarly rigour. One is not obliged to find errors in a transcript of a fringe theory, since it's not the errors of the scholar, but his refusal to entertain all of the relevant scholarly literature and evidence contradicting his thesis, which is problematical. I don't know how many times this needs to be reiterated.

Britain was under no obligation to ensure that Haganah fighters had rifles (though significant amounts of war matériel was brought by Haganah agents from corrupt British officers in charge of the logistics of withdrawing their army and its infrastructure). The facts are, Britain ended its obligations to the Mandate, withdrew, and left a disarmed and broken (one broken by Britain in 1936-9 with considerable assistance from the Haganah) Palestinian constituency in the former unified territory to face a highly unified, well-armed army, navy and airforce, with its own inchoate armaments industry. Britain had real leverage in Jordan, and in fact where the Jordanian army was committed, the core territory the UN partition plan designated as Arab, the Israelis were throughly thwarted. Israel made an offensive war: the lower combined Arab army casualties are due to the fact that the invading Arab armies consistently defended key positions in territory designated Arab) The only real success the new Israeli state had was against Palestinian village self-defence units and the Egyptian front (logistically a hard case for the Egyptians). Overall, in a brief period, Israel lost 6000 men, Palestinians 13,000 mostly non-combatants. Israel had an arms superiority, financial superiority, logistical superiority, diplomatic and military coordination superiority. It had 3 B-17 bombers, the assistance of both the Soviet Union and the United States in terms of arms blockades. I could go on for several hours. But it's rather pointless. Most of the war was shooting into a fishbowl, except against the Jordanian, Syrian, Iraqi front in Cisjordania, much as it has been ever since.Nishidani (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor, I suggest ignoring Nishidani's soapboxing and taking this issue to the NPOV noticeboard where you will likely find some editors who are not dedicated partisans. Here you are outnumbered. They threw out an UNDUE claim. NPOVN is the place to find out if that's correct. Show them the edit you want to make and the sources you were using, and let some neutral editors sort it out. You can't convince the unconvincable. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

'the NPOV noticeboard where you will likely find some editors who are not dedicated partisans.' Thanks for the announcement that you won't participate. Nishidani (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I should be thankful you didn't respond with a "the Jews ruined Christmas" story. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The edits regard Israel, not 'the Jews'. When one hasn't got a clue, baiting editors with anti-semitic innuendoes is the stock technique for filling in the yawning gap. For the record, this is one more example of your campaign to rumour-monger and poison the well.Nishidani (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, the good old "I was talking about Zionists, not Jews" defense. I suppose you were talking about Zionists when referring to "Chosen People" recently as well. I do like your attempts to claim victimhood. Reminds me of something I read somewhere. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

to No More Mr Nice Guy: Thank you. You are right about being outnumbered here, but I still hope that people would listen (except of the vandal Pluto).

to Nishidani: I would like to discuss with you the rules. You justify pluto's deletion since it was supposedly a WP:fringe. So I had a look in Wikipedia:Fringe theories and found:

"The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability.". Out of those 3 principle you may supposedly claim 1 only- "Neutral point of view". Is that sufficient to identify it as a fringe ?
"Scholarly opinion is generally the most authoritative for identifying the mainstream view, with the two caveats that not every identified subject matter has its own academic specialization, and that the opinion of a scholar whose expertise is in a different field must not be given undue weight.". Does that suit the deleted section? Ykantor (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

So far you have had an independent approach, and I appreciate that. If you can't see through the comicbook caricatures of wikipedia I/P editors pushed by NMMGG, then things will get complex. He won't tell you that I and Pluto2012 have frequently disagreed about Zionism, and this does not stop us from working productively together. He won't remind you that I challenged an edit you made to the page which, in my view, grossly misrepresented Israel and distorted its history to paint in an element that was negative and anachronistic for a period of Israel's history, which is odd, in NMMGG's view, since I should be happy to see Israel misrepresented in his view. I won't speak of several other editors, but they are all very independent, and highly experienced. Zero, Pluto2012 and ZScarpia to cite some, know more about this than you and I (and they have disagreed with me on several key matters in the past, which makes nonsense of NMMGG's reiterated insinuations), for example, and independently, they concur that the Karsh stuff is just that, stuffing.

