Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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 International relations / United Nations / law  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject International law.
 


Baylis Thomas is not a RS[edit]

Baylis Thomas is not a RS, and besides he is a liar. I propose to delete his quotes, unless it is backed by a RS Ykantor (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Who is Baylis Thomas and why would he be a liar ? Pluto2012 (talk) 07:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Let's go about this without hysterical accusations please, Ykantor.
  • Where is Thomas, as cited here, lying?
  • Why is Bayley Thomas, a clinical psychologist with professional expertise in conflict resolution,- if ever an historical situation required imput not only from archival historians but from experts on the dynamics of conflict between unreconciled parties, this is it - for which he was employed at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine faculty at Yeshiva University and who has two historical works to his credit published by Lexington Books, which aims for an academic market, and whose works have been positively reviewed by scholars (Ian Lustick who on the blurb is cited as evaluating his first book as 'a well-documented, well-written, and persuasive account that mobilizes knowledge not readily available to the non-expert,') and prominent voices within American Judaism ( Allan Brownfeld, necessarily 'unreliable'? Have you any reviews which, as one might cite for example for Ilan Pappé, argue that the history given by Thomas contains serious distortions or factual twisting? Nishidani (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Some links:
Article cite refs 31, 35, 46: Citations of How Israel Was Won.
    ←   ZScarpia   12:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
-wp:rs: "the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication" How many people were involved in the checking?

-"How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence". Which RS is using Mr Thomas as a source?

-"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight" Is there an editorial oversight in this case?

-Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) (essay): "Historical articles on wikipedia should use scholarly works where possible"

- in my opinion, it is preferable to quote better sources. Ykantor (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I've said this several times. Please don't open threads disordinately. You made a statement (Bayley Thomas is a liar (see WP:BLP), referring to his book(s). Two editors asked you to clarify this by evidence. You have failed to respond to the query.Nishidani (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to see some kind of justification for calling Thomas a liar, not least because doing so is a BLP issue.
As for giving some kind of answer to your questions: Google Scholar lists 30 publications which refer to or cite How Israel Was Won; the publisher, Lexington, is an imprint of Rowman & Littlefied, the name kept on when the University Press of America bought that company in 1988, and as a publisher of "scholarly books and journals for the academic market" you'd expect it to exercise a reasonable degree of editorial control and review.
    ←   ZScarpia   21:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Same as Nishidani and ZScarpia.
What are the lies ? Pluto2012 (talk) 12:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


to ZScarpia: I did not know that Lexington is a publisher of scholarly books, nor I understand the meaning of Google Scholar listing 30 of publications. based on this info only, would you call him a RS?

- concerning calling Thomas a liar: The Haganah on the offensive : "By late April, the U.S. State department, concerned to avoid a foreseeable conflagration after the British withdrawal, proposed a truce, managing to get the Arab states, that wished to avoid war, to accept informally proposals by Ben-Gurion they had previously rejected, including a Jewish immigration rate of 48,000 per annum. Likewise they promised to assist the Jews if Arab armies invaded subsequent to the truce. Aware that arm shipments from both Czechoslovakia and France were flowing in, and that local Palestinian forces were demoralized, the Jewish authorities turned down the proposal.". This text is full of lies and bias.

--That was not a proposal for truce but a heavy pressure to defer Israel establishment, as written:" In late April, the U.S. State Department proposed a truce, in which the establishment of a Jewish state would be postponed for three months, and in return the Arab states were to delay their invasion. The Yishuv rejected a deferment of statehood"

--" the Arab states, that wished to avoid war," it is incorrect. The correct one is:" Ironically, the British cabinet had rejected an Azzam Pasha proposal for cessation of the hostilities, in which Jewish immigration would be halted, and Britain would work for the establishment of an Arab state over all of Palestine". Yes, in a sense they were prepared to avoid a war, provided that the Yishuv would totally and immediately surrender.

--"to accept informally proposals by Ben-Gurion they had previously rejected". I suspect that this is a lie. Ben Gurion would not consider such a severe immigration restriction, nor the Arab states.

--" Aware that arm shipments from both Czechoslovakia and France were flowing in". incorrect. The British Navy applied a strict embargo on both arms and people , until the last minute at 15.5.1948. As an exception, 2 ships manage to infiltrate to Tel Aviv during April. During the same period, Arab armed forces freely moved across the borders to the neighboring Arab states, and the U.K continued to supply the Arabs states armies with weapons and ammunition, until couple of days before the invasion.

--" and that local Palestinian forces were demoralized". This correct description is used to mislead the reader, since the Israeli had to fight the combined Arabs states armies, and not the Palestinians.

-I have not read Baylis book, but even if only some of the following Amazon readers reviews are correct, it is sufficient to show that Baylis is not an Historian but a propagandist.

-Amazon: How Israel Was Won: A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict

-lies:

-Israel is described as "balking" at UN Resolution 242 which calls on Israel to exchange territory for peace. Slight problem of course - Israel voted for it and every single Arab state voted against it. (might be inaccurate. see added note) Ykantor (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

-The author wrote that Zionist land purchases created a degree of Arab landlessness in Palestine early on, but this was proved to be totally false by the Royal Peel Commission of 1938. The Peel Commission concluded that only a miniscule number of fellahin were displaced by Zionist land purchases, and that the growing number of landless Arab peasantry was due primarily to the great increase in the Arab population

-bias:

-In his analysis of conflict after the 1948 War he focuses on Israeli operations into the Jordanian controlled West Bank and ignores the Arab's frequent violent invasions of Israeli territory and their targeting of innocent Jewish civilians.

-Little attention is paid to Israel's offers to give up most or even all of the territory taken in 1967 in exchange for peace.

-he simply glosses over Israel's decision to give up more than 2/3 of its territory in exchange for making peace with Egypt, a deal that might well be called unprecedented in recorded history for a victorious power seeking a settlement.

