Talk:Arab–Israeli conflict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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 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 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 Jewish history (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history 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 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.

Article name[edit]

This article should be called the Muslim Arab / Israeli conflict (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That isn't how it's commonly referred to. --Jethro B 18:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

There are both Christian and Muslim Arabs involved in the conflict. Calling it the Muslim Arab/Israeli conflict would be fundamentally misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theapplethief (talkcontribs) 22:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

There were plenty of Christian Arabs involved in the conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

recent edits[edit]

I am troubled by some recent edits by User:Theapplethief:

  • I have reverted the addition of a paragraph about the viewpoints of Palestinian Christians.[1] My concern is that this section is "Religious aspects of the conflict" and describes religious views of Christians, Jews and Muslims. The paragraph added described views that were political rather than religious.
  • I am concerned about the introduction of casualty figures from If Americans Knew[2]. I doubt that this organization is an RS. These figures appear to come from B'tselem. If we keep these figures then we need to attribute them to B'tselem and, ideally, the citation should be to a newspaper article or a similar reliable secondary source rather than to an advocacy organization.
  • I am not sure that Rachel Corrie needs to be discussed in an overview of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[3]. I don't think this edit presents the case in a neutral way.GabrielF (talk) 05:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You are probably right about changing the citations to B'tselem. I do disagree about Rachel Corrie. The page consists of numerous references to violence coming either side of the conflict, and this particular detail is no exception. As for the edit regarding Palestinian Christians, I feel that the group as a whole has been neglected on this page, and I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss the possibility of adding it in, for the sake of being both thorough and neutral.Theapplethief (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't object to adding information about Palestinian Christians, but I don't think that its appropriate in a section that deals specifically with religious viewpoints. I am ambivalent about including Corrie and would like to hear other opinions. GabrielF (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I would like to point out, that when discussing Christian Zionists, it is pointed out that they support the State of Israel, and they enumerate the reasons. But I think that it could give the false impression that all Christians in the region are supportive of the state of Israel. I do understand your point though, and I would appreciate any help or advice on how to go about including the information, since I'm still learning.Theapplethief (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I would just like to add that I find the lack only mention of Christians within the religious aspects of the conflict header being in relation to Christian Zionists very problematic. It's a tautology - of course Christian Zionists support Israel because that is what a Zionist is, a supporter of Israel by definition. Referring to Christian Zionists in such a way suggests that Christians tend to support Israel which is a false proposition. It would be like writing "Christian anti-Zionists support Palestine" and that being the only mention of Christianity in this context: hugely misleading. The founder of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine was himself a Christian. While I understand that could be seen as political rather than religious, on the other hand the biggest Arab city within Israel is Nazareth, which is very much a Christian area, arguably the Christian significance explaining its survival while other Arab populations haven't remained within the borders of Israel. These Christians refer to themselves as Palestinians. Also, Bethlehem, while not holding anywhere like the contention of Jerusalem, is a holy site that presents a religious interest towards the issue. Many Christians still live in that area and go through the same treatment as Palestinian Muslims. I'm not going to edit this article, but I feel either the mention of Christian Zionism should be taken out and that paragraph be specific to Judaism and Islam, or a more expanded discussion of Christianity and the area is needed - explaining Nazereth, Bethlehem, Palestinian Christians in general (that exclusion is really quite shocking), the treatment of Christians within Israel and Palestine , Christian interest from outside the area (e.g. recent events at St James's in London, presence of the Church of Scotland being some examples), the Lebanese Civil War and the tension between Maronite Christians and the growing Palestinian population at the time, treatment of Christians and Islamization in Gaza and yes, Christian Zionism. It could be another paragraph or article in itself. Christianity within this debate is a lot less clear cut and a smaller voice than the other two Aramaic religions, but this isn't a reason for trivialisation or unbalanced statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Israel-Palestine articles and their overwhelmingly favorable bias towards the Jewish side versus Muslims makes you want to give up wikipedia due to frustrating pro-Western, pro-Israel bias[edit]

I've been a wikipedian for a while (check my join-date) and I've been watching many articles closely related to Zionism, Judaism, and Palestine to keep creeping bias from setting in. From being forced to quote Simon Wiesenthal's biography as a "valid cited source" to having any edit of mine reverted that brings to light unfavorable viewpoints on Holocaust survivors (of whom many have profited heavily from their tragedy, as per Finkelstein and Chomsky) to having to remove most of the weasel words from the "Press TV" article that frame it in the context of "Pro-Palestinian/Pro-Israeli" there is no doubt a heavy favorable bias towards Jews on Wikipedia.

