Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War

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)

I checked on googlebook Morris 2004 p.257 and it is not mentionned (?). I doublecheck later today.

Anyway, I am sure Gelber mentions somewhere these attacks but they were not the fact of official Lebanese soldiers. ALA was redeployed before 15 May north of Galilee to replace Lebanese army that had defected in order to protect Syrian flank. They attacked from North. Lebanese goverment and high rank officeers had declined the attack (see above). It is true that Christian officeers localy didn't prevent some of their Muslim soldiers to 'leave' their unit to join the ALA in these attacks but Lebanese forces didn't participate (as pointed out just here above) and the exact number is not known. What is sure is that the ALA counted several thousands soldiers. I think Gelber explains that given uniforms were all the same, Palmach soldiers concluded wrongly these were Lebanese soldiers given the attack came from Lebanon but they were from the Arab Liberation Army. I will check and provide the source if we agree that we will not epilogate weeks on this and just comply with what latest and more reliable 2nd sources state : "4 Arab States invaded Palestine". I think we should solve that caption issues once for all. What happens with all these reverts is a childish attitude. 91.180.65.140 (talk) 07:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Oops. The Morris book I referred to was the "1948" book, not the "Birth of..." book. Sorry for the confusion. --Frederico1234 (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Frederico,

Thank you for the information. I was not aware (or I had forgotten) this event on June 5.

Here is what I referred to (Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948, p.139) : "Confuding the ALA remnants in Galilee with Syrian and Lebanese regular troops, the 'Haganah' referred to all of them as "regular Arab army". On May 15, Yiftah brigade reported a fierce battle with invading Lebanese troops at Malkiya. These were, however, local combatants and remains of Shishakli's Yarmuk battalion. (...) The military's Christian commanders refused to involve the army in the battle, but allowed Muslim soldiers to join the ALA and the Syrian army. Only 300 troopers chose to take advantage of this opportunity."

I hope that this convinces everybody and that we can come back to the former caption.

81.247.87.96 (talk) 05:14, 12 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) (sock of indef-blocked user)

That is exactly what the sock of Jabotito48 wrote here above : ":Not true. For example, Saudi Arabia sent a contingent of 800[1]–1,200[2][3] men. If the Saudi government sent them, they weren't "volunteers".--Jabotito48 (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)(sock of indef-blocked user)" and I explained to him why he was wrong here above too. 81.247.176.216 (talk) 17:00, 11 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)

Referring here above to the fact that the Lebanese troops who fought in the war were volunteers and were not sent by their government and that they didn't represent this, we have to :

• whether put the flag of Lebanon but also the flag of the US next to Markus and Britain next to Glubb
• remove all flags.

It is a relevant information that can be found in all history books on the '48 war that Markus was US citizen, Glubb British and Lebanese volunteers, Lebanese.

81.247.87.96 (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion

Unless other minds are given, I will modify the caption as follows :

• indicate there were 4 Arab armies (without Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and even less Yemen)
• add the US flag and the UK flag for Markus and Glubb.

91.180.64.65 (talk) 06:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there any comment ? Pluto2012 (talk) 07:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between Glubb and Marcus. Glubb was working for the British as well as the Jordanians. As far as I can remember, Marcus wasn't working for the US government. They knew he was there, but he wasn't working for them, IIRC. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Glubb was not working for the British. He was on the pay roll of the Jordanian army and was fidel to Abdallah. This is pointed out by Benny Morris in his book about him : The Road to Jerusalem.

And even if Glubb was collaborating with the British, it is relevant to state that they were foreigners. The participation of volunteers is well known (as well British in Jordanian army as Mahal for Israeli).

More, if we focus on Marcus : his status is exactly the same as the one of the other volunteers of the Yemen, Lebanon, Soudan etc.

If we put a flag for Yemen (which is anecdotical) we should put a flag for Marcus and Glubb who were key actors of the war.

By the way, I don't see a problem with these flags. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I think putting a flag next to individuals who were not representing the governments of the countries those flags belong to is ridiculous. The flags belong to countries and should be used if the country itself was somehow involved, not if people from those countries acting as individuals were. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with NMMNG. Marcus acted in a private capacity and did not represent the United States. The United States was not a combatant. By contrast, There are reliable sources that attest to Lebanese, Saudi and Yemen participation and not in an insubstantial way. Also, these governments expressed views (at least openly) that were consistent with the general militarist Arab position.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the choice, it has to be consistent.

