Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War

Serious issues with article

This article is replete with several severe issues that are in need of attention. To elaborate:

• WP:NPOV is not being respected by the inclusion of material relating to the Nazis, the Holocaust, and antisemitism. The most recent offense has been the insertion of the flag of Nazi Germany in the belligerents section due to a handful of ex-Nazis fighting on the Arab side. It also emphasizes that out of several hundred Yugoslavs a few dozen were members of pro-Axis fascist groups. However, this is far from the only NPOV issue involved.

The political objectives section starts out by describing the Yishuv "fearing a repeat of the Holocaust" and simply looking to survive without making mention of any other objectives. In a subsection about Husseini it starts out by mentioning his collaboration with the Nazis and adding an allusion to the Holocaust, without providing any context as to why he was collaborating with the Nazis and what he actually knew of the Holocaust at the time. This, mind you, in the "political objectives" section. Even more significantly there is no mention in the background section or political objectives about the history of Jewish settlement or Arab opposition to the way in which it lead to their expulsion from certain areas of the territory as well as widespread discrimination against them by the settlers.

Further down in a section on British diplomacy there are references to the British thinking all Jews are communists, wanting to cut Israel down to size, and evacuating without considering the consequences. Again comments without context, like the fact the leading Zionists were self-described socialists or the fact the Soviets thought Israel would be a major ally for the same reason.

Then you have the section for the demographic outcome. In the second paragraph it falsely asserts that "Arab nations refused to absorb Palestinian refugees" when it is widely-known that Jordan gave every refugee citizenship in its territory and it is also known that Lebanon gave some of the refugees citizenship as well. On the Jewish exodus the section claims "many of these immigrants were forcibly expelled" despite evidence suggesting a significant amount left voluntarily, something that is mentioned after that in a manner that implies it is not significant. What follows from there is a rather butchered run-on sentence that starts out by mentioning antisemitic violence and pogroms. It then mentions government persecution due to the war or "political instability" without elaborating and only after mentioning this does it point out the rather significant matter of many just wanting to settle in Israel or the West. Obviously, it does not go into any of the unique details related to the flight of Jews from each of these countries. Even more problematic is the sentence starts out without clarifying whether this applies just to immigrants from Arab and Muslim countries or whether it also includes European Jews who are mentioned earlier in the paragraph.

• All of the above come together to violate WP:SYNTH by pushing a propaganda notion that the enemies of Israel do not have any legitimate reason for opposing it, but instead just hate Jews with some even wanting to have a redo of the Holocaust. Context is rarely given for the sides opposing/not supporting Israel, while the context given for Israelis ignores the less high-minded reasons for their actions. Honestly, this reads like something you would get from CAMERA or Arutz Sheva. The political objectives section heavily implies with the bit about Husseini that the Palestinians only wanted to kill the Jews and that the Yishuv were just stoically trying to survive. Throwing in the ex-Naxis mention and the Nazi flag in the belligerents section adds on to that little association game being played with the article. Amazingly the source provided for Husseini is a book about antisemitism written by an Israeli. With all the issues in the section about the British and the demographic outcome included, the obscenely incendiary and propagandistic nature of the resulting synthesis of material stands out plainly. I would say it easily reaches WP:COATRACK proportions.

• There is also a somewhat less serious issue for fixing, merely by comparison, and that is the poor referencing in the article. Paragraphs and sometimes entire sections go without a citation at times. It is not strictly a case of minor or uncontroversial material either. A section on Operation Shoter mentions accusations of massacres without providing a single reference either way. Another paragraph in the section "Anglo-Israeli air clashes" is a huge block of text, it could easily be split into two or three paragraphs, with two citations tacked on at the end. The first two paragraphs of the background section have no citations either, though someone has at least added some citation tags there.

Looking over all this I am perplexed at how this article can still have a B-class ranking. This article is in need of some serious work to even be worthy of a C-class ranking, in my opinion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Some of the things you mention have merit, some I disagree with. It was very difficult to get anything done with this article for a while (you can see why if you check the archives). If you have any specific changes you want to make please either bring them up here or just go ahead and edit. Worse case you'll get reverted and then we can discuss. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

(1) I think there was a clear consensus that the addition of Nazi Germany to the combatant list was not appropriate. Its a recent change that has been reverted, so I don't think it has any bearing on your argument. (2) Your statement that "The political objectives section starts out by describing the Yishuv "fearing a repeat of the Holocaust" and simply looking to survive without making mention of any other objectives" is simply false - this section, which cites a highly-respected source, lists three additional war aims beyond survival. (3) The text appears to imply that the quote "to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy" is from a statement by Husseyni. Searching for the quote in Google Books, the earlier reference that I found was to a 1970 book by Jon Kimche, who was known as a critic of Israel. There are some later uses of the quote by dubious sources. I think that the quote does need to be tracked down and verified. The general point that Husseyni sided with the Nazis during the war is frequently made in secondary sources about the period and it was crucially important in 1948. I am sure that we could do a better job of presenting this. (4) I'm not opposed to adding some context to the statement that the Foreign Office thought that the Jews were communists. This is, however, a complex and nuanced subject - plenty of leading Britons in 1948 would have considered themselves socialists and a great many leftists in the West had not yet broken with Stalin. (5) I agree that a reference is needed for the section on Operation Shoter. The article Operation Shoter has a discussion of the allegations of massacres that appears to be well sourced. I will have to read through some of your other points carefully. I'm not convinced that the article is making the implicit point that you believe it is making - for instance the article makes it quite clear that King Hussein was willing to make a deal with the Yishuv to avert war and that the motivation of several Arab leaders was not hatred of Jews but a desire to expand their own territory and influence. GabrielF (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Point 1 is a nice sentiment, but that edit is symptomatic of the broader issue with this article. The second point is not really addressing what I said. It does mention other goals, but that is what it starts with so what I said was not false. Also, the parts after that are not any more respectful of NPOV. WP:V does not circumvent other policies. Can you honestly say that it is universally agreed by all major historians that the Yishuv were just looking to establish "defensible borders" and "reduce the size" of an Arab fifth column? Points three and four are welcome responses, though on the fourth point I think you are overlooking the recurring theme of antisemitism in this article. In fact, that is the main problem with your response. You do not see the obvious picture being painted. I have read enough on the conflict over the years and had enough debates about it to recognize that many of these points I am mentioning are very common claims amongst those who try to paint Israel's opponents or non-advocates as antisemitic or blind to antisemitism.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