I personally think this is not part of some "Jewish conspiracy" nonsense, but rather the fact that at least 80% of wiki's edits are from white college-educated western males, so they have the biases of that particular social class.

Anyway, as soon as I seen the title "Islamic terrorism" for an article, then "Jewish religious terrorism", I've come under the assumption that this encyclopedia will never fully reflect reality, or at least, accurately and report it in a non-biased fashion.

I'm going to step-up my patrol of "Israel-Palestine/Muslim-Jew" articles to be vigilant against the biases that often get ignored (or in fact, are there on purpose to portray a certain opinion) But if wikipedia becomes any more pro-Israeli or pro-Jewish (rather than non-biased) when it comes to dealing with Muslims or Israel, I may just throw in my towel.

Come on: Can we attempt to recruit more English speaking Muslims onto wiki, if that's the only way to counter this pro-western, pro-white, pro-jewish bias?

Solntsa90 (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

To further my point, the original "Culture of Israel" article had not a single mention of Arabs, Palestinians, or Islam--despite these demographic groups taking up as much as >20% of the population.

If you notice, all the additions on minorities and Palestinians in the first paragraph were originally put in by me.

Tell me how this isn't biased again?

Solntsa90 (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

..or maybe no-one bothered to add them until you did? It would only be bias if people were actively deleting the Arabic additions repeatedly. In reality nobody who knows about the Arabic section of Israel bothered to edit the page until you did. Also cut the rubbish about bias will you. Your entire post is riddled with your own bias. "80% of wiki's edits are from white college-educated western males", really do you have a source to back that up? Any facts? any extracted figures from the wiki database? No you don't you just attacked a section of the community because of your own chip against 'White College-Educated Western Males'. Try being less bigoted next time and maybe people will take you more seriously. Mishka Shaw (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It's simply the nature of WP to ignore bias, under the grand notion that the world is not real and all knowledge is meaningless opinion and the prevailing edit is just about as good as any other edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Correcting map of the Arab–Israeli conflict[edit]

Current map
New base map
  Arab League countries
  Arab League countries that have been in war with Israel
  Gaza and the West Bank (State of Palestine)

There have been discussions in a few pages I noticed on fixing the map on the top right. I figure that this talk page is a better place for this discussion.

I will be working on the new map based on the second image on the right. There are a few things I'm sure to do.

  • Fixing national boundary and Arab League countries. This means adding South Sudan, and excluding Western Sahara and South Sudan as members of the league.
  • Not adding text or captions, making it language-neutral.

However, there is one point that I'm unsure about its factual accuracy and necessity to be represented on the map, thus I ask for your opinions.

...and thus those countries should be coloured dark green. If not, how to rephrase the dark green category, which now reads "have been in war with Israel"? Hytar (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

A good source is required for each and every country that was supposedly at war but wasn't one of the obvious combatants. Providing arms certainly does not count, unless you want to include the USA and other western countries that supplied arms to Israel. Zerotalk 13:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd leave the war with Israel colorations as is, just do the South Sudan correction - even Western Sahara I'd be tempted to leave since it's de facto part of Morocco (and the Arab League supports that claim), perhaps make it stripped to show its disputed status. Kmusser (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
If the article on Arab League is a reference, I would not shade Western Sahara green, or even stripe it with grey. True, even if the Arab League hopes that Western Sahara is part of Morocco, it is still disputed by many international bodies.
So as of now, the decision is to remain the dark-green countries but fix the green ones to exclude South Sudan and Western Sahara. I'll open this topic for one more day, then I'll get to work. Hytar (talk) 11:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the long pause, but I have updated the base map and captions as shown in the second picture. What do you think? Is it ready to replace the current map? Hytar (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Southern Syria[edit]

