Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War

Yemeni contingent

I'm currently doing research on Yemen, and I cannot find any source which states that Yemen sent an expeditionary force. Given that the British controlled Aden at this time, and Imam Yahya has hardly concerned with matters outside of his area of influence, I find this highly unlikely. Unless someone provides a source, I think it should probably be deleted. Chris kupka 19:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A map from New York Times  A M M A R  22:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this image is supposed to be proving, but I agree with Chris. From what I have read Yemen did not have an army at this time and would have had no ability to move troops to Palestine. Thus, unless someone produces any credible evidence that Yemen was involved, I support Chris' idea of deleting the misleading information. Additionally, Saudi Arabia did not have an army during this period either. At the very least the article is confusing because it implies that the governments of Yemen and Saudi Arabia sent troops which is false. DruidODurham (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Pov flag

Until reviewed by a neutral scholar, this article will be poved.
It is better for the credibility of wp, to state there is continual controversy on this article.
The discussion here above is an example of some points to correct. Alithien 09:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hi. I didn't see a POV flag on article or its history. If still a concern, maybe detail your concerns and/or only flag the smallest subunits feasible. Thanks! HG | Talk 11:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It has been removed after another editor modified the introduction. :-) Alithien 11:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. So much POV in the first paragraph.

"Fleeing or expulsion" implies that all Palestinian Arabs left due to fear or force. As stated in "Demographic outcome," it is not improper to say (although it seems unproven) that most left because their Arab neighbors asked them to. So the first paragraph already assumes one distinct and unproven POV. "Ostensibly" implies that there's a real reason in addition to the given reason. I'd say that security concerns were the reason, but less loaded language would be suitable to say that this was Israel's viewpoint, e.g., "Israel, while accepting the remaining Arabs, banned those Arabs who migrated out of Palestine from returning, citing security concerns." Also, I've heard Palestinians use "al Nakba" to describe the war itself, not just the movement of Palestinian Arabs in the war. If this is an improper use, it is still a widely used one. Indeed Nakba Day marks not the days of migration, but the first full day of the existence of the state of Israel.

Finally, I've heard documentaries claim that Jordan was a winner, not a loser, of the war. They gained the West Bank, including the Old City of Jerusalem; although technically "occupied," it was quite a gain, both in terms of land and in making the holiest site of Judaism both inaccessible to Jews for 19 years and a point of contention among Arabs and Israelis ever since. Contrast this with Egypt's gain of the tiny Gaza Strip and Syria's minor border changes. Calbaer 17:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• "ostensibly on security grounds" could be removed. simply.
• concerning al-Naqba, I think we lack source concerning its precise meaning.
• Jordan was a winner. Indeed.

Alithien 06:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest whole first paragraph is removed. Alithien 18:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Alithien -- Hi. I didn't check the edit history. Facilitation style comment: Current version seems to have had improvements, at least for your concerns. Have you tried recommending or editing "exodus" instead of "flight and expulsion" in line with the Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus or Palestinian exodus? HG | Talk 11:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yishuv political objectives - npov

transfer debate

I think we should not use primary sources to support a point when there are controversies. We know that there are many pov and many quotes -particularly concerning the transfer- that contradict each others. What would you think of something such as this :

Palestine initially counts 1,200,000 Arabs for 600,000 Jews(ref). The question of the creation of a Jewish state "sets" a demographical matter(ref). The viability and even the existence of a jewish state with a majority and even a strong minority of Arabs is precarious(ref). If a possible answer comes from the jewish immigration(ref), with the jewish that wait for in the displaced people camps or from the dispora from arab countries, the possibility of the transfer of arab population outside the jewish state has been debated for numerous years among the zionist authorities(ref). The possibility that this debate lead to the establishment of a planified expulsion policy is controversed among historians. This is developed in the article dealing with the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus.

I have all the references indicated (as you have). It is just another synthesis I find more "neutral". What do you think about that ? Alithien 06:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: transfer debate

Hi Alithien,

I think in case of a controversy primary sources are the best, i.e. the most reliable, i.e. facts or comparable to facts. The given quotes can easily be supported by more quotes to the same effect.

Was the matter of 'transfer' pre-1948 debated as a matter of 'exchange', as you state above? Is it more neutral to present 'transfer' as a part of 'exchange'? Were the Jews in Arab countries pre-1948 waiting to be transferred to Israel?

I took care to limit myself to facts, preferably to undisputable facts. I think in my text the most disputable lines are (if disputable):

'However amongst the leaders of Zionism it was clear that if a suitable opportunity presented itself they would take more.'

' 'Transfer' was seen as a solution to this problem'

To the first I would say: isn't this what they did? To the second: this is acknowledged in your proposal.

Your reference to causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus is good.

--JaapBoBo 20:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• In case of a controversy primary source is the worse because you just take one. It is not because once somebody would have said or written something that it is what he did or intended to do. We can find quotes from primary sources that will exactly claim the contrary.

when there is a controversy only NPoV is a solution : ie reporting *all* relevant pov from scholars on the matter.

• I don't say transfer was an exchange ? Why do you say that.
• No. What is disputable is that not everybody agrees with the transfer. So we have to give all minds and to precise who claims what.

Alithien 06:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Population Figures

There was no such demographic problem, because the part of Palestine allotted to the Jews by the partition had a Jewish majority and about 250,000 additional Jews were waiting in the wings in the DP camps, plus Jews from Arab countries etc. In all the area conquered by the Jews there were probably about 800,000 Arabs in total, and Jewish immigration would soon have redressed even that imbalance. In any case, the Arabs had started leaving of their own accord, and were leaving in massive numbers as early as March of 1948. It is a non-problem that is created deliberately and artificially in order to support a thesis that has no basis in fact. I do not understand the point about ignoring primary documents either. If you ignore the evidence, you are left with nothing but ignoramuses arguing about nothing. It makes no sense. Mewnews (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem

I think the control of Jerusalem was obviously a political objective of the Yishouv and of all protagonists. Quite strangely, scholars focus that much on the "palestinian transfer" nowadays that I think they "forget" to talk about Jerusalem. Shouldn't we talk about Jerusalem and quote Lapierre and Collins to prove this ? Alithien 06:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Weitz

I think reference to Weitz in Yichouv political objectives is irrelevant. The articles talks about a war, this is one man's wish. I think it is WP:UNDUE. Alithien 08:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Reference to Weitz

I think it's relevant. Weitz set up some transfer committees. See also [[1]]

--JaapBoBo 20:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes but when ? And even what ?

Why don't we give Yigal Allon, Yaakov Dori, Yigal Yadin, Menachem Begin and Moshe Sharett's mind. They were far more involved that Weitz.

Alithien 06:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Alithien recommended I drop by. Here's a facilitation-style comment. You're both being civil and substantive. You might try asking for a Wikipedia:Third opinion on both questions. E.g., (1a) To what extent might WP Policy or Guidelines such as WP:V or WP:RS favor primary or secondary sources? (1b) How might the answer apply here? (2a) What kinds of criteria should be drawn from WP:UNDUE or elsewhere to gauge the use of Weitz? (2b) What is your opinion about how the criteria might be applied here? Thanks. Pls let me know if you find this a helpful idea. HG | Talk 11:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No worry. "Problems" are with Isarig and Zeq. Alithien 11:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Demographic objectives

I removed the material concerning who considered there was an master plan, who not and about ethnic cleaning.
The reasons are :

• it is confusing : Pappé and Khalidi considers there was a plan even before plan Daleth. This last one is rather a proof.
• we are talking about the "objectives" before the war started and even in the historians that agree there some action equivalent to ethnic cleaning after the 1st truce, this was not "expected" or "programmed" in the demographic objectives.

Alithien 16:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it should not be limited to the start of the war; if the objective shifted you can insert a line that it did

I also think the first part you removed is accurate (at least Morris believes in it and I donn't think he is biased in this direction) and relevant:

Zionist leaders avoided this subject in public debate for fear of alienating world public opinion and provoking an Arab reaction (Morris, 'The Birth ... Revisited, 2004, p. 54, 55'), but reacted favorably to it whenever outsiders brought the subject up, as did the Peel Commission in 1937 and the British Labour Party in 1944(Morris, 'The Birth ... Revisited, 2004, p. 47, 54'). The Zionists saw transfer not as bad for the Arabs, e.g. during a closed deliberation in May 1944 Ben-Gurion said: '... it is clear that if the Arabs are removed this will improve their condition and not the contrary.'{Masalha, 'Expulsion of the Palestinians...', 1992, p. 159)

The same for the second and third part. You told me yourself that Gelber believed there were ethnic cleansing operations bij the IDF (see the Tantura discussion)!

The Zionists' position regarding forced transfer of Arab Palestinians prior to the war is a matter of controverse. A majority of modern historians (e.g. Gelber, Morris) holds that there was no Zionist master plan for an expulsion prior to July 1948. A majority (e.g. Gelber, Morris, Pappé, Khalidi) also holds that later mass flights were the result of offensives of the Israeli army (see causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus) and that the Israeli army engaged in ethnic cleansing operations.