@TDA, when your neighbor is raped, robbed or killed in a pogrom as part of official government policy and because of your status as a Jew, you are arbitrarily denied employment, the ability to conduct a livelihood, are subject to random beatings, robbery, imprisonment or worse, leaving under those conditions is certainly not voluntary. Arab pogroms against their respective Jewish communities, some of which had been in existence for 2,500 years is a well documented fact as is the Arab connection to Nazi Germany during WW2.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Fleeing oppression is voluntary, even if that may seem horrible to say. That Jews were oppressed by these governments does not mean you can claim in the article that the governments expelled them, unless they did just that. Certainly there were cases where Arab governments expelled their Jewish population (Egypt is the only definitive example I can think of at the moment) and we can back that up with sources. Sources also back up that there were just as many, if not considerably more, who made Aliyah out of nationalistic fervor following Israel's declaration of statehood. In certain cases sources back up that it was due to unique political circumstances like in Algeria, where Jews had been given French citizenship and were for over a hundred years essentially equal in status to French colonists. There is also the fact that the Arab League explicitly forbid emigration of Jews by member states, with countries like Iraq and Yemen seeing sudden mass emigration soon after the war mainly because Israel and Zionist groups conducted military-scale evacuations. Morocco is particularly unique in that leaders have even called on the Jewish population that fled to come back and there is still a sizable Jewish minority there. All these nuances are lost in the current wording that downplays the voluntary parts as well as the very long period of time over which it elapsed. Compared to the Nakba, which happened over a year or two, the Jewish exodus was like a dripping faucet. Your insistence on keeping things like this, together with your attempt to make associations with the Nazis is exactly the problem with this article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You have quite a few factual errors in the above statement, but never mind. I don't think many sources claim that most Jews decided voluntarily to emigrate from Arab countries without any pressure from the government and locals. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Quite a few would back up that a sizable amount that left for Israel did so for ideological reasons as much as anything else. After all, various Jewish organizations around the world actively encouraged Jews to make Aliyah so that the Jewish population could grow in Israel. The impression created by the current wording is that the Jewish community was being forced out of the Arab world because the Arab leaders were Nazi-loving Jewhaters. It really is a horrifically butchered spin on the actual history.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

If you have a source that says most Jews left the Arab countries for ideological reasons, I'd like to see it. Not all the Arab leaders were Nazi-loving Jew-haters, but some certainly were and I don't agree that the article creates the impression they all were. Can you quote the exact text you think gives that impression? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no one quote that lays it out. As I said, it is the material sprinkled across the article when taken as a whole. For instance, in the political objectives section this quote by itself is biased but does not imply a lot:

Initially, the aim was "simple and modest": to survive the assaults of the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab states. "The Zionist leaders deeply, genuinely, feared a Middle Eastern reenactment of the Holocaust, which had just ended; the Arabs' public rhetoric reinforced these fears".

However, when you take that and combine it with the first paragraph on Husseini a little further down in the section it takes on new meaning:

In 1940, he asked the Axis Powers to acknowledge the Arab right "to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy."

While I was looking over the British diplomacy section I also noticed that all the material in that section is backed by a single book from Karsh. That section includes some choice quotes:

Moreover, it was an article of faith for most British policy-makers that most Jews were Communists . . . General Sir Alan Cunningham wrote to Creech Jones at this time to complain "It appears to me that H.M.G.'s policy is now simply to get out of Palestine as quickly as possible without regard to the consequences in Palestine" . . . British officials regarded the prospect of an Arab invasion favorably as offering an excellent chance to overturn the UN partition resolution and cut Israel "down to size".

After that you have the demographic outcome section that makes sure to first assign antisemitic violence and pogroms as causes for the Jewish exodus and then mentioning government persecution as another before getting to the fact that there were people who actually left for socioeconomic or ideological reasons. You also have various omissions about the actual motivations of the Palestinian Arabs and what the Yishuv had been doing that incited so much hostility. Separated these bits of information say very little, together they paint a picture of the innocent Jewish population being beset and threatened at every turn by vile antisemites who seek their destruction.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Antisemitic violence and pogroms were indeed a major factors in the Jewish exodus from Arab countries. I can recommend a few books on the subject if you're not familiar. It's also true that British policy was to get out of Palestine without regard to the consequences, and that's being generous and not taking into account their subtle and not so subtle sabotage of the Partition Plan. We had a discussion about that which included other sources such as Pappe. Like I said, it was hard to improve this article for a while.

You can always add information to balance things you think are too one sided. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Bevin, the British foreign secretary, did think that the partition plan was fundamentally unfair and refused to involve the British government and armed forces in implementing it. Prior to the partition plan, attempts had been made to get the Jewish and Arab leaders to make peace agreements. Bevin said that if they didn't reach an agreement, the problem would be handed to the United Nations and the British would withdraw from Palestine. No agreement was reached; the Jewish leaders thought that Bevin was bluffing and the Arab leaders were quite happy that the problem be referred to the United Nations, where they thought that they would prevail. Bevin wasn't bluffing, so what he said would be done was done.     ←   ZScarpia   14:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a bit simplistic. The British deliberately did not cooperate with the UN in the implementation of the Partition Plan, including now allowing the UN Palestine Commission to enter the area to do its work of marking borders and trying to set up temporary governments. They also refused to transfer any functions of government (like the police, the post, the railway authority, etc) to anyone. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

As I wrote, British Government policy was to refuse to involve the British government and armed forces in implementing the partition resolution. That included refusing to allow various UN bodies involved in implementing partition to enter Palestine. It also included, rather than a refusal to hand over power (as far as I know, no bodies were demanding that power be handed to them), a refusal to organise a transferral of power.     ←   ZScarpia   19:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

