Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Arab world (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Syria (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Saudi Arabia (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Egypt (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Israel (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Palestine (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Lebanon (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Some inaccuracies[edit]

The beginning of the Civil War[edit]

The Arabs started the war[edit]

The sentences:"Soon after, violence broke out and became more and more prevalent. During the first days, the Arabs attacked Jewish zones.[28] Murders, reprisals, and counter-reprisals came fast on each other's heels, resulting in dozens of victims killed on both sides in the process". This is not true, as the Arabs started the war and continuously attacked the Jews, While the Yishuv was interested to calm the situation , in order to maximize the chance of the partition.

sources:

  1. " Despite the fact that skirmishes and battles have begun, the Jews at this stage are still trying to contain the fighting to as narrow a sphere as possible in the hope that partition will be implemented and a Jewish government formed; they hope that if the fighting remains limited, the Arabs will acquiesce in the fait accompli. This can be seen from the fact that the Jews have not so fat attacked Arab villages unless the inhabitants of those villages attacked them or provoked them first."
  2. " Their fear of the intervention of British forces prevents them from using large forces or heavy arms on a wide scale."

    source: General Ismail Safwat report, 23 March 1948, cited from Journal of Palestine studies, 1998, no. 3, p. 70

  • "Jamal Husseini, of the higher Arab committee of Palestine, informed the united nations:"The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight""[1]
  • "For four months, under continuous Arab provocation and attack, the Yishuv had largely held itself in check, initially in the hope that the disturbances would blow over and, later, in deference to international— particularly British—sensibilities. In addition, the Haganah had lacked armed manpower beyond what was needed for defense"[2]
complicated point - the Jews clearly had been aiming for getting Arab-free territories and had a motivation to fight in the areas they wanted (as happened eventually). For example - the event that was, by Ma'ariv( a Hebrew newspaper) the "beginning of the war" - the attack on Kfar Szold, has happened several days after a controversial ruthless Hagana attack on Al-Khisas. יוסאריאן (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Citation needed- probably incorrect sentences[edit]

The following sentences does not seem correct. I have put a template - Citation needed

  • "This situation caused the US to withdraw their support for the Partition plan, thus encouraging the Arab League to believe that the Palestinian Arabs, reinforced by the Arab Liberation Army, could put an end to the plan for partition." . It does not seem correct. I have put a template - Citation needed
  • "Although a certain level of doubt took hold among Yishuv supporters, their apparent defeats were due more to their wait-and-see policy than to weakness.

The Haganah on the offensive[edit]

Last minute truce - incorrect, and based on a non wp:rs[edit]

Last minute truce - incorrect, and based on a non wp:rs

Dubious. incorrect. The Arabs in Haifa were asked to remain[edit]

Dubious. incorrect. The Arabs in Haifa were asked to remain

neutrality is disputed- were the Arab Armies prepared for the invasion[edit]

neutrality is disputed- were the Arab Armies prepared for the invasion

The Haganah offensive was not a part of Plan Dalet[edit]

The article incorrectly say:"The result of his analysis was Plan Dalet, which was put in place from the start of April onwards[dubious – discuss]. The adoption of Plan Dalet marked the second stage of the civil war[dubious – discuss], in which Haganah passed from the defensive to the offensive.". The Haganah offensive was not a part of Plan Dalet. see Morris 2008, p. 116-119. Ykantor (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

'Plan Dalet (Plan D) practically realized the Zionist idea of transfer. Plan D was finalized by the Haganah on 10 March 1948 and implemented in the same month, though it only officially went into effect on 14 May 1948 the day Israel declared independence.' Sean F. McMahon (ed) The Discourse of Palestinian-Israeli Relations: Persistent Analytics and Practices,Routledge/Taylor & Francis ‎2010 p.27

'Plan Dalet was issued in March, but it was only carried out during the second part of April.'David Tal, War in Palestine, 1948: Israeli and Arab Strategy and Diplomacy, Routledge 2004 p.89.