Karsh is fringe because many of his colleagues think he manipulates things to push his pet theories. They even accuse him (he reciprocates) of misusing sources. To cite one of many examples. Charles D.Smith (professor of Middle Eastern History at Arizona University), ‘The Historiography of World War 1 and the Emergence of the Contemporary Middle East,’ in I. Gershoni, Amy Singer, Y. Hakan Erdem (eds.) Middle East Historiographies: Narrating the Twentieth Century, Washington University Press 2011 pp.39-69, p.45 (b) Karsh himself openly boasts that most of my own work on the Middle East challenges the mainstream approach of Western scholarship to Middle Eastern history.('The State of the Jewish State: An Interview with Professor Efraim Karsh,') Harvard Israel Review. By his own admission, and the view of many leading scholars, he is not mainstream. That many believe he manipulates his source material to push a personal thesis makes anything you use from him very dicey, unless it is properly contextualized in terms of WP:Undue, as a one-man band or highly minoritarian view, something which means it cannot be showcased with a complete section, as you would wish.Nishidani (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Karsh is no more fringe than Shlaim or Pappe, both used in this article with no problem. He's certainly not fringe in the Wikipedia guideline sense. The rest is just the usual "look, my friends and I occasionally argue about stuff". Nishidani thinks Pluto is a Zionist, if you can believe that, just because Pluto is not way out there on the far reaches of "anti-Zionism" where Nishidani is. The difference between these editors is that Pluto will occasionally offer, without prompting, sources that are against his POV and will incorporate them into articles. And of course Pluto doesn't edit articles about Judaism or Jews qua Jews. Of all the editors here, it's Pluto you are most likely to be able to compromise with. The others will just use their numbers advantage. FYI. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Shlaim is hardly fringe these days, maybe because the median position moved closer to his. Karsh and Pappe should both be avoided, as I have said many times. Zero^talk 06:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Will it be possible for you to elaborate on Shlaim and fringe? thanks. Ykantor (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

British policy in support of the Arabs

This section is a blatant NPOV violation and should be deleted. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is a good idea to include British policy. I would expect that to come from a general work on Britain's post-war role and decolonisation. At the moment the section is virtually all from Karsh, with the addition of some primary sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

to Frederico: Reading carefully this section, it seems that the content is correct. Will it be possible for you to highlight any specific wrong or biased points? Ykantor (talk) 03:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It is completely one-sided. It says that "Britain, which at the time was one of the major powers in the Middle East, supported the Arabs". There is no trace of other views, such as Morris' ("But in fact, British policy - as emanating both from Whitehall and from Jerusalem, the seat of the high commissioner - was one of strict impartiality"). --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

to frederico: you are right, and this Morris citation should be added. However, 3 pages later, Morris write a somehow contradicting opinion:"Moreover, Whitehall’s fears that the circumstances of the withdrawal from Palestine might subvert Britain’s standing in the Middle East occasioned a number of major, organized British interventions against the Jewish militias, or noninterventions in face of Arab attack" (benni morris, 1948, p.81). In my opinion, both citations should be added.

I still wonder, if there is any aspect in which Britain was for the Jews and against the Arabs.(during the relevant period) Ykantor (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is enough of bias to state that "Britain supported the Arabs" as a doubtless fact, while Israel would have never existed without the British mandatory --aad_Dira (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC).

to aad_Dira: you are about right but concerning the earlier Mandate years. During this period, Britain had a declared policy against the partition, which means against the Jews.