-almost all the "atrocities" reported were done by Israelis. Arab Terrorist attacks targeting civilians were glossed over and portrayed as being mere defense of their "homeland"

-he seemed to discount Israeli reports on civilian casualties as mere"claims"

-the author made special note of the fact that Israel's 1950 Law of Return providing worldwide Jewry with the right of abode in Israel Violates the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial discrimination. Taking into account that the convention was adopted 19 years later in 1969, and that no comparatives are given for any other country's compliance with the same convention Ykantor (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

-Concerning the Security Council resolution 242, the Amazon reader quote is inaccurate. It was a Security Council resolution, so the Arabs and Israel did not vote. Syria and the PLO denounced the resolution. Egypt and Jordan accepted an interpretation of the resolution, which called for a full Israeli withdrawal before starting negotiations. Israel accepted an interpretation of the resolution: the extent of the withdrawal would come as a result of comprehensive negotiations that led to durable peace. Ykantor (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not familiar with the meaning of the word which means to deliberately speak an untruth, or falsify facts in order to deceive people. Are you saying that in the statements you cite, which you contend are erroneous, Baylis is deliberately concocting falsehoods to deceive his readership? Nishidani (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Even considering this specific point (inaccurate Amazon reader accusation concerning resolution 242) , Bayliss statement ("Israel is described as "balking" at UN Resolution 242") is still a lie. What about the other accusations? Ykantor (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
'balk' in English means to jib at an obstacle. Other sources use the word 'reluctant', for example. Israel accepted years later to comply with the provisions, and that brought down the government. And all this has stuff all to do with the issue. So, why is a perfectly acceptable description of a government jibbing at a proposal before accepting it a lie? Nishidani (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I guess you talk about a different agreement, the Rogers Plan, " an initial decision to accept it had resulted in the right-wing Gahal party leaving Golda Meir's government in August 1970". Israel accepted the 242 resolution in Dec 1967, few weeks after the U.N decision, which was taken in the end of Nov 1967. Bayliss statement ("Israel is described as "balking" at UN Resolution 242") is still a lie. What about the other accusations? Ykantor (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Fa Christ or Yahweh's sake, Ykantor! You haven't read Baylis. You write as if you'd knocked down a bottle of Baileys. You rely on a review of it on AMAZON by some twit called J. A Magill who writes of 'How Israel Was Won: A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict '

bias is evident. Israel is described as "balking" at UN Resolution 242 which calls on Israel to exchange territory for peace. Slight problem of course - Israel voted for it and every single Arab state voted against it.