:Your chronic confusion stems from the use of one or two sources, ignoring the fact that these are historians' points of view, in this case by literalists. That Plan D, an offensive, was to take place after the British withdrawal in May is one thing. That elements of Plan D were changed operationally after the Palestinian successes of March, leading other historians to regard operations that were technically not foreseen in the plan, as 'offensive' and therefore retrospectively heirs to the Plan D analysis and its battle aims, is something you ignore. As Laurens remarks, Nachshon in cleansing the route to Jerusalem according to the principles of Plan D, absorbed and anticipated the strategies of that Plan (vol.2 p.73)Nishidani (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
It seems that Laurens is rather close to Morris. Both say that in retrospect Nachshon seems to follow plan D. Both does not claim that the high command triggered the plan. Ykantor (talk) 08:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
What you say is nosense. I don't know for which futile reason you want to remove Nachshon from Plan D but whatever : Plan D were directives that were provided to all battalion commanders and Nachshon operation was triggered by the High Command. So, when this operations and the others ones were triggered, the Plan was triggered as well.
If you or some of your advisers think Nachshon was not part of Plan D, just find a quote stating this precisely because the sources stating that Hagannah took the offensive in April and that the Plan D was a plan of directives to follow in preparation of the Arab invasion to come do not lack.
Pluto2012 (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
to Pluto: Please stop personal attacks. Ykantor (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Stating that what you write is nosense is not a personnal attack.
And regarding all that you wrote about me, I would not give lessons to anybody if I were you.
Pluto2012 (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Military assessment[edit]

The section , or elsewhere in the article, does not present the comparative balance of forces. The following data refers to tanks of both sides only, as an example for other heavy weapons. The quotes are sourced from Morris, 2008.

  • From the Arab states invasion up to the 1st truce

- "The Haganah’s main problem during the first weeks of the invasion was a lack of heavy weapons. It had managed to steal or buy from the departing British units two or three tanks" (p. 204). No wonder that "Jewish fears of defeat and possible annihilation were very real," (p. 204).

- Those tanks were one Sherman tank on 16.5.48 stolen ( Ben Gurion memoirs), and 2 Cromwell tanks, added on 30.6.48, stolen from the British army.

- "By the end of May, ten additional tanks" (p. 204). [H-35 light tanks]

- Egyptian ground forces ... in May 1948. ... one undersized tank battalion (some thirty tanks in all, but without guns), p. 233

- crossed into Palestine on 15–16 May...During the following three weeks, the Egyptians reinforced ... and the battalion of light tanks p. 233

- By 22 May...Yad Mordechai. They added ...and a tank p. 238

- On 1–2 June the Egyptian ... attacked [Kibbutz Negba] ..., a company of light tanks

- The Syrians, a company of light Renault 35 and Renault 39 tanks (mounting 37 mm cannon), p. 251

- on 18 May, ... attack on Samakh. ...including light Renault 35 tanks p. 254

- 20 May..The Syrians attacked [Degania]...eight to twelve Renault 35 tanks (p. 255 to 256)

  • before the 2nd truce

- the Egyptians, on 12 July...struck at Kibbutz Negba...Egyptians retired, leaving behind ... a disabled tank p. 277

- The Egyptians, ... attacked ...half a dozen tanks, on 18 July against ....Karatiya. p. 277

- on the night of 9–10 July, ...the following morning. Syrian tanks repeatedly attacked Carmel troops on Tel Magabara p. 285

- The IDF advances of 9–13 July ... Most of Israel’s tanks and much of its other armor was in disrepair p. 293

- i.d.f ...15–16 July ...led by two Cromwell tanks ... to take the Latrun (p. 293)

  • The second truce

the Second Truce benefited the Israelis more than the Arabs...boost in light weaponry...In heavy weapons, such as tanks, ..., the IDF remained abysmally deficient (p. 298)

  • operation Yoav

On the eve of Yoav...The main Egyptian formations along the coast were supported by a battalion of sixteen light Mark VI tanks p. 321-322

- "increase in Israeli strength, which by September and October 1948 resulted in clear Israeli superiority" p. 206