After the war Israel did not permit the Palestinian refugees to return to their homes.

Why shouldn't we put the piece back?

--JaapBoBo 21:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

JB : I think it should not be limited to the start of the war; if the objective shifted you can insert a line that it did

Ok. But not at the beginning of the article. The context of this war is extremely important and a major point of the context is that it evolved. So (alleged) modifications of policy must be introduced it the article chronologically when they happened.

JB : Zionist leaders avoided this subject in public debate for fear of alienating world public opinion and provoking an Arab reaction

Yes but this is controversed. A clear difference must be made between what ONE historian thinks and what is thougth globally with controversies. I want to underline that this article is about the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, not about the Palestinian refugee problem. There were many many objectives during the war other that the transfer or Palestinians.

JB : ethnic cleaning

Yes but this arose after in another context after other events arose. The word "ethnic cleaning" should not be in the yichouv objectives before the war because it happened after.

More, Gelber also considers the "ethnic cleaning" if it arose was not programmed. A difference must be made between what some soldiers did and what government ordered, whether soldiers were sued or not...

Alithien 05:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

JB : Zionist leaders avoided this subject in public debate for fear of alienating world public opinion and provoking an Arab reaction

Alithien: Yes but this is controversed. A clear difference must be made between what ONE historian thinks and what is thougth globally with controversies. I want to underline that this article is about the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, not about the Palestinian refugee problem. There were many many objectives during the war other that the transfer or Palestinians.

This is not what ONE historian thinks. It's not one, because e.g. Pappé agrees with Morris ('The ethnic cleansing of Palestine'). It's also not just what Morris thinks, but what he, as a scientist, derives from his sources. In 'The Birth ... Revisited' (p54,55) Morris bases his conclusions on a lot of archival material. E.g. he quotes Sharett and Ben-Gurion in a JAE meeting at 7 May 1944. They say that talking about transfer will subvert its implementation in advance.

Can you indicate dependable sources that controverse this?

--JaapBoBo 12:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I agree with you that "ethnic cleansing" was not an objective before the war, but I'm sure 'transfer' was an objective of the leaders of the Yishuv. I'm sure also that before the war these leaders desperately wanted a voluntary transfer (Morris agrees with this). However for most Palestinian Arabs this was out of the question. What changed during the war was the opportunity to use force and to blame the Arabs.

--JaapBoBo 12:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello JaapBoBo,

JB : Can you indicate dependable sources that controverse this?

??? About the transfer ? Of course. Shapira, Karsh, Teveth don't agree with any idea or will of transfer. Gelber doesn't directly contredict this but the reasons he gives are controdictory with this for events before july 1948. And even Morris is nuanced ! He claims the idea of transfer was in zionists thoughts (i.e. : they knew it was a solution to the problem) but he also add he doens't know at what extent this idea influenced the events of 1948 (i.e. : if the yishuv authorities organised a transfer).

See here for more details : [2]

Alithien 13:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yishuv objectives

JaapBoBo, If you are not able to "write for the enemy" and to introduce all points of views (and not only theirs) don't edit articles.

• You give all pov's or you give none.
• You make the difference between "truth" and "mind" or you don't edit.
  

Alithien 06:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Casus belli

According to Wikipedia it means 'justification for acts of war'. Since the Arabs attacked they should provide this justification. You can find it here: [[3]].

Let me cite some things:

• they [the Arab States] aim at nothing more than to put an end to the prevailing conditions in [Palestine].
• First: That the rule of Palestine should revert to its inhabitants, in accordance with the provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations and [the Charter] of the United Nations and that [the Palestinians] should alone have the right to determine their future.
• Second: Security and order in Palestine have become disrupted. The Zionist aggression resulted in the exodus of more than a quarter of a million of its Arab inhabitants from their homes and in their taking refuge in the neighbouring Arab countries.

So the casus belli should be something like: 'disregard by UN of Right of Self-Determination of Palestinians and exodus of a quarter of a million Palestinians from their homes due to Zionist agression'

--JaapBoBo 20:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The casus bellum you listed, while a decent start, was a bit non-NPOV and maybe even a little bit of WP:SYNTH. It's probably a worthwhile place to start from, though. In the interest of encouraging all sides to work expeditiosly toward a common goal, I've removed the casus bellum entirely for now. Let's work toward a properly cited and mutually agreeable wording before relisting. Fair enough? --Clubjuggle ^T/C 12:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

How about something like: End Zionist aggression resulting in flight of Arab refugees, and restore Palestinian right to self determination as guaranteed by the UN Charter. Gatoclass 12:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation? --Clubjuggle ^T/C 12:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

JaapBobo provided it in the link above but for your benefit here it is again:

"...the Governments of the Arab States declare the following:

First: That the rule of Palestine should revert to its inhabitants, in accordance with the provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations and [the Charter] of the United Nations and that [the Palestinians] should alone have the right to determine their future.

Second: Security and order in Palestine have become disrupted. The Zionist aggression resulted in the exodus of more than a quarter of a million of its Arab inhabitants from their homes and in their taking refuge in the neighbouring Arab countries.

...Sixth: Therefore, as security in Palestine is a sacred trust in the hands of the Arab States, and in order to put an end to this state of affairs...the Governments of the Arab States have found themselves compelled to intervene in Palestine solely in order to help its inhabitants restore peace and security and the rule of justice and law to their country, and in order to prevent bloodshed. Gatoclass 13:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Gatoclass gives the goals of the Arabs; the casus belli should give the 'justification for acts of war' given by the Arab states. How about: alleged disregard by UN of Right of Self-Determination of Palestinians and exodus of a quarter of a million Palestinians from their homes due to alleged Zionist agression

@Clubjuggle: I don't think this is synthesis, because there is only one source, also I don't think there are problems with npov because a casus belli neccesarrily represents the view of the attacking side.

--JaapBoBo 21:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No, that is too much of a mouthful and it would also give the appearance of bias. The "casus belli" section is not designed to reproduce grievances chapter and verse, but only to give a thumbnail sketch of the reasons cited for going to war. Gatoclass 08:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be as simple as possible. How about "Safeguard the security and right to self determination of Arab Palestinians"? Gatoclass 08:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the goals can also be the 'justification for acts of war'; I was thinking of shooting incidents etc. that are sometimes used as justifications. I find Gatoclass's proposal okay. --JaapBoBo 15:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Alithien, what exactly is your objection to the above? We have an impeccable source for this and I think the characterization here is a very mild one. One could hardly water down the description any further. And indeed when I look at some of the chapter and verse casus belli given on other pages, I'm beginning to wonder whether I should have shortened and toned down the description here at all. Gatoclass 22:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not Alithien, but the stated casus belli, Palestinian self-determination, was belied by the fact that neither Egypt nor Jordan allowed for self-determination while they occupied the terroritories in the aftermath of the war. The real justification and trigger was the declaration of independence of the state of Israel. But, as this might be difficult to "prove," perhaps no casus should be listed. The actual and ostensible justifications, views, and triggers can be listed in the article. Calbaer 01:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the meaning of casus belli. It doesn't mean actual reasons for going to war, it means stated or ostensible reasons. You may well be correct that these weren't the genuine reasons for going to war, but that's not what the casus belli records. Gatoclass 02:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gatoclass,

I have nothing particular against this... This is the "casus belli" : ie the official motivation.

I just added "on the whole Palestine"

It could be interesting to have an additional section discussing each real motivation but that is something else.

It is funny that discussions here looks more like negociation between pov instead of neutral report of pov.

Alithien 10:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just reversed Alithiens changes. The original 'casus belli' was negotiated here, so it shouldn't be changed just like that.

This is what Alithien made of it: "Safeguard the security and self determination of Arab Palestinians on the whole Palestine". Why should 'right to self determination' be replaced by 'self determination'? This makes it really strange. Above that its not in line with the source [[4]]'. 'On the whole of Palestine' is also not in line with the source.

--JaapBoBo 18:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What negociations ? Wikipedia is not a negociations and if any (which shouldn't) it was not ended.

The whole palestine is not reflected in the source ? Arab league didn't accept the partition of Palestine. Alithien 18:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No of course they didn't accept it. They wanted the issue decided by self-determination of all Palestinians, ie, a vote. That's the principle they were upholding (or said they were) when they invaded. Adding "on the whole of Palestine" is redundant, because self determination for Palestinians would automatically mean the extinction of the Zionist state. Gatoclass 18:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

By a vote ??? Do you have a source ? Alithien 18:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Self determination means the people as a whole get to choose what sort of government they want. In other words, what the majority wants is what the majority gets. It usually implies a plebiscite or a vote of some kind.

That is the principle the Arab League upheld in its negotiations with the UN prior to the adoption of the two-State solution. The Arabs wanted a one-state solution because that would mean that Arab Palestinians, with a two thirds majority of the population, would basically get to control the state through the ballot box. Gatoclass 19:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is "on whole Palestine" perturbing ?