And you have then the impertinence on this dumb pseud's authority to use this nonsensical drivel, his skewing of the facts (all untrue) to repeatedly accuse the original author, who said no such thing, of being a 'liar'. If you repeat the word 'liar' again of a notable living scholar, you will be brought to book before our bailiwiki and sanctioned. Last warning. If you want to wake up from yourself, and save the rest of the community the usual nightmare of editing with you, read Baylis's book p.viii, where 'balk' is used of Israel's attitude on the run-up to the Yom Kippur War of 1973 and where Israel is described as 'balking' at returning the Sinai to Egypt, notwithstanding the 242 Resolution, which if you read history books, rather than Paul Magill in Sacramento, Israel did not accept within 'weeks' (liar!!!! irony) but some months later, in February, privately the following year, just around the time that, unknown to McGill, or is that a handle for Mr Magoo?, Egypt and Jordan also let Jarring know they accepted it. Take a wiki break, a long sabbatical. You are wasting your time with this farcical abuse of talk pages to finesse your misprisions of everything from English to sources to wikipolicy, and I, for one, have better things to do, i.e. actually edit this article, than to play cat-and-mouse with this crap-shooting gamesmanship.Nishidani (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I've had a very long day (see contribs) which explains this comical intemperance. But, Ykantor, you've had it coming for a long time. Attrition via obtusity is understandable, but, all the same, totally unacceptable. Consider very closely what you did here over the last few days, and if you can't see it, then you've a big problem in here. Nishidani (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- The "The Haganah on the offensive" previously mentioned quote, is sufficient to prove that Baylis is a liar.
-Concerning Amazon reader quotes, I repeat: "I have not read Baylis book, but even if only some of the following Amazon readers reviews are correct, it is sufficient to show that Baylis is not an Historian but a propagandist."
-Concerning resolution 242, I repeat: " Israel accepted the 242 resolution in Dec 1967, few weeks after the U.N decision, which was taken in the end of Nov 1967". source: The Israeli parliament website (Hebrew), and not "some months later" as you wrote. Hence Israel did accepted it within 'weeks'.
-Baylis Thomas writes: "While the Arab countries and Israel eventually accepted Resolution 242". This short text has his share of lies. Israel accepted it within weeks, and not "eventually" as Baylis claims. The P.L.O Iraq and Syria did not accepted it. (Syria accepted it years later. Arafat accepted it more than 25 years later).
-It seems that a further digging in Baylis book, uncover more lies. Ykantor (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Regarding Resolution 242.
Israel indeed said it approved the resolution and Arab states indeed stated they rejected it but that's just politics. No later than the first day after the war, Israel started the colonisation by establishing semi-military settlements and allowing illegal civil settlements in the occupied territories making therefore impossible the: "acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area" required by the resolution. More Resolution 242 asked for "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict". We may consider Thomas is wrong when he states it was done 20 years later (after they gave back Sinai) given 47 years later it is still not the case given there are still occupied territories.
Of course, they are interpretations and quarrels about all this coming from the Israeli governments and pro-Israeli lobbies. But what Ykantor calls 'lies' is just the point of view of historians on the matter.
Pluto2012 (talk) 08:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
"Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict". They also annexed Jerusalem.
So it is logical that Thomas doesn't support the claim that Israeli would have approved this.
Pluto2012 (talk) 08:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Pluto. Thomas was miscited. The word 'balk' is in the introductory summary of the contents of chapter 16 on 'The Yom Kippur War (1973) and Its Antecdedents' (p.viii). ('The UN Resolution 242 calls for return of captured Arab lands in exchange for peace treaties with Israel. Israel balks, retaining the Sinai, West Bank and Golan Heights') 'Balk' here refers to negotiations 1969-1973) In the relevant chapter Thomas wrote that Israel objected to the Resolution on security and territorial grounds, while Syria, Jordan and Egypt had misgivings because of the (notorious) failure of the Resolution to specify withdrawal from all territories. He then concludes 'While the Arab countries and Israel eventually accepted Resolution 242, the ambiguities clearly served Israeli, not Arab, interests' (p.190) That is a perfectly acceptable thumbnail sketch of several years.
What Ykantor did was cite some blogger on Amazon for the putative contents of Baylis's book and create one more potentially humongous time-wasting thread, instead of doing his homework, by consulting what Baylis as opposed to the nitwitted blogger actually wrote, which is the contrary to what both Ykantor and the blogger say he wrote. This kind of behaviour, maximilazing trivial misapprehensions in order to expand futile negotiations on the talk page, is unacceptable, as is the habit of WP:BLP calling an author a 'liar' while adamantly refusing to actually look at his book. I've said this, and Ykantor will not apologize: he's just pushed for another blogging exchange on the arms situation. This is not productive of article editing.Nishidani (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I've just noticed this discussion and don't intend to put in the time to judge Bayliss Thomas properly. I'd just like to opine that Nishidani is alas right; this is not Ykantor's finest moment. I'll highlight one "lie" that Thomas is supposed to have told: "Aware that arm shipments from both Czechoslovakia and France were flowing in"; see Ykantor's "disproof" above. Morris (Righteous Victims, p205) says "Finally, at the beginning of April, the first major injection of arms reached the Haganah, from Czechoslovakia—some 4,700 rifles, 240 machine guns, and 5 million rounds of ammunition. This relatively massive, shipment allowed the Haganah, at last, to concentrate a large number of weapons with sufficient ammunition in a single area for offensive operations, without dangerously stripping the localities. As Ben-Gurion observed at the time, '[F]ollowing the absorption of part of the Czech assistance, the situation changed radically in our favour.'" I guess Morris is lying too, even more blatantly than Thomas. Also see "The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Arms Race" by Amitzur Ilan for a thorough point-by-point refutation of the claim that Britain did not enforce the UN arms embargo on the Arabs. Zerotalk 06:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- I stand by my words. My text is in line with this Morris quote. I wrote:"" Aware that arm shipments from both Czechoslovakia and France were flowing in". incorrect. The British Navy applied a strict embargo on both arms and people , until the last minute at 15.5.1948. As an exception, 2 ships managed to infiltrate to Tel Aviv during April"
-Yours: "refutation of the claim that Britain did not enforce the UN arms embargo on the Arabs". I guess he mean the later period, after the invasion, while I wrote about the period before the Invasion, in which the Arab Legion received a large shipment of ammunition and arms(?) from a U.K army warehouse in the Suez zone, just days before the invasion. May I remind you, that you yourself have participated few months ago in a discussion where I quoted the Hansard, How Bevin justified continuous arms supply to Arab countries, although a parliament member reminded him that those Arab state said openly that they plan to invade Palestine. Ykantor (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Part 1: I don't understand why you wanted to quote yourself supporting Thomas while claiming to disprove him. Part 2: Ilan traces what actually happened, not just what some politician claimed might happen. Zerotalk 10:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
Maybe that Yoav Gelber's summary of the war may solve all the issues raised by Ykantor once for all given he keeps pushing forward the Israeli narrative, trying to build this from relevant sources.
And I hope that he will have in mind that his remains Yoav Gelber's version. Palestinian historians (all liars for sure... in the ear of any Israeli) challenge this on several points.
Pluto2012 (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Pluto. I persisted past 'the emergence of Israel, its persistent existence as a spearhead of western civilization in the Middle East,'(I, like Tony Judt, had laboured under the misimpression it represented 'a (persisting) spearhead of 19th century Western nationalism in the Middle East') and 'As usual, the Palestinians blamed everyone but themselves'. I read Israeli newspapers everyday, which makes me think that universal vice is not unique to Palestinians). The following passage shows Ykantor's error re Great Britain, which has long detained us, an error coming from a desire to patch up his own version of history.

Most Arab armies depended on Britain for their supply of arms, munitions and spare parts. Hence, they suffered heavily from the embargo that the UN Security Council imposed in May 1948. But for two or three exceptional cases, the British government adhered to the embargo despite pressures from the army and its diplomats in the Arab countries. Toward the end of the war, the Arab governments found alternative sources of supply on the free European arms market, but it was too late to have a significant effect on the situation at the fronts. By contrast, the Israelis — having a long tradition of clandestine purchase and shipment of weapons — effectively circumvented the embargo. Since April 1948, small deliveries arrived by air and sea from Czechoslovakia and elsewhere and the large influx began after the end of the British mandate. By July, the IDF had balanced the initial superiority of the Arab armies in heavy equipment.

To make heavy weather of the rare exceptions is what bad historians do. We should not follow them.Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

How Israel was Won: A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, By Baylis Thomas. A list of Baylis lies and misleading text:

  • Baylis: (Ben Gurion) "he was confident by April 1948 of having both U.S. support … in the event of any international war. P. 68

    -notes: Misleading. President Trumann helped Israel a lot, but the state Dpt was against Israel. The U.S banned arms supply to the Mid east, as early as Dec 1947, which hurt the Haganah, but not the Arabs Armies whose arms was supplied by the U.K and France.