  • operation Horev

[operation Horev] the push into Sinai...with a company of tanks p. 362-363

- Rafah, ... was defended by ... and twenty Locust tanks. The Israelis struck on the night of 3–4 January p. 368

- near Sheikh Zuweid, at last cutting the El Arish–Rafah road on the evening of 6 January. The [I.D.F] position, reinforced on 7 January by ... and two tanks f... Desperate Egyptian counterattacks were repulsed, the attackers losing eight tanks p. 369

- General Sadiq, OC of the expeditionary force, feeling that the trap was closing, had pressed his government to agree to a cease-fire. On 5 January Cairo informed the United Nations, United States, and Britain that they were ready to begin armistice negotiations if Israel ceased hostilities (p. 369) Ykantor (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

A table gathering military forces -of all side- -along time- would constitute very interesting information. I am ready to collaborate to the establishment of this table but I think we whould first discuss its structure (I mean, the titles of the lines and the columns). Pluto2012 (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

the amount of wounded and killed people[edit]

Quotes:

  • Between 30 November 1947 and 7 April 1948, 959 Palestinian Arab civilians died, and 1,941 were wounded, while Jewish civilian deaths were 840, with 1,785 wounded.[40]
  • By the end of March, 2,000 had been killed and 4,000 injured.[46] These figures correspond to an average of over 100 deaths and 200 injuries per week, all of this in a country with 2,000,000 inhabitants.

Those sentence are duplicates with somehow contradicting numbers. It is suggested to delete one of the 2 sentences. Ykantor (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Edward Alexander; Paul Bogdanor (31 December 2011). August 2013 The Jewish Divide Over Israel: Accusers and Defenders. Transaction Publishers. pp. 82, 107. ISBN 978-1-4128-0933-7. "p. 82 .when the united nations voted for a two state solution in 1947, the jewish community under british mandate overwhelmingly accepted the plan, while the arab world unanimously rejected it. fighting immediatelly erupted, with arab leaders frankly admitting that they were the aggressors (35); p. 107 (35) jamal husseini, of the higher arab committee of palestine, informed the united nations:"The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight". Security Council Official Records, April 16, 1948." 
  2. ^ Benny Morris (2008). 1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war. Yale University Press. p. 79. Retrieved 13 July 2013. "p.79 ,"Arab armed bands attacked Jewish settlements, and Haganah units occasionally retaliated...during the war’s first four months the Arabs were generally on the offensive and the Jews were usually on the defensive."; p. 117 , "For four months, under continuous Arab provocation and attack, the Yishuv had largely held itself in check, initially in the hope that the disturbances would blow over and, later, in deference to international— particularly British—sensibilities. In addition, the Haganah had lacked armed manpower beyond what was needed for defense" 

Course of the War- 1st phase[edit]

Southern front - Negev[edit]

The sentence:"For the first few weeks of the war, Egyptian warplanes were able to bomb Tel Aviv with almost complete impunity, meeting only ground fire. The Egyptians also attacked rural settlements and airfields, though few casualties were caused.[131] Two Royal Egyptian Air Force (REAF) Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down by anti-aircraft fire and its pilot taken prisoner. However, the Egyptians continued their bombing raids over the city, killing about 40 people. Most civilian casualties in Tel Aviv occurred on a 18 May raid against the Tel Aviv Central Bus Station.".

Thanks to Pluto's deletion, the reader may be surprised to learn that Tel Aviv arial bombing, belongs to the Negev. The "2 spitfires attack" is missing a date. It does not mentions the Egyption dakotas bombers.

Battles of Latrun[edit]

the sentence:"From these positions, the Jordanians were able to cut off supplies to Israeli troops and civilians in Jerusalem"

It is suggested to write that "the Jordanians cut off supplies and water line to Israeli troops and civilians in Jerusalem" (Morris 2008 p. 230-231)

Battle for Jerusalem[edit]

The sentence: "The Jordanians in Latrun cut off supplies to western Jerusalem.".

