Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War

Copyedit request

2nd paragraph of Yishu, the Pappé statement : The ellipses make the paragraph visually awkward and the reader can't tell if it's a quote or not. Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

5th (last) paragraph of Second phase: 8–18 July 1948 has a typo : "The Egyptians managed to penetrate the village permimeter..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredo.Delgado (talk • contribs) 05:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done GabrielF (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

DP

This information : About another 270,000 came from Eastern Europe. (source : De Gaucy, Gerald, The New State of Israel. Derek Verschoyle Ltd, London. 1952. Pages 28,29. 15 May 1948 to 31 December 1949 - 22.3% from "Asia" including 10.4% from Yemen; 13.9 % from Africa, 2.1% from Egypt; 58.3% from Europe including 22.3% from Poland. 1January 1950 to 31 December 1950 - 34.3% from Asia, 18.6 from Iraq; Africa 15.7% with 4.6% from Egypt; Europe 48% with 27.7% from Rumania. USA between 0.5% and 1%.) is misleading because it is written in the article at a place where it is talked about the 250,000 from Europe among which some (if not all) of the 270,000 are counted. More, a 1952 book is not wp:rs for wikipedia. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The three years following Israel's establishment were the largest immigration wave in the entire history of the country, the second in real numbers after Russian immigration in the 1990s, and the first per year. 700,000 is the widely accepted number of Jews who settled in Israel during the 1948-51 period. Of these olim, as this table shows, around 300,000 came from Asian and North African countries (Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim lands), and the rest mostly from Europe. I think this edition is more accurate and comprehensive than saying only "136,000 Jews" came from Europe, which is not true (they were only displaced Jews living in refugee camps in Germany, Austria and Italy, many Jews also came from Poland and Romania in Eastern Europe).--Sonntagsbraten (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The figure 136,000 is misleading and I have written to the Holocaust Museum asking them to correct it. It refers to the people the allies officially designated as "Displaced Persons" which was a rather amorphous title and was subject to political manipulation. As I understant it, it refers to Jews found alive in Germany, Austria and Czechoslvakian Nazi camps at the end of the war. By then plenty of Jews had been liberated across Europe in other places. Most significantly in Romania - where about 350,000 Jews were murdered by the Romanian army indpendently of the Nazis (and much more cruelly). The British prevented Polish Jews from being defined as DPs so that they wouldn't be asked to send them to Palestine. Polish Jews were only regarded as Polish nationals. The figure you are referring to was an official figure and also as you note, dates from the same period.

As for the number of Jewish refugees. Almost eveyr isngle Jew in Nazi occupied Europe was a refugee. But how do you define a refugee? My father left Germany in 1939 ad was one fo 50,000 Jewish refugees in Britain in 1948. He was not a DP but he had a UN document testifying that he was a refugee, and he had no citizenship of any country until 1968, when he applied for British citzienship. My partner's father was one of hundreds of thousands who escaped German occupied Poland to Russian-occupied poland. His family were sent to the gulag for several years and then they returned to Poland in 1945 and in 1948 moved to Israel. They were not DPs and not UN recognized refugees but they lost everything they ever had. Were they Holocaust survivors? Was my father, who grew up in Nazi Germany and whose mother died in Auscwitz a Holocaust survivor? They would say no. The Jews who left the Arab world were not UN recognized refugees either. Telaviv1 (talk) 06:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, we have a specific reliable number: 700,000 Jews settled in Israel between 1948 and 1951. If 300,000 were from Arab and Muslim countries... where the difference (400,000) came from? Australia? No, Europe. After all, many Jews escaped to the East during World War II. Of the nine million Jews who had resided in Europe before the Holocaust, approximately two-thirds were killed. So three million Jews lived in Europe after the war (not 250,000, who where only the Jews living in DP camps in Germany, Austria and Italy). Romania (117,950), for example, is not included in DP, despite being the biggest source of immigrants to Israel during this period, along with Poland (106,414) and Iraq (123,371).--Sonntagsbraten (talk) 06:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Soontagsbraten,

I don't say that your conclusions are wrong but what you make is WP:OR.

You have to provide reliable sources for any information introduced in the article.

The 1952 book is not one. The Jewish Virtual Library is not one. CBS is not one. For an article related to a topic that has been studied by the academic world, we need books from scholars.