Anyway, your sentence " Israel would have never existed without the British mandatory" is correct for earlier years, but it was an indirect assistance only. The British rulers have maintained a well managed country, in which the Jews could develop new farms and factories, like any other advanced state. Even during those years, Britain has limited the Jewish immigration. Lot of Jews could have been saved if they were allowed in Palestine, before the Holocaust. My Grandparents could not raise the money needed to be allowed in, so they remained in antisemitic Poland and were killed in the Holocaust , together with the whole family. Ykantor (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The point isn't in discussing who did and who didn't, the problem here is that we have a "fact" statement in the article which is actually one-sided, so it should be treated as only a point of view and we should add other points of view about the subject as well. Further, that's actually a pretty long section about secondary matter in an important article like this --aad_Dira (talk) 05:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC).

to aad_Dira: If you think it is one sided, why won't you add the other side? It will be beneficial if you at first may write it here.

Britain was a major power in the middle east at the time, thus the subject is important and not a secondary matter.
please note, that you have not highlighted yet, even one issue that support your claim for a one sided presentation. Ykantor (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor, this section is blatant pov-pushin and I removed this. You should read WP:OR and in any case, make short proposals on the talk page given you don't have any support for your proposals of modifications. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

to pluto: your deletion is not fair and not just. If there are errors or biased view, it can be modified accordingly and not erased. This is not a constructive behavior. As you are writing so much about Wikipedia rules, you should have known that in Wikipedia the majority is not always right.

concerning the facts in this removed section, I have not found any mistake yet. Moreover, I have asked you and other participating editors ,and none of you have returned with an error.
There was a proposal to add Benni Morris somehow opposite 2 views (p. 78 & p. 81), which I accepted.
Unfortunately, we have to call for senior editors to decide. Ykantor (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Pluto was correct to remove that section. It was terrible. You just collected some stuff to support your point of view and stuck it in the article. No attempt at balance. You even took a large fraction of it from the very weak tertiary source Karsh (2002) that in my opinion should not be in this article at all. The Arab perspective is missing entirely. To get a broader view of the spectrum of opinion, try this article and this article for a start. Zero^talk 16:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

As for your 2nd source ( an article by moti gilani), it may be downloaded here, with a better readability (i.e. a word document and not a scanned one). Ykantor (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

to zero: It is a pity that you do not check what you are writing. you blame me of writing this section, although I have not written even 1 word here (except adding sources). Why do you justify a deletion of correct data? (although I have asked you few times, you do not highlight any error here). If you think that something is missing, why don't you add it? It is constructive to add data, but it is a vandalism to delete correct contents. Ykantor (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

to zero: I have started to read Shleim (your suggested reading) but stopped after 7 pages. In my opinion, Shlein is not an Historian but a plain Anti Israeli guy, that his personal agenda have a priority over the facts.

Shleim p. 1: "the way in which the mandate was establish left a terrible blot on Britain entire record". This is a personal interpretations, which depends on which side one takes. Shleim is of course anti Israeli and that suits him.
Shleim p.3 : "Bevin was opposed to partition" This is accurate, but Shleim does not say anything about the consequences, which is definitely Anti Jewish. e.g. Britain has not followed the UN decision to let the side having a port in February, and the mighty british navy blocked entrance of Jews. While at the same time, the ALA entered freely in the country.
Shleim p.4 : "partition was only accepted by Bevin reluctantly" . Not true. Bevin never accepted it.
Shleim p. 6 : "Britain preferred to incorporate in Trans Jordan the area that have not been allotted to the Jewish state." Not true. It was limited to the Arab areas rather than the international enclave.
Shleim p. 6 : Bevin did not want the Jordanians to enter Jewish areas. That is correct but there is no explanation that although Bevin did not care about the Jews ( or the Arab Palestinians) his priority was to keep good relationship with the U.S.
According to Shleim (p.6) Bevin did not want to reduce the Jewish state to a "rump state". Wrong. Bevin wanted to give the Jewish state southern part ( so called "corridor") to Jordan.
Shleim p. 8 : An Arab Legion officer was sent to a "dangerous mission" to meet Hagana representative. It was not dangerous at all, since the meeting happened on a Jordanian soil.
Shleim said that the Czechs sold weapons to the Hagana, and give the impression of a wrong doing. But he doesn't mentioned that the Czechs sold weapons to Syria at the same time, since they needed the money.

