Talk:1948 Palestine war

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Reverts[edit]

@IOHANNVSVERVS, I believe that you have made 2 reverts within the last 24 hours. Please kindly self-revert your last edit. Alaexis¿question? 22:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I always thought one revert rule meant you can't revert the same content twice. Does it apply to simply making more than one revert on the same page even if regarding different content? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see WP:3RR: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. Alaexis¿question? 17:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I should've known. Reverted. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they hadn’t removed your undue POV injection I would have. إيان (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plan Dalet[edit]

Regarding this edit, I'm fine with leaving the details of Plan Dalet outside of the lede. If we do include the description ("an offensive operation conquering territory for the planned establishment of a Jewish state") then we should also provide a context for the plan, that it was implemented in anticipation of the intervention by the Arab states. Alaexis¿question? 23:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is that relevant or due context? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I question whether that is the context or whether it was the other way around: the Arab states intervened in response to Plan Dalet. Levivich (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is what Morris writes in 1948
Are there RS that contradict it? Alaexis¿question? 16:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Pappe, W. Khalidi, et al. Alaexis’s POV injection pushes the perennial myth of somehow acting in ‘self-defense’ even as Zionist forces were on the offensive conquering territory. إيان (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not just contradicted but I think it's one of the most hotly-debated aspects of Morris's work, and a central part of the Morris-Pappe divide. Examples:
Tessler 2009, p. 295: "some accordingly describe it as a blueprint for preventing the emergence of a Palestinian state and expelling the Palestinian population" (he goes on for pages describing the debate)
Shlaim 2009, p. 60: "Morris regards Plan D, the Haganah plan of early March 1948, as a military plan for coping with the anticipated Arab invasion. Pappé agrees with Khalidi that Plan D was also, in many ways, a master plan for the expulsion of as many Palestinians as could be expelled."
Masalha 2012, p. 182: "For instance, from the outset Morris and Pappé offered two completely contradictory interpretations of the political objectives of Plan Dalet, adopted by the Haganah militia in early March and implemented in early April 1948." Levivich (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For an example of the view of the "other side" of Morris, here is Pappe from his 2017 Ten Myths book:
p. 56: "I claimed that the war was initiated by Israel in order to secure the historical opportunity to expel the Palestinians ... Moreover, these [Arab] troops were sent into Palestine not as a reaction to the declaration of the founding of the state of Israel, but in response to Zionist operations that had already begun in February 1948, and in particular in the wake of the well-publicized massacre in the village of Der Yassin near Jerusalem in April 1948."
p. 62 "The process began in February 1948 with a few villages, and culminated in April with the cleansing of Haifa, Jaffa, Safad, Beisan, Acre, and Western Jerusalem. These last stages had already been systematically planned under the master plan, Plan D, prepared alongside the high command of the Haganah, the main military wing of the Jewish community."
For more quotes see Ref #52 in the current version of the Nakba article, which includes more quotes from Morris's 1948, including this from p. 180: "As the months passed and the Palestinian Arabs, beefed up by contingents of foreign volunteers, proved incapable of defeating the Yishuv, the Arab leaders began more seriously to contemplate sending in their armies. The events of April 1948—Deir Yassin, Tiberias, Haifa, Jaffa—rattled and focused their minds, and the arrival of tens of thousands of refugees drove home the urgency of direct intervention. By the end of April, they decided to invade." Levivich (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot to digest. I'll review the sources and respond later. Alaexis¿question? 20:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should we mention the exodus of Jews from Arab countries in the lede?[edit]