Proposed: "The Jordanians in Latrun cut off supplies and the water line to western Jerusalem." The sentence:"The Arab Legion fired 10,000 artillery and mortar shells a day'

10000 a day is probably a huge exaggeration.

Lead nonsense and a few remarks[edit]

Around 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from the area that became Israel and they became Palestinian refugees.[16] 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 residing elsewhere in the Middle East fled or were expelled from their countries, with many of those Jewish refugees migrating to Israel.

(1) This looks like NPOV because of the balancing act, down to the identity of 'fled or expelled' referring to Palestinians driven off their land in an armed conflict in some months of warfare, to the 'fled or expelled' referring to a complex series of events following 1948, that extended for over a decade, where, apart from the political tensions, riots, sometimes bloody, in Yemen, Iraq, Libya and elsewhere, the government of Israeli actively pressed for mass aliyah in numerous operations even predating the war. The silliness is also in the miraculous balancing of the figures, 700,000/700,000 creating the deceptive image of a geopolitical tit-for-tat in which Israel expelled and the Arabs expelled equal numbers in identical operations.

I'm sure some sided histories of good repute support this 'hasbara/Zionist' meme, but it is not historical description of a respectable kind, and we shouldn't be repeating it here.

(2) The lead is once more illiterate, in terms of english prose.

(3)Ykantor. You have been given a lot of room to work this page. Half of the edits you do I am tempted to revert. I thought it best to let you work down the page, and then revise it, retaining improvements and removing POV-pushing. You appear, at this point, to be editing only to improve the Israeli narrative as the only truthful account. Can you therefore tell editors if you are near the end of a systematic rewrite, or just tinkering along?Nishidani (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

-I will appreciate it if you tell me what is unbalanced, and I'll try to improve it. As I said previously, I do not believe in parallel narratives. There is one truth only, although sometimes we do not know for sure.

- Concerning the 700000/ 700000 question mark, it should be relatively simple to find sources for the number of the Jewish refugees. As much as I know, the 700,000 Palestinian refugees is well sourced. In my opinion, there is no need to "balance" the refugees of both sides. Each community has suffered a lot, independently of the other community suffering.

-I wish you could read the Hebrew autobiography of an Israeli, who grew up in Aleppo Syria, and immigrated to Israel just after the 1948 war. He says that as the French rule collapsed, the Jews started feeling insecure and some left. Later, right after the U.N partition resolution vote, there was an pogrom in Aleppo when the Rioters were chanting "Palestine is ours and the Jews are our dogs". It is a rhyme in Arabic, sounding like: "Palestin baladna veyahud calabna". As a consequence , lot of Jews left Syria, although the Syrian president, Al Quwately asked the Jews to stay and promised normal life. The young Jews were mobilized to the army, where the suffered a lot of humiliation. He himself, together with his friends, payed a smuggler and left Syria in order to avoid the service in the army.

This is of course just one story, but it is typical. Whenever people are afraid, they might leave home, as happened in Palestine as well. Ykantor (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