So, part of the problem looks to be that sections of the article are sourced to single texts so that things which should be presented as viewpoints, if they are presented at all, are being presented as facts? I broadly support what you've written.     ←   ZScarpia   14:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to find the discussion we had about this. Pappe and Karsh say basically the same thing about the British. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, here it is. It's long and meandering but you'll see there are several sources, from both sides (although we didn't find one describing the British POV) that support what currently only Karsh is used for in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

From what I can tell that was a discussion about one point of possible agreement with Karsh on the British role at the UN Partition Plan article talk page, the section on British diplomacy in this article has a much broader scope than the material that was the focus of the discussion you mentioned. Please, do not misrepresent a discussion in another article to try and sway discussion in this one.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? You said you had a problem with a section of the article because it was sourced only to Karsh, then bolded part of a quote to show what you had a problem with. I pointed you to another discussion that has another source from someone with opposing views to those of Karsh, that supports the part you bolded. Now I'm "misrepresenting" another discussion to "try and sway" this one? You've gotta be kidding me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You were responding to someone else who objected to the section being sourced to one book and I was clearly not raising the material about them not "considering the consequences" of evacuating as my only objection to the material, which actually isn't addressed in that discussion anyway. By saying that the various sources "say basically the same thing about the British" and "support what currently only Karsh is used for" you are implying that all of my objections, as well those of other editors, were addressed by that discussion when they were not. So, yes, you were misrepresenting that discussion to try and sway this one. Anyway, focusing on the British diplomacy section in general I think a source like this should be considered: http://books.google.com/books?id=UcSUgrDsD_sC&pg=PA10&dq=Israel+British+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KqoTT7z9PNLogAek6ODAAw&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Israel%20British%201948&f=false. It is still a partisan source, but that makes the implication of British inaction actually serving to harm the Palestinian Arabs more significant. Similarly, the British pressuring Arab countries against taking Jerusalem provides yet another example of how this section currently presents only one very biased side of the question.

That source goes to another point that I haven't raised. The background section at the top of the article says "Jews would get 56% of the land, of which most was in the Negev Desert" implying that somehow they were getting stiffed by mostly receiving a barren wasteland for a state, a typical claim from pro-Israeli propagandists. Of course, the Zionist leadership and President Harry Truman made the Negev's inclusion in the Jewish state a redline for their support despite it having little to no Jewish population. They were so insistent on it the Yishuv established small settlements in the territory during the negotiations so as to lay some claim to the Negev. Only after the Negev was included did the Yishuv finally support the U.N. Partition. This point comes up with the 1948 War when Gelber notes the British were pushing this idea of having the Negev included in the Arab state, which would then be included in Transjordan, and describes motives that are clearly more about geopolitical maneuvering to build up its biggest ally in the region as opposed to being motivated out of any desire to oppose Israel as the current wording implies.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You have clearly either not read that discussion or not read the sources. Also, in the future, perhaps you shouldn't bold stuff if you don't want people to address it specifically.

Anyway, I'm starting to see a pattern here. You think certain things "imply" all kinds of stuff which you personally object to or that you have "had enough debates about" or whatever. How about you add whatever it is you think would balance what's currently in the article (none of which you seem to object to as not being reliably sourced) and we can go on from there? This kind of forumesque back and forth isn't really helping if you don't say what exactly you want to change and how.

For example, the fact that most of the land was in the Negev is noted in many if not most sources that discuss this topic. So the way to fix whatever "implication" you think this has (other than the fact that a large chunk of the proposed state was not arable land) is to go ahead and add more information and spare us your opinion about "pro-Israeli propagandists" or whatever. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I object to bias on Wikipedia in general and beyond that my opinion on the subject itself only serves to inform my edits in the sense that it is a result of sympathetically reviewing the information and arguments from both sides. What I can say is that the material included in this article and the information omitted make this article fit the classic pro-Israeli narrative of the war. As for suggestions, I just provided one in my previous comment on a possible second source to use in the British diplomacy section. My intention is to make changes to the article, but I would prefer some input first.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

What page is Negev stuff on?

What kind of text do you want to add regarding British diplomacy? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The bit about the British push for Jordan annexing the Negev should be on the page that pops up when you click the link. It does not mention there what I said about the Zionist leadership seeking the Negev, so that might need a different source, though I think one is provided on another article. As far as text, my ultimate desire would be a change so significant that suggesting it would be more complicated than just making the change. However, any ideas about how to bring material in from the source above or any source you may find would be helpful. If can think of ways to make the changes yourself that would also be good.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it would hurt if we summarize the Karsh stuff and move some of the quotes from British officials to the footnotes, for example. Then you can add other sources that elaborate on the British support to Transjordan (not that I think it really changes the essence of what Karsh is saying). I don't think anyone contests the fact the the British supported the Arabs diplomatically and to some extent also militarily (for example the Arab Legion). The reasons they did so are open to some debate which we can elaborate on. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Karsh's viewpoint is a bit one-sided and it would be a good idea to balance it with that given in other sources.     ←   ZScarpia   11:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

---

To be still quoting from the 'academic' Pappe as though his anti-Israel propaganda had any historical or scholarly merit, is beyond parody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.213.102 (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

15 May 1948 - Invade or intervene: description of where Arab forces invaded or intervened.

Books have been written on which side caused the fighting starting on 15 May 1948. My immediate concern or rather hope is to see that the lanquage is neutral. To describe it as invaded Israel, without specifying exactly where in the former Mandate the troops entered, is to assume two things:-

1 The Declaration of the Establishment of Israel of 14 May 1948 was valid; and

2 Israel's legal boundaries included the whole of the former Mandate.

At best, the use of invade must be limited to the area set aside for the Jewish State under Resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947.

The arguments for the invalidity of the Declaration of 14 May 1948 are as follows:-

a Resolution 181(II) was only a recommendation.

b PART I of Resolution 181(II): Future constitution and government of Palestine: Clause: A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE provides:-

3. Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in part III of this plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948.