Alithien 19:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well for one thing, it is bad English. For another, it can only obfuscate the issue. By May 15, Israel has come into existence. So what does "on whole Palestine" mean? As far as the Israelis are concerned, half of the former Palestine is now Israel. Likewise for the UN, which has rapidly recognized the new state. So what does "on whole Palestine" convey to the reader? Nothing but confusion. Apart from which, as I've already said, it's completely redundant in any case. Gatoclass 19:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Whole Palestine means that they wanted the "self determination" of Arab Palestinians on the whole country.

Do you mean that in their casus belli they didn't intend to attack or invade Israel but only enter and protect the Arab state ?

Alithien 19:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

see point 9 of the "source" :

When the General Assembly of the United Nations issued, on 29 November 1947, its recommendation concerning the solution of the Palestine problem, on the basis of the establishment of an Arab State and of another Jewish [State] in [Palestine] together with placing the City of Jerusalem under the trusteeship of the United Nations, the Arab States drew attention to the injustice implied in this solution [affecting] the right Of the people of Palestine to immediate independence, as well as democratic principles and the provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations and [the Charter] of the United Nations. [These States also] declared the Arabs' rejection of [that solution] and that it would not be possible to carry it out by peaceful means, and that its forcible imposition would constitute a threat to peace and security in this area

Instead of "whole Palestine", maybe rejection of UN resolution 181 could solve the matter ? Alithien 19:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean that in their casus belli they didn't intend to attack or invade Israel but only enter and protect the Arab state?

They didn't recognize Israel. So as far as they were concerned, they weren't "invading" anything. They were simply entering Palestine to safeguard the rights and security of all Palestinians. Or so they claimed.

You claim the current version is "pro-Palestinian." How could it be other than that when it's the rationalization of the Arab states for their invasion? Of course it's going to sound pro-Palestinian. Go and have a read of the casus belli for the Six Day War, and ask yourself if it doesn't sound pro-Israeli.

But it seems you're not content with that. You're not content with the fact that wars started by Israel have casus belli which not unexpectedly make the initiator of hostilities sound like the innocent victim. Instead, you want to make the Arab casus belli for a war started by the Arab League, also sound pro-Israeli. You want to tack on a phrase of your own invention about the Arab League wanting "the whole of Palestine". Subtext: the Arabs were greedy. They wanted it all.

Sorry, but I don't find anything remotely NPOV about your proposed insertion. Gatoclass 19:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

For your information : [5]

if you prefer the one I deleted there, no problem with me.

You seem to have forgotten your congratulations to me for 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and its "neutrality".

What is funny is that I reverted Isarig (see discussions here above Pov edits) because I wanted to write "entered Palestine" when he wanted "invaded Israel".

You know, I will not die because you don't behind the words casus belli in a wikipedia article the facts that Arab League rejected res. 181 and invaded Palestine is hidden.

lol lol lol Alithien 21:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Nb: and I know what a casus belli is. Just read Rogan and Shlaim, war of Palestine 1948. You will learn what was the arab motivations and learn they didn't want it at all... Maybe just Abdallah and jsut a part of this but this is not what they declared. Alithien 21:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Alithien, you can argue what you want of what you think the Arabs really wanted, but the casus belli is about the justification they gave. The rejection of UN-res. 181 is a specification of the protection of the rights of the Palestinians. It is already in there.--JaapBoBo 06:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Answer in next section about this topic : [6]. Alithien 10:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

New 'Yishuv Objectives'

I've added a neutralised version of an important pov on the Yishuv objectives. I am a bit familiar with other pov's but I don't know the right references. To achieve NPOV I invite others to add other pov's, including references.

P.S. Alithien: please don't delete this but try to discuss it first in the true Wikipedia spirit; remember: Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it. [[7]]

--JaapBoBo 21:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have always worked in that spirit. Alithien 10:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Shelling photo

The photograph being discussed is Image:1948-Jordanian artillery shelling Jerusalem.jpg.

Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not an expert), but what is pictured appears to be a long-exposure photograph of parachute flares being used to illuminate part of the city (fired up on the image right, then drifting with the wind towards the left). There may well have been shelling or fighting going on at the time, but I don't see evidence of that in this photo.

I was unable to load the photo's cited source page,[8] and the site appears to be gone, but archive.org has a copy.[9] Does anyone know of a history book or other source which captions this photo? It would be good to find a more specific citation, which credits the photographer or dates the photo. —Michael Z. 2007-09-25 22:55 Z

I have no info about this but what you say sounds logical. Alithien 10:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This edit

This edit [10] is not NPOV and even the calims made by the source ( a biased source the countries that started the war try to justify going into war) do not confirm what the editor has wrote. so the editor is even misquoting a highly biased source.....Zeq 16:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the article is presenting the bias, not presenting bias as facts. But I could be wrong. Beamathan (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Casus

The cause for the war (invasion started on the day the state of Israel declared independence) has clearly been (in this article and in real life): "Arab rejection of the existence of the State of Israel". Now suddeny it is changing....to a quote from the invading party manifesto. Since when wikipedia became so one sided ???? Zeq 21:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

btw, this is how NPOV looks like: [11] Zeq 10:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, no, that is your own pov. Tarc 12:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

it is a bit repetative to hear this from tarc again and again: "your POV"... Of course - Everything I write in a talk page is my view. The issue here is not what I write in a talk page - rather it is to make sure that both POV will be respresnted in Wikipedia articles. Zeq 12:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, when you claim that your own pov is neutral, you don't see that as problematic? Tarc 12:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No. My POV is not Neutral. So is your POV. read WP:NPOV. The article has to inlclude all POVs - not just your POV (which you call "fact") and not just my POV (which you call "opinion") . Zeq 13:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting.

• fact : "Zionism wanted a jewish state. This implies Arab population must be displaced"
• translation 1 : "Zionism aimed at expelling Palestinians"
• translation 2 : "As all nations in the world has a state , zionism demand is legitime"
• fact : "Arab declared war and entered Palestine to control it. This implies the rejection of the existence of a jewish state"
• translation 1 : "Arabs defended the secury and self determination of Arab Palestinians"
• translation 2 : "Arabs aimed at destroying Israel".

Is the aim theory finally a pov practice ? Alithien 09:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Alithien,

1. The 1947 UN decision created two states: One Jewish one Arab. Thus a "jewih state" does not mean aiming at explaing arabs and an Arab state does not mean expelling jews.
2. Jews accepted the division in two states.
3. Arab rejected the division.
4. Arab countries invaded in an effort to control the whole area thus to eliminate the Jewish state. The only reason we are having this discussion is that they failed to do so but the aim is clear. Zeq 09:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Zeq,

Thank you for your answer. I perfectly understand your point.

In fact, I was answering to Gatoclass and JaapBoBo with whom I started the same discussion here above. Maybe we could "merge" both sections. Alithien 09:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"The partition resolution was never suspended or rescinded. Thus, Israel, the Jewish State in Palestine, was born on May 14, as the British finally left the country. Five Arab armies (Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq) immediately invaded Israel. Their intentions were declared by Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League: 'This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades. '"[12] - this is from the same source JaapBoBo used - so if we are to use this source we should use everything they have not just pick and chosse a POV edit. Zeq 12:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

All parties, please review the above sections Talk:1948 Arab-Israeli War#Casus Belli as expressed by contemporary belligerents and Talk:1948 Arab-Israeli War#Bias in casus of belli. It is amusing that "a quote from the invading party manifesto" is being objected to. Casus belli is defined precisely as such a quote from the invading party. A casus belli is the proclaimed case for the war, declared by the initiating party. Mind you, it is not precisely correct to use the "to safeguard..." language, since this is a general statement of intent rather than a specific point (casus means "case", "incident", or "rupture"). The correct casus based on the linked statement is rejection of the "forcible imposition" of a Jewish State in Palestine. The last time around, it was decided just to cut the casus section altogether, because people who don't know what the words mean and can't be bothered to find out kept deleting the "forcible imposition" language and inserting something else, often something nonsensical. <eleland/talkedits> 19:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"Safeguarding" is used in the source. Alithien 11:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit

[13] - the fact that Pappe is Jewish has nothing to do with this article. Also: katz is anti-zionist. Branding the exodus "ethnic cleansing" is POV and border on propeganda. Zeq 22:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish exodus in the reverse direction

Certain editors are insisting that no mention be made of it. In their log comments they imply that it didn't even happen, and they are more than wellcome to argue that stance over in the article on the Jewish exodus from Arab lands, and sidle up to the neo-Nazis editting articles on the Holocaust.

But it happened. It happened because of state-sponsored violence that was incited in perfect harmony with the anti-jewish (yes, anti-Jewish) stance taken by the Arab states during the conflict. And it happened "thanks" to incitement from Haj Amin's Arab Higher Comittee.