As Arab statesmen said before the war, any UN partition would have dangerous consequences for the Jewish populations of Arab lands. This was not intrinsically a threat: it was a logical guess about the implications of an UN plan. The implication was well understood by Jewish authorities. In Iraq preparation for aliyah was begun 6 years earlier with the establishment of the Zionist hehalutz movement (see Esther Meir-Glitzenstein, Zionism in an Arab Country: Jews in Iraq in the 1940s, Routledge 2004 pp.64ff.). As soon as war stopped aliyah from Europe, the Yishuv focused many secret missions to prepare the communities in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt to prepare for departure) These kinds of encouragement of Jewish communities in Arab lands to prepare for the state in Palestine long preceded the war therefore, and were ratcheted up after the war in several countries. To create in the lead a par of this foreseen and yishuv-encouraged aliyah from Arab lands and the emigration that arose from the deep tensions caused by the establishment of Israel and the expulsion of Palestinians, with the systematic expulsion of 700,000 Palestinians during the war, is frankly speaking not historical, but polemical, an abuse of two related yet distant phenomena in order to create a justifying nexus, and parity we have in the lead. History has victors and losers, never parity, and one avoids this by simply stating the substantive factual record of events, not by second-guessing motives, or using celebrity quotations to exaggerate attitudes that otherwise had no role in the way events worked out. The anecdotal is useful if illustrative: by Benny Morris's minimalist accountancy 24 pogroms were exacted on Palestinians in the war, and refugees took their stories to foreign Arab communities. These things were reported, and in turn had disastrous impacts on Arab public opinion and, in turn, on indigenous Jewish communities in those countries, perhaps even in Aleppo. Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the "parallelism" between the two "exodus" is made by historians (Morris and Laurens at least) but I disagree with the symetry that is given in this lead of the article on the '48 war. The only one is that it was a disaster for both.
I would suggest the following (with the appropriate correction of my bad English):
"The war triggered radical demographic changes in the area. The majority of the Palestinian Arab population fled or was expelled from their cities and villages during the war, was denied return and became stateless refugees. The outcome placed Jewish communities in the Arab world in difficult straits: incidents of mob violence and legal discrimination were not infrequent. Over the ensuing decades, as geopolitical tensions grew, most Jews emigrated either abroad or to the new state of Israel, which vigorously encouraged the return of diaspora communities."(?) (Nishidani's modification of Pluto's suggestion. Leads need not specify too many details) Nishidani (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC))
Note that I think this material belongs to the article 1948 Palestine War and not this one.
Pluto2012 (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nishidani,
Much, much better than my proposal. I will translate it back to French.
I would just suggest were not infrequent -> were frequent
Pluto2012 (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd prefer in English 'not infrequent' because it denies the rareness of harassment but does not assert that violence was frequent (almost daily, everywhere in the Arab world). One must remember that the 700,000 expelled or removed, whatever the controversies over details, met that fate after two decades in which this kind of expulsion or transfer was analysed, proposed, deliberated and then executed militarily. Nothing corresponding to this policy of getting rid of all Jewish communities existed in the Arab world, and what took place, from country to country, varied in logic, and circumstances. The Lavon Affair had disastrous results for Egypt's Jewish community, as did the constant clashes on the Golan/Israeli border, the invasion of 56, etc. This is not to discount the outbursts of intolerance on the 'Arab street', but 'frequent' over a 25 year period, over a zone stretching from Morocco to Iran, suggests an endemic policy of monthly violence against Jews that does not appear to me to fit the case. These niceties ('not rare/commonplace' are far from synonyms) are often lost in prose, but in precise historical narratives are worth careful consideration. Thanks. Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Sure enough, I came up with a good example of this rhetorical form which differentiates what, at a grammatical level, would be the same proposition, while reading Murakami's Dancing Dancing Dancing last night:
"(Gotanda Ryōichi) Do you think that's normal?
(Narrator) I don't think it's abnormal,'I said." (p.150)
The narrator, by this, is not saying (that sleeping with one's ex-wife) is 'normal', implying it is not. But neither is it 'abnormal', implying it may be irregular or rare, but not in itself strange. Nishidani (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
to Nishidani: According to History of the Jews in Iraq#Modern Iraq :"before the anti-Jewish actions of the 1930s and 1940s, overall Iraqi Jews "viewed themselves as Arabs of the Jewish faith, rather than as a separate race or nationality".[11] Additionally, early Labor Zionism mostly concentrated on the Jews of Europe, skipping Iraqi Jews because of their lack of interest in agriculture....Despite protestations of their loyalty to Iraq, Iraqi Jews were increasingly subject to discrimination and harsh laws. On August 27, 1934..,the Farhud ("violent dispossession") pogrom of June 1 and 2, 1941, broke out in Baghdad in which approximately 200 Jews were murdered...Afterwards, Zionist emissaries from Palestine were sent to teach Iraqi Jews self-defense, which they were eager to learn. ...In March 1950 Iraq passed a law of one year duration allowing Jews to emigrate ... were motivated, ... by "economic considerations, chief of which was that almost all the property of departing Jews reverted to the state treasury...Israel was initially reluctant to absorb so many immigrants, (Hillel, 1987) but eventually mounted an airlift in March 1951 ...Between 1948 and 1951 121,633 Jews left the country, leaving 15,000 behind.[16]".