In my opinion, Shleim is a man with agenda, which is more important for him than the truth. Ykantor (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Analysis of Britain's interests and policies should mainly come from sources that tell the history of Britain during that period, not from histories of the Middle East. I'll see if I can find some standard works. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

to Zero: I have read a couple of pages of Golani article ( your link of the 1 june). Here are some notes:

p. 93

British pursue policy in Palestine was not pro Zionist or Arab, but pro British (source: shleim)- strange logic. What matters is if the diplomacy results in anti Jewish. It is not so important what is the motivation for that, since the logic might be influenced by ridiculous reasons such as the Jews are communists.

p. 94

Britain lost its ability to act independently in Palestine - bad logic. Except a super power, every state is not independent, and the UK was not a super power at the time. On the other hand it still had plenty of available options.

It was the Palestine civil war that affected London, rather than the other way around. - not true, and it is not proven.

the loss of control cause the British to conclude- That a strange logic. The British reduced their forces and left some of the territories, so of course they had no more control over the abandoned places . That was significant at the last 6 weeks (about). It is not like a sudden loss of control .

I suggest the novel claim that the determining factor...was the collapse of the British...rather than the collapse of the Palestinian Arabs- That is a biased writing. Naturally the Hagana wanted to avoid a clash with the British soldiers, but at the end of March 1948 the Arabs had succeeded in blocking Jerusalem to an extent where Ben Gurion decided that the risk of loosing Jerusalem is more important and urgent that the risk with the British army. So some Hagana units lost nearly all of their rifles towards Nachshon operation that saved Jerusalem (for a while)

Moti Golani force himself to invent new interpretations, which are not logical in my opinion. Besides, Gelber, Morris, luis write interestingly but Golani has an inflation of words (uses 50 words instead of 10 words) so his writing is unattractive. Even Shleim writing is interesting. (although he is not an Historian in my opinion). Ykantor (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

a notification of a vandalism

According to the rules, I have to notify you before claiming in the incident board, that your deletion of the section "British diplomacy in support of the Arabs" in "1948 Arab–Israeli War" at 30 May 2013, is a vandalism in my opinion.

I have asked you few times to show evidence to your claim that this section is biased, but your responses have not indicated any error or biased point there. (except Benni Morris sentences , that could have been amended to the section instead of deleting it.) Ykantor (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

"Vandalism" is a defined concept on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Vandalism. It does not include genuine content disputes, even disruptive ones. Zero^talk 15:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

to zero: the definition is "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". The deletion fits it exacly. This is a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, by deleting correct facts (although asked you few times, you have not shown anything wrong here). If you fill it is biased, why won't you add it? Ykantor (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read that page past the first sentence, it answers your question perfectly well. Removing text on the grounds that it doesn't belong in the article is not vandalism, even if it is done disruptively. It says so on that page very clearly. This is also how the community defines vandalism in practice. You should stop using the word where it doesn't apply. Zero^talk 02:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

One of the core pillars of wikipedia is WP:NPOV, and additions which, in the face of serious objections, compromise the integrity and neutrality of the project can be removed. With a highly controversial and partisan indeed minority thesis, you should work out the balance before committing it to the article. You appear to be plunking that material in, POV and all, and saying, 'Sure it's defective. You guys and galls, help me improve it.Nishidani (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

to nishidani: It is a pity that you do not check what you are writing. you blame me of writing this section, although I have not written even 1 word here (except adding sources). If I would have written it, it would include sources like Morris and Gelber that you accept, rather than Karsh who is hated here. This is the 1st time I encounter Karsh, and it seems that every one of his words here is correct. It is funny that you blame me saying "Sure it's defective. You guys and galls, help me improve it". It is funny because in my opinion it is correct and not biased, and you have not mentioned even one error there. If YOU think it is biased, IT IS YOUR DUTY to add facts that supposedly balance it. Ykantor (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