Two months from 14 May 1848 takes you to 14 July 1948. The Declaration of 14 May 1948, being slightly premature. appears to be in breach of the Resolution.

c Unless it means Eretz Israel, the Declaration did not specify identifiable boundaries.

The use of neutral terms such as marched into the area of the former Mandate avoids these problems.Trahelliven (talk) 06:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The term invade is used by reliable secondary sources. For instance, the relevant chapter title of Morris' book 1948: The First Arab-Israeli War is "The Pan-Arab Invasion, 15 May - 11 June 1948". The meaning of the term "intervene" is less clear. Invading means entering a place in large numbers, often in a military context. Intervene means to try to prevent something. When you say "intervened in" a country, it isn't clear what the purpose of the intervention was. I also don't think that the term "invade" implies that the entity being invaded has a legal right to that territory. The hatnote at D-Day says: "This article is about the first day of the Invasion of Normandy..." I don't think that implies that Germany had a legal right to France. I think your objection can be dealt with by saying that they invaded the territory of the former mandate.GabrielF (talk) 07:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Something like "entered Palestine and engaged the Israeli forces" would correctly summarize both where they were and what they did. Zero^talk 07:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Zero0000

If the Declaration were valid, part would no longer be Palestine. If the Declatation were invalid, they really should still be Jewish forces. I prefer as I suggested.Trahelliven (talk) 09:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

GabrielF

In the context of what happened on 6 June 1944, no-one today would suggest that the Allies were not enttled to take on the Germans on the beaches of Normandy, whatever word is used. In the context of 15 May 1948, where it is stll debated, which word to be used is still important. intervened is the word used in the Arab League Cablegram of 15 May.

I prefer not to use Palestine because it suggest the invalidity of the Declaration of 14 May, particularly if they entered what was included in the proposed Jewish State. Perhps invaded/intervened in the area of the former Mandate.

The Jewish Virtual Library tries to have it both ways. It talks about invaded the tiny new country but the map shows them entering areas some of which at least were set aside for the Arab State. Trahelliven (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2012 UTC)

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/invade48.html Trahelliven (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the map clearly shows the invasion of Arab armies into Jewish populations. For example... Arab Legion bombardment of West Jerusalem, Syrian advance over Degania, Egyptian attack on Yad Mordechai, etc--Jabotito48 (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Jabotito48

1 If you say that the Arab forces attacked Degania and Yad Mordechai, and the Arab Legion bombarded West Jerusalem, I bow to your superior knowledge. Until I read your post, I had heard of neither Degania nor Yad Mordechai. The map on the Jewish Virtual Library website mentions neither place nor that West Jerusalem was bombarded. I have now worked out where both of the first two places are and concede that they appear to have been in areas under Israeli control.

2 The map only indicates the movement of Arab forces, not what they attacked.

3 Other than showing isolated Jewish settlements, the map makes no mention whether areas were populated by Arabs or by Jews. It shows areas held by Israel

3 My post did not suggest that the Arab forces did not enter areas populated by Jews: it talked about areas set aside for the Arab State.

You are confusing three things, areas populated by either Arabs or Jews, areas set aside by the plan of partition for the two states, and areas occupied by each state.

Unfortunately, at critical times they never coincided. Trahelliven (talk) 03:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

What is your damn point, professor? Arab armies INVADED Israel one day after declaring independence (yes, including those areas to be part of the Jewish State according to Resolution 181). The JVL map clearly shows it and this map evidences it. And this is a matter of historical facts, not political opinions.--Jabotito48 (talk) 04:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

There are numerous reliable secondary sources that describe the Arab attack as an invasion. I don't think that anyone can seriously dispute that. To describe it as anything other is revisionist in the extreme. I voice my concurrence with Jabotito48 and GabrielF.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Jabotito48

GabrielF

Jiujitsuguy

I have no problem with the proposition that the Arab armies invaded that part of the former Mandate to be included in the Jewish State and which contained a majority of Jews. However a comparison of the JVL map and the map of the proposed partition in the article on Resolution 181(II). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_181 suggests that on 15 May 1948 Jewish forces had occupied the area between Jerusalem and the coast. The JVL map suggests that part of the Jordanian army moving south of Ramallah and north of Jerusalem never entered any of the area set aside for the Jewish state. On any test it did not invade Israel but engaged Jewish forces on the road to Jerusalem which was either part of the proposed Arab State or the City of Jerusalem. That was rather an intervention in the proposed Arab State and East Jerusalem and an invasion of the West Jerusalem rather than an invasion of Israel.

That is why the words invaded/intervened in the area of the former Mandate are neutral.

I might add that the Declaration of the Establishment of Israel of 14 May does not make clear exactly where Israel's boundaries were.

Could you provide me with a list of some of these reliable sources. Trahelliven (talk) 07:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_181 suggests that on 15 May 1948 Jewish forces had occupied the area between Jerusalem and the coast." That's because the war didn't start on 15 May 1948, but in November 1947. Regarding Israel's boundaries, the declaration of independence itself doesn't say anything about it (just "Jewish State in Eretz Israel, named State of Israel"). Obviously Ben Gurion knew Resolution 181 concerning borders was dead since November 30 because of Arab aggression and Israel could expand some defensible territory in the war to come. Israel, like many countries in the world, delimited its boundaries fighting in wars. 1949 Armistice Lines + Golan Heights + East Jerusalem were annexed after being conquered and are under Israeli law, so we can assume these are Israel's current boundaries (despite international community doesn't recognize last two), but Resolution 181 has no validity since December 1947. The West Bank, on the other hand, has never been annexed by Israel and is under partial military occupation and partial control by the Palestinian Authority.--Jabotito48 (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Jabotito48

1 If Ben-Gurion considered Resolution 181(II) dead concerning boundaries since 30 November 1947, I fail to understand how ELIAHU EPSTEIN, Agent, Provisional Government of Israel could say in his letter to President Truman seeking recognition from the U.S government, sent immediately after the Declaration of 14 May 1948, that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947. [1] Indeed in the Declaration itself at the end of the critical paragraph, the following phrase is used:- AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL.[2]

Israel did indeed later expand its boundaries at various later dates, but on 15 May 1948, the boundaries were those of the Resolution of 29 November 1947. Any action by nations of the Arab League outside those boundaries cannot be considered invading Israel.