If Marcus and Glubb are not referred by their nationality but by the side for which they fought, we have to remove the flags referring to Lebanon and all other countries and put a Palestinian flag or the ALA flag. There are as many reliable sources on the topic that remind that Marcus was US citizen, Glubb British citizen and that Arab volunteers came from the whole Arab world.

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the criterion for including a flag should be involvement of a government. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the cases of Glubb and Marcus are quite different from that of Lebanon. WRT Lebanon, we have reliable sources, historians, that state that Lebanon sent a force of several hundred or perhaps a thousand troops. Lebanon was also a member of the Arab league that rejected the partition plan and declared its intention to use force to prevent its implementation. In such a scenario, even if it later chose to create plausible deniability by "only" arming Lebanese "volunteers", and allowing them to use Lebanese soil as traning and staging areas for an invasion, this qualifies as Lebanese actions - as historians note. It is similar to the undeniable involvement of the US in the Bay of Pigs invasion. Eat memory (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC) In further support of what I wrote above, it is instructive to look at what another academic source says: "the Arab League's Arab Liberation Army (ALA)... operated from or near Lebanese territory with the official or tacit support of the Lebanese government" [1] Eat memory (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

With the same reasonning, you can add Soviet Union on the Israeli side given Stalin ordered no to respect the UN umbargo and to supply Israel with heavy weapons and ammunitions after having pronounced for the Partition.

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:01, 1 July 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)

Multiple and ongoing issues littering the Lede.

Articles should accurately reflect their sources. The sources must accurately reflect the documents they cite to be RS. Suggest these points be addressed with RS Secondary Sources

NOTE FOR ALL RE LATE DELINEATION of ISSUES: PLEASE TRY TO KEEP DISCUSSIONS IN THE APPROPRIATE SECTION -- talknic (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

---

The opening paragraph:

The 1948 Arab–Israeli War, known to Israelis as the War of Independence (Hebrew: מלחמת העצמאות or מלחמת הקוממיות‎, Milkhemet Ha'atzma'ut or Milkhemet Hakomemmiyut or Hebrew: מלחמת השחרור‎, Milkhemet Hashikhrur literally "war of liberation")13—was fought between the State of Israel and a military coalition of Arab states and Palestinian Arab forces. It was the first in a series of wars in the continuing Arab–Israeli conflict.

Contains only numerous Israeli/Hebrew names for the war, in contravention of NPOV. Suggest this be addressed, there are at least six other parties.

Caught my eye too. How is it called in Arabic? Or, more to the point, why is Arabic omitted? -DePiep (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion 01: // The 1948 Arab–Israeli War, known to Israelis as the War of Independence (Hebrew: מלחמת העצמאות or מלחמת הקוממיות‎, Milkhemet Ha'atzma'ut or Milkhemet Hakomemmiyut or Hebrew: מלחמת השחרור‎, Milkhemet Hashikhrur literally "war of liberation")13. The war was known to the Arabs/Palestinians by different names according to the relevant time frame in the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The 1948 war was fought between the State of Israel and a military coalition of Arab states and Palestinian Arab forces. It was the first in a series of wars in the continuing Arab–Israeli conflict.// talknic (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment. The point on the lack of corresponding Arabic names is very well taken, and requires adjustment. In a note on terminology, Reuven Firestone writes:-

'To Jews, the Jewish.Arab war of 1947-1948 is the War of Independence (milchemet ha'atzma'ut). To Arabs, and especially Palestinians, it is the nakba or calamity. I therefore refrain from assigning names to wars. . I refer to the wars between the State of Israel and its Arab and Palestinian neighbors according to their dates: 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, and 1982.' Reuven Firestone,Holy War in Judaism: The Fall and Rise of a Controversial Idea, Oxford University Press, 2012 p.10

This is eminently alert to sensitivities on both sides. Nota bene that one of the terms cited here,Milkhemet Ha'atzma'ut is said by Firestone, who ought to know, to refer not, as the lead says, to the specific 1948 war, but to the preceding civil war and the May 15 onwards 1948 war. If that is so, then we are using a term that has a far more extended meaning in hebrew than the sense we give it restrictively here. Secondly, we need both nakba and the contemporary terms used predominantly in the Arabic-language press as per WP:NPOV balance. I'm not happy with the alternative proposed, however, esp. since it is somewhat vague and diffuse. Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