I.e. the violence that drove "Arab Jews" into France, the UK, the US, and yes, Israel, was a part of this conflict and merits mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.127.67 (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Part and parcel, as the saying goes; closely associated with the war. Agree that it belongs in this article, and not just as a counterpoint to mention of the May 15 protests. Absurd to imply it didn't happen, but then, there are always those, on wiki and otherwise, who are only too willing to rewrite history. The May 15 events came later, and I have shifted the sequence of text to reflect this. Not sure May 15 belongs in a section on demographic outcome at all. Hertz1888 05:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Zeq 05:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course there was a Jewish exodus in the opposite direction, but it mainly occured later (1948-1967), and it is not directly linked to the war. E.g.: which acts, in the 1948 war, caused the Jewish exodus? --JaapBoBo 09:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a primary source that show the link between the war of 1948 and the jewish exodus : [14]

Precises facts have been developed in the main articles.

Alithien 09:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't want the Jewish exodus in this article. Reasons:

• It mainly happened after the war. I don't know who wrote: 'concurrently, in the three years after the war ...' in the article, but it's an obvious 'contradictio in terminis'.

An IP: The violence that caused the exodus started before the war, and intensified, especially its state sponsored incitement, during the war. The resulting flight was in large part a matter of logistics, some of which indeed had to wait until afterwards.

JaapBoBo: so if it started already before the war it didn't have to do so much with the war. Almost all of the exodus happened after the war.

An IP: and the tit for violence in Mandatory Palestine also started before the war. Did that also have nothing to do with the war? And again you evade the issue. The Arab nations conducting the war also sponsored horrific violence against their Jewish citizens as part and parcel of their policy vis-a-vis the ZIonists. It was a part of their war effort, and thus a part of the war. That the migration it caused took longer is irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.187.0.78 (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• The changing attitude of Arab populations towards the Jews certainly added to the exodus, but Israel invited the Arab Jews in, was also very happy to welcome them and in some instances organised their emigration.

An IP: And your point is, uh, what exactly? This does nothing to negate the relevance of the exodus to this article. It just shows your own resentment that Israel would have the audacity to commit the "crime" of helping Jews escape the violence.

JaapBoBo: Speaking of Israeli crimes, what about the bombings in Iraq!? My point is that the Jewish exodus was not so much caused by the war as by the result of the war: an Israel that wanted Arab Jews to immigrate.

• If we allow this we might include a whole range of other topics, like, Israels blocking the return of the Palestinian refugees, Israels dispossession laws, Israels' discrimination of Arabs (and discrimination of Arab Jews in Israel), Israels attacks in 1956 and 1967, the Arab attack in 1973, Israels expulsion of 200.000 Palestinians in 1967-68, etc., etc.. Mentioning the Jewish exodus from Arab countries here is undue weight.

--JaapBoBo 13:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

NB: I am not IP.18 who just added some comments in JaapBoBo's text.

In 1947, Yishuv authorities argued that Palestine had to be shared also to welcome the Jews that were in DP camps. UNSCOP visited these and interviewed them. Their existence was one of the arguments that convinced UNSCOP to recommand the Partition. I think what they became is relevant.

In May 1948, the world feared (rightly or not) for these Jews living in Arab countries. (as proven by the NY Times first page of May 16).

You added yourself that the demography issue was an "aim" of the Yishuv. To guarantee the demographical equilibrium of Israel, Jewish Agency excepected these to settle in Palestine once no more limititation would be impose to immigration.

Alithien 18:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Israel blocking of Palestinian refugee should be added in the article. This happened during the war and the war was the big argument used by Ben Gurion to prevent this.

Absentee properties laws were voted in 1950. The link is less direct but they were already discussed during the war with Weitz. The remaining (I am sure you agree) is not relevent.

Alithien: of course there was a demographic aim, getting rid of Palestinians, but do you think the Yishuv leaders wanted to use the war to get Arab Jews to emigrate to Israel? --JaapBoBo 18:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Some comments on this text I deleted: Concurrently, in the three years following the war, 700,000 Jews settled in Israel, mainly along the borders and in former Arab lands. Around 136,000 came from the 250,000 displaced Jews of the Second World War. The majority, around 600,000, was part of the 758,000 to 900,000 Jews who emigrated from Arab countries.

• 'Concurrently, in the three years following the war' is a contradictio in terminus. The source should be checked.
• '700,000 Jews settled in Israel, mainly along the borders and in former Arab lands. Around 136,000 came from the 250,000 displaced Jews of the Second World War' is certainly not relevant.
• 600,000 in three years is a bit high, considering the table in [[15]] which says the number of Jews in Arab countries went from 856000 to 475000 between 1948 and 1958.

--JaapBoBo 19:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

An additional quote from an Iraqi Jew who thinks the Jewish exodus was not so much related to the 1948 war: Certainly it has been easier for the world to accept the Zionist lie that Jews were evicted from Muslim lands because of anti-Semitism, [[16]] --JaapBoBo 19:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Not much of an objective source, a disillusioned immigrant to Israel who speaks of Zionist lies. The eviction of Jews from the Arab world is established fact.

I fail to see that you have gained a consensus here to delete reference to the reverse direction exodus as you have done. If the criterion is concurrency with the war, then it is time to remove the reference to May 15 protests, which began considerably later. Pending further discussion, I am restoring the deleted content for now, without the word "concurrently". I believe some copyediting can bring this paragraph into line, rather than wholesale deletion. Hertz1888 20:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. this must be discussed further. surly an important outcome of the war Zeq 20:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo, 1 controversed scholar claims that "the expulsion" of the palestinian was an aim of the war and to argue his thesis, he gives a context to the war that is quite away from the reality of that time.
At the level reached by current analysis from each side, it is strange indeed nobody ever claimed that the Zionists purposedly made Sepharads expelled from Arab lands... And in fact, it has been claimed :-)
Could you please read precisely what you contest and read the quote you put forward for that purpose :
1. settled <-> expulsion : who talks about expulsions ?
2. no reason given <-> arab antisemism : who talks about antisemitism ?
Concerning the 600,000, you are right. I just took the former text trusting the source given and there is a contradiction.
Alithien 07:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

With what I have in hand, I cannot do better than writing than "most others are from arab lands". With the different numbers given we can guess there are min 165,000 jews who didn't came neither from Arab lands nor from DP camps.

There remain the others who came from Muslims but not Arab lands such as Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistans, Jews from Sweden, Ireland, Switzerland, Spain and Portugal, USA and South America.

Those who were "jailed" in Chypres were not counted yet. All this should give the 165,000 if everybody is reliable. Alithien 09:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

independent state

In the declaration of war, the arab league states : 'The Governments of the Arab States participated in [this conference] and asked for the preservation of the Arab character of Palestine and the proclamation of its independence'
Alithien 09:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

NB: I didn't find in the source where it was talked about "arab palestinians". Alithien 10:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Alithien, I have two reasons not to include 'in an independent state':

• A fuller quote of your quote says: The Round Table Conference was held in London in 1939 in order to discuss the Palestine question and to arrive at the just solution thereof. The Governments of the Arab States participated in [this conference] and asked for the preservation of the Arab character of Palestine and the proclamation of its independence. So the Arab states said that in 1939. Maybe they wanted it also in 1948, but you should give another quote for that.
• Even if the Arab states had this objective, its better to keep the casus belli short, and not include things that don't add much anyway.

--JaapBoBo 10:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo, the document refers to Arab and Palestine independences more than to any other concept. I counted 36 occurence of the words.

Safeguard appears three, and once concerns the safeguard of the independence. Security 8.

All this is summarized here : "The Arab States recognize that the independence and sovereignty of Palestine which was so far subject to the British Mandate has now, with the termination of the Mandate, become established in fact".

This is the casus belli. If this is too long, we can remove what concerns security and self determination.

Alithien 11:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I agree. --JaapBoBo 12:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

undue weight

I removed this from the "demography outcome section" :

History would produce different accounts as to the reasons behind Palestinian flight from Israel. Historian and former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami argues that during the war "[The] Arab community [was] in a state of terror facing a ruthless Israeli army whose path to victory was paved not only by its exploits against the regular Arab armies, but also by the intimidation and at times atrocities and massacres it perpetrated against the civilian Arab community. A panic-stricken Arab community was uprooted under the impact of massacres that would be carved into the Arabs' monument of grief and hatred". Jewish historian Ilan Pappé calls the exodus an ethnic cleansing.

On the other hand, Shmuel Katz claims in his book "Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine" that "the Arab refugees were not driven from Palestine by anyone. The vast majority left, whether of their own free will or at the orders or exhortations of their leaders, always with the same reassurance-that their departure would help in the war against Israel.". That claim, however, has been criticized by many scholars for lack of credible evidence. The book, originally written in 1973, was even described as one-sided by The New York Times.

