Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War/Archive 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 15 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21

Who started the '48 war ?

This topic rises issues. I created a section in the talk page of 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

to Pluto: The Arab leaders, although willing to accept a last-minute American proposal and delay the invasion, had to give in to Abdullah

It is a pity that you deleted this sentence: "The Arab leaders, although willing to accept a last-minute American proposal and delay the invasion, had to give in to Abdullah, who insisted on sending his forces into Palestine".

Why do you delete an important point, which has nothing to do with being pro Arab or Pro Jews? Where have you found here a POV case?

Have you thought that if Gelber does not mention it, it might be since his 2006 book is not updated as Zamir 2010 article? Ykantor (talk) 12:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Zamir's article does not update Gelber's book. Zamir's article talks about the French interaction in the Altalena affair whereas Gelber focuses on (and details) the Arab invasion plans. More, your material doesn't refer to Zamir's analysis but to a quote of the French attaché in Beyrouth who is not particularly a good source to described the Arab plans. Pluto2012 (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
This said, if what you wanted to introduce is that the Arab wanted to delay their invasion following the US proposal, I am not aware of this and I see no objection. If there are other reliable sources that report this will, I see no objection to have a sentence about this. If true, it would be relevant of their lack of preparation and their undecision, which is described at several places. Pluto2012 (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
It is a pity that you have not read Zamir article apparently. The french attache had an informer in the heart of the Syrian establishment. Thus his reports are of very high quality. I do not have more sources. Would you accept to ask Zero to decide whether to keep it or to delete it? Ykantor (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
You cannot use the text of a primary source even if it is reported by a secondary source, even more coming from an article out of topic, for facts that are widely described elsewhere...
Anyway, neither you nor I should accept that somebody decides for us but to move forward, I agree that Zero0000 "decides" if you want :
The quote is : On 11 May, Se`ze gave details of secret decisions taken by the Arab League’s political and military committees convened in Damascus. Under Jordanian and British pressure, the Arab armies’ invasion plan, which had originally targeted Haifa, was revised so that the Arab Legion would now focus its attacks in the direction of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. He also indicated that the British were responsible for the last-minute resignation of the Iraqi General Ismail Safwat, the supreme commander of the Arab armies who opposed the change, and his replacement by Nur al-Din Mahmud. The Arab leaders, he revealed, were willing to accept a last-minute American proposal and delay the invasion, but had to give in to Abdullah, who insisted on sending his forces into Palestine.
Pluto2012 (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

suspected omission- The war has started as the Arab fighters has attacked

  • "The 1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine started on 30 November 1947, one day after the UN General Assembly vote on the UN Partition Plan." - The war has started as the Arab fighters has attacked Jewish buses and settlements. Ykantor (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Not true. Some sources make the war start with terrorist actions of IZL and LHI. Putting the responsability on Arab attacks is just a pov-pushing.
I have checked, and you are right about the attacked jewish buses, but what about the [| 1947_Jerusalem_riots] ?
If I understand you well, you agree that the war started on 30 November but you want we precise who started the fights or who is responsible or do you want we precise it started on 1 December, 2 December, ... precisely ?
Pluto2012 (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
to pluto: The common date for the start of the war is set to the UN voting date. There is no way that anyone here would change it. The omission here is that the article does not say who started the war, and it should say that the Arabs started, while the Jews has tried to accommodate it in order that the partition would go ahead with no problems. Ykantor (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I understand but I disagree.
It is no sense to say who starts a "civil war". There was a strike and then skirmishes that escalated by mutual violence. It was not a political decision to start a war. See Gelber p.16 and following ones.
More sources diverge on this point. Some claim IZL and LHI attacks were responsible of the explosion of violence that lead to the war.
I gather sources for this. Please, just give me a few days. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
"Arab armed bands attacked Jewish settlements, and Haganah units occasionally retaliated" ( benni morris, 1948, p. 78)
"during the war’s first four months the Arabs were generally on the offensive and the Jews were usually on the defensive." (benni morris, 1948, p. 79) Ykantor (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Ykantor, regarding who started the war, Mandatory Palestine was already experiencing terror attacks due to Jewish militia alone since 1946. Think about King David Hotel bombing or the Night of the Bridges and globally here is a list
(from the article about the massacre of the '48 war :) At the beginning of the civil war, the Jewish militias organized several bombing attacks against civilians and military Arab targets. On 12 December, Irgun placed a car bomb opposite the Damascus Gate, killing 20 people.[1] On 4 January 1948, the Lehi detonated a lorry bomb against the headquarters of the paramilitary Najjada located in Jaffa's Town Hall, killing 15 Arabs and injuring 80.[1][2] During the night between 5 and 6 January, at Jerusalem, the Haganah bombed the Semiramis Hotel that had been reported to hide Arab militiamen, killing 24 people.[3] The next day, Irgun members in a stolen police van rolled a barrel bomb[4] into a large group of civilians who were waiting for a bus by the Jaffa Gate, killing around 16.[5] Another Irgun bomb went off in the Ramla market on February 18, killing 7 residents and injuring 45.[6] On 28 February, the Palmah organised a bombing attack against a garage at Haifa, killing 30 people.[7]
In this context, Gebler (2006), p.21 describes the beginning of hostilities at Haifa where Arabs had signed a cease-fire. There are other such exemples, the most unfamous being Deir Yassin villagers who signed such an agreement too (see eg Morris and Gelber)
We can also compare the number of victims : end of december 207 Jews and 220 Arabs had been killed (Karsh, 2002, p.31). If both communities were not at war, who killed the Arabs ?
After 30 years of struggle, it is clear that both sides wanted and expected the war. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
to pluto: The 2 citations of Benni Moris shows who started the war. You have done a great job in your research, and you are right that the Arabs have not planned a full scale war, but they initiated the riots , sniper shooting etc. since they realized that if the public order is out of control, the UN may reconsider the partition. Actually they were right, since at mid March 1948 the US retreated for a while to another solution. The Hagana wanted a calm atmosphere for exactly the same rational: in order to keep the partition going. As you said, the IZL and Lehi have initiated attacks on the Arabs but they were a small minority among jews, although, as you say, they caused a lot of damage. Of course it is not a case of one good side and the other bad side. The Jews has their own share of mal doing ( Dir Yasin was really a hell of a crime), but looking at the whole picture, the Arabs initiated the war. Ykantor (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I disagree that these citations would show who started the war. Such a complex issue is not solved in taking 2 sentences out of their context.
I disagree also that the Arabs would have initiated the riots. Some Arabs (who ? under the orders of who ? and representing who) organised skirmishes (why ? According to Morris the bus attack was done by a gang). There is no material evidence that they were under the order of the AHC at the contrary of IZL and LHI who were under the direct orders of their leaders when they performed the attacks. If you agree IZL and LHI were a minority, you should agree that what some (unindentified) Arabs did is not relevant.
You assume Haganah tried to calm atmosphere. That is not clear given the Semiranis bombing attack and the Palmah attack of a garage on February 28. I add that Haganah was prepared for war (Plan Aleph and Beth was ready), Arms was gathered, the topics was discussed among leaders... Arab League was doing the same. Arab Palestinians didn't organise for this.
The global picture is that both wanted the war and started it. One side was efficient and the other totally unorganised. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
to pluto: according to Benni Morris (1948, p. 76-77)"there was also a clear, organized Palestinian Arab response to the UN resolution. Guided by Husseini from Cairo, the AHC on 1 December declared a three-day general strike in Palestine to begin the following day. On 2 December a large Arab mob, armed with clubs and knives, burst out of Jerusalem’s Old City and descended on the New Commercial Center at Mamilla Street, attacking Jewish passersby and shops. A number of people were injured, one seriously, and the district was set alight. The mob then proceeded up Queen Mary Street and into Jaffa Street. Haganah intelligence identified two AHC officials, Muhammad Ali Salah and Mahmoud Umari, as leading the crowd."
I agree with your: "One side was efficient and the other totally unorganized." but the efficiency was relative only. In reality, The Hagana was not really prepared, the commanders were bad and full of Eggo, hardly anything was organized, and nearly all the burden was carried by the Palmach- a couple of thousand youngsters, not sufficiently armed with the bad Sten sub machine guns, who were very motivated and have sacrificed themselves during the civil war. A lot of them were killed during the war. I'll write more later. Ykantor (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Ykantor, Haganah was not prepared but the Palestinian Arab even less.
And for your information, if Yishuv lost 1 % of its population (6000+ deaths), Palestinian Arabs (not Arabs) lost 12,000+, ie 1 % too.
Regarding the useless lost of young guys, did you ever hear about Qirbet Quriqur ?
Pluto2012 (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
to Pluto: Thank you for the "Qirbet Quriqur" link. I was not aware to this very unfortunate battle.
I considered writing down a list of Arab initiated hostilities during the 2 - 3 months after the UN partition voting. But I realized that such a list won't convince anyone. Thus, it is better to cite Benni Morris (or another good researcher):
"In late December, Husseini reportedly sent Jerusalem NC leader Hussein al-Khalidi a letter explicitly stating that the purpose of the present violence was “to harass (and only to harass)” the Yishuv, not full-scale assault. In January 1948, High Commissioner Cunningham assessed that “official [Palestinian] Arab policy is to stand on the defensive until aggression is ordered by the national leadership. That widespread assaults on Jews continue and are indeed increasing illustrates the comparatively feeble authority of most of [the National] Committees and of the AHC. . . . The latter is anxious to curb Arab outbreaks but probably not to stop them entirely.” During the winter, perturbed by appeals from the notables of Jaffa and Haifa, Husseini appears to have agreed to non belligerency in the towns and to have ordered a shift of the focus of hostilities from the main towns to the countryside. On 22 February, the Haifa NC ordered a “cessation of shooting, and a return of each man to his regular workplace.” It is unlikely that such an order was issued without prior AHC endorsement.
Many of the Arab attacks in November 1947–January 1948 were “spontaneous” and even contrary to the mufti’s wishes. Others were “incited” or led by Husseini agents, but in unconcerted fashion. Gradually, however, and partly because of Haganah, IZL, and LHI retaliatory attacks, the whole country—or at least the areas with Jewish concentrations of population—was set alight." (by benni moris, 1948, p. 98.)
In my opinion, this is a good description of the escalation towards full war, which was started by the Arabs. Ykantor (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
It is not written that the war was started by the "Arabs". And I must have written somewhere on this page that "Arabs" is not an appropriate word because there were many Arab protagonits. Attacks were "spontanous" and "unconcerted". And despite what Benny Morris writes, IZL and LHI attacks were not retaliatory attacks but at the contrary vicious, organised and concerted ones.
The events are better describes by a "spiral of violence" that lead to the war, as Benny Morris, The Birth... revisited (2003), p.138 or Ellen Fleischman (2003), University of Californian Press, p.201 write and as described in the article about the civil war.
Nobody starts a spiral. It is fed by all parties or stop. And Regardint a starting point, see also Nishidani's comment here below. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"the spiraling hostilities and the Arab successes had bitten deeply into international support for partition and Jewish statehood—as the Arab initiators of the violence had hoped." ( Morris,1948, p.113) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ykantor (talkcontribs) 03:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