There was an RfC about including Nakba which failed. May I once again suggest you read the archives? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Correction: The RfC was about bolding "Nakba". The term is already in the lead per consensus reached around the same time as the RfC. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd appreciate the courtesy of a link. However I assume Reuven Firestone's comment in a book this year, and he is an expert Arabist, postdates the discussion you allude to. Wikipedia is in continual evolution, as RS develop their historical insights. Talknic's point is not that nakba is not in the lead. It is that a balancing set of Arabic terms for their definition of the war does not follow the Hebrew terms. This is a clear violation of standard article leads in the I/P area, where all places, events and peoples with names in both languages have those names mentioned in sequence in the respective languages. It is an elementary point, and if the consensus ignored it, the consensus ignored the problem. Nishidani (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG The issue is not bolding. Or the Nakba specifically. The issue is NPOV, as as it has been since this ridiculous claim //" ... Second I think that "the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs" is not clear. Neighboring to whom? Syria? Lebanon? Also it's incorrect to say that the Palestinians were left under the military control of Israel, Jordan and Egypt" No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC) [2] // talknic (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani -- "It is an elementary point, and if the consensus ignored it, the consensus ignored the problem. " Precisely, by consensus and any other means possible -- Links [3] - [4] - [5] - [6] - [7] - [8] - [9] - [10] talknic (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, NMMGG. That confirms my point:

• 2010 Nov 7 you said nakba was unsourced. Firestone sources it Arabic: النكبة‎, al-Nakba.
• You agree with '"Nakba" is not a synonym for "1948 Arab–Israeli War" and therefore should not be bolded. Do not misrepresent the guidelines. --Orange Mike.'

Firestone says the Milkhemet Ha'atzma'ut (which is bolded in translation) is not a synonym for the !1948 Arab-Israeli War" since in Hebrew usage it refers to the civiul war and the ensuing 1948 war (as does perhaps al-nakba.

When GRuban writes:

• Any objections to adding "called by Arabs the First Palestine War" to the lead section? Sources include Benny Morris [1], Gamal Abdul Nasser (a rather important source there, ahem :-)) and Walid Khalidi [2], Time Magazine [3] and no doubt great heaps of others. --GRuban (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You object:

• Actually, Morris' book is referring to this and the civil war as the First Palestine war. That's the 1948 Palestine War article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

But the Hebrew war of independence bolded here refers, per Firestone, to this and the civil war as well.

I don't see any consistency here, other than to allow a Hebrew term that covers 1947-1948 as the title for the specific Arab-Israeli War of 1948, while denying that al-nakba the corresponding Arab term for the same period, equal status. They appear from Firestone and Morris to be synonyms. Nishidani (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

If you dig a little bit deeper into the archives you'll see I addressed the issue of War of Independence as well. If you want to remove that perhaps you should start a new section.

As far as I understand it, "nakba" refers to the exodus and not the actual war. When I said it was unsourced, that was obviously tongue in cheek, my point was that it was not synonymous with the title of this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you are sidestepping the point. Talnic raised the issue of lack of Arabic titles for the war.

They are required by custom and policy.

One of the titles used presently in Hebrew refers to 1947-1948.

One of the titles in Arabic refers to 1947-1948

We have a first-rate source on this point (Firestone).

You support the retention of the Hebrew title.

You oppose the inclusion of the parallel Arabic title which appears to be a functional synonym.

We don't have to worry about what we personally think(as far as I understand it). We simply have to find a solution to the lack of Arabic titles, and find them. Al-nakba in Firestone is apparently one.Nishidani (talk) 04:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not sidestepping anything. Read the archives. You'll see Pluto (with a previous handle) saying nakba should not be in the lead. I'm glad you found a source saying Nakba and War of Independence are synonyms. When I have a bit of time I'll try to find other sources, but as far as I understand it (based on books I've read on the subject, not my personal opinion, obviously) the two are not synonymous. The Nakba happened during the war, it is not the war itself. Just like WWII and the holocaust, although I wouldn't be surprised if you found a scholar or two making the mistake of treating the two as synonyms.

By the way, I don't have a problem with adding other Arabic names for the topic of this article, just like I had no problem with Nakba being included. Once again, read the archives. You can start with archive #12 and onwards. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion 02: // The 1948 Arab–Israeli War, known to Israelis as the War of Independence (Hebrew: מלחמת העצמאות or מלחמת הקוממיות‎, Milkhemet Ha'atzma'ut or Milkhemet Hakomemmiyut or Hebrew: מלחמת השחרור‎, Milkhemet Hashikhrur literally "war of liberation")13. The war was a continuation of the period known to the Arabs and Palestinians as "al Nakba" (Arabic: النكبة, "the Catastrophe")[11]. The 1948 war was fought between the State of Israel and a military coalition of Arab states and Palestinian Arab forces. It was the first in a series of International Wars [12] in the continuing Arab–Israeli conflict.//

Comments please talknic (talk) 11:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This is definitely not an improvement on the current text and is a poor summary of the article. You removed information on where the war was fought, how it ended and the preceding civil war. I don't think there's a period known as "al Nakba". Also, your source (Kelsen) does not mention this conflict. It mentions the word "Israel" once in a list of UN members and doesn't mention the word "Arab" at all. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMG The discussion on "where" is addressed in Second paragraph 3) a separate sentence.