2 As to which of the two sides was the most the aggressive is still a matter of dispute. I draw your attention to the Cablegram from the Secretary of the Arab League to the UN on 15 May 1948. [3] Trahelliven (talk) 04:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

All

In the article it says:-

Four of the seven countries of the Arab League at that time, namely Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Syria, backed by Saudi Arabian and Yemenite contingents invaded[94] territory in the former British Mandate of Palestine on the night of 14–15 May 1948.

Did they INVADE the area set aside for the Jewish State and the City of Jerusalem or did they just INTERVENE in the area set aside for the Arab State? As written it is not clear. Trahelliven (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Although I agree with a lot of what you say, your use of Epstein's memorandum violates the rules about interpretation of primary sources. There are a number of possible reasons why Epstein might have written what he did, but you can't just assume that it was the real position of the Provisional Government. In fact, as verified by multiple secondary sources of high quality, the Provisional Government explicitly decided to not specify boundaries. The minutes of their meetings have been available for years and worked over by historians. I don't recall any argument that those minutes were wrong and Epstein's exceptional version was right. Zero^talk 11:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The issue is very complex.

As Zero0000 pointed here above, stating that "Arab forces entered Palestine and engaged the Israeli forces" is what reflects the best what most of the reliable sources would agree on and the facts.

Palestinian historians, most New Historians but even some traditionnal historians have underlined for long that in April 1948, Arab States didn't want to participate in the war between Jews and Palestinians Arabs but Haganah/Palmah/IZL operations inside but also outside... the area allocated to the Jewish State (at Acre, Jaffa or on the Jerusalem road), the Palestinian exodus from these areas and the pressure of their own populations forced them to intervene.

Their intentions are not well known. Arabs States were not united but 5 (or 4 : Lebanon resigned decided not to participate only a few hours before 15 May) and their goals were different. Jordan clearly wanted to leave Israelis alone and just take as much as possible as the Arab State and Egypt wanted to prevent this plan or the part of this plan that was known...

81.247.40.95 (talk) 15:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

About this :

"Israel did indeed later expand its boundaries at various later dates, but on 15 May 1948, the boundaries were those of the Resolution of 29 November 1947. Any action by nations of the Arab League outside those boundaries cannot be considered invading Israel."

Stricto censu, it is true that after 15 May :

• Egyptian aircrafts bombed Tel-Aviv
• Iraqis forces tried to invade Yezreel valley without success
• Syrian forces tried to invade Israel by south and norht but failed completely and just established a 2 km bridgehead on north

But what about the fact that :

• On 13 May, Acre the whole costal plain west of Galile and out of the area allocated by the UN partition plan was attacked and captured during operation by Hagannah Ben Ami ?
• On 27 April, Jaffa (Arab according to the Partition Plan) was attacked even if it failed due to intervention of the British forces
• the road from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem was attacked and controlled by Palmach forces starting April 5

81.247.40.95 (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Trahelliven

Israel's declaration of independence doesn't say the country is based on boundaries defined by UN resolution 181. It only says this UN resolution recognizes (not "invents") the Jewish People's right to his homeland in Eretz Israel. Quote:

"On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable..."

Anyway, Arabs also invaded territories assigned to the Jewish State by resolution 181, so further discussion is useless.--Jabotito48 (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

All

The point I made about Epstein's Letter to Truman is indeed OR and I would not put it in the article itself. In the article on Israel–United States relations, I included the corresponcence between Epstein and Truman after the key words of the Declaration. I made no comment on it. Perhaps I should not have included the following sentence as being OR:-

The phrase in Eretz-Israel is the only place in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel containing any reference to the location of the new State.

A phrase like the Arabs marched their forces into the former Mandate (or Palestine) is a neutral way of putting it. Trahelliven (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I think the current sentence is enough neutral and precise:

Four of the seven countries of the Arab League at that time, namely Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Syria, backed by Saudi Arabian and Yemenite contingents invaded territory in the former British Mandate of Palestine on the night of 14–15 May 1948. The forces of Syria and Egypt launched attacks outside of the proposed Arab section of the Partition Plan.--Jabotito48 (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not neutral. The word "invaded" is indeed a problem, as one cannot invade a party that invites participation. The last part is correct but misleading since there were far more Jewish forces than Arab forces outside their respective UN-nominated regions. Zero^talk 04:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Zero, your claim that there were "far more Jewish forces than Arab forces outside their respective UN-nominated regions" is utter gibberish and contrary to the body of mainstream scholarship. Jewish forces were outnumbered and outgunned by their Arab adversaries. The Arabs later attempted to rationalize their defeat by blaming it on inferior numbers and arms, a laughable charge. This pattern of excuses repeated itself in the Arab defeats of 1956, 1967 and 1973. Moreover, the body of mainstream scholarship regards the combined Arab assault as an invasion and they classify it as such.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• From Simon Innes: "It was at a meeting in Damascus during the first week of May 1948 that the Chiefs of Staff of the Arab armies formulated a plan for the invasion of Palestine." ME Conflicts p.22
• From J.N. Westwood: "The war may be divided into six periods. The period of the civil war in fact began with skirmishes before the British left and continued to 15 May 1948 when the Arab forces invaded". History of the Mid East Wars, p.14
• From Hamlyn Ivan V. Hogg: "On the following day the infant state of Israel was invaded simultaneously by armies from Egypt, TransJordan, Syria and Lebanon....with an overwhelming superiority in firepower." And "The tenacity of the Israeli defense shocked the invaders." Israeli War Machine p.19-20
• From Schiff: "Five Arab armies invaded Israel: The Syrians, the Arab Legion, Lebanese, Iraqis and Egyptians." Page 38, History of the Israeli Army 1874-1974
• From Herzog: "On the night of 14/15 May, the armies of five Arab states (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq) crossed the borders and began the invasion of Palestine." The Arab-Israeli Wars, p. 47
• From Leslie Stein: "The very next day, the fledgling state was invaded by the Arab armies of Syria, Iraq Transjordan and Egypt plus a small contingent from Saudi Arabia," The Making of Modern Israel 1948-1967, Page 16

This debate represents an attempt to insert highly revisionist non-mainstream views into an encyclopedia. The above-noted sources reflect the mainstream consensus. I don't think there's anything more to be discussed on this subject.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

"far more Jewish forces than Arab forces outside their respective UN-nominated regions"... yeah, sure, that's because Arab armies were repelled and DEFEATED before reaching Tel Aviv, but they performed an authentic invasion, no doubt.--Jabotito48 (talk) 06:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy

J N Westwood: What did the Arab forces invade?