to Pluto:
  • you said "It is not written that the war was started by the "Arabs". If we look at this paragraph and the following pages (p. 98 to p. 107) ,although the word "started does not appear , benni morris says clearly that the Arabs were on the offensive and the Hagana was on the defensive side. e.g "Most of the violence was initiated by the Arabs" (p. 101). "armed bands attacked convoys and settlements, often recruiting local militiamen to join in. Gunmen sporadically fired into Jewish neighborhoods and planted bombs. The Haganah, busy reorganizing, and wary of the British, adopted a defensive posture while occasionally retaliating against Arab traffic, villages, and urban neighborhoods. The Haganah mobilized slowly, at first hobbled by the belief—shared by much of the Yishuv104—that it merely faced a new round of “disturbances.” Only in early January did the Yishuv’s leadership wake up to the fact that the war that they had long predicted had, in fact, begun" (p. 98)
  1. the Arab snipers killed jews, and the jews erected walls for defense.
  2. The Arabs "planted bombs and mines along urban and rural paths and roads" (p. 101) , and attacked jewish transportation and the jews started moving in convoys, with armed Palmach people, with a Sten disassembled and hidden in the cloths
  3. "The first organized Arab urban attack was launched against the Jewish Hatikva Quarter, on the eastern edge of Tel Aviv" (p. 101) .
  • you said " "Arabs" is not an appropriate word because there were many Arab protagonits". So what? All of them were Arabs. The Jews were busy defending themselves, and later had retaliatory actions.
  • you said "IZL and LHI attacks were not retaliatory attacks but at the contrary vicious, organised and concerted ones" . Well , you reacted to a Benny Morris paragraph where he says clearly that the attacks were indeed retaliatory.
  • you said "The events are better describes by a "spiral of violence" that lead to the war". Yes that right, but this spiral started with a lot of Arab attacks, and the Hagana has tried to calm the mood and had limited reactions. ( the IZL have not limited itself, but it was still retaliatory ). see Benni Morris p. 98 to 107.
  • you said "And Regardint a starting point, see also Nishidani's comment" . I responded to Nishidani. Ykantor (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)



Pointless really. One could say the Balfour decision initiated the war, that Hitler's Holocaust determined the war, that the British-Palestinian war of 1936-9 (which actually should be written about with at least half the energy that goes into reconstructing the 1947-8 period) determined the outcome, since it effectively broke the back of Palestinian resistance. The 1948 war was won before it was started, by whoever, as the simplest of geopolitical and logistical calculations show, though, given the holocaust, it was experienced on one side as a do or die situation. In my view, the UN resolution started the war, but that's neither here nor there. Blame is a pretty useless device in immensely complex historical events like this. All we really should try to do is get the facts straight. etc.etc. Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
to Nishidan: If I understand you well, your view is that some really old events might have started the war. According to this view, one might find the reasons for the WW2 with Napoleon wars (which were indeed part of the reasons), but usually, historians Does not recall such an old events.
  • you said: "The 1948 war was won before it was started". That was not the view at that time.
  1. I have cited the British headquarters who at early 1948 didn't expect the Jews to win.
  2. It was not the view Of Hagana headquarters, just before the Arab states invasion. Actually they said that the chance to win is equal to chance of loosing it.
  3. "the CIA report of August 1947, which predicted that if war broke out between a newborn Jewish state and the Arab states, the Arabs would win." (benni morris, 1948, p. 175) Ykantor (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • you said "All we really should try to do is get the facts straight." That is right. Lets cite again the facts as Benni Morris said: "Most of the violence was initiated by the Arabs...The Haganah, busy reorganizing, and wary of the British, adopted a defensive posture while occasionally retaliating against Arab" Ykantor (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
"For four months, under continuous Arab provocation and attack, the Yishuv had largely held itself in check, initially in the hope that the disturbances would blow over and, later, in deference to international— particularly British—sensibilities. In addition, the Haganah had lacked armed manpower beyond what was needed for defense" benni morris, 1948, p. 117 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ykantor (talkcontribs) 21:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Jeff Weintraub, "Benny Morris on fact, fiction, & propaganda about 1948", The Irish Times, 21 February 2008, [1] Archived August 14, 2009, at WebCite</ref> "The Palestinian Arabs were not responsible "in some bizarre way" (David Norris, January 31st) for what befell them in 1948. Their responsibility was very direct and simple.

In defiance of the will of the international community, as embodied in the UN General Assembly Resolution of November 29th, 1947 (No. 181), they launched hostilities against the Jewish community in Palestine in the hope of aborting the emergence of the Jewish state and perhaps destroying that community. But they lost; and one of the results was the displacement of 700,000 of them from their homes." Ykantor (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

benny morris,the road to jerusalem p. 107, 108 ; "at meeting in mid january 1948 with kirkbride" kirkbride told abdullah that: "nor could britain agree to legionnaires not under its command operating in palestine- especcially in view of the fact that in the majority of recent cases [of violence in palestine] the arabs were the aggressors".

Benny Morris, "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited", p. 77, "The main Haganah response to Arab attacks, down to the end of March 1948, remained the retaliatory strike, either against traffic or against specific villages. The reprisal policy was thoroughly aired in a protracted two-day meeting between Ben-Gurion and his military and Arab affairs advisers on 1–2 January 1948. The discussion was triggered, in some measure, by a series of unauthorised or ill-conceived aganah attacks in which innocent civilians were killed." Ykantor (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

see also Talk:1947–48_Civil_War_in_Mandatory_Palestine#Jamal_Husseini_proudly_confirmed_in_1948_that_the_Arabs_started_the_war Ykantor (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

THE BIRTH OF THE PALESTINIAN REFUGEE PROBLEM REVISITED, Benni Morris p. 70-74 during the war’s first weeks ... changes in Haganah strategy and tactics, themselves by and large responses to Arab strategy, tactics and actions. It is useful, in this respect, to look at the evolution of the Yishuv’s military strategy and tactics during the first stage of the civil war. During the war’s first days, it was agreed in the Defence Committee ... that: the outbreaks should not yet be seen as the start of planned, systematic and organised Arab aggression . . . The Arab population does not want a disruption of peace and security and there is still no decision [by the Arab leadership to go to war].... the Haganah commanders decided against ‘widening the circle of violence’.