Kelsen [13] is information delineating Civil war from International War. Quite pertinent!

" I don't think there's a period known as "al Nakba" -- Odd the source I gave, first paragraph [14] ":the Nakba (Arabic: النكبة‎, an-Nakbah, lit. "disaster", "catastrophe", or "cataclysm"),[1] occurred when approximately 711,000 to 725,000 Palestinian Arabs left, fled or were expelled from their homes, during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the Civil War that preceded it" -- You didn't even look at the link? talknic (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Nakba is an event that happened during a certain period of time. Saying that the period is known as "al Nakba" is incorrect (and not supported by the source).

Does Kelsen discuss the topic of this article?

If you want to move the nakba stuff to the first paragraph, what will the 3rd paragraph look like? It's hard to follow what you're trying to do when you change the structure of multiple paragraphs but only include one of them in your suggestion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG "Does Kelsen discuss the topic of this article?" Yes, as of May 15th 1948 it was an International War, what preceded it was a Civil War. Readers ought be informed of the difference.

I've not noticed any suggestions from you as to how we might overcome the NPOV issue here. You're forte seems to be preventing. talknic (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion 03: // The 1948 Arab–Israeli War, known to Israelis as the War of Independence (Hebrew: מלחמת העצמאות or מלחמת הקוממיות‎, Milkhemet Ha'atzma'ut or Milkhemet Hakomemmiyut or Hebrew: מלחמת השחרור‎, Milkhemet Hashikhrur literally "war of liberation")13. The war continued what was known to the Arabs and Palestinians as "al Nakba" (Arabic: النكبة, "the Catastrophe")[15]. The 1948 war was fought between the State of Israel and a military coalition of Arab states and Palestinian Arab forces. It was the first in a series of International Wars [16] in the continuing Arab–Israeli conflict.// talknic (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I still think the current text is better. In your eagerness to put the nakba higher up in the lead you're completely ruining the flow of the text. Maybe some other editors would like to chime in, though. I'm getting kinda tired of this back and forth. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG -- Your tiredness is irrelevant and; What you think, helped to create and would like to keep, is in contravention of NPOV. I am attempting to address a contravention of NPOV. If the only way of addressing the NPOV issue is to have mention of the Nakba, then it should be included and the latter mention re-assessed. talknic (talk) 03:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG -- Please see third paragraph issues & suggestion for resolving al-Nakba [17] talknic (talk) 08:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Agrees with NMNG. The current wording is better (though not perfect). Generally, I don't like postponing a basic description of what an article is about to the second sentence. That is the job of the first sentence. With the suggested wordings, a reader only reading the first sentence could think the article is about some painting called "The 1948 Arab–Israeli War". --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

We're obliged per WP:NPOV to have the parallel terms in Arabic and Palestinian usage introduced after the Hebrew terminology. The present version lacks them. One source, Firestone says one of the Hebrew terms is, in its referential extension (time) synonymous with nakba, which extends from 1947-8. He's an Arabist. He may be wrong, but if a strong secondary source confirms his point, it must be included. This leaves open the Arab terminology used at the time to describe the war. Please note thirdly that one of the Hebrew terms, as I noted above, denotes 1947-1947, and does not bear the restricted sense of the war which broke out in 1948 May.Nishidani (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Frederico1234 -- The current wording contravenes NPOV, a policy. Consensus to ignore NPOV is a no no. I'm trying to improve the article to conform to policy on behalf of readers. Please make an alternative suggestion talknic (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Frederico1234 -- " With the suggested wordings, a reader only reading the first sentence could think the article is about some painting called "The 1948 Arab–Israeli War" Uh? I haven't changed the first sentence talknic (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Second paragraph 1)

The war was preceded by a period of civil war in the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine between Jewish Yishuv forces and Palestinian Arab forces in response to the UN Partition Plan.