This is material for the article about the causes of the 1948 exodus and there is a linked at the beginning of this section concerning this. 1 line here is more than enough. Alithien 06:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Term: Palestinian Arabs

During this period of time, Pan-Arab nationalism was the dominant way that the Arabs of the Middle East identified themselves. Further, the term "Palestinian" as a reference to Islamic Arab refugees who live in contested areas of the former British Mandate, is a modern invention. "Palestine" was the term used to describe the land by Jews before declaring the state of Israel. A Palestinian at the time (though the term was not often used in this way) was any person who lived in the British Mandate. Palestinians (as refered to today) have no relationship whatsoever to the ancient Philistines (from which the term is derived). As a result, I fail to see why this article calls the Arab inhabitants of the British Mandate "Palestinian Arabs" when they would have simply refered to themselves as Arabs at the time. There were certainly Islamic Arabs who inhabited the British Mandate and who could trace back their history in the land for many generations. There was also a consistent (albeit much smaller) Jewish presence in the land since Biblical times. [17] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.45.143.226 (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Simply put, the term 'Palestinean Arabs' is used to clarify the situation. Using the term Arab could refer to any person of the Arab World. To say that someone can not be defined as Palestinean, because they are not related to the original inhabitants is ridiculous. That would be like saying that I am not American, because my family immigrated here in the 1800's. Canutethegreat 22:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian nationalism has existed since 1920.

Some "Palestinian Arabs" distinguished themselves from the other Arabs and wanted an independant state in Mandatory Palestine. Alithien 12:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Article lacks focus

Just read through it and it provides a pretty chaotic view of events. Where is the overview of operations? Where is the discussion of grand strategy? It comes across as nothing more than an account of different battles, presented in no particular order. There's room for a great deal of improvement here IMO. Gatoclass 16:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You are perfectly right.

But such a work is not possible on wikipedia.

Alithien 12:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's possible! All we need to do is find an account of overall strategy from a reliable source. And they most certainly exist, I've read a number of them myself. Gatoclass 13:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

labour zionism

I removed:

Other Zionists believed in Labor Zionism, and had strong socialist leanings. They organized the labor movement in Palestine, and joined with the Arab masses in campaigns for improved wages and working conditions.

because it's not sourced and it is contradicted by a reliable source, Zeev Sternhell's 'The Founding Myths of Israel'. I replaced it with:

Other Zionists believed in Labor Zionism, an ideology that wanted to conquer the land, first by Jewish presence and Jewish labour, later, according to Sternhell, if necesarry by force. They organized the labor movement in Palestine.

--JaapBoBo (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's say that both pov's exist. Even if one of them is minoritar.

I removed all comments and material related to this. This is useless in this article. Ceedjee (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The original text was certainly wrong. --JaapBoBo (talk) 12:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Not per my understanding :

Tom Segev, One Palestine, Complete, p.412 :

[In a paragraph describing positive links betweens Arabs and Jews] (...). There were cases in which Jewish and Arab workers even went on strike together. A Jew and an Arab were joint leaders of a transport strike. The Histradrut also publiqhed a newspaper in Arabic, which included, among other thingks, translations of (...) [different Jewish writers].

There are other exemples. Ceedjee (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Those were actions of Left Labour I think. Not mainstream. --JaapBoBo (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I share this mind. But it "shows" that there was some debate. I cannot evaluate the ratio of those who followed this policy, those whose abandoned it (I have another exemple and I understand Segev as considering it is the maintstream) and those who never wanted to follow this... Ceedjee (talk) 09:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Assesment edits

Marshall

I removed: Despite Morris's assertion, Secretary of State George Marshall had told Jewish agency Foreign Minister Moshe Sharret in early May or late April 1948, "Believe me, I am talking about things about which I know. You are sitting there in the coastal plains of Palestine, while the Arabs hold the mountain ridges. I know you have some arms and your Haganah, but the Arabs have regular armies. They are well trained and they have heavy arms. How can you hope hope to hold out?". Morris is a historian who investigated the case and had access to a lot of information. Marshall was a contemporary, and could very well have been wrong. Which historian says Marshall was right? --JaapBoBo (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

it doesn't matter which historian says he's right or wrong, "Secretary of State" is a high profile figure with a number of intelligence agencies from which he receives his information. There's no justification to remove high profile accounts of the events... morris is only human. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

JaapBoBo : "rmv Marshal quote: who says Marshall had accurate information?; Do Collins and LaPierre say he was right?"

Yes, they do ;-).

But whatever, I think the "real" balance of force and a better explanation of what was a myth and what was not should be described a better way. Ceedjee (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Are Collins and LaPierre historians or journalists?

If they are reliable we should allow their pov in, but we should not give it undue weight. --JaapBoBo (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

They are journalists but are quoted by most historians and books on the matter.

But they are rather considered as "traditionnal historians" (of course).

I read one negative critics concerning a part of their work in Gelber's by that was not major enough so that I remember what it dealt with.

I agree for (un)due:weight. Ceedjee (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

CIA

Removed: Earlier, a CIA report had predicted that it was unlikely that the Jews could hold out against the Arabs of Palestine without extensive outside help, because a war would disrupt the economy for too long. The CIA did not believe that Arab states would intervene. This is not from a reliable source. --JaapBoBo (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

i disagree, you have any example of this source being unreliable? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

new comment per diff: Eleland, this page is also for you... please interact on it rather than make a rhetorical edit summary+revert. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

First, "zionism-israel.com" is an unreliable source par excellence. You've asked for "any example of this source being unreliable," which shows that you either don't know or don't care how WP:V actually works. Do you realize how frustrating it is to try and edit with you when you simply don't pay attention to polices and community standard practices?

Second, the other information at issue is a long and tendentious quote from George C. Marshall, which is of a certain historical interest, but has essentially no relevance to the 1947–1948 Civil War in mandatory Palestine, which is what the section is about. It's WP:OR#SYNthetically presented as a contrast to Benny Morris's conclusion that the Palestinians were "far too weak", when it is actually a statement about the regular Arab armies. <eleland/talkedits> 21:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Eleland,

1. i've asked a serious question on the reasons to which you claim zionism-israel.com to be unreliable. the website having some POV that it's ok to live in israel is not an immediate reason to reject facts that are presented by them... do you have an example of a mistake? an example of extremely partisan and improper presentation by them?
2. the "long and tendentious quote from George C. Marshall" represents the US view at the time which is "tendentiously" in contrast to benny morris (so what?!). Benny Morris stated in his book his belief based on the sources he's read, and Marshall does the same only at a different time period. your assertion that palestinians != arabs back in 1948 (WP:OR#SYN) is (a) contested and (b) also introduced in the CIA related text per "Arabs of Palestine".

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Your (1) is of no relevance. The site is unreliable because it has no established reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, and is run by a web programmer, two activists, and a retired news correspondent. Even if every single thing ever said on their site was strictly accurate, it's the reputation for accuracy that matters, not the accuracy itself. Verifiability, not truth.

Your (2) is of no relevance. Marshall said "I know you have some arms and your Haganah, but the Arabs have regular armies. They are well trained and they have heavy arms. How can you hope hope to hold out?" Was he talking about the ragtag ALA? No, he was talking about the regular armies of the Arab states, and the section is about the Civil War in Mandatory Palestine, which happened prior to the Arab intervention. His statement is in no way a contrast to Morris's, who was talking about the Palestinians, not about their Arab "allies". <eleland/talkedits> 00:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Eleland,

1. from my personal experience, that website has a better reputation for accuracy and fact checking than the BBC, Guardian, and other sources that we allow. this article that gives encyclopedic information about a CIA report from 1947 [18] is given with the full information from the source - hence, it is fully verifiable. up to now, you've provided only rhetoric as to why this well sourced encyclopedic information should be rejected.
2. "No, he was talking about the regular armies of the Arab states" + "the section is about the Civil War in Mandatory Palestine" - this is WP:OR, the text clearly considers them all to be arabs per "Arabs of Palestine".. this is 1947, don't reject material just because the "palestinian" narrative did not exist yet.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

p.s. JaapBoBo, i can't help but notice that you, the original objector to the source, have rescinded from discussion and are adding a partisan source (with reasonable but not impressive reliability) into the article [19]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have not rescinded from discussion.

Walid Khalidi is a reliable source.

Please make serious edits. Leave Morris' assesment in the Civil war section, as it refers to that (I have the book on my desk and checked it). Please also don't remove Khalidi, as he is a reliable source. --JaapBoBo (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The CIA-text clearly refers to the civil war, and not to the war with the other Arab states. Besides: it's not from a reliable source. --JaapBoBo (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, you do know what the word "reputation" means, don't you? Not to mention "rhetoric"? A reputation is what other people think, not what you think. Rhetoric is persuasive speech (or writing), and is entirely appropriate on talk pages. Of course, poor rhetoric, such as repeatedly asserting something without evidence or argument, and ignoring the arguments made by others, is frowned upon.