  • Baylis: he was confident by April 1948 of having both … and Jewish military superiority in the event of any international war. P. 68 (41)

    -notes: A lie. Ben Gurion was not confident. His military advisers told him that the winning chance was 50:50. He himself said that if Israel will succeed to hold on for the first 3-4 weeks, then there will be a good chance of survival . "the proposals— against the backdrop of intense fighting in Palestine and Arab threats to invade— triggered a painful debate in the Zionist leadership about whether to postpone statehood" Morris 2008 p. 174  ; "the Yishuv genuinely perceived the invasion as a threat to its very existence. Having no real knowledge of the Arab armies’ true lack of military efficiency, the Jews took Arab propaganda literally and prepared for the worst. … in the first month after the invasion the Arab armies enjoyed a considerable superiority in the air, artillery and light armor" Gelber

  • Baylis: UN military experts shared his appraisal. P. 68 (41)

    -notes: A lie. The U.S thought otherwise. "Without “diplomatic and military support” from at least one Great Power, the Jewish state would go under within “two years,” they believed. Their advice against American intervention in support of a Jewish state was unequivocal . Morris 2008 p. 174 .  ; Marshall may have had in mind the CIA report of August 1947, which predicted that if war broke out between a newborn Jewish state and the Arab states, the Arabs would win. The prognosis had been “coordinated” with the intelligence arms of the departments of State, the army and navy, and the US Air Force. Morris 2008 p. 175

  • Baylis: the Arab countries] still preferred a solution which would make it unnecessary for them to be drawn into war. They wished to avoid an armed conflict and thereby deny Abdullah the opportunity to pursue his expansionist aims p. 68. the Arab nations sought to avoid war in Palestine p. 69

    -notes: Misleading. He omits the unacceptable conditions e.g. no arms supply " The truce proposals included a cessation of fighting, prohibition of entry of foreign troops into Palestine, and a limitation of Jewish immigration …… During the period of the truce, no steps shall be taken by Arab or Jewish authorities to proclaim a sovereign state in a part or all of Palestine.”335 Israel consistently rejected the linkage and the deferment of statehood. Morris 2008 P. 174

  • Baylis: when the UN Security Council voted for a truce in the civil conflict between the Palestinian Arabs and the Jews on April 17, 1948 (one month before the end of the British mandate), Egypt voted in favor and Syria was prepared to agree p. 68

    -notes: Misleading. Egypt could not vote, since it was not a member. Syria agreed conditionally

He just got the countries reversed. Syria voted in favor as a member. Egypt voted for a GA resolution confirming the SC resolution a few weeks later. Zerotalk 05:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

War in Palestine, 1948: Israeli and Arab Strategy and Diplomacy, By David Tal p. 83 on 17 April the Security Council accepted a resolution calling the Palestinians and the Jews to accept a cease-fire. Jamal al-Husayni rejected the decision, claiming that as the cease-fire would he based on the Partition Resolution, and as the Jews continued their preparation toward the establishment of their own government, the Palestinians could not accept the Resolution. Shertok accepted the military terms of the Resolution, hut rejected its political term… neither side respected the truce… Ykantor (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Baylis: they [the Arab countries] still preferred a solution which would make it unnecessary for them to be drawn into war. They wished to avoid an armed conflict and thereby deny Abdullah the opportunity to pursue his expansionist aims p. 68 CONTRADICTS:  ; The Arabs …. Might even accept de facto partition through acquiescence to march of Abdullah’s troops to Jewish-Arab frontier p. 69

    -notes: Contradicts itself

  • Baylis: The State Department persuaded the Arab nations to accept, off the record, a Jewish immigration of 48,000 per year, a prior sticking point and condition demanded by Ben-Gurion….. By now accepting these conditions that Ben-Gurion had previously insisted on, the Arab nations sought to avoid war in Palestine. But the Jews turned down the U.S. proposal p. 69

    -notes: A lie. Ben Gurion have not accepted the 48000 limit. "But Ben-Gurion …. He bluntly vetoed several provisions in the truce proposals (such as the limitation on aliya)". Morris 2008 P. 174

  • Baylis: The United States also considered pledging assistance to the Jews if, after the truce, the Arabs were to invade p. 69

    -notes: A lie. " the Americans were unwilling to commit troops to enforce a truce." Morris 2008 P. 173

  • Baylis: But the Jews turned down the U.S. proposal,. P. 69

    -notes: Misleading. Both Yishuv and Arabs states, accepted parts of the proposal, but not the full one. "United Nations … UN Security Council resolution of 24 April 1948) working in Jerusalem tried to negotiate a truce throughout Palestine or at least in the holy city, but to no avail, despite official Jewish and Arab agreement to many of the proposed clauses. Morris 2008 P. 174

War in Palestine, 1948: Israeli and Arab Strategy and Diplomacy, By David Tal, p. 84 "a call by the General Assembly for ‘an immediate and unconditional cease-tire for ten days beginning on 5 may … The Arab representatives were unanimous in their claim that a truce would he accepted only if the Jews gave up their political aspirations… The Jews, on the other hand, rejected the political aspect of the truce proposal, as they resisted any delay in the proclamation of the Jewish State and… (P 85) Unknown to the Americans, Shertok had had second thoughts about the truce. While explaining to the American officials why the Jews should not accept a call for an immediate truce, Shertok implored Ben Gurion to consider a positive reply to the idea… Ben Gurion’s answer was not unequivocal, he did not reject Shertok’s arguments, hut expressed his concern that the acceptance of a ten-day truce would open a gate to the prolongation of the British Mandate.. Bevin had rejected the US proposal for an immediate truce on the grounds that it would require the prolongation of the British mandate Ykantor (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Baylis: But the Jews turned down the U.S. proposal, knowing that the local Palestinians and Syrian irregulars were demoralized. P. 69

    -notes: Misleading. The expected enemies were the Arab states armies and not the Palestinians

  • Baylis: But the Jews turned down the U.S. proposal, knowing that …. Weapons from Czechoslovakia and France were coming in past the British troops who were now concerned only with leaving Palestine without casualties. p. 69

    -notes: A lie. The British navy strictly enforced the Arms embargo to the last Mandate day. As an exception, 2 arms ships managed to infiltrate to Tel Aviv port during April.  ; " Since April 1948, small deliveries arrived by air and sea from Czechoslovakia and elsewhere and the large influx began after the end of the British mandate." Gelber  ; During the same period, Arab armed forces freely moved across the borders from / to the neighboring Arab states, and the U.K continued to supply the Arabs states armies with weapons and ammunition, until couple of days before the invasion.