A) The correct and only English title for the mandate was the ["Mandate for Palestine"]. "for" being the operative word.
B) It clouds the issue to say "the territory of the British Mandate" or the "the territory of the Mandate for Palestine". It could be taken to include TransJordan. The civil war did not extent to TransJordan nor was it a part of '47 partition. The civil war took place in Palestine
Suggestion: //The war was preceded by a period of civil war from November 1947 till May 14th 1948 in British controlled Palestine, where Jewish Yishuv forces and Palestinian Arabs clashed in response to the UN Partition Plan.//

The above issue was Resolved: See discussion below Pre-Delineated Discussion. NMMNG has since reverted [18] a statement reached by agreement between two editors - Restored by Dalai lama ding dong (four editors agreed with the change, talknic, Gabriel, Nishidani, Dalai lama ding dong) talknic (talk) 08:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG HERE is a prior example of changes brought about by agreement between two editors talknic (talk) 08:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

From the pre-delineated discussion, by No More Mr Nice Guy @ 17:23, 3 July 2012 / .. I think that on closer inspection you'll see that saying it was "British-controlled" is too general (controlled how? Occupied? Part of the UK? A dependency? Colony?) when there was a specific term for it called the "British Mandate". That's where the civil war happened and I'm pretty sure that's what most RS use. Perhaps talknic can provide a reliable source calling it "British-controlled"./

NMMNG -- The British controlled Palestine under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. TransJordan/Jordan was declared independent 1946, no longer a part of any Mandate or Palestine during the civil war period 1947 - 1948. Any source used should accurately inform the reader Jordan was not a part of Palestine or any Mandate in the civil war period.

Suggestion 02: //The war was preceded by a period of civil war from November 1947 till May 14th 1948 in British-controlled Palestine[19], where Jewish Yishuv forces and Palestinian Arabs clashed in response to the UN Partition Plan.//
Comments, sans nonsense & moving goal posts, please talknic (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

"British-controlled Palestine" has a specific name commonly used in scholarship (hint: it includes the word "Mandate"). That's the name we should use. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG -- I've provided a reliable source as requested, cooperating and offering suggestions in the spirit suggested by policy. Now I'm asking you. Please put up a reliable source giving readers the phrase you like showing the actual status of Palestine between 1946 and 1948 under the Mandate, sans Transjordan. Thx talknic (talk)

---

Second paragraph 2)

An alliance of Arab States intervened on the Palestinian side, turning the civil war into a war between sovereign states.14

As is, it infers the Arab States "turned the civil war". The source does not say 'who' turned the war into a war between sovereign states. It says this : "A war between Israel and the Arab States broke out immediately, and the Arab armies invaded Palestine. This clash continued the civil war that started after the UN resolution on partition, but differed from its predecessor in being a confrontation between sovereign states employing regular armies." To reflect the source more accurately:
Suggestion: //An alliance of Arab States intervened on the Palestinian side and the preceding civil war turned into a war between sovereign states.[20] //

From the pre-delineated discussion:
No More Mr Nice Guy 18:35, 3 July 2012 /" The issue isn't if they should have intervened or not or whether they were responsible or not. The issue is what turned it into an international conflict. Think NATO invading Syria if that makes it easier."/

NMMNG -- This is the issue. The source says "This clash continued the civil war that started after the UN resolution on partition, but differed from its predecessor in being a confrontation between sovereign states employing regular armies" It gives a NPOV. We can either change the source or change the present statement as it stands in the article, because the present article statement DOES NOT accurately reflect the source it gives. It is in clear contravention of editorial policy.

Furthermore, editors are not here to decide or apportion responsibility, but to present a NPOV. The UNSC, UNSC resolutions on the other hand, Armistice Agreements, Peace Treaties et al, do identify and apportion responsibility. So if as an editor you wish to show definitive responsibility, you'll have to give sources accurately conveying the documents they cite. talknic (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

i like ths suggestion.. A n alliance of Arab States intervened on the Palestinian side and the preceding civil war turned into a war between sovereign states. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Second paragraph 3)

The fighting took place mostly on the former territory of the British Mandate and for a short time also in the Sinai Peninsula and southern Lebanon.15

Not supported by the source and it is quite misleading. "the former territory of the British Mandate" could include Jordanian territory and what became Israeli territory. The UNSC resolutions and Armistice Agreements of the time call for peace in "Palestine", not Israel, not Jordan, not "the former territory of the British Mandate". The Armistice Agreements do not contain the word Mandate at all!
Secondary sources citing the Armistice Agreements, cease fires, Peace treaties should accurately reflect those documents. to be RS
Two entities existed after Israel was declared May 15th 1948. Palestine and Israel, delineated from Israel by Israel in statements to the UNSC by the Provisional Govt of Israel May 22nd 1848 and; called "Palestine" by the UNSC.
Suggestion: //The fighting took place mostly in Palestine [21] and for a short time also in the Sinai Peninsula and southern Lebanon. //

---

Second paragraph 4)

The war concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, which established Armistice Demarcation Lines between Israeli and Arab military forces, commonly known as the Green Line.