I will revert you in a few hours and look for academic references but you have to do the same.

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't add any specific number regarding immigrants from Eastern Europe. I tried to make a balanced and objective edition saying that among the 700,000 Jews who settled in Israel there were 136,000 from DP in Germany, Austria and Italy (as the source says), but also from Eastern Europe (mainly Romania and Poland, see this table). You have no reason to revert it and if you claim the only European Jews who immigrated to Israel are DP, you'd be introducing an incorrect information.--Sonntagsbraten (talk) 08:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You provided a good source here. Why should we not include it in this article?--Sonntagsbraten (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

By the way :

• Tom Segev, 1949. The First Israelis, Owl Books, 1986, p.96 states that 271,188 people coming from Eastern Europe settled in Israel from 15 mai '48 to 31 march '51.
• Michael Berenbaum, The Holocaust and History: The Known, the Unknown, the Disputed, and the Reexamined, Indiana University Press, 2002, p.734 writes that The following three years [after 1948] are known in the litterature as the 'years of mass immigration'. (...) The Jewish community in Palestine (...) received 717,923 immigrants in those three years, among them 373,852 Holocaust survivors.

Nb: note there is difference between being an Holocaust survivor and surviving the extermination camps. Many Jews took refuge among population or hid. Few escaped the death camps. The author refers to those who lived in the territories occupied by the Nazi and their allies during war.

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

belligerants

Fatually incorrect quote regarding Lebanon's role should be removed.

The following quote from Gelber (Ref. 90, dead link) is factually incorrect as it stands and should be removed.

"Ben Gurion "arrived at an agreement with the Maronite religious leadership in Lebanon that cost a few thousand pounds and kept Lebanon's army out of the War of Independence and the military Arab coalition.""

The statement is false because Lebanon was indeed an active belligerent in the 1948 and did indeed join the pan-Arab invasion of the territory of the former British Mandate of Palestine, albeit on a limited scale as confirmed elsewhere in the aticle. Lebanon commited to the cause about 1000 soldiers out of a total of 3500 soldiers in its army. The capture and occupation by the Lebanese Army of al-Malikiya in the Upper Galilee, and Lebanon's support of the ALA's role in the war, acting from Lebanese territory, is a case in point.

It is true that in May 1946, a secret treaty was concluded bbetween the Jewish Agency and the Maronite Church. However, by January 1948 the treaty was abandoned by the Maronite Church when its cover was blown during an internal dispute. See pg. 75 of the link below:

https://bir.brandeis.edu/bitstream/handle/10192/29/ThePromiseandFailureoftheZionist-MaroniteRelationship,1920-1948.pdf?sequence=1

JD

If this is true, we should add it on the article. I mean, the fact that there was an agreement but in the end it wasn't respected.--Sonntagsbraten (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

But this is not true.

This is not just based on this quote from Yoav Gelber. Lebanon didn't participate to that war both officially and in practice. This is explained here.

The flag of Lebanon must be removed from the belligerants of the Arab side. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You are correct only in regard to the initial pan-Arab invasion of May 15, in which Lebanon did not directly participate. However, a month later, the Lebanese Army did indeed attack, and did indeed captured the village of al-Malikiya in the former territory of the Mandate of Palestine.

I refer you to pg. 257 in "1948:The First Arab-Israeli War", by Benny Morris, which says the following in relation to Syria's attack at Mishmar Hayarden:

"The attack was probably coordinated with the Lebanese army, which on 5 June surprised and attacked the small Jewish garrison at al-Malikiya and overwhelmed it (the village had been taken in a commando-style attack by the Palmah on the night of 28-29 May). A few days later, the ALA, which had withdrawn from central Palestine a fortnight before, returned to the country via al-Malikiya. Al-Qawuqji established his headquarters in Nazareth.

The Lebanese success at al-Malikiya marked their only real participation in the war, and gave Beirut cover against accusations of indifference to the fate of Palestine"

And further, on pg. 260:

"But on 5-6 June, as we have seen, the Lebanese army, assisted by a Syrian battalion and the ALA, recaptured al-Malikya, which had been left in the hands of a Haganah garrison company. The conquest reopened a major supply route from south Lebanon to the upper central Galilee, where the ALA was now concentrated. The attack - Lebanon's only success in the war - enabled Beirut to argue, at last, that they had participated in the assault on Israel. The Lebanese army withdrew from al-Malikiya, handing it over to the ALA, on 8 July, at the end of the First Truce".