  • Baylis: The Jews stood firm since a truce would have forced them to accept the UN- drawn boundaries for a Jewish state. P. 70

    -notes: A lie. At that point, the Jews were worried and generally accepted the UN- drawn boundaries for a Jewish state. Later, " By July 1948, Israeli restraint from crossing the UN partition line faded " Gelber

  • Baylis: Jewish public sentiment in Palestine was also against a truce, even though it would have prevented an expected outside Arab invasion. The Jews clearly dominated the fighting and were excited about their defeat of local Palestinian and volunteer fighting groups. Spectacular victories in Galilee, the surrender of Arabs in Jaffa and the flight of Arabs from Haifa, all created an atmosphere of enthusiasm and confidence along with much anti-Arab ultranationalistic propaganda. P. 70

    -notes: A lie. the expected Arab Invasion caused the Yishuv to worry. "the Yishuv genuinely perceived the invasion as a threat to its very existence. Having no real knowledge of the Arab armies’ true lack of military efficiency, the Jews took Arab propaganda literally and prepared for the worst. … in the first month after the invasion the Arab armies enjoyed a considerable superiority in the air, artillery and light armor" Gelber

  • notes: Baylis refer to the truce as the main issue, which is misleading. The proposed deferment of a Jewish declaration of statehood, was the main issue for the state dpt. And for the Yishuv.  ; "From the last week of April, the State Department focused on obtaining a deferment of a Jewish declaration of statehood, arguing that the declaration would precipitate an invasion". Morris 2008 p. 174 Ykantor (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Most of this is just your personal interpretation of the book and the fact you disagree with it. Don't you have anything better to do? A typical example:
Baylis: The United States also considered pledging assistance to the Jews if, after the truce, the Arabs were to invade p. 69
-notes: A lie. " the Americans were unwilling to commit troops to enforce a truce." Morris 2008 P. 173
Here you are confusing "consider[ed]" with "commit", but they are not the same, and "assistance" with "troops", which are very very different. There is no reason at all to supposed that both statements could not be reasonable interpretations of the primary sources. Zerotalk 05:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Is this the 4th or 5th time that Ykantor persists, against warnings, in calling a living author a 'liar'? Does WP:BLP allow this sort of behaviour?Nishidani (talk) 06:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
It's pointless answering the screed because it relates to one stretch of text where Baylis is paraphrasing Flapan and Shlaim. On his last point re the lie of Jewish confidence, for example, it's not Baylis, but his source that Ykantor hates:'They(the Jews) seemed oonfident on the basis of recent military successes and the prospect of a "behind the barn" deal with Addullah that they could establish their sovereign state without any necessity of a truce with the Arabs of Palestine."(George Marshall to Bevan cited by Shlaim Collusion p.190, and in Baylis p.77 n.46. Ykantor's trick is to measure patches of B's conclusions or emphases,(sourced based) often screwing up his interpretation of English as he misreads with what either Morris or Gelber say (the truth) and brand the deviance a lie. It's pointless arguing with anyone who doesn't understand method and interpretation. Nishidani (talk) 07:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
to Zero: yours "Most of this is just your personal interpretation...". So do you agree that some of Baylis points are problematic?
- Is Baylis a RS in your opinion?
- yours: "There is no reason at all to supposed that both statements could not be reasonable interpretations of the primary sources". Where is this primary source?
- "Baylis: The United States also considered pledging assistance to the Jews if, after the truce, the Arabs were to invade". It might be interesting to notice what kind of effective assistance the U.S supposedly offered, which excluded an armed American force. Perhaps the U.S promised to deter the Arab invaders by condemning them?
- As we wish to know what really happened, It is better to verify Baylis suspicious listed points and rather than a claim that strictly speaking, "commit" is not identical to "pledge". Ykantor (talk) 09:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
-To Nishidani: George Marshall assessment, based on a RS (Shlaim) is important and should be added to the relevant article. It is a real time assessment, which might be proven wrong, like the wrong U.S. assessment that the Arab states will win the 1948 war. Nowadays, the historians has an advantage over a real time assessment, since they have access to the old archives. They can read that the Israeli provisional government voted for the establishment of the state of Israel on 12 May 1948. there were 6 proponents against 4 opponents. The Minister of Foreign Affairs Shertok, was initially against the declaration, but at the last minute bowed to Ben Gurion pressure and voted for the declaration. Had he not bowed, the vote would not have been positive.

- In my opinion it proves that the Yishuv leadership was not confident. I am not a RS, and I might be wrong, but a proper Historian should at least mention it together with Marshall assessment. Alas, Baylis is not a proper historian and he always pick the anti Israeli portion, so it is better to avoid citing him. Ykantor (talk) 12:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Beyond generic blather[edit]

Let's cut to the chase. The WP:TLDR scrawl above is patently impossible to answer because it would generate, as in the past, a massive thread that gets nowhere. My edit used Baylisthree times

  • (a) re Palestine the excepton as an A class mandatory state supported by an excellent secondary source
  • (b) Uncontroversially on the Arab rejection of UNSCOP
  • (c) on their exclusion from Ad Hoc committee dealing with borders (citing Michael Cohen Palestine and the Great Powers, Princeton University Press, 1982 p.284 cited Baylis p.57 n.6