A) The Green line is actually from the ceasefire agreement Nov 30 1948 prior to the Armistice Agreements of 1949. The Armistice's and cease fire specifically did not change any borders, futhermore they were all between existing states. Palestine has never had an Armistice Agreement or Peace Treaty with Israel.
B) As mentioned above: None of the Armistice Agreements have the word/s "Mandate" or "former" or "territory of" or "British Mandate"! They name both "Israel" AND "Palestine"
Suggestion: //The war concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, which established Armistice Demarcation Lines between Israeli and Arab military forces in Palestine. A cease fire line of 30th Nov 1948 became commonly known as the Green Line. [22]// talknic (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Third Paragraph 1 & 2)

There are two issues, in the separate sentences

Roughly half of the 1948 Palestinian exodus, often referred to as al-Nakba (Arabic: النكبة‎, literally "The Catastrophe"), occurred amidst this war. The war, in addition to the establishment of Israel itself, is also considered one of the main triggers for the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries.

1st sentence: It seems the NPOV issue in the opening paragraph: is irresolvable without mentioning al-Nakba as there appears to be no definitive Arab name for the period of the 1948 war. (please see the suggestions addressing NPOV in the opening paragraph [23]).
2nd sentence: Apart from being unsourced, the State of Israel was 'established' by declaration [24] "On May 14, 1948, on the day in which the British Mandate over a Palestine expired, the Jewish People's Council gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum, and approved the following proclamation, declaring the establishment of the State of Israel"
Israel was established, by declaration May 15th 1948. Recognized as established by the US 15th May 1948. Admitted to the UN May 1949 as an established and recognized state. These events all took place before the end of the war.
Suggestion 01: Combining the two sentences -- //Roughly half of the 1948 Palestinian exodus occurred amidst this war and it is also considered one of the main triggers for the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries.// talknic (talk) 07:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The bit about the establishment of Israel was put there to point out that some of the Jews who left Arab countries after the war did so for ideological reasons rather than the persecution they suffered because the Arabs lost. I'm a little surprised you'd want to remove that, not to mention I'm not sure why you think the fact that Israel was established before the war ended invalidates the current sentence. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG -- Nice try. However, it doesn't 'point out' or convey anything of the sort. It's un-sourced and directly contradicts "the fact that Israel was established before the war ended". It's more likely an attempt at propaganda talknic (talk)

You are mistaken, but I see no point in arguing with you. If other editors would like to weigh in I'd be happy to discuss with them. As usual, do not take my silence as support for your suggested change. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG - "You are mistaken" is no reason for keeping a phrase you like. It's simple, put up a source for the statement.. thx

BTW I don't believe one needs consensus to abide by policy talknic (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Pre-Delineated Discussion

NOTE TO ALL: Please move and/or continue discussions in the appropriate areas. Again sorry about the late delineation :-)
The opening paragraph:
Second Paragraph 1
Second Paragraph 2
Second Paragraph 3
Second Paragraph 4
Third Paragraph 1&2
Thx talknic (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

---

On first look, none of these changes seem particularly controversial. I think you need a hyphen in British-controlled Palestine (I'm not completely sure if controlled in this case is an adjective, in which case you'd use a hyphen or the past form of a verb, in which case you wouldn't). I don't agree with your wording in paragraph 2 - it is clear that the Arab states' decision to intervene was the immediate cause of the war entering a new phase. I would insert the word Mandatory before Palestine in your suggestion in 3 to disambiguate the multiple uses of the term Palestine.GabrielF (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

GabrielF - OK hypenated British-controlled Second Paragraph 1 //The war was preceded by a period of civil war from November 1947 till May 14th 1948 in British-controlled Palestine, where Jewish Yishuv forces and Palestinian Arabs clashed in response to the UN Partition Plan.// Done!.

Second Paragraph 2 - A new phase began the moment the Israeli Declaration became effective "at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time" [25]. With Jewish forces already outside of Israel, by default the civil war immediately became a war between the State of Israel and the non-self-governing territory of Palestine.

Another new phase when the Arab states invaded "Palestine". (The Independent State of Israel was no longer in or a part of Palestine [26]). The current source says "continued the civil war that started after the UN resolution on partition, but differed from its predecessor in being a confrontation between sovereign states employing regular armies" The "war" differed from the "civil war".