The Iraqi Jews considered themselves as Arabs with Jewish religion, but suffering pogroms and sanctions, they had to leave their country. Ykantor (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Please don't give me arguments from other wiki pages. Almost 98% of wiki pages in this area are stupid, nescient and boring. It is esp. bad to do so with Iraq since you preferred to reply by iting poorly drafted wiki pages than the academic source I referred you to, Esther Meir-Glitzenstein's book.Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
A couple of sources relevant to the subject of Jewish emigration from Arab countries:
    ←   ZScarpia   20:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
@Nishhidani- You are right that your academic source is much better that Wiki pages, but My Google books access to this book is rather limited. If you highlight which points of mine are suspicious, I'll try to find a better source or to modify it.
@ ZScarpia: Thanks for those interesting sources. some notes to Shabi:

- "asks Rachel Shabi, what on earth has each refugee issue got to do with the other? ". who claim for such a connection? e.g. Netanyahu does not claim such a connection. Interestingly, the Iraqi government in 19 Oct 1949 proposed to exchange Iraqi Jews for Palestinian refugees.

-"how then can Arab nations be solely to blame (although it is true that they bear some of it) for the departure of those Jewish populations?" Nuri es Said "On August 21, 1950, Nuri As-said, the Iraqi minister of interior, threatened to revoke the license of the company transporting the Jewish exodus if it did not fulfill its daily quota of 500 Jews. On September 18, 1950, he summoned a representative of the Jewish community and claimed Israel was behind the delay, threatening to "take them to the borders" and forcibly expel the Jews"[1]. A quote:"in mid September 1950, Nuri al-Said replaced...as prime minister. Nuri was determined to drive the Jews out of his country as quickly as..."[2][3]. There were anti Jewish laws. [4]

As she says, the majority of the Iraqi Jews were not Zionist, but had to choose whether to stay or to leave. About 80%-90% of them were sufficiently frightened and decided to leave. Undoubtedly, some were Zionist but probably a small minority of those who lived. Let us say that "only" 70% percent fled because they were frightened, who is responsible?

-"Several members of my family stayed in Iraq into the 1970s; how did they manage that if all, as is claimed, were forced to flee several decades earlier" Is there such a claim that they forced to flee? I am not aware of it. Those who continue to live in Iraq gambled that they could survive there. In a retrospective, according to the archive, they were lucky because the Iraqi premier Nuri al Said planned to load all the Jews on trucks that would take them directly to Israel.

- "if Jewish from Arab countries do have property claims, why should they all - including those residing outside Israel - choose to make those through the Israeli government?". If they tried to go independently , they failed. So they should welcome any one who tries, on behalf of them.

- to be continued


Ykantor, the answer to the first question you directed at me is given at the top of Rachel Shabi's article in the paragraph which links to this Haaretz article by Barak Ravid which discusses "a decision by the Prime Minister's Office and the Foreign Ministry, based on a recommendation from the National Security Council, that from now on, the Jewish refugees will be considered a core issue in all final-status negotiations with the Palestinians." The decission came after a committee "recommended that the issue of compensating the Jewish refugees be raised in negotiations with the Palestinians as an inseparable part of discussions on the Palestinian refugees." "It is in Israel's interest to create a connection between the issues of the Jewish and Palestinian refugees, the document said, so Israel should present them as a single issue in all negotiations. `It's necessary to instill the duality of the term refugee into international discourse. Linking these issues will serve Israel in the negotiations.` Specifically, it said, such linkage would deter excessive claims on behalf of the Palestinian refugees, or at least moderate them."     ←   ZScarpia   21:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
@ZScarpia: Yes, you are right. Personally I do not agree with the linking. The only communality is that any refugee, Palestinian and Iraqi Jew, should be compensated. Ykantor (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Notes:

  1. ^ Howard Adelman; Elazar Barkan (13 August 2013). No Return, No Refuge: Rites and Rights in Minority Repatriation. Columbia University Press. pp. 365–. ISBN 978-0-231-52690-6. "At times, Iraqi politicians candidly acknowledged that they wanted to expell their Jewish population for reasons of their own, having nothing to do with the palestinian exodus...Nuri Said described a plan to expell jews from Iraq ...head of Jordanian government" 
  2. ^ Esther Meir-Glitzenstein (2 August 2004). Zionism in an Arab Country: Jews in Iraq in the 1940s. Routledge. p. 205. ISBN 978-1-135-76862-1. "in mid September 1950, Nuri al-Said replaced...as prime minister. Nuri was determined to drive the Jews out of his country as quickly as..." 
  3. ^ Orit Bashkin (12 September 2012). New Babylonians: A History of Jews in Modern Iraq. Stanford University Press. p. 277. ISBN 978-0-8047-8201-2. 
  4. ^ Howard Adelman; Elazar Barkan (13 August 2013). No Return, No Refuge: Rites and Rights in Minority Repatriation. Columbia University Press. pp. 237–. ISBN 978-0-231-52690-6. 
Ykantor. Let me, at the risk of appearing condescending, give you a quick pointer on how to read and write history. One doesn't write wiki articles scouring sources for select quotes that replace the historical analyses of scholars, which is what you tend to do here, with an eye invariably to quotes from Arab political leaders instead of what secondary historical sources, which must evaluate complex geopolitical, strategic, logistic factors to arrive at interpretative probabilities for what happened. A quote is usable if it catches or underlines some policy or act that had decided historical consequences. It would be easy to counter this by adducing 20-30 quotations from Yishuv notables from the 1920s to 1947 suggesting how to dispose of the Palestinians, the theme goes back 50 years, and was a powerful element in Zionist planning, and has no simultaneously parallel in some pre-1948 Arab planning concerning their Jewish communities. It is pointless therefore engaging in quotes vs book analyses. The parallel that Scarpia documents, showing that only recently the Palrefugee 1948 is to be placed on a par with the compelled, assisted, encouraged (multifactor) Jewish aliyah from Arab lands 1948-1973 only underlines the danger. It's allowing political interests in a spinning of history to get the advantage of what historians write (and conveying the substance of the historiography is very difficult given the differences among scholars). What historians do is calibrate theories by weight of probability. I.e.

'What impelled (120,000) this (Iraqi) community to rise up in unison and emigrate to Israel? . . Some scholars believe that the Jews of Iraq had always maintained strong ties to Zion. Once the State of Israel came into being and opened its gates, they joined the influx of 'the children returning to their own border'. Others claim that it was the unrestrained policy of the Iraqi regime, or, as they called it, its 'anti-semitism', which forced the Jews to uproot themselves. . .It has been argued by other scholars that anti-semitism alone could not have sufficed to force the Jewish community to leave Iraq, and that the large-scale emigration of Iraq's Jews was the result of Zionist education on the one hand, and the official policy of oppression and discrimination on the other.' 'Ben-Gurion, considered immigration to be a central component in Israel's security.'..the foundation of our states security,' he declared,' is wide-scale immigration , at a rapid pace, in ever-wider dimensions' (a 'war effort') . .Another group of historians, some of them Arabs, claim that the Iraqi authorities were liberal in their attitude towards the Jews and cooperated with the community leaders in a spirit of conciliation and understanding - -According to this school of thought, the Israel authorities were interested, for reasons of their own, not only in rescue operations but also in importing Jews from countries where they had been well-integrated.'Moshe Gat,The Jewish Exodus from Iraq, 1948-1951, 2013 Routledge pp.1-2.