I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse when you conflate the Palestinian Arabs with every Arab in the Levant, Egypt, and Iraq, but I really don't care. When Benny Morris says "all observers—Jewish, British, Palestinian Arab, and external Arab—agreed ... The Palestinians were simply too weak," and you contrast this ("Despite Morris's assertion...") with a statement from Marshall about Arab regular armies, what Morris calls "external Arabs" and distinguishes from "Palestinian Arabs," you are making poor quality edits and wasting everybody's time. <eleland/talkedits> 18:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Eleland, please don't delete references because of your singular interpretation of them; and don't presume for a minute that your interpretation of what is a reliable source is normative here. --Leifern (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think people should not read Morris literally because, just as in the current case, it would make some people claim he is biased. Indeed : at least Montgommery (who fought and defeated Palestinian Arabs in 1938-39 and later Jews in 46-47) nuances this view (even if I think Morris is right because facts talk by themselves). [see the quote in the next section with other comments] Ceedjee (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

To Eleland -Zionism-Israel.com is run by the same guy who started www.Mideastweb.org - ME - and it has the same basic policy regarding accuracy. I admit that have a doctorate in neurobiology and I am only self-taught about the Middle East as I am self taught about systems design and Web sites (it shows doesn't it?). My experiences in science and engineering didn't teach me about the Middle East, but they did teach me how to evaluate evidence and learn a subject. I also live here and have relatives who know things from personal experience.

http://www.Zionism-Israel.com fairness and accuracy policy is here:

http://www.zionism-israel.com/Policy.htm

We believe that the truth is the most convincing way of presenting our case and the best way of overcoming disinformation. We make every effort to verify the accuracy of our materials. We do not disseminate rumors and hoaxes as if they are facts. If an assertion looks questionable, we double check with independent sources.

Unlike the case for commercial newspapers, at ZIIC this policy extends to assertions made in "opinion" articles as well. We will not publish an article if it makes factual assertions that we know are incorrect, without a disclaimer, unless we are citing "bad examples" and publishing materials to refute them. In that case, the context is made clear.

If you find errors or omissions in our materials, please do not hesitate to contact us

The address is zio-web-owner(at)yahoogroups.com so that all editors get the mail.

I am as much for Zionism as I am for peace, but above all I respect the truth. Political opinions should be based on truth. In your case, you want to base "truth" on political opinions. You did not cite any errors in Zionism-israel.com. If you find any, and prove they are wrong, they will be cheerfully corrected. Every historical article has errors of bias and random errors but it is possible to keep these to a minimum and we are open to corrections. "Answers.com" writes that the IDF was formed on May 31, 1948, for example. That is incorrect. Palestine-Israel procon believes I am an authority. I am also the same person who wrote the article on Deir Yassin that is here: http://www.ariga.com/peacewatch/dy . It cannot be suspected of prettifying the Zionists or trying to hide the truth. I wish it were not true, but we have to tell the truth as we find it. Wikipedia has regulations about slander, and so has the US government. I request that you will remove your assertions about Zionism-israel.com and myself and apologize immediately. Likewise I request that every place that someone has marked Zionism-israel.com as a biased source this should be correct and the smears removed. Wikipedia doesn't write such comments next to references to Palestineremembered or Al-Jazeera, but the bias of those sources can be proven. Given that you have not produced any evidence that zionism-israel.com is inacurate, while your characterization of me and my fellow editors of Zionism-israel.com is gratuitously demeaning and inaccurate, your charges are irresponsible and malicious slander. Mewnews (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

In any case, the debate about Zionism-israel.com regarding the CIA is totally absurd. The CIA report was produced in 1947. I was 1 year old then and had no hand in it. CIA believed the Jews would lose. Moreover, according to Morris himself, the peak enemy force concentrations were 55,000 active combat troops inside Palestine/Israel, not counting the Palestine irregulars and the village militias which organized ambushes. At the conclusion of the war, the IDF had 12 active combat brigades that are listed in various places including http://zionism-israel.com/dic/war_of_independence.htm . The largest of these had no more than 3000 troops, so IDF combat manpower could not be more than about 36,000 at the END of the war. The evidence that the Jews were outnumbered and outgunned at the beginning is massive. In almost every critical battle - Nirim, Yad Mordechai, Negba, Degania, Mishmar Hayarden, the Arab side enjoyed decisive superiority 5-1 or more in manpower and in firepower. Jews had no artillery at all until May 20 and no airforce until May 29. Hagannah told Ben-Gurion they had a 50% chance of winning. A scret Haganah report of March 1948 was rather pessimistic: http://mideastweb.org/jeruint.htm. The ARABS were sure they would win. It is a fact that until October, Israel had lost the entire Negev - cut off by the Egyptians - that is why the Bernadotte settlement looked realistic. The most optimistic assessment was that of Ben-Gurion after the first bombing of Tel Aviv by the Eyptians Eyleh Ya'amdu - he looked at the people and said these will stand.

The trick of Benny Morris and Ilan Pappe is based on a fake reckoning - They count all the support and logistic and training troops of the IDF and those assigned to guard duty in villages as well as front line troops, but they do not count the rear support troops of the Egyptians and Syrians and Jordanians, nor the Arab manpower that was defending villages. So of course, it looks like there were more Jewish "soldiers." However, if you read Pappe, you will see that he also charges that because of shortages of manpower, immigrants were taken from the boats without knowing how to handle a gun and thrown into the battle of Latrun. He said hundreds of people were killed. Only about 77 were killed actually, but Pappe believes facts are for pedants. They can't have it both way. Either the Jews had a vast military machine, or the IDF was so pathetic that they had to employ concentration camp victims just off the boat. The latter is true. Such "historians" will go to any lengths with absurd claims. One man wrote in Palestine-Israel Journal that while it is true that the Jews had no weapons except PIATs and rifles and Bren guns, while the Arabs had tanks and airplanes, the weapons of 1948 were not very powerful anyhow so this didn't matter. It is an absurd claim. I think that the Polish army had a quite different experience fighting the Germans with 1939 weapons. The Arab-Israeli wars article and the statement by Morris is grossly misleading. Mewnews (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

In discussions I had with the late Baruch Kimmerling, we agreed that Morris contradicts his own conclusions in every other paragraph of Birth of the Refugee problem and in Righteous victims. Efraim Karsh has demonstrated how Morris misquoted Ben-Gurion, and Morris admitted that he may have '"misinterpreted" Ben Gurion (he deliberately omitted key sentences). Morris himself has "clarified" many of his earlier opinions in interviews in Haaretz and a recent letter to Irish times.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/386065.html

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/380986.html

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=25102&docId=l:747971771&start=2

The above should be taken into account whenever discussing Morris's opinions -- they are Morris's opinions about Morris's opinions. :::So according to Morris, Morris is not a reliable source! I have provided the information above. Unbiased editors can check that it is all true in any books they like, and if they value accuracy, they will correct this article. There is no point in wasting time fixing the bias of Wikipedia if Eleland and others will simply revert any edits that don't agree with their political bias and say I am only a webmaster. Eleland, what are you qualifications as a Middle East expert and who are you?? Where do you get the audacity to slander others?? Sorry for long comment. Ami Isseroff, D.Sc. Mewnews (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The "no chance" assessment

I think there is a misunderstanding here that cause this "edit war".
I think it is due to was is called the "myth of David vs Goliath".
Relevant analysts (see below) at the time considered the Jews had no chance to win against the Arabs (and even the Palestinians) and there were not stupid.
The myth is that Israel miracuoulsy won the war. It is not that Israel was weaker or had few chances to win.
Historians explain the "victory" of Haganah due to the facts that :

• The Arab leaders thought that the Arab Liberation Army would be enough to defeat Jews (Gelber)
• The Arab only prepare for war at the last minute (end of April) (Gelber but certainly all)
• The Arab leader didn't involve all their forces (Laurens)
• The Arab armies were not coordinated and their leaders were not trusting each other (all)
• Yishuv mobilised massively (Morris, Pappé)
• Ben Gurion organized Balak operation to be supplied in weapons (all)
• Stalin supported Yishuv (Khalidi but all others too)
• Haganah succeedeed in countering the embargo (Gelber, Shlaim, ...)
• Arab armies didn't succeed in countering the embargo (Shlaim, Gelber)

That is the reason why the minds eg from British officeers (but that is also true for CIA etc) are relevant. I found them in Sachar, History of Israel from the rise of Zionism to our time, p.297 : "On december 17, Bevin arned Marshall that the Jews would get their "throats cut". The foreign secretary's appraisal was entirely shared by military leaders. In March of 1948, with hostilities no begun, Field Marshal Montgomery offered his opinion that "the Jews had bought it" - that they were unable to protect their lines of communication. The reports of British officers in Jerusalem, Amman, and Cairo sustained this view. The following month General Sir Gordon Marmillan, commander of British forces in Palestine, stated flatly taht the Arab armies would have no difficulty in taking over the whole country." I suggest this material (with references) could be introduced in the article. Ceedjee (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Lets split this into civil war and war with other Arab countries.

Morris states very clearly that all observers agreed that the Palestinians stood no chance in the civil war. Morris (p.11 of Birth), Ben-Ami (former Israeli cabinet member who wrote a book) and R. Khalidi say the Palestinians were actually beaten in the 1936-39 Revolt.

For the war with the other Arab states all the arguments off Ceedjee are right. Probably there are even more:

• Yishuv had better organisation (Morris)
• Yishuv had better quality of men, more experienced officers (WWII) (Morris)
• etc.