...Galili, ...said: Our interest, if disturbances break out, is that the aggression [i.e., violence] won’t spread out over time and over a great deal of space. From this perspective, the most important defensive measure is where we are attacked, there to retaliate; that will be the effective method of stamping out the fire. the Haganah ... it does not want to ignite, but to douse out flames ... During the first week of hostilities, the committee continued to cleave to a policy of ‘not spreading the conflagration’ and against indiscriminate reprisal killings. As Ben-Gurion put it, ‘we shall retaliate by hitting their vehicles, not passengers . . . If their property is damaged, perhaps they will be deterred’.

Ben-Gurion, ... was concerned lest over-reaction by the Haganah would push the Arab masses, until then uninvolved, to support Husseini and his gunmen.

The Haganah’s purely defensive, almost vegetarian, strategy was soon overtaken by events – and partially changed during the second week of December. As Arab attacks grew more numerous and spread to new areas, as Jewish casualties mounted, and as the feeling grew that the Husseinis were gaining control of the Arab masses despite – and perhaps because of – Haganah restraint, ... During the following months, HGS\Operations carefully modulated the brigades’ operations against Arab transportation.... These orders, precipitated by ‘the increase in attacks on our transport in different parts of the country’, were designed to ‘quiet down the enemy’s activities’. But, down to the end of March, they were invariably superseded, within a day or two, by orders to halt or suspend attack ... Ben-Gurion pointed out that the disturbances were so far limited to the three big towns, Jaffa, Haifa and Jerusalem, and the northern Negev. The Arab rural communities were not engaged, and the Yishuv had to take care not to provoke them. He was worried lest Haganah retaliatory strikes lead to Yishuv–British clashes...

Perhaps the first operational result of the Defence Committee meeting of 18 December 1947 was the start of intensive but non-violent Haganah patrolling around and inside Arab villages in various parts of the country and the distribution of printed warning leaflets in Arabic. Both aimed to deter the villagers from joining the war. (THE BIRTH OF THE PALESTINIAN REFUGEE PROBLEM REVISITED, Benni Morris, p. 70-74) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ykantor (talkcontribs) 05:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Ykantor (talk) 05:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This is controversial. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

to pluto: the boys couldn’t restrain themselves and kissed the guns, which were still coated with grease

You deleted the explanatory footnote (long quote) quote , which is brought down here. Your reason is: " useless quote for something that is not controversial as explained on maly talk pages."

In my opinion it is an important quote. It describes one of the war turning point, as said in the quote:As Ben-Gurion put it at the time, “After we have received a small amount of the [Czech] equipment . . . the situation is radically different in our favor.”32 Without doubt, of all the shipments that subsequently reached the Yishuv, none was to have greater immediate impact or historical significance.. Since the article is already rather long, it is better to add the info in a quote, for the interested reader.

Do you still think it is not important? Ykantor (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The gun-kissing part is definitely not important. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Although it is important in my opinion, I accept deletion of that sentence, if that helps to un-delete the quote. Note that this is a quote and not an in-line content. Ykantor (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The deleted quote is:

name="Morris2008p117">{{cite book|author=Benny Morris|title=1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=CC7381HrLqcC&pg=PA332%7Caccessdate=14 July 2013|date=1 October 2008|publisher=Yale University Press|isbn=978-0-300-14524-3|pages=117|quote="The first shipment—of two hundred rifles, forty MG-34 machine guns, and 160,000 bullets—secretly landed during the night of 31 March–1 April at a makeshift airfield at Beit Daras in a chartered American Skymaster cargo plane.29 A second and far larger shipment, covered with onions and potatoes— of forty-five hundred rifles and two hundred machine guns, along with five million bullets—arrived at Tel Aviv port aboard the Nora on 2 April. When the equipment was offloaded and reached the units, “some of the boys couldn’t restrain themselves and kissed the guns, which were still coated with grease,” Yisrael Galili recorded.30 (A third shipment—consisting of ten thousand rifles, 1,415 machine guns, and sixteen million rounds— reached the Yishuv by sea on 28 April.)31

Before this, the Haganah high command had had to “borrow” weapons from local units for a day or two for specific operations, and the units (and settlements) were generally reluctant to part with weapons, quite reasonably arguing that the Arabs might attack while the weapons were on loan. Now, at last, the Haganah command had at hand a stockpile of thousands of weapons that it could freely deploy. The two shipments proved decisive. As Ben-Gurion put it at the time, “After we have received a small amount of the [Czech] equipment . . . the situation is radically different in our favor.”32 Without doubt, of all the shipments that subsequently reached the Yishuv, none was to have greater immediate impact or historical significance." Ykantor (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

the boys couldn’t restrain themselves and kissed the guns. The objective fact is that the boys kissed the guns: the first half of the sentence is an expression of an emotional response to the boys getting the guns. How do we know that they couldn't restrain themselves? It is not a verifiable statement. The statement is designed to elicit an emotional response from the reader. It is an inappropriate statement to go in the article. Trahelliven (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source . This quote comes from a RS indeed. It was deleted from the quotes section, and was not inline . Ykantor (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
So I suppose if you find as you scour the literature similar passages of the kind: 'when Abdul and his band received a bomb consignment from Jordan, he kissed the earth and yelled 'allahu akhbar', and the women yodelled.' (There's plenty of that crap there too, but one speaks of 'gangs' and 'bands' re Arabs, and 'boys' 'lads' re proto-Israelis)
Don't be bloody silly. This article has a large amount of information it should, (and hasn't) include(d). Creating partisan atmospherics ('the boys', 'the lads'). Encyclopedias as opposed to popular accounts (Collins and Lapierre) just aren't written that way. Were they, we'd have editors with a different POV and equal irresponsibility cramming in stuff like the following on any one particular incident (in a later campaign, 1953 - but there's plenty from 1948 Israeli memoirs), say, Meir Har-Zion's account of one operation where he slit an Arab shepherd's throat while the latter was singing.:'"Pangs of conscience? No. Why should I have any?" The man's blue eyes open wide in amazement. "It's easy to kill a man with a rifle. You press the trigger and that's that. But a knife, why, that's something else-that's a real fight. Even if you are successful, you come close to death. The enemy's blade is as close as the air. It's a fantastic feeling. You realize you're a man," That kind of stuff might go into a personal article. But it is not appropriate to a broadspan general article on war, which is not about soldierly or civilian emotions but (a)politics (b) statistics (c) logistics and (d)strategy.Nishidani (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
when I have re introduced the quote last time, I did not used this sentence any more . So it is a matter of curiosity only. Although it is an emotional quote, it is used to describe the extreme importance of this specific arms shipment. Since I respect the Arab fighters, I do not see what is wrong with using once only the term "boys". Would it be accepted with the word "boys" replaced with the term "fighters"? BTW will you to reply to my questions above? Ykantor (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

the boys couldn’t restrain themselves: taken literally, the statement would would require a psychologist to interview the boys as to their mental state on becoming possessed of the guns. I would be astonished if that happened. The statement was not meant to be taken literally and therefore inappropriate for inclusion in the article. Trahelliven (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Apropos you edit summary query re the Negev. Well, if you've worked there, as I have, you will know that considerable parts of the upper Negev are fertile if water is available, and farmed, and that a large part of the Yishuv Israeli strategy was to secure the Huleh upper Jordan valley water resources and create a national water grid to turn it into arable land (as is the Gaza Strip). Israel did get the best agricultural land, and the West Bank is in last parts 'arid' as well. That's why I removed the adjective, because the text was saying between the lines: 'We wuz cheated: we got more land, but it all just desert'(whereas the Arabs got good land)'. Go tell that over the grave of Hajj Khalil al-Banna and his 24 km2 of citrus groves on the coastal plain.Nishidani (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
see reply in the following section Ykantor (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

"Band" or "Arabs" on one side versus "the boys" on the other side is a basic pov pushing. (The story of kissing the grease being totally undue:weigh of course.)

I add there is a more pernicious one : having on the side the "Jews" in the "Jewish State" and on the other side the "Arabs" (where ?) is as much pov-ed because this desequilibrate the legitimacy of one side and also because the adversary were not the Jews as an ethny.

To comply with history, before May 1948, it should be talked about the Palestinian Jews and the Palestinian Arabs fighting in Mandatory Palestine and after May 1948 it should be talked about the Israelis and the forces of the neighbouring Arab states fighting in [former Mandatory] Palestine.

I still wonder why historians talk about "Palestinian Jews and Arabs" and not about "Jewish and Arab Palestinians" but that would be WP:OR to change this.