(a) was challenged re the exceptionality. I provided an excellent source which refined the point Baylis made. (b) Is there anything controversial about Baylis's reportage on Arab rejection of UNSCOP, which all sources report? (c) Does Baylis misconstrue Cohen?Nishidani (talk) 07:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Is Baylis a RS in your opinion? What could be the reason to use an inferior source, rather than one of the good sources? Ykantor (talk) 08:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Ykantor, please answer Nishidani's questions. Your questions deserve respect too but please let's try to keep some focus here. Answer Nish's questions directly and i am sure he will subsequently answer yours. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
all of them, a, b and c are OK. Ykantor (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Then if all of my three uses of Baylis are OK, what's the problem? Nishidani (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
It is better to prefer better sources, if available. I have read somewhere in Wiki, that if the text is correct, it should be easy to find good sources. If it is difficult to find good sources, it might be a warning that the issue is problematic (e.g. the Atlas operation poison story). So why should inferior sources be used ? Is Baylis a RS in your opinion? Ykantor (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
So the problem is not the information in the article but the use of Baylis to source this...
Ykantor should understand once for all that the Israeli historians don't tell the Truth and the others lie. They all have point of view on different matters. And it is not because they put forward a wrong theory (make a mistake or a misinterpretation) that they become liars.
eg. Benny Morris, my personal reference, a WP:RS, has been heavily criticized for having pictured the '48 war as a religion war (Jihad) in his last book. (See the review by Yoav Gelber: The Jihad that wasn't ; this conference review). He is still WP:RS and he is far from begin a liar just because of this "mistake".
An historian becomes controversial (and even not a liar) when he exagerates in missing main points systematically or puts forward the same baseless theory again and again. Ilan Pappé and Efraim Karsh are -from my point of view- good exemples. But this does not make them liars and this does not prevent them to be used as WP:RS.
On that ground Baylish is even not controversial. He emphasizes some points of view regarding the morale responsability of the war. This is his expertise. For this, he is highly WP:RS. He is not an expert on the events of '48 war or the events of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so he may have made some "basic" mistakes ("basis" because I don't see anything relevant here above) and in that sense, he is not a highly WP:RS. He is just WP:RS. So we may use another one but there is nothing critical not to do this.Pluto2012 (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
With such commendable lucidity, the objections collapse.Nishidani (talk) 06:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
-Baylis is problematic because of his FACTUAL sentences. e.g.: Baylis: UN military experts shared his appraisal. P. 68 ; Syria was prepared to agree p. 68; accepting these conditions that Ben-Gurion had previously insisted on, the Arab nations sought to avoid war in Palestine. But the Jews turned down the U.S. proposal p. 69 ; But the Jews turned down the U.S. proposal,. P. 69  ; Weapons from Czechoslovakia and France were coming in past the British troops p. 69 ;

- It was mentioned here that Laurence book has no mistakes. What does he write concerning these factual sentences? Ykantor (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not a blog. You have ignored all comments in an apparent desire to blog in illustration of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I for one won'ìt respond any more.Nishidani (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
-This is not a blog indeed. We are supposed to look for what really happened, and to ignore propagandist like Baylis.
- There were no comments concerning these specific FACTUAL problems.
-Baylis: "UN military experts shared his appraisal". P. 68 ;
-Baylis: "Syria was prepared to agree" p. 68; He contradicts himself.
-Baylis: "accepting these conditions that Ben-Gurion had previously insisted on, the Arab nations sought to avoid war in Palestine. But the Jews turned down the U.S. proposal" p. 69 ; There is no source for this mistaken claim.
-Baylis: "But the Jews turned down the U.S. proposal",. P. 69  ; Does not even mention that the Palestinians rejected it earlier. Why should Ben Gurion accept a truce when the other side already rejected it?
-Baylis: "Weapons from Czechoslovakia and France were coming in past the British troops" p. 69 ; Ykantor (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG- Arab snipers[edit]

to Dlv999: yours: "There is mountains of specialist academic literature on the topic.Why are we citing primary local Australian press reports from1947".

WP:NEWSORG : "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Most newspapers reprint items from news agencies such as BBC News, Reuters, Agence France-Presse or the Associated Press, which are responsible for the accuracy." Those Australian newspapers are quoting Reuters, AP, and a London newspaper. It seems that they are acceptable, according to the WP:NEWSORG.

BTW if you know any other wp:rs who discusses these details, UI will appreciate it if you inform me. Ykantor (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but that is a general Wikipedia source guideline. This is a historical topic and should be based on recent scholarship. Please familiarise yourself with WP:HISTRS. I don't know if any other sources discuss the details. I would say that if the details are discussed in recent scholarship on the topic then they are suitable for inclusion. If the details are not discussed in recent scholarship on the topic they are not suitable for inclusion. Dlv999 (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The suggested WP:HISTRS is an essay and not a policy, hence WP:NEWSORG is overruling it. It is not only a matter of rules, since essays are opened to all editors, and may be contradicting each other. e.g. Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue Vs. Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue. Ykantor (talk) 13:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:NEWSORG states that: "For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may be acceptable depending on the context."
News reports may be acceptable depending on the context. The context here is that we have a mountain of published academic literature so I see no reason to be mining primary source news reports. WP:HISTRS represents established best practice regarding sourcing for historical documents. Whenever I have been involved in a WP:RSN discussion on historical topics invariably that document is cited by experienced editors. Dlv999 (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes contemporary newspaper are helpful in filling in details of notable events. However, when something is not covered by the vast opus of historical literature one should think of WP:WEIGHT as well as WP:RS. If all those historians didn't think something was worth adding to their books, why should our little encyclopaedia article have it? I'm also concerned that this article is starting to head off-topic. We have lots of articles covering the 1947-8 civil war, let's keep this article focussed on the partition plan. Incidentally, Ykantor, do you have a good excuse for writing "six jews were killed" when the source says that three were killed and three were missing? Zerotalk 14:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
(ec)WP:Primary source. Dlv is right. Please refrain from fossicking in period newspapers for gold from Broken Hill. You are not an historian, and, as noted, this particular period is thoroughly studied by historians. News reports are relevant when we are writing on a subject not yet covered by the academic literature comprehensively, which is not the case here. I suppose for 'balance' we'd have to put in details about the 'Jewish snipers' shooting all over Arab neighbourhoods in Haifa, to encourage the panic. Rbbish. This article is not the place to write the history of the war, as you should know.Nishidani (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Concerning notability, it is relevant to report the events of the first couple of weeks after the partition U.N resolution. Moreover, in my opinion, those events are more notable than the lengthy discussion of pressure for / against the plan

- Zero: "when something is not covered by the vast opus of historical literature one should think of WP:WEIGHT as well as WP:RS". It is covered as a generalized description with some details. e.g.