The name "Southern Syria" was introduced into this article about a year ago, largely replacing "Palestine". I object to it on several grounds. (1) There was never a political entity of that name. (2) For the last decades of the Ottoman period, the official name Syria (Sam) applied to the vilayet of that name which corresponded roughly to modern Syria and Jordan. It did not extend west of the Jordan River, as in this map. (3) Since "Syria" in English writing sometimes referred to the entire region between Turkey and Sinai, the phrase "southern Syria" (usually small "s") can be found referring to this region, but this phase was much less common than "Palestine" and often, during the same time period, "Syria" was not taken to include Palestine (search for the phrases "Syria and Palestine" and "Palestine and Syria" in books of the 19th century to find a large number of examples). That is, the meaning of "southern Syria" was not universally understood in the pre-mandate period. (4) The great majority of modern scholars writing in English about this time period, including Israeli scholars, refer to this region as Palestine just like most writers of the time did. (5) Since the modern meaning of the phrase "southern Syria" is entirely different, by using it we are only causing confusion in the minds of casual visitors to the page. Zerotalk 18:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. There is campaign to remove "Palestine" and "Palestinians" from articles. --IRISZOOM (talk) 07:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
From what I have seen, it's nearly only Greyshark09 who is replacing "Palestine" with "Ottoman Syria" and "Southern Syria". It's really plenty of changes. It also seems that he thinks Palestine and Southern Syria are the same regions. I've seen him put it in parentheses and how he describes it. Others are changing it to "Eretz Israel".
Just compare this to this. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Here is another example. This is from some years ago. Not only is it wrong not to use the term overwhelmingly used (Palestine) but it also confuses much, which this example clearly shows. --IRISZOOM (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I have changed it now. Palestine is the common term and well-defined. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Map and light green Arab League members[edit]

I have wondered for a long time why we show the light green countries on this map. I finally took the time to read through the archives, and it seems that the reason is because the Arab League made a statement similar to declaring war on Israel in 1948.

But it turns out the none of the light green countries had joined the Arab League at that time - they joined in the 1950s onwards.

So unless someone can give another good reason (i.e. one which wouldn't logically mean we should add Israel's political supporters in light blue), I will remove the light green countries from the map.

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed replacement picture.
Thinking about this in more detail, the only countries who went directly to all-out war were Egypt, Syria and to a lesser extent Iraq.
Lebanon had a well-documented pre-agreement with Israel prior to the 1948 war, and did not participate in 1967 and 1973.
Jordan also had a pre-agreement in 1948, and did not participate in 1973. In 1967 it was solely on the defensive.
All the rest of the countries appear to be volunteer forces instead of full governmental mobilisation. Does anyone have any sources to suggest the opposite?
I propose we should have Egypt, Syria and Iraq in one colour, Lebanon and Jordan in another, and either (a) all of the rest in one colour with Israel's allies and suppliers in another colour or (b) none of the additional supporter countries highlighted.
Oncenawhile (talk) 08:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Disagree. Leaves out pertinent information on those countries that had technically been at a state of war against Israel and contributed to wars against Israel (e.g. military supplies, oil embargo, etc.). Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I presume this means you prefer the version where we add the US in light blue (military supplies, economic embargoes), and the UK and France in dark blue (fought alongside in the "Second Arab-Israeli War")? Oncenawhile (talk) 06:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Haha, no. These countries weren't allied with Israel or openly supporting Israeli warfare against its Arab adversaries. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes they were. Please see well sourced info at Yom_Kippur_War#Aid_to_Israel and Suez_Crisis#Forces. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
To this same point, can anyone provide an WP:RS showing that the "Arab League" were ever at war with Israel? From what I can see, the declarations of war were country specific, and the idea that the Arab League went to war was based on incorrect dating (recently discredited) of the Azzam Pasha quotation.
If no supporting sources are forthcoming, I will remove the references and also the map as misleading.
Oncenawhile (talk) 07:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
No, you won't continue to make unilateral changes on what largely appears to be your own original research. Plot Spoiler (talk)
So to summarise, I asked you to provide RS to support uncited statements, and you said simply "no". I read that as a statement that you believe it cannot be supported. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually the map is original research and it needs to be justified or removed. Oncenawhiles evidence based concerns are valid. Either the evidence exists and it is produced, in which case there is no longer an issue. Or the source evidence is not there and the material should be removed. Dlv999 (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I left "citation needed" re certain statements re the Arab League's participation, and after a few days of silence have now removed them.

I'll leave the map for another day or so, but unless someone can explain, for example, what on earth Comoros has to do with this conflict, the map will be removed. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, map now removed. New thread below re replacement. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Map for summary box[edit]

Should the new map include either:

  • Every country involved, such as those who provided military support (e.g. the United States and Soviet Union), those who fought alongside in specific arenas (UK, France, Soviet Union), and those from whom volunteers came to fight (e.g. the countries of the Mahal, and the same on the Arab side)?, or
  • Only those countries primarily involved, and if so how do we define primary involvement given this conflict has been going for more than 65 years?