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I respect the Arab fighters since they have fought as patriots of their side. I have never used the offending term "bands". However those whose aim is to kill civilians (Jews or Arabs) should be condemned. BTW You used the term "Stern gang". Do you think it is appropriate? (I have to repeat that I am far from being their follower). If you think that the term "stern gang" is appropriate, what term would you use for the Hamas?
  • As for using the term "Arabs", what is wrong with that? It is a sort of nickname to the full description "Palestinian Arabs".
  • As for using the term "Jews" , it is used as a nickname of "Palestinians Jews" until The Israeli independence. (and Israelis later).
  • yours: because the adversary were not the Jews as an ethny.". I wish it would have been correct. Unfortunately, during 1947 last months, the Arab leaders said openly that Jews (who resides in Arab states) would be at great danger. It was not an empty talk. look at Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries#Exodus 1947-1972: "With the November 1947 declaration of United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, severe anti-Jewish pogroms with massive casualties erupted across the Arab World. Arab pogroms against Jews in Aden and Syria were particularly violent. The violence prompted a severe increase in Jewish exodus, with the Aleppo Jewish community deteriorating into decline and soon after the pogrom half the city's Jewish population had left.[20] In 1948, the violence had spread to Egypt, Morocco and Iraq as well, practically covering all Arab countries. At the same time, independent Arab countries began to encourage Jewish emigration to Israel", 1947 Aleppo pogrom,etc. BTW Those advocates of the Palestinian refugees problem (which is indeed a great tragedy) never have any word of sympathy toward those Jews. Ykantor (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
See, you're blogging' on general issues again, not sticking to the section heading. We are here to resolve specific editing problems, not to descant on Zionism vs Palestinians. (2) Wikipedia is not a source for reliable information (3) The whole way you frame this side issue is typical Zionist POV tilting. The whole Arab world was overruled in the UN, which decided to partition an historically Arab land, to make way for a massive influx of Jews. Immediately after, a war broke out. The Arab street, incited to act, in some capitals, Aden and Aleppo, in November 29 and Dec 2,resorted to violent pogroms, in which many Jews were killed and their property plundered (which was to happen in Palestine/Israel where 13,000 Palestinians died, mostly civilian, and their property plundered in the following several months. The larger context is that Zionist emissaries had been endeavouring to press for the evacuation to the new state of Israel of many Mizrahi communities, for demographic packing as well. This was underway in Iraq and Egypt long before 1948. The Zionist hasbara argument against the fact that 700,000 Palestinians were expelled is, 'hey, the same thing happened to us' from 1949-1972, i.e. after the 1947 Partition (thought unfair), the 1948 nakba (catastrophic), the Lavon Affair 1954, the Suez invasion 1956, the Syria-Israeli border conflict 1955-1966, the 1967 war etc. All this is assumed under, Jewish exodus (over two decades) to balance the Palestinian exodus (in several months in 1948), so the equation of hurt is balanced, in total incuriosity and indifference to the usual historical narratives, which exmphasize cause and effect. You can't see that. But this is no place to blog. Stick to the point. History is more complex than propaganda point scoring to justify a national story that has been abandoned by scholars except Karsh, and sources except the NYTs.Nishidani (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

A general discussion- 1948 Israel Arab war

Back to the real world.
  • The Yishuv had a small but productive arms industry in Tel Aviv before that date, producing flame-throwers, Sten guns, grnades, explosives and mines, armoured trucks, two and three inch mortars, and davidkas. The Haganah had 28 light planes adapted for combat. The underground munitions factories suddenly became legal after May.
The key elements were
  • the communist coup d'état in Czechoslovakia on the 25 February, 1948, and with the country desperate for foreign currency, this drove the deals with Jewish intermediaries.
  • The new deputy Defense Minister in Prague, General Bedrich Reicen, happened to be a Jewish communist who expedited the shipments, furnished Israel with the use of Czech airfields and allowed Czech planes to be chartered for flight to Israel with munitions cargo loads
  • At the same time, the Syrians, who had been seeking a contract there, couldn't come up with a deposit or downpayment as the Jews managed to do.
  • The Soviet Union appears also to have denied permission to Prague to sell arms to the Arabs
  • The Soviet Union got Yugoslavia to permit the transit of the arms' shipments. It was useful that Ehud Avriel was a good friend of Aleksandar Ranković, the Yugoslav minister of the interior , who facilitated the passage of arms as well.
  • Britain curtailed arms shipments to the ME from February on, which hurt the Arabs more than the Yishuv community.
  • By the summer, Czechoslovia had supplied Israel witrh 84 fighter planes, 22 tanks, 16 artillery pieces, 60,000 light arms, and tens of millions of rounds of ammunition.
  • As the huge British army withdrew, the sheer complexity of the logistics of withdrawal led to a lucrative black market where stocks of heavier weaponry and arms generally could be snapped up.
  • Israel managed to import 30,000 immigrants with qualifications adapted to the needs of warfare between May 48 and August 9, indeed foreign volunteers made up 18% of the Israeli forces (compare the fact that Zionist historiography tends to make a huge fuss at Arab foreign volunteers, without citing this similar factor in the Yishuv-Israeli forces)
  • The manpower at the Haganah's command was three times that of the Palestinians.
  • 'In late April 1948, the U.S. State Department independently pressed for peace. The United States was alarmed that with the British soon to be gone, Jews and Arabs would both declare statehood and enter into an arms race that would precipitate a conflagration involving many foreign countries(not unlike the Spanish civil war). The State Department persuaded the Arab nations to accept, off the record, a Jewish immigration of 48,000 per year, a prior sticking point and condition demanded by Ben-Gurion. The United tates also considered pledging assistance to the Jews if, after the truce, the Arabs were to invade. By now accepting these conditions that Ben-Gurion had previously insisted on, the Arab nations sought to avoid war in Palestine. But the Jews turned down the U.S. proposal, knowing that the loal Palestinians and Syrian irregulars were demoralized. Weapons from Czechoslovakia and France were coming in past British troops who were now concerned only with leaving Palestine without casualties. With a stockpile of war surplus arms in Europe and a capaqcity to make munitions locally within Palestine, the Jews were prepared to take their chances.'(Baylis Thomas How Israel was Won: A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Lexington Books 1999 p.69)

Also Howard Sacher Israel and Europe: An Appraisal in History, Random House 2010 pp.56ff.; Laurens, La Question de Palestine vol.3 2007 Fayard p.69; Fred Khouri, The Arab-Israeli Dilemma, Syracuse UP, 1985 pp71-2, 546 n.5, see Baylis Thomas,How Israel was Won: A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Lexington Books p.40 (manp0ower); p.91-2 n.16.

These are only some elements that are far more interesting that crap about kissing greasy rifles.There is no comparable point by point logistics/manpower correspondence with the Arab armies, and that is why the only problem Israel had was with Jordan, with its advanced, integrated army under British military supervision. The results were known before the declaration of the state of Israel.Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
The first of the two Israeli worst periods was at March 1948. The Arabs have suffocated Jerusalem and some isolated villages. the Hagana lost nearly all the improvised armoured cars and even the 1000 - 2000 people Palmach fighters did not have sufficient rifles. Mind you that at the time the Palmach was the only worth jewish fighting units. (and consequently lost a lot of killed fighters). So when at early April, the first arms ship succeeded to infiltrate through the blocking huge U.K navy, it was extremely important event. "As Ben-Gurion put it at the time, “After we have received a small amount of the [Czech] equipment . . . the situation is radically different in our favor.” Without doubt, of all the shipments that subsequently reached the Yishuv, none was to have greater immediate impact or historical significance." So "the boys couldn’t restrain themselves and kissed the guns, which were still coated with grease".BTW I do not see any supposedly Israeli propaganda benefit out of this story. I can not understand why this real revolutionary situation is so hard to believe in.
You don't listen. You sound too over-identified with one narrative. When you write:

The first of the two Israeli worst periods was at March 1948. The Arabs have suffocated Jerusalem and some isolated villages. the Hagana lost nearly all the improvised armoured cars and even the 1000 - 2000 people Palmach fighters did not have sufficient rifles