Hamlyn and Schiff talk about the invasion of Israel. The discussion is about the invasion of/intervention in Palestine . How do you describe that? The emotive wording of Hamlyn suggests he is pro-Israeli. Trahelliven (talk) 06:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

"He is pro-Israel"... is that an argument? How many "pro-Palestinian" sources are in this article? (Tom Segev, Illan Pappe, Arab scholarships are clear examples). It's irrelevant whether they are pro-something, the only important thing in this case is if they are reliable sources or not. Arab invasion of Israel on 15 May 1948 is a matter of historical fact. Period.

By the way, it isn't hard to feel sympathy for a little nation – rebuilt after Holocaust – when its invaded by seven feudal armies committed to its destruction. It's a natural feeling, just like journalists and historians feeling sympathy for Republicans during the Spanish Civil War. However, neutrality, historical truth and rigor among encyclopedias and historians should be possible despite personal opinions (with all do respect, I don't think is your case). But it has nothing to do with this discussion, so I won't say anything else about it.--Jabotito48 (talk) 06:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

To Jiujitsuguy, you can call it gibberish all you like, but it is still true. The largest Arab force (Arab Legion) had orders to not enter the Jewish part of the UN partition and never did. The battles with them were all in the Arab part or in Jerusalem. The main battlefields (Ramle/Lydda, Latrun, Etzion) were in the Arab part. To say that the Jordanian army invaded Israel would be an objective falsehood. The main bulk of the Egyptian army and most of the battles with them were in the Gaza district, again in the Arab part. The evidence is that the Egyptian army would have continued northwards into the Jewish part, but they were stopped at Isdud (in the Arab part) so they didn't. The Jewish operations in the western Galilee were of course in the Arab part. The Jewish forces in Jaffa already in April were in the Arab part. The only important exception to this was in eastern Galilee, where Syrian forces certainly did invade the Jewish part and occupy a small region for a short time. In contrast to this, a large fraction all of Mandatory Palestine was already under effective control of Jewish forces before May 15 except for the parts (all in the Arab part) that the Arab Legion controlled. I don't know why you brought up the total size of all forces, as that is irrelevant to this particular issue. As for your list of sources, of course if you include the word "invade" in your search terms you will find what you want, but if you use other terms instead, like "intervene" you will find other sources. Zero^talk 06:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute, are you saying Arab armies invading areas assigned to be part of another Arab State is not "invading"? Because we could also say many Iraqis wanted the US to enter their territory to liberate them from Saddam, but everybody knows what happened in 2003 was an invasion.--Jabotito48 (talk) 07:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Arab forces were welcome by the Arab population and were called by local leaders to participate to the the war. At the time, Yishuv armies outnumbered Arab Palestinian forces by a factor 3 (30,000 vs 10,000) and the Arab population was living an exodus of 350,000 people from all the villages located to the Jewish State (out of 450,000 in these areas !). All mixed cities had been attacked by Yishuv forces (Haifa, Tiberiade, Beit Shean, Safed and Acre), Jaffa was under siege and despite the Arab siege of Jerusalem, the city was close to collapse under Jewish control... Please, check. 87.65.230.171 (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

@Trahelliven, I forgot to mention Leslie Stein, "The very next day, the fledgling state was invaded by the Arab armies of Syria, Iraq Transjordan and Egypt plus a small contingent from Saudi Arabia," The Making of Modern Israel 1948-1967, Page 16. Westwood refers to the invasion of Mandatory Palestine including the area allocated to the Jewish State under the Partition Plan. As for "Hamlyn," That's the publisher. The author is Ivan V. Hogg and your inference as to whether he's pro Israeli, pro Egyptian or pro Chinese is irrelevant. He's an RS and his scholarly work on the subject satisfies all the criteria for RS.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

According to Walid Khalidi, Yishuv invaded the future Arab state in April 1948... 87.65.230.171 (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