--:"From the end of November 1947 until the end of March 1948, the Arabs held the initiative and the Haganah was on the strategic defensive. .... Arab armed bands attacked Jewish settlements, and Haganah units occasionally retaliated ...British military interventions down to mid-March 1948 … British columns repeatedly intervened on the side of attacked Jewish settlements and convoys. And the British regularly supplied escorts to Jewish convoys in troubled areas, such as the road to Jerusalem. " (Morris 2008 p. 77-78)

"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 " (Morris 2008 p. 98)

- "Most of the violence was initiated by the Arabs. Arab snipers continuously fired at Jewish houses, pedestrians, and traffic and planted bombs and mines along urban and rural paths and roads. Movement in certain areas and streets became unsafe. From the second week of December, Jewish traffic was organized in convoys, "

- "Side by side with ambushes along the roads, the Husseini - affiliated irregulars turned to large-scale urban terrorism" (Morris 2008 p. 107)

- However, these quotes were repeatedly deleted here, claiming that the source is biased ! (?). These news reports can't be considered as biased, and according to WP:NEWSORG :"News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact". So I suggest to use them.

- Zero:"let's keep this article focussed on the partition plan.". Sure. the events of the first couple of weeks after the partition U.N resolution are relevant and important.

-Zero: ""six jews were killed" or three? . it might be re written as "some Jews were killed"

- Nishidani: " fossicking in period newspapers for gold from Broken Hill"". As these Australian newspapers quoted respected news sources, then according to WP:NEWSORG: "Most newspapers reprint items from news agencies such as BBC News, Reuters, Agence France-Presse or the Associated Press, which are responsible for the accuracy".

- Nishidani: "'Jewish snipers' shooting all over Arab neighbourhoods in Haifa". Yes, it should be included in the relevant articles.

- in order to have a consensus, I suggest to summarize those events. e.g "During the couple of weeks after the U.N. assembly vote, large Arab groups attacked Jewish neighborhoods e.g. The Jerusalem new commercial center, Kibutz Efal near Tel Aviv, Hatikva Quarter of Tel Aviv. Arab snipers shot at Jewish Neighborhood (e.g. Bat Yam) and Arab snipers have done there best to make the roads unsafe for Jewish traffic". This summary could cite Morris (see above) and those Australian newspapers using the news agencies. Ykantor (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Morris' is talking about the period "From the end of November 1947 until the end of March 1948" and "the fighting in the first months of the war". Somehow this has been changed in your text to "During the couple of weeks after the U.N. assembly vote". Dlv999 (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
The Gevulot incident illustrates the danger of using next-day newspapers for events not observed by the newspapers' journalists. They are very often wrong, which is still true today. History books (including Birth Revisited) and even the PP one day later have a quite different story: 6 Jews from Gevulot were killed while walking near or in the (bedouin, I think) village of Shu'ut. No attack on Gevulot mentioned, nor any connection made to the partition plan. I also want to ask why the Irgun bombings in the same month that killed more than 30 people are not mentioned. Zerotalk 05:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Ykantor. You constantly teeter on the edge of WP:OR. The statement you propose, were it valid, and not, as it appears, to be an interpretation from a variety of period newspaper reports, would certainly be in any of the dozens of major studies of that period. Find such a source and you will have no problems. What you appear to be doing is to emphasize that, as the decision was made, only Arabs were doing the shooting. 'The months between November 1947 and israel's Declaration of independence . .witnessed an armed struggle between the Jewish and Arab militia groups for supremacy as the Mandate came to an end and as the British prepared to withdraw. In this context, both sides to the fighting carried out terrorist attacks on each other's civilian population, with Irgun playing a leading role in this regard.' Leonard Weinberg,The End of Terrorism?, Routledge 2012 p.108. In Rubin's chronology we only have, for instance, in the leadup to the decision, a Lehi murder of a Haifa Arab in retaliation for the killing of 5 of their members on November 12, 1947.(Barry M. Rubin,Judith Colp Rubin,Chronologies of Modern Terrorism, M.E. Sharpe 2008 p.181) Given your stated belief that there is only one true version of history (that happens to correspond with the Zionist account) such primary source manipulation will almost invariably meet with opposition. Finding an RS secondary (academic) source for the statement is the only aceptable method: one does not negotiate on WP:SYNTH formulations.Nishidani (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Ykantor just refuses to admit : this. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

<outdent>I think we really need a general rule on this; perhaps we should take it to ARBIA clarifications. I first encounter it on Balad al-Sheikh, which was turned into a joke by cherry-picking, do we want all articles to become like that? (ok, that was a loud YES from Ykantor ;-D ..what about the rest of you?)

Bayt Jiz and Khirbat Bayt Far popped up on my "watch"-list recently, when Ykantor added: On 11 January 1948,: Kfar Uriah was attacked by Arabs who came from neighboring Beit Jiz and Khirbet Beit Far.<ref>Morris 2008, p. 102</ref> to both.

Besides the extremely sloppy editing (not wikilinking Kfar Uriah, no defining "Morris 2008," in the Bibliography), these edits are taken totally out of context. Note: the above sentence was all he added. (Also, fascinatingly, they completely contradicts what the -unsourced- Kfar Uriah says…) Morris, 2008, p. 102, tells us that

  • A: the attacks arose from "local friction", and
  • B: the attackers were "routed" by a Palmach force and and a British armour column, resulting in 25 killed Arabs, and 3 Haganah men killed. (Morris further noted that 13 Haganah men were wounded, one assumes that there were wounded on the Arab side too, but Morris doesn´t count those.)

In Morris, 2004, p 66, he also mentions attack on Kfar Uriah in early January…but there he mentions them as attacks from the newly formed irregular ALA troops, some of them Iraqi or Syrian soldiers and ex-soldiers (who, one presumes, came via somewhere, perhaps Bayt Jiz and Khirbat Bayt Far?). Btw, Bayt Jiz had 550 people total, and Khirbat Bayt Far 300 souls by 1945. How many were men of fighting age, 1 of 5? And if the proportion of wounded vs killed is anything near what it was on the Haganah side…well, if so, then virtually every male of "fighting age" in those two villages came out dead or injured if they alone were behind the attack: the first mass suicide attempt, perhaps?