You should ask yourself why March and April were, by implication, going well for the Palestinians? Were those good months for the indigenous population? That is what you are implying.Nishidani (talk) 06:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I am Israeli and write as an Israeli at the talkpage, which means keeping it correct and objective, while understanding the situation as Israelis saw it: The Arabs were trying to Slaughter all of them (As they openly said). By the same token, I guess that you understand the Arabs feelings.
  • yours:" March and April were, by implication, going well for the Palestinians". True for March only. During April, the Hagana started a successful offensive. The other worst Israeli situation was during the 3 weeks after the invasion, up to the 1st truce.
  • yours:"Were those good months for the indigenous population?". A war is bad for everyone, might be except of the generals. Even if one side is successful, the plain people (of this side) are suffering too. During this war, the Palestinian Arabs suffered a catastrophe, and the Jews suffered a lot ( 6000 killed out of 600000 total !)
  • Arms supplies. Note that after the invasion, arms supplies to Israel became much easier, since the U.K navy has stopped blocking the shipment to Israels.
    • yours:At the same time, the Syrians, who had been seeking a contract there, couldn't come up with a deposit or downpayment as the Jews managed to do". both Syrian and the Hagana Czech arms have arrived to Yugoslavian ports, at about the same date ( March 1948). So, apparently they succeeded in financing it.
      • Moreover,Europe was flooded with surplus arms and everyone could have bought it, provided he could finance it. e.g. Egypt and Syria have bought:"During 1948-1949, Egypt received 62 refurbished C.205Vs...Egypt also ordered 19 G.55s and Syria another 16, all new-built."Macchi C.205#Postwar. So apparently they could finance it, but for some reason the aircraft have been purchased rather late.
    • It does not really matter for our debate, but the Czechs have not supplied tanks or cannons to Israel. (As I remember).
    • yours:*Britain curtailed arms shipments to the ME from February on, which hurt the Arabs more than the Yishuv community.. That is not correct. The U.K " had accelerated the supply of weapons and ammunition from their stocks in the Canal zone to the Arab Legion in the months preceding the Arab invasion."Zamir , Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 46, No. 1, 17–58, January 2010 ‘Bid’ for Altalena: France’s Covert Action in the 1948 War in Palestine, p. 35). Also, have a look at Bevin replies to U.K. parliament members [2]
'The Arabs were trying to Slaughter all of them (As they openly said). By the same token, I guess that you understand the Arabs feelings.'
So, if you think like that, you shouldn't be editing wikipedia. For you are putting the cliché of the twisted and spun Azzam Pasha quotation into the minds and mouths of all Palestinians and all Arabs in 1947-8, which is arrant, indeed despicable nonsense. Nishidani (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

11. Mr. Cocks

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, under the agreements to supply given quantities of arms to the Arab States, His Majesty's Government have guaranteed to deliver these arms by certain fixed dates; and whether, in view of the publicly announced intention of these States, or some of them, to invade Palestine after 15th May, he will suspend for a period further deliveries of such arms.

§ Mr. Bevin

The answer to the first part of the Question is "No, Sir." But I must point out that the Governments concerned, who are under an obligation to ensure that the armament and essential equipment of their forces shall not differ in type from those of our own forces, naturally expect that when they place contracts in this country we shall carry out the contracts as speedily as is technically possible. With regard to the second part of the Question, it is impossible to forecast the outcome of the United Nations discussions on Palestine and the future of the country is so uncertain that it is impossible to take decisions now as to the action which may be required in respect of the period after 15th May.

§ Mr. Cocks

In view of the fact that no fixed dates are set down for the delivery of the arms, that the Arab Council held a meeting this week in Transjordan, and the reports from Cairo, Syria and Bagdad that action is contemplated in the next few days, will the right hon. Gentleman suspend delivery of these arms or allow the Jews to have arms with which to defend themselves?

§ Mr. Bevin

From all my information about Palestine at present, it seems to me that the Jews are the better armed of the two, but I cannot draw a distinction, and I have no intention of interfering until I get the decision of the United Nations. From that I refuse to move.

§ Mr. Cocks

The right hon. Gentleman will let people be murdered before he arrests the murderer.

§ Mr. Bevin

No. I appealed to both the Jews and the Arabs in London and warned them that we would leave Palestine. We must remember that the British sergeants were not hanged from the tree by Arabs.

§ Mr. Edelman

Is it not a fact that under the Anglo-Transjordan Treaty the arms of the Arab Legion may not be used in Palestine without the consent of His Majesty's Government?

§ Mr. Bevin

I must have notice of that Question. Ykantor (talk) 09:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but we don't want Wikipedia written from am Israeli point of view. Not from an Arab point of view either. Also, I don't know why you bother copy-pasting Hansard into here, there is almost no content in it. If you want to know about actual arms delivery, you have to do better than read a politician's reply in-principle to some hypothetical question. Try the book "The Origin of the Arab-Israel Arms Race" by Amitzur Ilan, it has a very detailed description of arms deliveries, the UN embargo and its implementation etc etc. Zerotalk 09:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I comply with this policy. note my writing:"I am Israeli and write as an Israeli at the talkpage, which means keeping it correct and objective, while understanding the situation as Israelis saw it" . Concerning yours:read a politician's reply in-principle to some hypothetical question, it is a real reply to a real situation. Bevin said:naturally expect that when they place contracts in this country we shall carry out the contracts as speedily as is technically possible, which clearly show the British policy to supply the Arabs as quickly as possible, although there is no binding supply date and although Bevin knew what for the Arabs need this arms. I guess this is a primary source, so it would not be used in the article, but it show clearly that the U.K. have supplied the Arabs states up to the invasion date, unlike Nishidani claim that the U.k. blocked this supply. What is your view concerning this question? Ykantor (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
By the way, Lapierre and Collins in the ref template =1971. In the bibliography 1973. I have a 1982 reprint, and the ref pages are 20-30 page differences, when you can track them down. Chapter numbering is different (chapter 7 = chapter 11).Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
to Nishidani: Let us advance the debate concerning your previous notes, before extending it to the question if the Israelis felt that the Arabs intend to slaughter them.
Would you accept that this notes are incorrect:
  1. The Soviet Union appears also to have denied permission to Prague to sell arms to the Arabs
  2. Britain curtailed arms shipments to the ME from February on, which hurt the Arabs more than the Yishuv community.
  3. By the summer, Czechoslovia had supplied Israel witrh 84 fighter planes, 22 tanks, 16 artillery pieces, 60,000 light arms, and tens of millions of rounds of ammunition.(partially incorrect)
  4. the only problem Israel had was with Jordan, with its advanced, integrated army under British military supervision. (you are heavily underestimating the Egyptian army)
  5. The results were known before the declaration of the state of Israel.(Ben Gurion was told by his generals that the chances are equal,up to the arrival of the arms shipment)
  • "the boys couldn’t restrain themselves and kissed the guns, which were still coated with grease". I do not see any supposedly Israeli propaganda benefit out of this story. why this real revolutionary situation is so hard to believe in?. Ykantor (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
By serendipity I've just come across a perfect analogy. Try putting this into the article Spanish Civil War. It's exactly analogous since the context is the Siege of Madrid, where weapons were extremely scarce. A consignment of rifles finally arrives from Mexico, and the narrator says:
Después, los mejicanos - y Dios los bendiga-, nos mandaron unos fusiles' (Some time later, the Mexicans -God bless them -sent us some rifles) Arturo Barea, La forja de un rebelde, vol.3 = La Llama, Losada, Buenos Aires 3rd ed.1958 p.209. It would be utterly partisan, and irrelevant there also.Nishidani (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

proposed partition, percantage of population, land, land ownership

to all : Most of the proposed Jewish state was in the Negev Desert.

you deleted my writing: " Most of the proposed Jewish state was in the Negev Desert" and replaced it with a cumbersome and long sentence. your reason is:This sentence is misleading. It sounds as if Israel had been estabilished in the desert. The Negev desert was an add-on; not the core".

Your reason is strange and not true. The sentence does not relates to the core or to the add on. Your cumbersome sentence is not easy to understand . Wikipedia should be correct and clear.

will it be possible for you to return my sentence?

I had reverted myself one hour before you post this message : my revert at 9:31 ; your post at 10:27. Whether you just read the final text and you should not have seen this or you read the history and you could not have missed the revert. This is from your side an attempt of WP:WIKILAWYERING for a next phase.
More, this sentece was removed by me, Zero, Nishidani and me again. You are again very alone to defend a misleading text.
I will revert this in a few days unless an relevant answer is brought to this point.
Pluto2012 (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, I've removed it, plus the ref to 'fertility'. It has nothing to do with the war. I checked to see if this constitutes a revert infraction. Apparently it doesn't, but please tell me if it does, and I need revert. Whatever, there is no consensus on this, there is no source for it, it is tendentious, and can't be there. There are far more serious things to be done than frig about with this kind of stuffing.Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Totally agreed : "There are far more serious things to be done than frig about with this kind of stuffing." On this article, on wikipedia and outside wikipedia. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