to pluto: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. .... Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. " You have not obeyed this Wikipedia policy, and instead, you have vandalized by deleting the whole section. Ykantor (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The mode of operating that we use in contentious articles is described in the essay WP:BRD. Now we are at the "D" stage. It's true that you didn't originate that section (some editors here are confused about that), but the section has been tagged as unsatisfactory since 2011 and something needs to be done about it. My opinion is that the best result will be achieved by a complete replacement, since adding enough material to balance the Karsh view would make it far too long. Zero^talk 03:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor,

It was explained to you that the idea the British were anti-Israeli or anti-Yishuv was wrong and that your method of work in gathering some facts to prove this was a WP:OR (Original Research). More, having so long a section about this fringe idea is WP:Undue. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

to pluto: Your writing is simply not true. It is not true that I gather facts to prove something. The section that you vandalized, had a call for more sources, which I supplied (not fully, yet). At least one editor (itsmejudith) had positive view about adding sources. What about your vandalism which contradicts Wikipedia policy of Achieving_neutrality ?( as I have just shown). Ykantor (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

As it was explained to you I didn't vandalize anything. If this was true, 3 contributors would not have supported this action.

On the other side contributors informed you that your work didn't comply with reality. It is because they are WP:Undue and what you did is WP:OR because gathering information from here and there is not the right way to move forward. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I asked for the page to be unprotected on the basis that there was productive discussion here on the talk page, so that needs to continue, and I hope without accusations of vandalism or bias. I have stated my own position, that we should include the UK's objectives, but preferably from a source that discusses UK foreign policy, not one that is mainly about the history of this war. The section as it was relied far too much on Karsh 2002. The reliability of that source has been questioned, with someone arguing that it is not a scholarly history but a popular work. That question needs to be resolved before any material is restored. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

to Itsmejudith:

you write: "The section as it was relied far too much on Karsh 2002. The reliability of that source has been questioned, with someone arguing that it is not a scholarly history but a popular work."

This is the 1st time I have encountered Karsh, therefore I have checked carefully those citations, and everything seems to be accurate. Moreover, the people who complain against Karsh , have not highlighted any mistakes here too. So, maybe Karsh is not that bad?
Anyway, I have researched and added 6 more parallel sources, on top of Karsh initial 15 sources. I could have entered more citations, but the section was deleted while offending Wikipedia rules.

you said: "That question needs to be resolved before any material is restored" . Why should the offender given a prize? Especially since he have not indicated anything wrong there and only said it is biased. He did not even said what is biased. Ykantor (talk) 10:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

If it is the first time that you meet Karsh, this proves you lack knowledge on the topic.

Most of the contributors that you met on this talk page read entirely the books that were quoted.

It seems you just google inside them. You don't have the full picture and therefore you cannot comply with WP:NPoV due to the fact you don't know the topic enough.

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

to pluto: It is rather funny that you ,the offender, try to show other editors what to write. It seems that it is much easier for you to personally attack people who doesn't agree with you, rather than come up with sources. Whoever reads the talk page, can clearly see that you always blame in general, but do not say what is specifically wrong. You prefer general blames since it is like a smoke screen for your lack of specifics. Unless you provide specifics to base your claims, I do not see why one should waste his time and refer to you anymore. Ykantor (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I have a long history of writing and sourcing articles. 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine was written by me nealy alone in French and then translated in English. Same for Battles of Latrun (1948). Nearly the same for Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine War that was 1st written in English.

To be able to do so, I took the time to buy and read a little dozen of books on the topic so that I can have a global view of the different points of view and to evaluate properly the wp:due weight of each information. I don't say that waht I did is perfect. At the contrary there are some problems. But at least I followed the right process.

You work in selecting a fact by a google-search in a book and want to introduce it. I answered you in providing sources stating why it was wrong. Zero0000 provided us articles that prove this idea that "British would have been anti-Yishuv" is not supported by historians.