It could of course both be true; there was local friction, and outside ALA forces came and "helped" the local Palestinians. (Since British forces were involved, I assume there is something about it in British archives somewhere.) However, the text which Ykantor inserted, at least to me, gives the impression the attacker actually were Khirbat Bayt Far and Bayt Jiz men, and not men "passing through" these villages on their way to Kfar Uriah. Also, the text he inserted imply that violence went one way ( "Kfar Uriah was attacked by Arabs")...Ykantor writes nothing about the military might which obviously was present in/by Kfar Uriah. Why not?

I think this careful cherry-picking of violent episodes from one side might qualify for topic ban. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree even if I am not confident in the final result.
Referring to one of your recent comment on WP:AE, I add that Ykantor is an exemple of the newbie you talked about, except that we left this one "growing". At the end he made us lose 1 year with his controversies.
Pluto2012 (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

to DLV999: yours: "Morris' is talking about the period "From the end of November 1947 until the end of March 1948" and "the fighting in the first months of the war". Somehow this has been changed in your text to "During the couple of weeks after the U.N. assembly vote"". If it is correct for the whole period of 4 months, it is correct for any period within those 4 months. BTW Since the chapter describes reactions to the partition votes, I limited it for the first couple of weeks only, but it is fine if you want to mention the whole period of 4 months.

- to Zero: Gvulut killings. You are right, the newspaper are not as reliable as RS, and the WP:NEWSORG mentions this risk, but still accept them (e.g. Reuters, AP) as a reliable source. Concerning the Palestine post, Following your previous note that the PP is supposedly biased, I moved to check other sources, but it is a pity that I have not checked the PP.

- Irgun bombing. Initially I included reactions of the first couple of weeks only, but it is fine if we extend the period to the whole month, including of course the Irgun condemned bombing.

- to Nishidani: yours: "Find such a source and you will have no problems". I have done it few times, and it was repeatedly deleted here, but I will try it again.

- yours:"What you appear to be doing is to emphasize that, as the decision was made, only Arabs were doing the shooting". According to Morris, mainly (and not only) the Arabs were shooting during those 4 months. If some editors claim that Morris is supposedly biased, than we might have a look at that their writing / talk is supporting this Morris interpretation. (e.g. General Safwat, Jamal Husseini. Kirkbride as well, who definitely was not pro Jewish).

- yours: "both sides to the fighting carried out terrorist attacks on each other's civilian population, with Irgun playing a leading role in this regard". This is right but it fails to say that most of the attacks were initiated by Arabs. (Again, see General Safwat, Jamal Husseini). Anyway, we can write both opinions in the article.

- As I said few times, both sides acted according to same rational. The Yishuv first priority was an establishment of a Jewish state, so they wanted a calm atmosphere. The Mufti wanted to prevent itby disturbances, repeating the same successful tactics that he have used during the years 1936-1939. -

As later the Israeli army became stronger, the soldiers committed terrible crimes and massacres . I am embarrassed and wonder how come that the Israeli soldiers could commit such horrible crimes. I avoid editing these events. But at the first couple of weeks after the Partition vote, the Arabs started shooting, attacking etc. against the Yishuv who was interested in peaceful environment, at least until the establishment of a Jewish state. Ykantor (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Ykantor keeps refusing to admit what is written here and continues with his civil pov pushing.
Pluto2012 (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Flapan-it is a myth[edit]

The issue was already discussed here.

- the article:"Several scholars endorse Simha Flapan's view that it is a myth that Zionists accepted the partition as a compromise by which the Jewish community abandoned ambitions for the whole of Palestine and recognized the rights of the Palestinians to their own state. Rather, Flapan argued, acceptance was only a tactical move that aimed to thwart the creation of a Palestinian state and, concomitantly, expand the territory that had been assigned by the UN to the Jewish state.[76][77][78][79][80]".

The second sentence is very well supported, but where are the supports for the 1st sentence? The Yishuv happily accepted the the partition resolution. period. The Zionist leaders have not approved or denied their possible expansionist intentions. Hence, where is the "Myth"? A possible scenario for a "Myth" could have been if the leaders would have promised to end any expansionist plans, but eventually conquer more territory, but that did not happened.

- Ben Gurion was both expansionist and pragmatist. His views were constantly updated in accordance with the situations and with his accumulated experience. On 1934 he told Musa Alami "Ben-Gurion suggested that the Zionists could provide significant help developing the region, Alami replied that he would prefer waiting one hundred years and leaving the land backward, as long as the Palestinians did the job themselves". On 1947-48, he realized that the Arabs would have never accept a Jewish state in Palestine, independently of its size. During the 2nd half of 1948, the Israeli army was stronger then the Arab state armies, and Ben Gurion considered conquering parts of the west bank. He raised the proposal for a formal approval, but lost. Thereafter he used to blame the other ministers for their negative vote. However, he was a shrewd politician and could have assure the right vote by preparing and pressing those ministers in advance. Why he have not prepared it? Some Historians claim that he was afraid of annexing so many Arab citizens to Israel, but preferred to blame others for the "failure".

-In my opinion, if hypothetically the Arabs would have accepted the partition, the both states, the Arab and the Jewish, would have co exist within the planned boundaries. If Israel would have tried to conquer parts of the Arab state, the U.S. would not have allow her, similarly to pressure that Truman applied and forced Israel to withdraw from Sinai in early 1949. Ykantor (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

If the 2nd part of the sentence is well supported I don't see how the 2nd part would not be either. What's the difference ? Pluto2012 (talk) 05:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

At https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=Saul+S.+Friedman&go=Go appears: United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine U.S. endorsed the Commission findings concerning Jewish immigration ... 20nations%20soviet%20bloc&f false History of the Middle East by Saul S Friedman . ... 87 KB (12,764 words) - 18:57, 9 August 2014 I'm unable to correct; that is, to change "20nations%20soviet%20bloc&f" to the intended text Stuart Filler (talk) 10:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)