A POV :"The Jews, who owned 6-7% of the land, would get 56%

The partition- a proposal for an alternative wording

The sentence does not show a similar comparison between the Arabs owned land and the Arab population percentage. Most of the land was a state land (e.g. the Negev desert). What is your opinion? Ykantor (talk) 10:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Listen. Your creation of numerous sections for one-off nugatory issues is ridiculous, and I expect no one is going to answer them. I'll just answer here. The Negev, which you are trying to spin as an arid desert blob which was unfair to Israel, and therefore the key statistical fact that 56% of the land went to 30-36% of the population is unfair, was included by the UN because it met the insistant Jewish Agency/Zionist demand half way, i.e. that the future state of 'Eretz Israel' include the area from El-Arish to Aqaba. Two elements were uppermost (apart from the ideological fantasy that this represented Solomon's state): the northern Sinai and western Negev area were judged adaptable for large-scale grain production, and the whole Negev zone was a potential bridge between the Indian Ocean-Mediterranean trade, a potential transit for oil via pipelines, and a future crossroads for international trade.
Secondly, you are writing, not according to what you know or books you read, say. You are editing according to your idea of the Israeli position to be consolidated or defended. Don't write anything unless you have at your elbow one or two good academic books that support your addition in the context of this period, ensuring also that the addition is essential and congruent with the article. Don't multiply sections. Most of us have a life off-line, that takes up most of the day.Nishidani (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • what is wrong with having more sections? they tend to inflate anyway.
  • The Negev was given to israel because Chaim Weizmann have convinced president harry Truman although Ernest Bevin made his best to give it to the Arabs. if the U.K could have been sufficiently strong, the Negev would have been joined to Jordan.
  • concerning a well supported contributions, your attitude is strange. All my contributions are well supported.Ykantor (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Regrding "Most of the proposed Jewish state was in the Negev Desert." — The word "most" might strictly mean "more than half" but in everyday English it means more than that. But, in any case, just because a sentence is true does not mean that it is neutral. The effect of this sentence (as you know perfectly well, Ykantor) is to give the impression that the Jews got the worst deal. In fact anyone who knows the geography and looks at the map can see that they got a very good deal. The majority of the best agricultural land was to be in the Jewish state. This was no surprise since Jews had focused their purchasing efforts on the best land since the 19th century. So the sentence is misleading in multiple ways and thus unacceptable. Zerotalk 11:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Would you accept the term "majority" or the term "more than half" instead of "most"?
  • concerning the fertile land, you wrote at the previous section too. let us continue there. Ykantor (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
In any case, one can't allow this to bog down the article in excessive details. Get into the tricky, fiddley reasons behind the boundaries, or who got the best deal, and we'll be having footnote complications down to such trivia as to the way Moshe Novomeysky managed to pressure the map-drawing committee to alter the boundaries so his potassium company could get more access to deposits on the Dead Sea!, etc. nothing to do with the narrative re the 1948 war. Nishidani (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
you are definitely right that one can't allow this to bog down the article in excessive details". I have actually slightly reduced it relatively to a previous Zero writing. So why have added the POV text with the 7% ? Ykantor (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
You POV-ed the text arguing the Negev was most of what Israel got, and was 'arid', which is not true, and you had no source. The text as I found it had detail on the demographic balance between the two areas. The weighting of populations per area is of interest to an 'Israeli narrative'. The fact that the partition map gave a 30-36% minority, who legally owned 6-7% of the territory, much greater (arable and productive) land is central to the 'Palestinian narrative', because immigrants were being accorded the best, largest slice of a land the Arab indigenous majority lived in, and that was not acceptable to Arab opinion. I found one emphasis, and balanced it. The Negav is neither here nor there compared to these two fundamental perceptions.Nishidani (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The updated section, has now 2 sentences with a POV problem:
  1. The Jews, who owned 6-7% of the land, would get 56%, though constituting one third of the population
  2. The Palestinian Arabs, constituting two thirds of the population, would get 43% of the land
It is a POV problem, since it give a (deliberate) impression of an un fair partition, Since The reader can not know that most of the Jewish partition is a desert. It is correct that the Palestinians are convinced in the in-fairness, and it is important and should be included in the article. The Palestinians may claim for instance, that even without the Negev, the Jewish slice is too big relatively to the population size. Will it be better to remove those 2 sentences? Ykantor (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
That's in many sources. Reality is not POV. Both Zionists and Arabs thought the partition division unfair. The previous version, as I said above, had the Israeli grievance: i.e. the Arab part had 10,000 Jews, the Jewish part 400,000 Arabs, meaning Arabs were given an ethnically unified state, Israelis an ethnically mixed state with a slim temporary Jewish majority. So, for balance, I added the data above, which provides the other angle. Nishidani (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Ykantor that merely stating the percentages is misleading. We need to note that the Jewish area included most of the Negev. On the other hand, it would be just as misleading to go in the other direction and imply that the Negev was representative of what the Jews got; it certainly was not. That's why I proposed "including the fertile coastal plan as well as, forming more than half the total area, the majority of the Negev desert" which states both of the relevant facts. But Ykantor deleted it in favor of a misleading version. Why? Zerotalk 12:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Since you said that the word "most" is misleading, I wrote ( 2 days ago) "Would you accept the term "majority" or the term "more than half" instead of "most"? Ykantor (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
The Jews got indeed the fertile coastal plain. Will it be possible to write:"including the fertile coastal plan (some of it became fertile because the Jews has drained the malaria carrying swamps)[citation needed]. Most of the proposed Jewish state was in the Negev Desert." will this be acceptable? Ykantor (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Someone added the reference needed template. Zero cited here Hope Simpson report:Very much has been done in the drainage of swamps and marshes, in great part by Jewish agency . Can I erase this template? Ykantor (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Where is the secondary source that would claim that the draining of some swamps is among the significant (and given it is the only given, the most significant) cause of the fertility of the coastal plain. This is again pov-pushing and Zionist propaganda. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
No because it didn't become fertile because of that. Eg, Jaffa has been existing for years and was very fertile as proven by the Arab citron groves there. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Why do you reply before reading the text? some of it became fertile because the Jews has drained the malaria ridden swamps. Ykantor (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
You are perfectly aware of the problem. What was the percentage of these swamps ? 5 % ? Less ? That is even not pov-pushing but just manipulation to claim that coastal plain would have been fertile because of these actions. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The problem is one of narrative succintness, covering essential points. This is the text as I found it:

Each state would comprise three major sections, linked by extraterritorial crossroads; the Arab state would also have an enclave at Jaffa. The Jews would get 56% of the land,[21] of which most was in the Negev Desert; their area would contain 498,000 Jews and 407,000 Arabs. The Palestinian Arabs would get 43% of the land, which had a population of 725,000 Arabs and 10,000 Jews.

There is a division into roughly equal parts (56%/43%) but (a) the 56%, a mere 6% above parity, is offset by 'most' of the Jewish state was in the 'Negev desert' and (b) the Jews were given a mixed state with almost demographic parity, the Arabs an Arab state with almost no Jews.
I do not want to get into the argument, but Ykantor's suggestion should read including the fertile coastal plan (some of which became fertile because the Jews drained the malaria carrying swamps). The word has should be deleted. Trahelliven (talk) 07:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Will it be possible to write:"...including the fertile coastal plan (some of it became fertile because the Jews drained the malaria carrying swamps). More than half of the proposed Jewish state was in the Negev Desert." will this be acceptable? Ykantor (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The answer is, no you can't add further Zionist argument into the sentence. Your insertion is pure Zionist rhetoric. It has to stop somewhere. Why can't someone add that a large part of the West Bank is useless without irrigation? Why not say that much of the Jewish state was good land due to works funded by the mandatory government? Nobody even suggested it, but anyone who wants to present the Arab perspective could justify it just as much. The sentence I proposed is balanced and accurate. Here is again: "including the fertile coastal plan as well as, forming more than half the total area, the majority of the Negev desert" If you don't like the wording, propose different wording. But don't add more POV.
I accept temporarily eliminating the Malaria issue, since it is not easy to find an RS. The wording "as well as, forming more than half the total area, the majority of the Negev desert" is long, and add the correct but not so important fact that the Jews got most of the Negev. My proposal: "...including the fertile coastal plan, as well as The Negev desert, which was more that half of the total area". Will you accept it? Ykantor (talk) 12:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
yes. Zerotalk 12:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but it needs tweaking, which I will do with the following source:' 'the Jewish state' got, 'in addition to the largest part of the most fertile lands in the Galilee and coastal plain, the Negev desert.' ref Issa Khalaf,Politics in Palestine: Arab Factionalism and Social Disintegration, 1939-1948, SUNY Press, 1991 p.153. /ref., plus 'where 5.1% of the Arab, as opposed to 0.0% of the Jewish, population lived.' ref. Gudrun Krämer,A History of Palestine: From the Ottoman Conquest to the Founding of the State of Israel, Princeton UP 2011. p.307. That balances it. Nishidani (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, we discussed the POV issue , have agreed to a compromise and then you surprisingly return to the main POV problem: The Negev desert was more than half of the proposed Jewish state. Do not you see that? Ykantor (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
We are discussing the POV and trying to hone the text. You made one proposal, modifying your former position, which both Zero and Pluto found acceptable, compared to your former position. I have suggested a tweak for the simple reason that, on your own principles, repeated below in the POV accusations 'Negev desert, which was more than half the total' requires a corresponding note for balance. Do you see that? The Galilee was as vital to the Negev, yet is missing. I'll work on a neutral formulation for these sentences. In any case, in my view, all of this is destabilizing, and one should just say areas, population, land holdings, without the clauses or adjectives you introduced, and leave it to the readers to interpret. Nishidani (talk) 08:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
OK. Is it acceptable to delete the 2 debatable sentences (with the percentage) ? Mentioning the percents is important, but it should be balanced, and display The Arab percentage too.Ykantor (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The UN partition plan has a history which is not presented here. It was not just a 1948 decision: 56% for you and 43% for you. Some would argue that after the war, the Jews were only left with 18% of historic Palestine, them being originally allocated even less:

Just including these statistics is problematic: In 1918, Jews represented some 15% of the population of Palestine (forming the largest Jewish community of any country at the time) while owning 4% of the land. What does that tell us about discriminatory Ottoman restrictions on Jewish land purchase? And the plan still only resulted in Jewish ownership of 9% of the proposed state. The plan did not mean that the other 47% of the land automatically became "Jewish owned." On the contrary: The land was to stay under the same previous "Arab" ownership, what could be "unfair" about that? Just its Arab population would be "unfairly" affected by living under non-Arab governance (as Jews had done so in Arab lands for millennia). While the plan took in Arab owned areas, it was drawn up to include the areas which had heavy Jewish concentrations. It must be acknowledged that the Negev, which accounted for a significant part of the partition, consisted of vast ownerless tracts. Using these %ages gives a false impression that the Arabs of Palestine were to receive less in proportion to the amount of land they owned, but we only have the figures for Jewish ownership. We know expansive tracts were actually held by foreign landlords. The Russian Orthodox Church also owned large plots. We have data on how much land the Jews owned, but can anyone find any figures on how much the settled Arab population themselves owned, the ones who would be actually affected by the partition? ---/ Chesdovi (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Chesdovi. Those maps are idiotic, and this is about 1948 and the Partition statistics. This is not a discussion on what we think, but what the best sources say. Nishidani (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Nishidani. This map is idiotic. The Kingdom of Israel comprised south of Lebanon and more than 50 % of Syria. This should be included in the percentages that were abandonned. More, I am aware that this is discussable but the Land promised by H. to Abraham comprised an even wider area... Anyway ass a comprise and a proof of goodwill, we could agree, temporarely, not to discuss the inclusion of this area in the calculation of the percentage. Is this acceptable ? Pluto2012 (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I have taken out the map, which is not only irrelevant to the discussion, it bears a false title and is polemically contrived nonsense or manic POV-pushing, as per the title Israel's loss of land 1920 - 2012/Partition of Palestine. Israel 1920 did not exist, Chesdovi. Nishidani (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The Negev aridity and suitability for agriculture

I won't tease out the subtexts of this tilting, but it should be clear that (a) and (b) more than cancel the slight impression of imparity in the division figures. When I read this, I recalled Aaron Aaronsohn's 1918 (or thereabouts) survey of the agricultural fertility of the Western Negev, which had a significant impact on Zionist planning. It was desired for this and other strategic and commercial reasons (a port south etc), and was 'empty' of the Arab densities which was the main problemnorth. My reading of this was that it had a Zionist narrative emphasis, but ignored a statistic in Arab objections. One had only one set of statistics, carefully detailed, to set forth a problem for Jews in the UN partition plan.
That is why I made this edit.
This provoked the Negev 'arid' details, which was deeply destabilizing because it invited more balancing detail (the upper Negev is fertile, the climatic rift line between the eastern arid-desert zone and the fertile Mediterranean littoral zon runs more or less north south of Jerusalem - Judea has extensive parts that are 'arid' etc. Hence my elision of the whole topic, other than mention of the Negev (undefined. Define the Negev, and you are obliged I think to define the Arab areas, re water/aridity etc). If we are to expand, then retrieving Zero's proposal is fair, though we are left to accept that no mention is required of the relative aridity of places like Judea. Perhaps I'm niggling. Nishidani (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Concerning the Negev, everything was known long time ago. e.g. Laudermilk water plan (published during the mandate period). Negev Northern part was a desert at that time , because it is an arid region. Israel built the national water carrier (The Arabs were against of course and the Syrians shot the workers) that linked the Tiberias lake water to the Negev, and the northern Negev started to bloom. Nowadays Tel Aviv purified sewage water are used because of a general arid climate. When Weizmann have convinced president Trumann to support Israel claim to the Negev he said:
  • ref name="Devine2009">Michael J. Devine (August 2009). Harry S. Truman, the State of Israel, and the Quest for Peace in the Middle East. Truman State Univ Press. p. 106. ISBN 978-1-935503-80-4. Retrieved 19 August 2013. Weizmann had been called on before to meet with Truman, when the State Department was trying to switch the Negev from the Jewish to the Arab portion specified in the partition plan. Weizmann, who was a noted chemist, painted a picture for Truman that appealed to him as the farmer he had once born. By using desalted water, the Jews would make the desert bloom. Their experiments with desalination were already producing carrots, bananas, and potatoes in areas where nothing had grown for hundreds of years. If taken from the Jews, it would remain a desert. Aqaba, too, was crucial, Weizrnann told the president. It was now a useless bay that had to be dredged, deepened, and made into a waterway that could accommodate large ships. If it was part of a Jewish state, Weizmann told Truman, “it would make a real contribution to trade and commerce by opening up a new route:’ It would be a parallel highway to the Suez Canal, shortening the route from Europe to India by a day or more. Truman agreed that the Negev should remain part of the Jewish state. “I was extremely happy:’ Weizmann later wrote. Truman then “promised that he would communicate [that] at once with the American delegation at Lake Success. Truman kept his word </ref> Ykantor (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
"By using desalted water, the Jews would make the desert bloom."
Really. I had never heard about this.
This talk page has become a game of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing and WP:POINT. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Why should you be proud of "never heard about this? This is important info concerning president Truman decision to give the Negev to Israel. Ykantor (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I am not at all proud... The more I think about this and the more I am convinced... We should all admit that giving that land without a people to a people without a land was legitimate. Even more, this people had the capacity to make the desert bloom and so it became a duty. Who could deny that ? This people was coming back home after 2000 years of exile and antisemitism. This people established in Palestine with the aim of modernizing this land and was ready to welcome the Arab population of Middle East and share their wealthness in creating a new society ! Arab and Jewish workers as one ! But Arabs refused this compromise and followed their leaders, Amin al-Husseini, in that direction. They fought to chase the Jews by antisemitism performing progroms in 1920, 1921, 1929 and from 1936 to 1939. They also rejected the compromise of the UNO. British were ready to support them in the implementation of a new Holocaust. But Jews fought. And when Arabs realized the determination and courage of the Yishuv in 1948, they fled ! But Jews forgave them. Jewish leaders asked them to stay in Israel and to leave with them in peace. Arabs preferred the exile and the opportunity to fight rather than peace. They became refugees. There is not a single equivalent example in the world. They paid the consequences of the war they had initiated and their antisemitism. Well, this article is pov-pushing. We should put a tag on the head of this : "this article doesn't comply with Zionist propaganda and should be read as such". Finally, we both agree. I am happy for this but not proud. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
You should apply for the Job of "a manager of the central Zionist propaganda office" (does not exist yet) . However ,in order to improve your chance, you have to soften it, otherwise you will be suspected as a member of the extreme right. Would you accept: "giving that land without a people to a people without a land was legitimate. Even more, this people had the capacity to make the desert bloom and so it became a duty. Who could deny that ? This people was coming back home after 2000 years of exile and antisemitism. This people established in Palestine with the aim of modernizing this land and was ready to welcome the Arab population of Middle East and share their wealthness in creating a new society ! Arab and Jewish workers as one ! But Arabs refused this compromise and followed their leaders, Amin al-Husseini, in that direction. They fought to chase the Jews by antisemitism performing progroms in 1920, 1921, 1929 and from 1936 to 1939. They also rejected the compromise of the UNO. British were ready to support them in the implementation of a new Holocaust. But Jews fought. And when Arabs realized the determination and courage of the Yishuv in 1948, they fled ! But Jews forgave them. Jewish leaders asked them to stay in Israel and to leave with them in peace(correct for Haifa only). Arabs preferred the exile and the opportunity to fight rather than peace(correct for Haifa only). They became refugees. There is not a single equivalent example in the world.(correct for Haifa only) They paid the consequences of the war they had initiated and their antisemitism. BTW there are some missing facts. e.g. the Arabs fled or forced to leave. Anyway, the important aspect is that they were not allowed to return. Ykantor (talk) 11:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
According to Benny Morris, the most important aspect is that they were not allowed to return in years following the war. According to him and Yoav Gelber they were also systematically expelled after June '48 during Yoram, Hiram and Yoav campaigns. According to Nur Mashala, they were expelled in the context of a plan written for long.
(...) Pluto2012 (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
That's Lowdermilk, not Laudermilk, ykantor, by the way. All of this stuff is known to most editors here. I don't know why you are dragging in the ABCs of modern Palestinian history, or hasbara tidbits (only the Jews could make the desert bloom etc.) Stop it please. If this is part of a teach-yourself course, you can do that comfortably at home, without boring editors. Nishidani (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, you described the Northern Negev as fertile, which is misleading. It could have been fertile, if there was no lack of water. Also, what is your definition of "arid"? In the northern Negev the average annual rain is not sufficient for proper agriculture. So is that "arid" or not arid in your view? This quotation is important info concerning president Truman decision to give the Negev to Israel. Ykantor (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the 6-7% figure: Here is Tom Segev in One Palestine Complete, pp 273-274:

"Still by the end of the Mandatory period, the Zionists had purchased a total of only two million dunams. They had hoped to buy much more... They ended up owning a mere 10 percent of the country... However, excluding the land considered unfit for habitation - that is, the Negev Desert - the Zionists' property came to about 25 percent of Palestine."