Next step for you is to read books entirely to have a global view and then to agree complying with WP:NPoV ie to agree reporting -you alone- at once, all points of view on any topic that you work on.

This discussion is not dealing any more with the content and is not dedicated to this page any more. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Help desk question about dispute resolution

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes.

Recently, the following question was asked at the help desk:

Hi,

this dispute resolution noticeboard issue was auto archived while active.

Is it permitted to restore it?
OR, should I open it again?

--Ykantor

First, let me answer the general question, then I will get into the specifics of your case. In general, dispute resolution volunteers can do whatever they think will help to resolve the dispute, so either re-opening or refiling is an option. It is generally a bad idea for someone in a dispute to do things like unarchiving, because others in the dispute may object. I will be happy to do it for you, but first let's talk about it a bit and discuss why you might or might not want to. As for refiling, anyone can refile at any time. The only question is whether you want to do that.

Looking over the case, I have to say that DRN did not do a good job of helping you. This is a result of our policies: we let anyone be a DRN volunteer and by design the DRN volunteers have zero power outside of DRN. In your case it looks like the volunteer got pulled away by real-life concerns, and nobody jumped in to take up the slack. Probably nobody noticed, but it may have been that some volunteers did not want to get involved in a topic that may become heated.

Consider the filer's contributing to the case:

  Filed by Ykantor:   13:44,  8 June 2013 (UTC).
  Comment by Ykantor: 07:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC).
  Comment by Ykantor: 11:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC) 
  Comment by Ykantor: 21:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  Comment by Ykantor: 20:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC) 
  Comment by Ykantor: 04:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  Autoarchived:       13:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

And compare them with those of the DRN Volunteer:

 16:29,  9 June 2013 (UTC)
 22:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Not a lot of volunteer participation. So basically, you were left alone, and predictably, the discussion turned into a clone of the talk page discussion that failed to a resolution. I don't see how reopening that failed discussion will help. I advise opening a new case, but only if there is a reasonable chance that it might help.

We could re-file, try again, and see whether we can resolve the dispute. I would be willing to be the volunteer who helps you this time, but you should be aware that I tend to keep a tight rein on the discussion and give a lot of guidance, and that I stay neutral and don't take sides. You can look at some of my past cases and see how well that works. If one or more of you have a problem with following directions (keeping in mind that you are free to do whatever you choose and are being asked to voluntarily follow the directions to see if doing that helps you to resolve the dispute), I won't bother trying. There are other DRN volunteers who work better in that situation.

So, without discussing the actual dispute, I would like to ask for some opinions about reopening this case. Is everyone involved willing to try again with someone doing a lot more mediating than happened last time? Or should I advise you as to other dispute resolution forums?

(Please note that the above "without discussing the actual dispute" is a test to see how well people listen. Bad: discussing the actual dispute. Good: explaining why you disagree and think that we should be discussing the actual dispute.) --Guy Macon (talk) 06:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to re-open the dispute. Ykantor (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

(Sound of Crickets) -Guy Macon (talk) 10:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to re-opening a DRN but won't have much time to contribute. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm OK with a re-opening as well. --Frederico1234 (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Because of unexpected medical issues I won't be able to get involved, but there the other DRN volunteers who are quite good, so I leave it to you to decide whether to re-file. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