Any comments would be helpful. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

See some suggestions on this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#How_to_summarise_a_65+_year_complex_conflict_in_a_single_map?. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Because this is such a controversial question without a clear answer, I think we should leave the article as it is now. The article itself addresses which countries Israel has had a war/conflict with, and to which extent. However, I'm not opposed to any of your suggestion. Yambaram (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Muslim-Israeli conflict[edit]

Should this page be called Muslim-Israeli conflict? (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The article isn't about that. It's about the conflict between "certain Arab countries and Israel". Sean.hoyland - talk 03:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Belligerents and Commanders in the infobox[edit]

In the "Belligerents" section in the infobox under the title "Palestinians" there is a short list of paramilitaries and organizations and "Gaza Strip". Shouldn't there be written ["Hamas" Hamas] and maybe even the "PIJ" instead, what about the involvement of Iran through Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria? In the "Commanders" section the list rarely includes commanders which did not participate in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. I think the list better include some prominent leaders who were excluded (in both sides). Gamal Abdel Nasser, Yasser Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas (maybe Anwar Sadat, Hussein of Jordan and Hamas leaders such as Ahmed Yassin, Ismail Haniyeh and Khaled Mashal too) on the Arab side, and Menachem Begin and Benjamin Netanyahu (maybe Levi Eshkol and Golda Meir too) on the Israeli side. Looking for suggestions. EitanTs (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hamas did not control the Gaza Strip since 1987 nor did it begin to attack then. Neither were Naser and Arafat military commanders. This is why no Israeli Prime Minister or President is mentioned in the infobox. The same is can be said about the War on Terrors infobox. AcidSnow (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually Chaim Weizmann and David Ben-Gurion weren't military commanders but the 1st president and PM of Israel respectively. Haj Amin al-Husseini or King Farouk I weren't military commanders either. While you are right about the War on Terror's infobox the same doesn't applies to many other conflicts (WWII for example), is there a specific policy about the subject? Besides, most the commanders on both lists served in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War (I noticed only Ehud Barak who hasn't but I might have missed another person or two), while on other hand the list doesn't include Saad el-Shazly the Egyptian cheif of staff during the Yom Kippur/October War (which is considered by many Arabs and Israelis to be the biggest war between Israel and Arab countries after the 1948 Arab–Israeli War).
Hamas launched terrorist attacks against Israel since the 90's [4] as response to the Oslo Agreements and the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre. Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip in 2006 [5] (won the elections in January and drove the PLO forces out in December). The Israeli disengagement from Gaza did occur before, in Jun-Aug 2005. I'll repeat the argument I gave before, Gaza Strip is a geographical region and not an organization (where the list under the title "Palestinians" includes different organizations beside Gaza Strip). It is not recognized or proclaimed as an independent sovereign entity, not by Hamas nor by PLO (or any other organizations) since it's only a part of the Palestinian territories. Why not list the West Bank if we list Gaza Strip? EitanTs (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

No map in the Infobox?[edit]