Should we mention the exodus of Jews from Arab countries during and immediately after the war in the lede of this article? Alaexis¿question? 23:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, as discussed above in "Recent changes". The beginning of the exodus is only indirectly a consequence of the war and we should be striving for brevity in the lead of this article as there is much information to cover. Note also that though the lead is a summary of the body, the aftermath section of this article currently gives disproportionate attention to this aspect of the war's consequences and results. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. This was a massive event, with hundreds of thousands people fleeing or emigrating. Multiple reliable sources (see the list here) agree that this was one of the major consequences of the war. Therefore a brief mention is warranted. Alaexis¿question? 23:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No certainly it was an important event, but it was not an event that is a subtopic of this war. At most a small portion of the emigration was even indirectly related to this war, and the argument that we should include decades of immigration from a large number of countries not even involved in this war makes no sense. And the claim that reliable sources agree that it was a major consequence of the war is just not true. Morris says "The war indirectly created a second, major refugee problem", Schindler says In Arab countries, the defeat of the Arab armies and the exodus of the Palestinian Arabs exacerbated an already difficult situation. In December 1947, a pogrom and the destruction of synagogues in Aleppo persuaded half the city’s Jewish population to leave. In Egypt, arrests, killings and confiscations catalyzed the flight of nearly 40 per cent of the Jewis hcommunity by 1950. In Kuwait, the minuscule number of Jews were expelled. In Iraq, the Criminal Code was amended in July 1948 such that Zionists were lumped together with Anarchists and Communists. The death penalty could be meted out to adherents or they could be sentenced to many years’ imprisonment. Enforced emigration to Israel became the officially permitted route out of Iraq for an increasingly oppressed Jewish community. Israel ironically became the unlikely destination for many Jewish Communists despite their opposition to Zionism. In Libya, Algeria and Morocco, there were periodic outbreaks of anti-Jewish violence. Over 37 per cent of Jews in Islamic countries – the Arab world, Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan – left for Israel between May 1948 and the beginning of 1952. This amounted to 56 per cent of the total immigration. And he says that in a chapter on Jewish emigration, not in coverage of this war. It is an attempt at trying to balance what actually was a direct major consequence of this war, the expulsion and flight of 80-90% of the Palestinians from the territory Israel would come to control in this war, with an entirely different topic that was not a part of this war. And a ton of it was from countries not involved in this war at all. There are no sources that treat this as a major consequence of this war, and the claim that there is rests on the assumption that nobody will actually check, as it is so plainly not true, and been shown untrue on this talk page previously. Beyond that, there is no definition of immediately after that includes years and years later. nableezy - 00:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a part of the IP conflict but not a significant-enough part of the 1948 war to merit being mentioned in the lead. While Morris says this is an "indirect" result of the war, I think the balance of sources do not treat this as a significant effect of the war, even indirectly. Further, in the RM for the article about the exodus, I quoted Tessler's book explaining the complicated factors he said was behind the exodus, and the war was only a small part of it; I won't reproduce the whole quote here but it applies to this RfC as well. It's something that happened over years during and after the war (1948-52), which is further evidence that while it's a part of the conflict, it's not a huge part of the (47-) '48 war. Levivich (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it wasn't a part of the 1948 war. Lots of things happened as a result of the foundation of Israel, but that's not the topic of this article. Zerotalk 02:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Elaborating, the exodus of Jews was a result of the foundation of Israel and the consequent implementation of Israeli policy. It would have happened without the war that accompanied Israel's foundation, so it is factually incorrect to call it a consequence of that war. Zerotalk 11:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'It would have happened without the (1948) war. That is as hypothetical at least as the argument that the exodus was consequential on that war. For one thing, in an alternative history, one could imagine that the old Zionist priority to privilege Ashkenazi immigration over aliyah from 'Arabized' Jews (i.e. deemed slack, uneducated etc.,) probably would have prevailed, esp. given that they were the victims of a Holocaust whose mass immigration to the US and Great Britain was systematically blocked by those powers, for the usual electoral-antisemitic motives. 'Consequence' does not mean strictly an assertion of some mechanical 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' reasoning. Nishidani (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ummmm. There is way to much in the lede already. It should be cut significantly down with superfluous language removed. It DOES NOT read as neutral. Most of the factual information should be in the body of the article. With that said, if the lede stays "as-is" then, yes, information about an exodus should be added if nothing more than to provide a more balanced perspective and neutrality. Slacker13 (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No: It wasn't a direct effect of the war; just an indirect side-effect in the aftermath of the conflict. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agreed Slacker13 (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to amend your vote and clarify your position on this, @Slacker13. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No I do not see evidence that this event was sufficiently closely related to be DUE in the lead of the article. (t · c) buidhe 04:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes The Jewish exodus from Arab countries was one of the most important consequences of the war, along with the Palestinian refugee problem. I agree with Alaexis. Marokwitz (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The ethnic cleansing of Palestinians wasn't a consequence of the war: it began before the war, was partially a trigger for the war, and intensified during the war by design. It was a direct impact on the civilian population in the warzone. The subsequent exodus of Jews from other countries due to a range of push and pull factors, one of which was negative sentiment arising from the war (and the ethnic cleansing it entailed), was a consequence, but not a direct impact of the conflict. The two phenomena are in entirely different categories of immediacy to the conflict. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per Nableezy, Levivich and Buidhe, The 'exodus' narrative emerged later to draw a false equivalence between the radical programmatic ethnic cleansing which Yishuv and then Israeli forces imposed on Palestinians during the war, and what occurred to Jews in Arab countries after the cessation of hostilities, often at the open invitation of the new state of Israel, which adopted a policy of encouraging Jews in those countries to make aliyah, not always successively, as their conditions deteriorated very much as a consequence of the impact of the image of mass expulsions on the 'Arab street'.Nishidani (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes The Jewish exodus from Arab countries was one of the most important consequences of the war. Vegan416 (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you give any sources that say that a. it was a consequence of the war, and b. it was one of the most important of those consequences? nableezy - 23:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrase and reorder footnote[edit]