to Pluto: I have re opened the Dispute. You can post your opinion here Ykantor (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I, as a regular DRN volunteer, have closed it as a conduct dispute. If someone wants to refile it on the content issues without it focusing on the question of vandalism or asking for editors to be admonished, then perhaps a volunteer will choose to address it, but so long as it focuses on conduct rather than on content it will not be proper for DRN. If anyone wishes to pursue the conduct issues, however, that needs to be worked out at one of the conduct-related venues such as WP:AVI, WP:RFC/U, WP:ANI, or WP:AE before refiling at DRN or the DRN listing will simply be closed again due to the matter pending in another venue. Also, if this is refiled, or if discussion continues here without resorting to dispute resolution, I would like to recommend that the parties regard Itsmejudith as a neutral party. Judith is one of Wikipedia's leading experts on reliable sourcing and is a stalwart contributor at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and to the theory of sourcing (see the essay Identifying reliable sources (history)). (Which is not to say that we agree eye-to-eye on everything in that essay, eh, Judith?) Unless she says that she is somehow partisan on this issue, she can be trusted to have what's best for the encyclopedia as her only interest in this discussion. I have the same confidence in my DR colleague Guy Macon, by the way. If he gets to feeling better and decides to take this on you should give him your full confidence. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

to Zero: why "Yishuv have not agreed to annexation by Abdullah" is deleted?

you wrote: "It's p235, and it's OR to conclude a general principle from one conversation out of many.

I will appreciate it if you elaborate why Shlaim is a reliable source? (I do not think so)
It is page 255.
Generally you are right but in this case, it is not a general principle since Shlaim claims that the agreement was achieved in this specific meeting. Shlaim writes that at 1947 the Yishuv agreed to King Abdullah plan to annex the future Palestinian state ^[1] "In 1947 an explicit agreement was reached between the Hashemites and the Zionists on the carving up of Palestine following the termination of the British mandate . . . it was consciously and deliberately intended to frustrate the will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations General Assembly, in favour of creating an independent Arab state in part of Palestine." So it is sufficient to show that it did not happened in this meeting.

Ykantor (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Ykantor (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

to Pluto: bombing attacks against Arabs? where is your Npov?

you replaced the word "Yishuv" with "Haganah", but unfortunately for you, it is a quote of Benni Morris, and you are not yet in the level to argue with a RS, unless you have a source for that.
The 4 cases you present, are a good example for a POV problem. You avoid mentioning IZL and LHI rational: But this description of Zionist policy requires several caveats. From the first, the IZL and LHI did not play along. Almost immediately, they responded to Arab depredations with indiscriminate terrorism (to the ire of the Haganah chiefs).125 “Enough [with restraint]. From now on—we [shall attack] the nests of murderers,” announced Kol Zion Halohemet (the Voice of Fighting Zion), the IZL radio station, on 7 December 1947.126 During the following days a series of attacks by IZL and LHI bombers and gunmen claimed several dozen lives (Benni Morris, 1948, p. 100).

It is not clear why you can not accept reality as it happened at those times:Despite the absence of a concerted effort, in the first stage of the civil war the Arabs had, or appeared to have, the edge, especially along the main roads, the lifelines to Jewish West Jerusalem and clusters of isolated settlements. Acting individually, armed bands attacked convoys and settlements, often recruiting local militiamen to join in. Gunmen sporadically fired into Jewish neighborhoods and planted bombs. The Haganah busy reorganizing, and wary of the British, adopted a defensive posture while occasionally retaliating against Arab traffic, villages, and urban neighborhoods

It rather amazing that when it is convenient for you cite Karsh, and when it is not convenient for you (e.g British diplomacy in support of the Arabs) Karsh is not an RS.
You seems to be purely one sided, while my quotes includes also: Many of the Arab attacks in November 1947–January 1948 were “spontaneous” and even contrary to the mufti’s wishes....In late December, Husseini reportedly sent Jerusalem NC leader Hussein al-Khalidi a letter explicitly stating that the purpose of the present violence was “to harass (and only to harass)” the Yishuv, not full-scale assault....During the winter, perturbed by appeals from the notables of Jaffa and Haifa, Husseini appears to have agreed to non belligerency in the towns and to have ordered a shift of the focus of hostilities from the main towns to the countryside Ykantor (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor,

I told you that you must comply with NPoV alone and you cannot claim that other neutralize your edits. For once, I neutralized them anyway instead of just deleting : you cannot talk about the Arab provocation without talking about the IZL and LHI (terror) bombing attacks. You should know this if you would agree studying the topic completely and not just performing googlescholar researched.