Wikipedia in all the other languages has this useful map for the Arab–Israeli conflict (check "Global file usage"), but Oncenawhile removed it based on an old discussion without a clear result. I can't find logical objections to add this map, I guess Oncenawhile is just splitting hairs to find a reason to delete the map because Israel looks too small compared to its neighbors, which might give the impression that Israel is the "victim" or the "tiny country defending itself from more numerous enemies" (am I right?). How it is possible that all the other Wikipedias are wrong? I don't understand what's the problem. This map of the Middle East shows the countries belonging to the Arab League at the present (after all, this is the ARAB–Israeli conflict), and those which have been at war with Israel in the past. It seems pretty accurate to me. Egypt was at war against Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1967-70 and 1973. Jordan fought against Israel in 1948, 1967 and 1973 (in the last case only indirectly, although it sent troops to the Golan during the Yom Kippur War). Lebanon had a limited participation in 1948. Syria fought in 1948, 1967, 1973 and 1982. Iraq was involved in the 1948, 1967 and 1973 wars, while Saudi Arabia and Yemen sent troops in 1948. I really don't understand why this is the only Wikipedia which excludes such a practical map. I'm waiting for an answer and other users' opinions.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed replacement picture.
The proposed replacement map I have linked here is more accurate, and fits your description above, expect that you are incorrect re Yemen in 1948 (who were in the middle of their own internal conflict, and also re Saudi in 1948, where fighters which came were personal volunteers not representatives of the state (similar to the International Brigades in the Spanish civil war). The light green in the proposed map shows your point about Lebanon and Jordan. Both countries had then-secret pre-agreements with Israel in 1948; their participation was to defend the pre-agreed partition borders. And in 1967 Jordan was solely on the defensive.
With respect to the larger map, as is made very clear in the discussion above, the Arab League has never been at war with Israel. Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya were French and British colonies in 1948 and did not participate in later conflicts either. As a result, the larger map is inaccurate and, as you correctly imply, propagandistic.
06:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree with your proposal for several reasons. But let's clarify your incorrect information first. Jordan was on the defensive in 1967?? Yeah, right! On the contrary, Israel was too busy fighting the Egyptians, so it didn't want to open a second front. That's why the Israelis sent a message to king Hussein promising not to initiate any action against Jordan if it stayed out of the war (the king replied by saying "it's too late"). Only when the Jordanian army began shelling Israeli cities – based on the false assumption that Egypt was winning the war – Israel invaded the West Bank. Jordan not only fought fiercely against the Israelis in 1948 and 1967, but in both cases this country initiated the hostilities (unlike the Egyptian front for example, which was initiated by Israel in 1967, after a series of threats and provocations). This is a conflict in which the Arab League has active participation, and even those North African countries sent troops and aid to the Arab side in the 1967 and 1973 wars (that's why they should be included, although not in the group of nations that have been "at war with Israel" directly). That's why this is called the Arab–Israeli conflict. Because of your stubborn rejection to recognize widely known facts, the most complete of the Wikipedias is the only one which has not a useful map in this article. I'm going to add proper references to restore it.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 10:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
The onus is on you to build consensus here. Statements like "stubborn rejection to recognize widely known facts" do not resolve discussions, nor justify edit warring.
You are wrong about Jordan in 1967. Israel had destroyed their air force in Operation Focus by noon on the first day, before any fighting took place. As Hussein said after the Samu Incident: "if Israel launched another Samu-scale attack against Jordan he would have no alternative but to retaliate or face an internal revolt. If Jordan retaliates, asked Hussein, would not this give Israel a pretext to occupy and hold Jordanian or Occupied territory?". Jordan was never belligerent against Israel, and nor was Lebanon, hence the proposal to colour them differently from Egypt / Syria / Iraq. They are still highlighted on the map, as both countries government's were clearly very involved.
You are wrong about the North African countries. This has already been discussed above. Their governments sent no troops. If you want to include volunteers, then we need to also colour every country from whom Mahal volunteers came. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
By the way, apart from the threads above, this has also been discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_124#How to summarise a 65+ year complex conflict in a single map? Oncenawhile (talk) 11:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
The fact is that Operation Focus targeted only the Egyptian air force at the beginning. Israel carried out a preemptive strike only against Egypt. The Jordanians fired the first bullet (so to say), as well as the Syrians. Only then Israel responded against them (both from the air and on the ground). But I'm not going to enter in that discussion because that's not the main point. Why are you against including all the Arab League countries? Are you seriously doubting that the Arab League (all of their countries) were somehow involved in the Arab–Israeli conflict? Let's assume those North African countries didn't send troops... so what? I'm not suggesting to add them as belligerents! They are included in the map simply because they belong to the Arab League. It is really important if Jordan and Lebanon fought less than Iraq, Egypt or Syria? All of them sent units to fight Israel. And even Kuwait did it (although it's not included in the map). Saudi Arabia and Yemen are included because of the 1948 war. I can't understand why you oppose to this map. It's in all the other Wikipedias because is useful.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Your argument is WP:CIRCULAR. The "other wikipedias have it" argument is ridiculous. The linked file has changed over time, and has had the same concerns raised at wikicommons[6].
Unless you can prove that any of the light green countries in your map have been "at war" with Israel, then those countries have no more relevance that Britain and France (who fought alongside Israel in the second incarnation of the Arab Israeli war), and many other countries who have provided logistical, financial and volunteer support to Israel.
Oncenawhile (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I would rather agree with Wlglunight93 per WP:OR and agree with Oncenawhile on the historical and analytical point of view. But per wikipedia, we have to follow sources and not try to correct the "mistakes" of historians. So I think wolglunight93 is right.
Note anyway that even if this didn't concern huge contingents :
  • Saudi Arabia participated to the 1948 war and sent troops that fought alongside the Egyptians
  • Libyan and Algerian aircrafts participated to the Kippur war
  • this conflict is too complex to state there is an agressor and a defender particularly for Jordan 1967 whose troops were in the same chain of command as Egyptian ones.
Pluto2012 (talk) 13:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Hi User:Ykantor, please could you read the previous threads on this topic and then let us know your thoughts? To address your edit summary, the question is not just about deleting countries - we could instead add countries. In other words, Britain and France fought alongside Israel in 1956, the USA and other countries provided military and financial support to Israel in all the conflicts. Also Iran has been involved in a low level proxy fight on the other side since 1979. On the other hand, a number of the countries highlighted as being in the "Arab league" have no relevance to the conflict at all. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)