IOHANNVSVERVS, why? إيان (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? But really, I do think War of Independence should be the first alternate name mentioned as it is the more direct alternate name for the 1948 Palestine war, with the Hebrew Wikipedia titled as War of Independence while the Arabic Wikipedia is titled 1947-1948 Palestine war, with Nakba or War of the Nakba not being given as alternate names (from what I can see, though I don't speak Arabic - no bolded alternate name anyway)
Also Nakba should wikilink to Nakba rather than 'the catastrophe' doing so.
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Because Wikipedia is not a reliable sourceǃ Come on, this is elementary stuff. إيان (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia articles were just an example.
The order of the alternate names doesn't really matter anyway. Feel free to edit it to your preferred version, I don't feel strongly about it.
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alaexis, given IOHANNVSVERVS's concession Feel free to edit it to your preferred version, I don't feel strongly about it, above, please explain. إيان (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please explain your inappropriate removal of the reliable source. إيان (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This statement isn't controversial, so I don't think that the inline reference is necessary per WP:LEADCITE but I don't have strong feelings about that and have no problems with restoring it. Alaexis¿question? 20:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, @Alaexis, please stop making reversions based simply on "there is no consensus for this change". That is disruptive editing. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be grateful if you'd restore it. The citation is useful and doesn't go against WP:LEADCITE. It doesn't clutter the lead as it's placed within the note. It also offers a high quality academic source that is clear and informative and dispels any potential misconceptions like the impression that 'War of Independence' is somehow more of a direct alternative name than 'Nakba,' as we see at the beginning of this discussion topic. إيان (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "misconceptions like the impression that 'War of Independence' is somehow more of a direct alternative name than 'Nakba", maybe I was hasty in my previous opinion and maybe you're right that they are equally valid alternate names - thanks for your feedback.
Are you asking me personally to restore the source removed by @Alaexis? You may be better asking them to do so as I'm indifferent to whether it's included or not.
Thanks, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note IOHANNVSVERVS. No, I was asking Alaexis but I should have tagged them because the reply got stacked ambiguously. Apologies. Alaexis, would you reinstate the footnote the way I had it? إيان (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the reference. Alaexis¿question? 09:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photos[edit]

I'd like to start making changes and especially additions to the photos in this article.

Not sure how to deal with copyright concerns and attirbution requirements etc however. I believe all images from this time and place are now in the public domain due to how long ago this all was. But what requirements are there for attribution with such images? Do I have to attribute photographer as well as the specific source (Haaretz for example) I got the photo from? Not sure how this all works.

If someone could advise me or point me to where I can learn more about the relevant policies I'd appreciate it.

Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are not necessarily in the public domain in the US since the copyright can extend for 95 years after the publication for the works published at that time. Alaexis¿question? 15:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Photo selection has been discussed above at Talk:1948 Palestine war#Images and NPOV and there is consensus that improvements would be welcome. IOHANNVSVERVS, you might like to familiarize yourself with the FAQ on Commons. On another note, one of the issues is that the vast majority of archival material out there is curated and provided by a belligerent military. إيان (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9 March 2024[edit]

Alaexis, in your edit you argue that per the main article, only the second phase was peasant-led. Please understand that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Please also see the cited reliable source:

Nadan, Amos (2017-07-26). "Economic Aspects of the Peasant-Led National Palestinian Revolt, 1936-39". Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient. 60 (5): 647–682. doi:10.1163/15685209-12341436. ISSN 1568-5209.

The title alone should be sufficient. إيان (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the source and it seems like you're right and the uprising, unlike the general strike that had taken place before, was indeed peasant-led. Alaexis¿question? 20:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18%[edit]

It seems like Salt is talking about Jerusalem rather than about the whole Mandatory Palestine. The word "its" in the first line of page 231 refers to the subject of the sentence, that is "Jerusalem." Alaexis¿question? 20:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The figure for Jewish-owned land in all of Mandatory Palestine before the war is 7% per e.g. Morris 2008 p. 65. Levivich (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and a large part of the rest was publicly owned land. Alaexis¿question? 05:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

The source doesn't support the text that was added to the article (bold) During this time, paramilitary groups Irgun and Lehi, supported by the Haganah and Palmach, perpetrated the Deir Yassin massacre, killing at least 107 Arab villagers, including women and children.. This is what they say



Alaexis¿question? 08:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The bolded text is pretty much what it says (sourced) at the wikilink? Selfstudier (talk) 10:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Supported" summarizes "provided covering fire and fired on the refugees fleeing ... helped evacuate the wounded and take some of the houses". Levivich (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]