@Zero, I didn't "include the word 'invade' in [my] search terms." I have all the books in my library and if you want to see the relevant pages, give me your email address and I'll send them to you. Your erroneous assumptions about how I conduct my research says volumes about how you conduct yours. Also, You've been here long enough to know that we have an obligation to cite what the Reliable Sources say and not what we think they should say based on our own Original Research. I've given you six such sources with no effort.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that you don't read New Historians or Palestinian historians. Leslie Stein is just a little biaised and he doesn't have the goal to summurize the global know-how from a global point of view, as wikipedia must. 87.65.230.171 (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I take it back about your search methods, sorry. Of course I know that many sources use the word "invade". But it remains true that is one of the povs about the event and that there are other povs in reliable sources too. We are supposed to present multiple viewpoints. When we introduce a topic we should either try to represent the main povs at once, or we can be vague at the start and leave the details for later paragraphs. An example of the latter would be "entered the territory of the former mandate and engaged the Israeli forces", which is precise, does not contradict either the Israeli or Arab viewpoints, and leaves for later questions about motives and justifications. The only thing I'm arguing against is starting off with a statement matching the perspective of only one side. Zero^talk 08:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You forget who accepted the UN Partition Plan and who rejected it. You forget who started this war and who defended themselves. You forget Palestinian Arabs started this war in 1947 by attacking traffic, perpetrating bombings, pogroms... blocking routes and isolating communities. Only then Jewish forces took Jaffa (from where Tel Aviv population suffered sniper shootings), conquered towns to unify their communities, etc.--Jabotito48 (talk) 07:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It can be fairly said that Irgoun started that war at the end of 1945. The Partition plan was a step in the Israeli war of independence. And again in 1947, it is not the Arab who started the war in attacking the traffic : that was a terrible civil war resulting from madness attacks from both sides. Jewish forces took Jaffa, the Jerusalem road and the coastal plain while outnumbering Palestininan Arab forces by a factor 3. 87.65.230.171 (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Irgun started this war in 1945?? lol. Sure, and Arabs started in 1920, 1921, 1929 or 1936... individual attacks against British, Jews and Arabs is not a war. This war started after Arabs (both Palestinians and Arab League) rejected UN Partition Plan and begun attacking the Yishuv in 1947. Every historian knows that.--Jabotito48 (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The 1936-39 Arab revolt is the Palestinian Arab unfructuous independence war. After this, they were definitely defeated on the military point of view. Then WWII occured. The Yishuv independence war started just after WWII. This was lead by the Irgun and Lehi. Mapai and Mapam hesitated to join it because they prefered the political fight. But they joined it at some time anyway or fought it (as during the hunting season). During this period numerous political solutions were proposed to parties but all failed. Finally, due to the cost of staying in Palestine, British decided to leave. The UN voted the partition plan. A terrible civil war immediately erupted between the Palestinian Arabs and the Yishuv. In less than 1 month in April 1948, the Palestinian Arabs were defeated and the neighbouring Arab armies intervened in the war with Israel. On 15 May they engaged Israeli forces and except at Latrun and Jesuralem were totally defeated.

That is history. What you refer to is the Israeli Mapai collective memory.

91.180.76.137 (talk) 06:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy

Leslie Stein: I refer you to the review of Leslie Stein's book [4] which considerw him good on factual detail - But the passages where Stein is ready to have a critical look at Israeli history are rather rare. Very often Stein is apologetic on disputed issues of Israel’s history. Though found throughout the book, this becomes most apparent on the issue of the Palestinian refugees (chapter 2)..

It may or may not be correct to say that the Arab armies invaded Israel, but they intervened in the part allocated for the Arab State. If anyone can be said to have invaded the parts allocated for the Arab State, it was Israel. Trahelliven (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

@Trahelliven, First, you've linked me to a site in German and that's not a language that I'm familiar with. Second, Stein's book was published by Polity[5] a leading and well-respected international publishing company. The book has undergone a vetting process and subjected to peer review.[6] It meets or exceeds all criteria for RS. Your personal opinion, while valued as a colleague, is truly irrelevant to the building of an encyclopedia. What is relevant is reliable sources of which I've provided in abundance.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy

I apologise for linking you to the wrong website, but I used the wrong bracket at the end of the reference, now fixed. I will not comment myself on the book by Stein but I note that all the reviews in the Willey article [7] are from Jewish or Israeli reviewers, with the exception of the review from History Today. Do you know who wrote that review? Of course when advertising a book, it is not customary to give uncomplimentary reviews. Trahelliven (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Another quote from the review "If one is interested in a summary of the classical Zionist narrative and some answers to the New Historians, the book is worth reading it. But on the other hand, if one looks for an account taking both sides into consideration it is hardly recommendable". Our task here is not to explain the classic Zionist narrative, but to detail all significant views and opinions that have been published in a balanced way. Thus Stein can be used, but it should be remembered that he only represents one of a number of views that should be included in the article. Dlv999 (talk) 09:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

@Trahelliven: Concerning your comment "but I note that all the reviews in the Willey article are from Jewish or Israeli reviewers, with the exception of the review from History Today"(emphasis added); First, that's not true. Second, are you implying that because someone is of a particlar ethnicity, it precludes him or her from rendering an impatial opinion? If that's the way you feel, I think we're done here.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

On 15 May 8:00

• Carmeli brigade had taken Acre and the whole Western coast of Galilea (allocated to the Arab State by the UN Partition Plan)
• Irgoun and Kyriati brigades was besieging Jaffa and had taken control of all Arab villages around the city
• Harel brigades had taken the control of the road from Bad al Oued to Jerusalem in the aera allocated to the Arab State by the UN Partition Plan
• Etzioni and Harel brigades with the support of Irgoun had attacked East Jerusalem in the corpus separatum

This represents much more squared km than those the Arab had ever conotrolled of Israeli territory during the '48 war.

On the other side Iraki and Syrian armies tried to invade Israel, Egyptian army had planned to do so by never really reached the borders and the Arab Legion had no ambition to attack Israel at all. More, all were welcome by Arab population.

So who invaded what ? That is quite complex. 87.65.230.171 (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy

My apologies agaim. I made the classice mistake of not scrolling to the bottom of the page.

When one reads on a contraversial topic, one must first look at the background of the writer. A writer may give an excellent narrative but beware of remarks beyond the strict narrative. I always think that the classic case is the events of 1975 in Vietnam: The fall of Saigon or The liberation of Saigon. Trahelliven (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we just agree to use both invasion/intervention everywhere this issue occurs? There is a solid basis for the use of intervention. See http://www.mideastweb.org/arableague1948.htm Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