We could add this. We could add that many outsiders and insiders had their doubts about the survival of the Yishuv. Personally I think the Yishuv leaders had not much doubts. --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Arms at the end of the Mandate

The article now says: Sources disagree about the amount of arms at the Yishuv's disposal at the end of the Mandate. According to Karsh before the arrival of arms shipments from Czechoslovakia as part of Operation Balak, there was roughly one weapon for every three fighters and even the Palmach armed only two out of every three of its active members.[84] According to Collins and LaPierre, by April 1948 the Haganah had managed to accumulate only about 20,000 rifles and Sten guns for the 35,000 soldiers who existed on paper.[85]. According to Walid Khalidi "the arms at the disposal of these forces were plentiful".[86]

I assume this part before the arrival of arms shipments from Czechoslovakia as part of Operation Balak, there was roughly one weapon for every three fighters and even the Palmach armed only two out of every three of its active members. is from 'Karsh, p. 24'. If it is not it should be removed from the article because it is pov.

Overall I know that Walid Khalidi is a reliable source. Efraim Karsh is a notorious distorter of facts (praised by some journalists, but severely criticised by impartial and even pro-Israeli scholars). I don't know Collins and LaPierre, but their work seems to be a kind of 'historic fiction', so it would be usefull to know their source. Maybe we should also check some more sources to get better NPOV. I can check Pappe and add his numbers. --JaapBoBo (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep cool ;-)

Khalidi and Karsh are distorders of facts but all they write is not distorsion :-)

On the matter, I think Shlaim and even Gelber writes that in MAy 1948, Haganah has more than enough light weapons.

I don't think there is any "controverse" about that. These "historians" (K-K) just give the status at the date that is good for their thesis, they don't have to be neutral.

But I think there is a misunderstanding :

• beginni:ng of the civil war : there is one weapon for each three soldiers
• end of march : a few more.
• beginning of April : the first light weapons arrived from CZ. Haganah had 3 planes that transported them daily - Haganah takes the offensive.
• On May 15 (or to be sure, let's say in the following days), they have enough light weapons (except at Jerusalem under siege) and ammunitions for all soldiers because ships carrying weapons were waiting at sea.
• Until June 11, Haganah lacks heavy weapons (artillery - tanks - planes)
• During the first truce (11 june - 9 July) all types of weapons, munitions and material required for a war is "deversed" from USA, FR (10 tanks) and CZ.
• Spitfires will arrive in october/november (I think - should be checked).

Ceedjee (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

NB: Gadna should not be taken into account. These were youth movements. They were not armed and not used for fights. (Even if Pappe and Khalidi add Gadna in Jewish forces - that is not needed to show Haganah was more powerful than palestinians and this is not serious and discredite them : I would have to check but I think at Gadna they were younger than 16). Ceedjee (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is Walid Khalidi not a reliable source? To my knowledge his scholarly work is highly regarded. E.g. Glazer ('The Palestinian Exodus in 1948', Steven Glazer, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 9, No. 4. (Summer, 1980), pp. 96-118.) finds him reliable. I've never seen serious criticism of Khalidi. --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Collins and LaPierre's O Jerusalem wasn't exactly "historical fiction" along the lines of say the noxious Exodus, but I'm not sure we should be relying on it. I mean, it's not as if the question of Haganah preparedness for war hasn't been studied in scholarly journals, can't we cite them instead? <eleland/talkedits> 23:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Personnaly, I don't have scholarly journals. I have had only access to a few articles.

But I can (easily) get the references concerning the above-mentionned sources.

Would it be worth developing this in the article ?

Ceedjee (talk) 08:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

@JaapBoBo. The fact an historian is reliable or not should be out of our focus. What is important is that his mind and analysis are relevant or not because they give a relevant point of view.

It was an answer to the way you introduced your own comments on Karsh and what I mean is that nearly all of them are not reliable in this debate. (Karsh is not reliable but certainly not because he would be a distorder and certainly not for everything).

The main difficulty and only concern we should have is the due:weight to give to each information and to take care we give *all* pov on a matter.

W. Khalidi is not reliable because his analysis are childish, old and don't take fairly all the known facts at his disposal. That is not a crime. When he published, the Israeli historians in front of him stated that the exodus had been caused by Arab leaders...

Ceedjee (talk) 08:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Aha!? "W. Khalidi is not reliable because his analysis are childish, old and don't take fairly all the known facts at his disposal", So because you don't agree with his pov you find him not reliable?!

On the other hand, Karsh has been shown to be a distorter of facts, but Walid Khalidi certainly not. --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You miss the main point.

Let's assume I show you 5 majors *lies* or *distorsions* of facts made by Khalidi, according to the way you consider reliability, how will you deal him in your edits ?

Ceedjee (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh... And Karsh has never been shown to be a distorder of facts. He has been accused of that by Morris. And if the accusations performed against him are enough, than you can remove Finkelstein, Morris, Pappé and all the other who are controversed. Ceedjee (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

OOPH! If Morris says everyone agreed that the Palestinians had no chance in a civil war, then he is simply wrong. The CIA report said that the Jews had no chance in a civil war. You can find the document by its designation: NARA # NN3-263-92-005, 24-AUG-92 at http://www.foia.cia.gov/search.asp I did not find a way to link to the document produced by the query, but the text version is posted here: http://www.zionism-israel.com/hdoc/CIA_Conesquences_Partition_Palestine_1947.htm . Putting it at this or that Web site does not change the authenticity of the document, despite Eleland's comment above. I don't think Morris says that though. Can you kindly provide a reference? Karsh says Benny Morris is a liar and Benny Morris says Karsh is a liar. The rule to follow is to look at the facts and ignore what these guys say about each other. It doesn't matter what Karsh says about what Ben Gurion said or what Morris says about what Ben Gurion said. It matters what Ben Gurion actually wrote and said and in what context. Ben Gurion and Hajj Amin al Husseini and the CIA are historical actors. They are PRIMARY SOURCES. Morris and Karsh and alll of us and the rest of the zoo are just observers - their opinions should not be changing the past. Maybe Morris also said the Mediterranean ocean turned to pink lemonade. You can quote him as a source and according to Wikipedia rules it is OK. It is not OK for me to explain that I just looked at the Mediterranean and tasted it and it is salty and blue, because that is original research according to Wikipedia, which is not allowed. Morris clearly does quote Ben Gurion out of context, and Morris now claims that all those who believed that he was saying that the Jews were responsible for kicking out the Arabs "misunderstood" him. He is always being "misunderstood" - very strange that people cannot understand him! Likewise for Finkelstein and others, we have to look at the things they say and determine if they are reasonable. We should not reject an obvious truth even if it comes from Khaldi or Karsh palestineremembered or zionism-israel.com or stormfront or Wikipedia, just because the sources do not agree with our opinions It is not reasonable to say all the experts predicted the Palestinians would lose, if the CIA predicted the Jews would lose and so did Montgomery. Most British were certain the Jews would lose apparently. The reasons for the Arab defeat are explained well by Morris, by Ismail Safwat and others - no central command, no organization. Despite their failure to get additional arms (also a reason cited by O Jerusalem! which is as accurate as any other source - I have checked) the fact is that the Syrian and Egyptian armies had plenty of rifles and ammunition. They didn't arm the Palestinians because they didn't want armies of volunteers running around with guns and they didn't trust each other (the book edited by Avi Shlaim explains all that background. Khalidi and others usually do not lie. They simply leave out big parts of the truth that might be inconvenient. I didn't see that Khalidi explained anywhere that the leader of the Palestinian Arabs in 1948 was Hajj Amin al Husseini, a Nazi who told the British he planned to exterminate the Jews. Karsh OTOH is not going to dwell on Deir Yassin. Pappe is an exception, as he says openly that facts are for pedants and don't matter. Mewnews (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean Morris said at the time no one said Zionists would have difficulties against the Palestinians. I say that today, nobody denies Palestinians had not a single chance to win.

You are wrong to claim we should focus on primary sources. On the contrary ! We cannot use primary sources because we are not historians and so we cannot analyse them with enough distances.

We can only report WP:RS secondary sources. And sometimes, for illustration purpose, primary sources.

Ceedjee (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

note

per this diff - i'm interested in reinserting the information relating Marshall and the CIA.

Despite Morris's assertion, Secretary of State [[George Marshall]] had told Jewish agency Foreign Minister [[Moshe Sharret]] in early May or late April 1948, "Believe me, I am talking about things about which I know. You are sitting there in the coastal plains of Palestine, while the Arabs hold the mountain ridges. I know you have some arms and your Haganah, but the Arabs have regular armies. They are well trained and they have heavy arms. How can you hope hope to hold out?"<ref>Collins and LaPierre, 1973 p.315</ref>. Earlier, a CIA report had predicted that it was unlikely that the Jews could hold out against the Arabs of Palestine without extensive outside help, because a war would disrupt the economy for too long. The CIA did not believe that Arab states would intervene. <ref>[http://www.zionism-israel.com/hdoc/CIA_Conesquences_Partition_Palestine_1947.htm The Cconsequences of The Partition of Palestine, CIA, November 28, 1947]</ref>

are there any suggestions/contentions left before i make a neutral effort to reinsert the input? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, the discussion is all above. Zionism-Israel.org meets none of Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, and the Marshall quote, referring to intervention by the Arab states, is not relevant to Morris' assessment of the Palestinians inability to hold out without such an intervention. It might be useful somewhere else, but not in a discussion of the 1947 civil war, and not misleadingly contrasted with Morris. <eleland/talkedits> 22:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, this website is not acceptable.