Second Paragraph 3 "insert the word Mandatory before Palestine in your suggestion in 3 to disambiguate the multiple uses of the term Palestine"

Why? There was no Mandatory as of May 14, 1948, on the day in which the British Mandate over a Palestine expired.

The Provisional Israeli Government acknowledged the delineation of Israel from Palestine in it's statements to the UNSC May 22nd 1848. The continual use of "the territory of" "Mandatory Palestine"/"British Mandate"/"British Mandate of/for Palestine" is fog, requiring readers to go elsewhere to try to ascertain what it means, only to find more fog talknic (talk) 09:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with all the suggestions above, most of which were discussed at length before talknic got topic banned, and failed to gain consensus. Coming back over and over with the same stuff is just tendentious. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy - Leaving material contravening NPOV by consensus is tendentious. Attempting to resolve NPOV issues in the proper manner is in line with editorial policies. My ban was for not for raising these issues BTW. Address the points raised please. talknic (talk) 05:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Talknic, very good work and well-reasoned proposals. I hope Pluto2012 notes them and comments. He is the outstanding wiki editor on this period, and anything he says is usually spot on. I can't myself see anything objectionable here.Nishidani (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Is Zero an acceptable editor? He was one of the people who supported "former territory of the British Mandate". Check the archives. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG -- Zero? The agreeing editors thus far are talknic, Gabriel, Nishidani, Dalai lama ding dong. I believe that's 4:1 consensus on Second paragraph 1)

None of the Armistice Agreements ending the fighting have the word/s "Mandate" or "former" or "territory of" or "British Mandate"! They name both "Israel" AND "Palestine". Weasel words have no place here. Please undo your revert, or I will ... thx talknic (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The comment about Zero was to Nishidani. I hope he reads the archives and sees the previous, what, 5 times you tried to make some of these changes?

If in a few days there's a consensus to change the text you can do so. In the meanwhile I suggest you read WP:BRD. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG -- Perhaps if you had the courtesy to address your comments.. thx. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]? or Pluto2012? BTW It is irrelevant how many times one attempts to bring about changes while the existing dialogue in articles appears to be flawed. The notion of being an editor is to remove flaws by working towards agreement. Arguing facts, not personalities. Not making misrepresentations and; without ignoring questions

Meanwhile, I suggest you read WP:BRD yourself, an essay BTW, which never the less says: "BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow. "

"If in a few days there's a consensus to change the text you can do so" Oh? Is this yours "I added a source for the PP not being implemented." without the same consensus you demand here? talknic (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with NMMNG. I don't see Talknc's suggestions as an improvement. In fact, some of his suggested modifications are somewhat misleading, as pointed out by GabrielF. I would oppose these changes.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Talknic's gone to some considerable trouble to examine minutely an old area of controversy. He presented to us several points, and his proposed emendations. To just reply and say, I don't like this stuff, is not helping him, nor the page. If there are criticisms based on the same grasp of the issues he shows, please be forthcoming with them. I myself have suggested one of our resident experts review it, since I don't trust my own judgement on such complex historical issues. But they strike me as serious, well-formulated proposals,-unless I am mistaken Gabriel also had the courtesy of suggesting they merited attention, -and are in the works. You just don't vote them away or refer vaguely to past discussions. That is not collegial.Nishidani (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"You just don't vote them away or refer vaguely to past discussions. That is not collegial." And yet two days ago you wrote this... Is this the sound of a pot clanking? Ankh.Morpork 18:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there you wished to change the use of the word judaization as 'antisemitic'. I.e. your personal impressions of the word, ignoring archives, were that it was prejudicial (it can't be. In Hebrew, judaisation was often used of planning for the Galilee) It happens to be customary usage in RS that have nothing to do with antisemitism. This has been determined exhaustively in the archived discussions. Here, looking through the links NMMGG kindly provided me, I can see little discussion on RS, and a huge amount of argument. For me, on these issues, RS in determining names is decisive. The less we bring our own opinions into these matters, the better for the article. If a problem arises look at RS. If archives exhaustively establish RS back the use of a term, one uses it. If archives show no interest in exhaustive RS-discussion, then they haven't faced the merits of the problem. It is a key way of resolving conflict, and I dunno why few of you care for it.Nishidani (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani -- I provided the links. For some reason no signature appeared, maybe because I also edited and signed some other part of the discussion talknic (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Could we discuss them one at a time though. I thought most looked OK but would like to see other comments. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Itsmejudith --- Sure. I'll delineate them. What say The opening paragraph: talknic (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Nish, When the same person brings the same issues to the same talk page over and over and over again, do you really expect other editors to reply at length with the same arguments? Take a look at the archives before you call something not collegial. You'll see several editors addressed these points multiple times. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG --- The issues remain. Please address them talknic (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