It is clear that the Lebanese army was involved actively, albeit on a limited scale, in the the 1948 War, and there are no grounds for removing the Lebanese flag from the list of belligerents.

JD

"It is clear that the Lebanese army was involved actively, albeit on a limited scale, in the the 1948 War"

Could you re-phrase what you mean by "was involved actively" ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The Lebanese Army did not participate directly in the pan-Arab invasion of May 15, 1948. However, the Lebanese Army did participate directly in the battles of June 5-6, 1948, and did capture the village of al-Malikiya, and held it until July, 1948.

So, going back to my original point, the inaccurate quote from Yoav Gelber should be paraphrased or removed, to reflect the fact that the Lebanese Army was not kept out of the Arab coalition and the war throughout its duration...only initially.

JD

I share your mind. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you clarify whether these indicate Lebansese involvment: The Lebanese Army took the village of Malkiya, which was recaptured by the Israelis three days later. On 6 June, a Syrian-Lebanese-Arab Liberation Army force retook Malkiya. Ankh.Morpork 11:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The second one does. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Volunteers

There were more English volunteers in the Arab armies than Pakistanies. And there were more French and US volunteers in the Israeli army than Soudanese in the Egyptian army. More, ALA and Mahal where most the volunteers were incorporated are already given. As a consequence, the list of all the countries from which volunteers came should be removed. The alternative is to detail this with the same weigh. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Deleted content

Why this huge information was eliminated in the first place?--MelissaLond (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The material was added by a notorious sock and banned user. And it was partly not correct, and partly badly sourced. Huldra (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Someone took responsibility for it, so the fact it came originally from a sock is irrelevant.

What specifically is badly sourced and not correct? It looks like it's sourced to Morris and Karsh and Pollack among others. If you have a problem with a specific section being badly sourced, you can remove that. But removing properly sourced information is not allowed and I'll be putting it back unless a good reason is supplied. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

There are better sources that Karsh, surely? And some were not sourced at all, eg the paragraph which started with "Over the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops (initial numbers) invaded the newly established state,". This is simply (mostly!) a lie, AFAIK. Correct me if I´m wrong, but apart from some Syrian forces which invaded the Galilee, no Arab forces invaded the "newly established" state of Israel; they invaded what was to have been the Arab/Palestinian state. In general, may I suggest that people do not add 5-6 k info at a time, without discussing first? Huldra (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact that it came from a sock is very relevant. It was restored by a sock too. Dishonesty is wrong. Don't facilitate it. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

@Huldra Karsh is a totally acceptable source. If you have a problem with just that one sentence, you can remove just that one sentence. I'll restore the stuff and you can remove only things you have a specific objection to and which are not properly sourced.

@Sean it was restored by brewcrewer who as far as I know is not a sock. I'll take your statement about facilitating dishonesty more seriously after the first time you report a sock you agree with politically (I know, I know, you are now going to claim you are not something everyone knows you are. Good luck). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

All these huge paragraphs didn't come from me (what you call "a sock"), but were there long time ago and it were arbitrarily removed by Pluto2012 without explaining anything in the talk page, despite he is the only one giving redundant information twice.--MelissaLond (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yay, another political opponent removed. I'm still going to restore the information, unless someone has some policy based objection. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

There are policy based reasons for its removal. See article history. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

What specifically in the article history are you talking about? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

See here. nableezy - 21:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

NMMGG, instead of starting an edit war in supporting a sock that destroys the work of all of us, what kind of information precisely do you think should be resinserted ? Most information was there twice (and contradictory) and other points are details. We talk about a WAR and some information talk about 2 planes that crashed here or this kibbutz that withstood to this or that. That is no sense. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The information is sourced and these blanket reverts of sourced information with not even a nod towards policy will not stand. If you have a problem with specific text we can discuss it, but removing 5k of sourced information because it's "from a sock" is just not good enough anymore. As usual, in this as in everything else, I follow you guys' lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)