secondary sources for use of intervention. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=nyl9BoCABEsC&pg=PA49&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mSHJT6qWFc7B8gOsnNzKDw&ved=0CEoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false Pg 49 http://books.google.com.au/books?id=CC7381HrLqcC&pg=SA4-PA4&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mSHJT6qWFc7B8gOsnNzKDw&ved=0CGcQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false pg 456. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Z-f0IjwPFi4C&pg=PA129&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mSHJT6qWFc7B8gOsnNzKDw&ved=0CG0Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false pg 129. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=gWt2Sx5UUtwC&pg=PA93&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0yTJT53_BMil8QOrpYz-Dw&ved=0CDwQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false pg 93 http://books.google.com.au/books?id=_kArEWMDT18C&pg=PA169&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0yTJT53_BMil8QOrpYz-Dw&ved=0CEcQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false Pg 169 http://books.google.com.au/books?id=GX8jX9dJXIAC&pg=PA80&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EybJT9nBL8jA8gOH_ZnIDw&ved=0CF4Q6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false pg 30 http://books.google.com.au/books?id=K378ypOnH1oC&pg=PA594&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_SbJT-_LFcjX8QOb3unfDw&ved=0CEIQ6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false Pg 596 http://books.google.com.au/books?id=ghf_OBksgykC&pg=PA92&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XifJT-bjF8fi8QP0kvX9Dw&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAjgU#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false Pg 92 http://books.google.com.au/books?id=qm9kiTbtSWgC&pg=PA65&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5yfJT-CkOIXV8gOY0qnfDw&ved=0CGYQ6AEwCDgU#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false Pg 65 http://books.google.com.au/books?id=dCModlUjqMQC&pg=PA187&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lyjJT5jIJI3J8gO1k_z_Dw&ved=0CEEQ6AEwATge#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false pg 187

  [[http://books.google.com.au/books?id=hz42_ifdVkoC&pg=PA119&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lyjJT5jIJI3J8gO1k_z_Dw&ved=0CE0Q6AEwAzge#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false   Pg  119  http://books.google.com.au/books?id=u0sD-8r7I5QC&pg=PA49&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NCnJT7fGFtP-8QOipKTLDw&ved=0CFwQ6AEwBTgo#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false  pg 49  

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=LQcOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA55&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=winJT8TVGoPF8gPYz_jJDw&ved=0CF4Q6AEwBzgy#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false pg 55 Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Intervention by Arab League countries

Because of various edits, this section contains material elsewhere in the article.

Paragraph 1 is in the next section (though not verbatim).

Paragraph 2, 4 and 5 are in the section The Arab League as a whole (though 2 not verbatim).

Paragraph 3 is nowhere else but needs to go into the section, The Arab League as a whole.

I shall move paragraph 3 into the section The Arab League as a whole. I shall then delete the section, Intervention by Arab League countries. Trahelliven (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Foreign volunteers

This war was mainly between :

• 4 armies of the Arab League (Egypt, Transjordan, Irak, Syria)

and

• Israel

No other official army participated to this war. (For what concerns Lebanon, it was recently established by historian Yoav Gelber). The distinction has to be made between there armies and volunteers. Else, we should add Britain for both side and the USA and France for the Israeli side. That would be a biased pov. Exactly as it is a biased pov to state to list all the Arab states in the list of combattants 81.247.71.163 (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

:Not true. For example, Saudi Arabia sent a contingent of 800–1,200 men. If the Saudi government sent them, they weren't "volunteers".--Jabotito48 (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)''(sock of indef-blocked user)

Nor Gelber p.55 or Morris p.205 writes that these were sent by the Saudi governement.

More Gelber points out that they were "tribesmen" and Morris points out that these forces joined Arabs armies (and so were not part of the main 4 ones he refer to in the same page) : "The invading forces consisted, on 15 May, of about 20,000 combat troops : some 5500 Egyptians [...], 4500 to 6500 Arab Legionnaires, 2750 from Syria [...], and 2700 from Iraq [...]. He reminds also that Lebanese forces never enter or try to invade Palestine, which is used by Morris and Gelber.

Instead of foreign volunteers, we can also write irregulars.

81.247.71.163 (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Lebanon

Lebanon didn't participate to the war. See eg : Benny Morris, '1948. A History of the First Arab-Israeli War', p.258 :

"But at the last moment, Lebanon (...) opted out of the invasion. On 14 May President (...) and his army chief of staff, (...), decided against Lebanese participation; (...) [The] commander of the army's First Regiment (battalion), designated to cross into Israel, apparently refused to march. The Lebanese parliament, after bitter debate, ratified the decision the same day."

That should be taken into account in the caption. 81.247.97.117 (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

They attack and occupied al-Malikiya in June (Morris p. 257). So they did enter Palestine, although in a very limited way and not on May 15. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Flags in caption

David Markus and Glubb Pacha were Foreign volunteers of US and British nationality. If we don't use US and British flags for them because, as an editor pointed this out, they didn't represent USA and British, they we should remove the flags of Lebanon, Saudi-Arabi, Pakistan etc because these volunteers didn't represent these countries either. What do you think about this ? 81.247.97.117 (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

i agree we should also remove those flags.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

False. A token force of 1,000 was committed by Lebanon to the invasion. It crossed into the northern Galilee and was repulsed by Israeli forces. Israel then invaded and occupied southern Lebanon until the end of the war. Saudi Arabia sent a contingent of 800–1,200 men, therefore they were not "volunteers".--8HGasma (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Personnaly, I would prefer that we keep all the flags and that we precise what was the nationality of Markus and Glubb Pacha. Without the agreement of their respective governments, all these people could not have participated. It is not a detail that David Markus had the highest rank in the IDF at the time whereas he had not the Israeli nationality and it is the same for Glubb Pacha. This information is provided by the historians when they refer to the events.

@ 8HGasma : You just copied/pasted what is in the article without reading. Nor Lebanon or Saudi Arabia sent forces. These were volunteers from Beduin tribes. I will provide the source but this becomes childish : historian refer to the 4 armies that invaded Palestine (some of the 5 but Morris and Gelber recently indicated it was a mistake and that Lebanon didn't participate to the war - see above). 91.180.65.140 (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Spyflight

The spyflight source, which is the primary one with regards to the Anglo-Israeli dogfights, notes that there have been rumors, though unconfirmed, that RAF pilots from the squadron that lost 5 planes and 2 pilots to the IAF privately took their revenge by shooting down any Israeli planes they encountered, including transports. I put it in twice, and each time I later found it gone. I would like to know why it isn't suitable to put it in there, as it's too late for me to dig up an explanation (if there ever was one) in the history.--RM (Be my friend) 03:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

http://spyflight.co.uk seems to be the personal project of one person who is not named there. I don't see how it satisfies WP:RS, in fact it seems to me rather clear that it doesn't. Can you offer an argument why we should accept it as a source? Zero^talk 02:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)