That itself is a simplified version of a complex argument (Gat's own view gives weight to the activities of the Mossad le Aliya in Iraq). The wiki editor who is scrupulous will observe that there are at least four theories, in just this one case of Iraq (Yemen is simpler) each of which might be prioritized by selective quotation. And (s)he will make efforts to see where consensus in sources lies, draft text to throw into relief the difference positions, and take into account that the situations of Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, Iran, Syria etc., all have complex elements to do not sit easy with any overarching theory of 'fled and expelled' over such a diversified field of behaviour. What you do is dragnet up information that supports the (now Netayahu prioritized equation of Jewish refugees-Palestinian refugees) and factoring in quotes, privilege just one of them. That is POV pushing. So try to desist from selective quote brandishing, which, intrinsically, leads to WP:OR, and hew closely to standard respect for the evaluative narratives of academic historians. Otrherwise the talk page will just keep drifting on in futile, pointless quote swaps.Nishidani (talk) 09:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
@Nishidani: yours: "One doesn't write wiki articles scouring sources for select quotes that replace the historical analyses of scholars, which is what you tend to do here, with an eye invariably to quotes from Arab political leaders instead of what secondary historical sources". You are of course right . However, in my opinion , The article is biased and does not contain Morris (and others) view that the Arabs started the war,and Plan D was not a plan of expulsion. Those views were repeatedly deleted here. I have also noted, that Morris (and others) views are suspected as being biased towards the Israeli side. e.g. "by Benny Morris's minimalist accountancy 24 pogroms were exacted on Palestinians in the war". Hence I realized that there is a better chance to convince editors , by quoting Arab leaders and generals of the period. For instance, Morris view that the Arabs started the war, was deleted but there is an added citation of general Safwat report :"Despite the fact that skirmishes and battles have begun, the Jews at this stage are still trying to contain the fighting to as narrow a sphere as possible in the hope that partition will be implemented and a Jewish government formed; they hope that if the fighting remains limited, the Arabs will acquiesce in the fait accompli. This can be seen from the fact that the Jews have not so far attacked Arab villages unless the inhabitants of those villages attacked them or provoked them first." Actually he said that at this period it was an Yishuv interest to calm the flames. I hope that some of the editors here, may re-consider there attitude toward the issue of "who started it", because of this quote and/ or similar quotes.

- Both sides, had their share of wrong doing, and we have to admit the facts, some might be bitter facts. I know it is difficult. e.g. As I "knew" that the refugees left because the Arab leaders told them to leave, it was difficult for me too to discover that it is not true.

- Our top priority is improving Wikipedia, but there could be a by-product. Curious people of both side might discover what really happened, what was the other side motivation and aims, and that the other side is not an homogeneous entity, but a group of people, under some internal and external pressures, and theirleaders are persons with personal, political and state interests, and might quarrel within themselves. Hopefully, such a realization could improve a little bit the situation here. (to be continued) Ykantor (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your next quote from Ben-Gurion. It's well sourced but again, totally irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia, and articles must be designed to convey the essential information neatly, in order, and with a sense of narrative. Patching in your personal tidbits, regardless of their relevance to a narrative, is pointless. The only thing gained by that quote from B-G is a signal to the reader:'Tremble! The chief panicked that we had only one Sherman tank against the Arabs! It was touch and go!'. The Jordanian army had no tanks. Syria and Egypt did, but Syrian tanks proved useless, and quite a few Egyptian tanks lacked any barrage potential. Do we really need to go into this? It was a pre-WW2 war whose materiél resources were well-summed up by Tal:

In a war that involved five armies-Israeli, Egyptian, Jordanian, Syrian and Lebanese - no more than 150,000 soldiers, nearly two-thirds of whom were Israelis, took part in the hostilities at their height. The soldiers' weapons and equipment were meager and often substandard. Both sides combined had only about 80 planes, most of them obsolescent and poorly maintained. Only a few dozen tanks took part in the fighting, and some of the Egyptian tanks lacked guns. The Israelis had fewer than a dozen tanks. From a military point of view it was as though the Second World War had never been fought and as though the tank had not become the main weapons system of modern armies.' David Tal,War in Palestine, 1948: Israeli and Arab Strategy and Diplomacy,p.3.

The whole article is a mess, poorly divided, and even the section you stuffed that item into has no raison d'etre. The whole page needs to be edited into some reasonable basic encyclopedic form, something which requires extensive reorganization.Nishidani (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)