I think it is better to refer to British politicians and officiers who served in Palestine and whose analysis are more relevant.

Sachar, History of Israel from the rise of Zionism to our time, p.297 : "On december 17, Bevin arned Marshall that the Jews would get their "throats cut". The foreign secretary's appraisal was entirely shared by military leaders. In March of 1948, with hostilities no begun, Field Marshal Montgomery offered his opinion that "the Jews had bought it" - that they were unable to protect their lines of communication. The reports of British officers in Jerusalem, Amman, and Cairo sustained this view. The following month General Sir Gordon Marmillan, commander of British forces in Palestine, stated flatly thatt the Arab armies would have no difficulty in taking over the whole country."

Ok ? Ceedjee (talk) 08:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

@Jaakobou: did you read the comments above, and did you think this through?

Morris statement and the CIA report are related to the civil war, which is discussed earlier in the article. Above that the CIA report is not from a reliable source.

The Marshall assesment could be in, but to avoid undue weight, it should be much shorter, (also the text should not refer to Morris assertion, because Marshall refers to the War with the Arab states) e.g. "American Secretary of State George Marshall thought the Yishuv was doomed to lose the war"[ref] . But I suspect that there were also other observers (who were closer to the action) who held a similar view. Maybe its better to mention their pov's, because they are more relevant. --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Such as Mc Millan, who was the chief officer of the British troops in Palestine and who stayed at Haifa with British troops even after May 14... Ceedjee (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Was this issue resolved? Best I'm reading, JaapBoBo notes that we should list down the other opinion.. so, was this done? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The Holocaust

I came here to add a quote from a historian that the 1948 war was viewed by some as a continuation of the Jewish uprisings in the ghettos, but there's no obvious place to put it, because we have no section on the Holocaust. Does anyone mind if I add one? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 15:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please give the quote and the historian before ? Thank you. Ceedjee (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ceedjee, the quote I wanted to add was from Ben-Zion Dinur, the first chairman of Yad Vashem, who told the Knesset in 1954 that the 1948 war was a direct continuation of the armed struggle in the ghettos. See, for example, footnote 21. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 15:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Slimvirgin,

don't you think this should rather be in an article dedicated to the influence of the Holocaust on the Israeli nation ?

In particular, the image according to which Israel was a weak David in front of a strong Nazi-like Arab Goliath; ie that the Israeli position was equivalent to one of the jewish fighters in the ghettos and that the Arab position was equivalent to the one of a powerfull army seeking to exterminate them, like the Nazi when the attacked the ghettos, is not considered correct any more but is considered to be one of the myth of the '48 war that contributed to build/solder the Israeli nation...

You can find more information in Avi Shlaim, The Debate about 1948

(NB: don't consider that it is biased because Pappe published this, this is rather not controversed)

About the influence on the Holocaust on the Israeli nation, you can find more in Idith Zertal, Israel's holocaust and the politics of nationhood (which cannot be compared with and is of another level than the Holocaust industry of Finkelstein)...

Rgds, Ceedjee (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion between Zeq and ceedjee

Ceedjee, the war started before there was "Israel". the war was a direct result of the holocaust (since survivers came to israel to escape Europe) and let us not forget the an important palestinian who had a direct connection to the war and at least some indirect connection to the holocaust. Zeq (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Zeq,

The war started before there was Israel (you are right) but, the fighters were the men and women who will become the First Israelis and built Israel'snationhood.

When IZL and LHI started to fight the British in '44 and when later Haganah joined them, it was not to prepare a land to welcome the Holocaust survivors. It was to get their independence from British and to get their state, a goal they had been preparing for 30 years.

In the final fight, most of these (future-)Israelis were convinced they were fighting for their survival, that they were weak, that their enemy were Nazi-like Arabs. All of them thought that very honnestly. And it was true for them and their day-to-day experience. But (hopefully), at a wider scale, Ben Gurion and Yishuv's leaders had prepared them for war and they were more organised, more numerous and better equiped than Palestinians and after July than all Arabs. (Which is extremally positive. I mean without that, they would have lost !)

That doesn't mean that Israel was built on fallacy. The so-called myths honnesly translate what the Israeli felt and what they (most often) lived locally. But they had not the wide picture that their leaders partially had and that historians have (New Historians, and particularly the worst of them) are criticized because they mix what they know, what yishuv's leaders knew and what future-Israeli knew...

Here, the problem with Slimvirgin's quote is that it dates back from 195x, right in the middle of the forging of that nationhood's feeling and Yad Vashem, the ultimate (from my pov) reference about the Holocaust, is not a reference about the '48 war... Ceedjee (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The serious fighting started on 1947. Most of the Yeshuv was Hagana which cooprated with the British and many actauuly faught the germans in the British army. The cooperation with the British was especcialy strong during the late 1944 "season" where hagana people spied and turned into British hands terrorists from Lehi and Etzel.

Many of the fighters in 1948 were Nazi camp survivers . Especially famous is the battle on latrun in April 1948: Latrun#1948_Arab-Israeli_War Zeq (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Zeq, you know I know this topic very well.

I don't know what you want to prove or not ?

Latroun (operation Ben Nun A) took place on 25 May (5 other assaults were performed during the war).

There were 4 batallions involved in Ben Nun A. (32 - Alexandroni where Ariel Sharon served; 71 - 71 - 73 : "Sheva" brigade - Harel forces participated too). Only companies A and B of the 72e batallion had new immigrants. ie 150 men out of 1650 fighters. Others were sabras.

Nevertheless, there were far more new immigrants later, after July, when Jews from camps in Cypra were incorporated to Tsahal.

But whatever, the situation was not the same as the one of the Jews fighting in the ghettos and Israel's nation built a myth around Latroun (if you don't like Zertal, try the Hebrew version of Anita Shapira (she "hates" new historians" : L'imaginiare d'Israel (I don't know the title in Hebrew, but I think it was published only in Hebrew and in French)... Ceedjee (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Percentage of Palestine

There seems to be a bit of a misconception in this section:-

In 1949, Israel signed separate armistices with Egypt on 24 February, Lebanon on 23 March, Transjordan on 3 April, and Syria on 20 July. The new borders of Israel, as set by the agreements, encompassed about 78% of mandatory Palestine as it stood after the independence of Jordan in 1946. Considering the original British mandate (including Jordan, which was included within the Mandate in the summer of 1921, but excluded from the provisions for a Jewish National Home), however, Israel was created only on 18% of the total area of Palestine and Transjordan. This was about 50 percent more than the UN partition proposal allotted it. These cease-fire lines were known afterwards as the "Green Line". The Gaza Strip and the West Bank were occupied by Egypt and Transjordan respectively. The United Nations Truce Supervision Organization and Mixed Armistice Commissions were set up to monitor ceasefires, supervise the armistice agreements; to prevent isolated incidents from escalating and assist other UN peacekeeping operations in the region.

There was no original mandate. There error in thinking that there was an original mandate comes from the Treaty of Sèvres While the treaty was in discussion; Turkish national movement under Mustafa Kemal Pasha split with the monarchy based in Constantinople, which set up a Turkish Grand National Assembly in Ankara, successfully fought the Turkish War of Independence and forced the former wartime Allies to return to the negotiating table. Arabs were unwilling to accept the French rule in Syria, the Turks around Mosul were attacking the British, the Arabs were in arms against the British rule in Baghdad. There was also disorder in Egypt. And the Treaty was not ratified it was not until the Treaty of Lausanne was signed and ratified could the League of Nations authorise a mandate. There was no Mandate for Palestine until 1922 where under article 25 Jordan was expressly excluded from the British Mandate of Palestine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley kennedy3 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

A new review of Benny Morris; might be useful for a source of neutral summaries rather than quotemining from his book, not that I am implying for a moment that anyone in these and related articles might do something of that sort. --~~

Transjordan

Transjordan is listed as a belligerant in the box on the right. When I click on Transjordan I get to a WP page that says Transjordan ceased to exist in 1946. I think a knowledgable person should reconcil this WP page with Transjordan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo8rge (talk • contribs) 00:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem looks to be with the Transjordan article, not this one. The infobox there implies 1946 was the terminal date, but 1946 turns out to be the year of independence; the country continued to exist. It takes some digging in the text to learn that the "Trans" in Transjordan wasn't dropped until 1949. A note on that article's talk page might bring some clarification. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:John Glubb Pasha.jpg

The image Image:John Glubb Pasha.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)