How many times do you expect me to address the same issues? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG. I can't see in the archives where point 1 is adequately addressed, for starters. But, sure, I'm a complete fuckwit when it comes to searching wikipedia, and may have missed something. GabrielF and Gatoclass both see merit on at least one point he's raised, and so, rather than just waving it away (it's tempting: we all get tired of these things), along with the rest, I think we should take each on its merits. By all means, ignore the rest if you think it's resolved, or naysay. Nishidani (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG --- I don't 'expect' you to do anything. You're here of your own accord. There are a number of new issues raised and new supporting evidence provided. As I explained here This again? wasn't and the points I gave to show it was not "This again?" you completely ignored talknic (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about suggestion 1, I would have to examine that more closely. I support suggestion 2 as an example of neutral phrasing. Suggestions 3 and 4 I am not keen on, as a large chunk of "Palestine" had already been recognized internationally as the new state of Israel by this time; also it implies the existence of a state called Palestine, which as we know has still not come into existence. Gatoclass (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree about suggestion 2. The war did not turn into an international conflict on its own. Had the Arab states not intervened, this would not have happened. So the intervention of the Arab states is what turned it into an international conflict.

I agree with you about suggestions 3 and 4, and I think that on closer inspection you'll see that saying it was "British-controlled" is too general (controlled how? Occupied? Part of the UK? A dependency? Colony?) when there was a specific term for it called the "British Mandate". That's where the civil war happened and I'm pretty sure that's what most RS use. Perhaps talknic can provide a reliable source calling it "British-controlled". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not true. All the actors anticipated far in advance of May 1948 that there would be a war if and when the state of Israel was declared. Ben-Gurion knew that as inevitable, and is on record as saying as much. This is a terribly complex matter, juridically and descriptively. Jordan, for example, wasn't recognized as a state at all by the United Nations, yet we summarily call it one here. It was not technically bound by any UN resolution. Glubb sent envoys to the Haganah weeks before the new war for clarification on what boundaries precisely would a future Israel consider its proper territorial boundaries. Would they stick to the partition borders, or did they consider all of Palestine their territorial objective? The Haganah gave no clear reply: that's up to the politicians, we just carry out orders, etc.Nishidani (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

But for the Egyptian/Syrian/Iraqi/Jordanian/Lebanese intervention/invasion, the war would have remained localized. So the proposal for paragraph two is not just misleading, its actually wrong. At the very least, it's constitutes a fringe theory that is not accepted by mainstream scholarship and is rejected by most historians.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The responsibility for the war lies with the International powers, and the British esp. If the states had not intervened. Israel would have been all of pre-Partition Palestine ('localised'). That was not what the UN resolution intended. But this is neither here nor there for the purposes of the improvements Talknic is proposing.Nishidani (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Had the Arab states not intervened, this would not have happened. - NMMG

By the time the Arab states intervened, some 300,000 Palestinians had already been expelled from their homes and become refugees in neighbouring countries. In such circumstances, how could the Arab states not intervene?

My point is that responsibility for this war is not a black-and-white issue, and that it is therefore important to employ neutral language that does not imply one side is more to blame than the other, which is why I supported suggestion 2. Gatoclass (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue isn't if they should have intervened or not or whether they were responsible or not. The issue is what turned it into an international conflict. Think NATO invading Syria if that makes it easier. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Second Paragraph 2 The current statement is NOT supported by the source. Again NMMNG demands of others but fails apply his own criteria to he wants to retain talknic (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy / Gatoclass / Nishidani / Jiujitsuguy -- I have copied NMMNG's last comment to and continued this discussion at Second Paragraph 2

NOTE TO ALL: Please move and/or continue discussions in the appropriate areas. Again sorry about the late delineation :-)
The opening paragraph:
Second Paragraph 1
Second Paragraph 2
Second Paragraph 3
Second Paragraph 4
Third Paragraph 1&2
Thx talknic (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

---

NOTE FOR ALL - PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ABOVE THIS NOTE - Sorry I should have seen this coming. I have now delineated each issue. Where possible we could move some discussion to it's appropriate place? Yes? No? talknic (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes to 1949 Armistice Agreements

Rationale for changes
1) Informed readers of the status of British administered Palestinian territories as they stood after Transjordan's independence in 1946.
2) Changed 3rd sentence to accurately reflect the current source which says "but even with the occupied territories....etc etc"[27]