Karsh is a wp:rs and I never said the contrary, particularly for a fact. Whether we like him or not, his analysis can be given even if it is at the level of Ilan Pappé (after 2000). What is controversial with Karsh are his analysis but as far as I know when he reports a fact it can be consider it is accurate.

Pluto2012 (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It rather amazing that when it is convenient for you cite Karsh, and when it is not convenient for you (e.g British diplomacy in support of the Arabs) Karsh is not an RS.. your reply:"Karsh is a wp:rs and I never said the contrary". But You contradict yourself, since you wrote:The problem is not just that the material comes from Karsh.???
You have not replied yet to: you replaced the word "Yishuv" with "Haganah", but unfortunately for you, it is a quote of Benni Morris, and you are not yet in the level to argue with a RS, unless you have a source for that.
You have not replied yet to: The 4 cases you present, are a good example for a POV problem. You avoid mentioning IZL and LHI rational... Ykantor (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Your 4 selected cases are not quoted from a secondary source as required: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources ...A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts. It looks like you you selected them based on your unknown criteria. Please rewrite it as recommended (As quoted here). Ykantor (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Karsh, Gelber, Khalidi, Morris, Collins&Lapierre are secondary sources of different qualities.

More of all, they are sources with different analysis on the global question, which proves the neutrality of the global picture.

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Why can't you reply to the point? According to the rule (previously quoted) you are expected to to use an secondary source's author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts. You can of course list some incidents ( like those quoted by you) but you are not expected to pick whatever you like. It is better if you show the source interpretation ( with or without a list of incidents). At the moment your contribution is a POV case, since you selected whatever you like, without a coherent and well supported interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts. Ykantor (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

If you do not reply, I will have to apply at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard . (Hopefully, this is the right noticeboard for this issue). Ykantor (talk) 02:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

(RI) I am not familiar with the particulars here, but your last post came to my attention. I would generally wait for Pluto to reply. They could be busy in real-life and require more time. Until then, we shouldn't change much. Once I read the posts and more of the article, I'll post my opinion and hopefully a consensus can be established here. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 06:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Aua,

Thank you for your input in the current situation.

I (and others) patiently answered to Ykantor many times when he arrived but it is useless. If was for basic stuff and he admitted himself that he didn't know the topic. He looks for data in googling with googlescholar and the issues concerns global pictures.

I add that he attacked me and wrote not to discuss with me and he complained at 10 different places on wikipedia without getting answer. There is no reason for me to go on that cinema. I lack time for this game.

(Anyway see below.) Pluto2012 (talk) 07:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

^ Avi Shlaim,1998,Collusion Across the Jordan p. 1,
^ Avi Shlaim,1998,Collusion Across the Jordan p. 1,
^ Yoav Gelber, 1997, Jewish Transjordanian Relations: 1921 - 48, p. 235, "the conversation then focused on the likely Jewish reaction to Abdulla's take over of Palestine's Arab area. the Jewish agency expected the united nations assembly to vote for the establishment of a Palestinian state. it hesitated to appear as Abdulla's accomplice in sabotaging the probable resolution. Myerson suggested that Abdulla should arrange a referendum in advance in favour of annexation, but the king rejected the idea"

[1] Avi Shlaim,1998,Collusion Across the Jordan p. 1,

[2] Avi Shlaim,1998,Collusion Across the Jordan p. 1,

[3] Yoav Gelber, 1997, Jewish Transjordanian Relations: 1921 - 48, p. 235, "the conversation then focused on the likely Jewish reaction to Abdulla's take over of Palestine's Arab area. the Jewish agency expected the united nations assembly to vote for the establishment of a Palestinian state. it hesitated to appear as Abdulla's accomplice in sabotaging the probable resolution. Myerson suggested that Abdulla should arrange a referendum in advance in favour of annexation, but the king rejected the idea"

[1]

[2]

[3]