There is a footnote to this:

"The exact percentage of the country included in the Zionist holdings is complicated. Palestine was divided into two different types of land - habitable and nonhabitable - according to legal definitions that changed every so often from region to region and from one period to another. The surveying methods and units of measurements also shifted, as did the various kinds of holding, ownership, and methods of registration. Nor were the registrations accurate."

With respect to the aridity and suitability for agriculture of the Negev, Kenneth Stein in The Land Question in Palestine, 1917-1939, presents the following 1930 data from Maurice Bennett, commissioner for land and surveys[3]. Of the total land area of Palestine, Bennett classified 33% as cultivatable, including 9% of the "Beersheba Subdistrict" and 79% of the coastal plain. GabrielF (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

One of the problems here is that so many respectable RS repeat rubbery figures, and use loose language. The most frequently cited figure is around 5-7%. Segev appears to get some things wrong, in several places here. 10%? Shlomo Sand says 11%, but what do they mean by that? They had 10-11% of the cultivatable land/20% of the land already under cultivation. 5% of the Arab Palestinian population a few years before (1944) the time of Partition lived in the 'unfit for habitation' Negev, which, in some accounts, had virtually zero Jews (The northern Negev had Jewish settlements however. Biger 2004:81-2). The 'habitable/not habitable' distinction can be contrasted to the Ottoman (which Israel still uses) classification of land (miri vs mawat) I've a dozen sources on this, all differing in slight details, but the best synthetic treatment I've come across says:

‘According to official British statistics, by April 1, 1945, Jews owned 1,491,699 dunums in Palestine, or 5.67 percent of the country’s total surface area. Arabs owned 12,547,774 dunums (47.77 percent of Palestine). The British considered 11,950,658 dunums (45.4 percent) to be”public land”, while 305,892 dunums (1.16 percent of Palestine), consisted of roads, rivers, railroads, lakes, and “other”. The figure for “public” land must be approached with some caution. The British never completed the land settlement program, with the result that only about 20% of Palestine was surveyed and registered. These 1945 estimates contained British estimates of what the total amount of “public” land would be upon completion of settlement. Indeed, the British considered most of the arid southern half of Palestine to be “public”, an assertion that Palestinian land experts have long challenged. By the end of the Mandate in May 1948, Jewish ownership had risen to approximately 1,734,000 dunums, 6.59 percent of Palestine. Of this, 54 percent was owned by the Jewish National Fund. Although this amount seems small in comparison with Arab ownership, it constituted some 20 percent of Palestine’s cultivatable land.’ Michael R Fischbach, ‘Land’ in Philip Mattar (ed.) Encyclopedia of the Palestinians, Infobase Publishing, (2000) 2005 pp.291-298, p.293.

That is why I put 6-7% in, to cover the variation in most sources that address this topic technically, in the face of, to cite one example, Issa Khalaf's 1991:p.153 mention of 5-7)
Anyway, precisely because of these complexities I think we have to be very careful here, and succinct, and not allow ourselves to divagate too far beyond the two basic perceptions, Yishuv and Arab, both with an element of grievance (for the grievance POV with a hyperbole see Chesdovi's absurd fantasy spun out of a total nescience of what 'in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people) can be construed to mean. It certainly did not mean 'in favour of establishing Palestine/Jordan as the national home of the Jewish People'.Nishidani (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
according to "State Lands and Rural Development in Mandatory Palestine, 1920-1948" By Warwick P. N. Tyler, p. 77, after 1940, because of the restriction, the JNF have purchased a considerable amount of land, which stayed registered under Arab names.Ykantor (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


If the northern Negev was already fertile and non arid, what was the purpose of the huge investment in the National water carrier ? see the water carrier map. Ykantor (talk) 08:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The answer is, no you can't add further Zionist argument into the sentence. It has to stop somewhere. Why can't someone add that a large part of the West Bank is useless without irrigation? Nobody even suggested it. The sentence I proposed is balanced and accurate. If you don't like the wording, propose different wording. But don't add more POV. Zerotalk 09:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

see above my proposal. Ykantor (talk) 10:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I wrote in the wrong place. I'll move it up. Zerotalk 10:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


As for the Negev aridity and suitability for agriculture: (e) IRRIGATION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT 38. The semi-desert Beersheba area in the south has at present a settled population of 7,000 (mostly in the town of Beersheba) and about 90,000 nomadic Bedouins. The area has a good soil but insufficient rain to support a denser population. It can only be developed by irrigation. There are small Jewish settlements in the south of this area (sometimes loosely described as the Negeb) which are at present experimental and based on water brought by pipeline at great cost from a considerable distance. The further development of this area remains, therefore, problematic, being dependent either on the discovery of non saline underground water at economical depths or the development of reservoirs to store the winter rainfall over fairly wide areas UNTIED NATIONS SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PALESTINE, REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, VOLUME 1. Ykantor (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

A POV problem: the Arab League gave reasons for its intervention

The most of this 1948 Arab–Israeli War#The Arab League as a whole , discuss the cablegram in which the Arab League gave reasons for its intervention. This is a POV case, since it neglect to mention main stream sources with the opposite opinion i.e. that the Arab states invasion was illegal. Would you accept to remove this POV untill someone will balance it? Ykantor (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The cablegram part is too long and should be shortened. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
In principle all direct material from primary sources, unless indispensable, should be reported by the way they are summarized in secondary sources. So it is a matter of finding neutral comprehensive yet succinct RS reports to make the section briefer, as Frederico agrees. That can be done, in due course. Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

My recollection is that it was I who put in the article the first mention of the cablegram. I find it extraordinary how the article could have failed to mention it. The cablegram is a self serving [4] document and does not necessarily give the real reasons for the intervention of/invasion by the Arab states. Read as such, I would submit that it is not POV. I agree it needs to be put in the context of what RS say were the real reasons. I wish you all luck in coming to a consensus. Trahelliven (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

If a person does something, it is a denial of natural justice not to allow him to explain his reasons. In this case the Arab states have given a detailed explanation. Even in the absence of RS as to the real reasons, provided it is clear that extract is no more than the explanation of the Arab League, a summary of the cablegram should remain in the article. You do not need RS to explain what the cablegram says. Trahelliven (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The official positions of all sides should be stated. A certain amount of quotation might be appropriate in doing that, though the takes of reliable sources are essential as well. Zerotalk 12:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor: I take it that the last remark was addressed to me. I shall reply when your request is put on correct Talk page. Perhaps you might elaborate what you mean by BTW I have proposed a compromise here. Trahelliven (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Trahelliven: all 3 points are a reply to you, but unfortunately Zero added his note before me.
  • It is in the correct talk page, and it is linked to this talkpage. . This is the 2nd reminder (you replied for the previous one that you are busy) Ykantor (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The reasons for the intervention go back to the ‎Alexandra Protocol of 1944 which outlined the fundamental objections the Arab League raised in later years in opposing the Partition and for going to war on behalf of the Palestinians, according to Gudrun Krämer.
‘For them (Palestinian Arabs) it was unacceptable that the Arabs of Palestine should have to atone for the guilt of Europe, which had first discriminated against “its own” Jews, then persecuted them, and finally sought to annihilate them, only to end with the grand compensatory gesture of offering them land that did not belong to them in the first place.. Arab politicians recognized the suffering that had been visited upon the Jews-by Europeans, not by Arabs. Injustice in one case they argued could not be remedied by injustice in another. In October 1944, the assembled Arab heads of state drafted the Alexandra Protocol, which served as the basis for the later Arab League. In this document, they stated: p.307/

The Committee also declares that it is second to none in regretting the woes that have been inflicted upon the Jews of Europe by European dictatorial states. But the question of these Jews should not be confused with Zionism, for there can be no greater injustice and aggression than solving the problem of the Jews of Europe by another injustice,, that is, by inflicting injustice on the Palestine Arabs of various religions and denominations.’ p.308 Gudrun Krämer, A History of Palestine: From the Ottoman Conquest to the Founding of the State of Israel,Princeton UP 2011 pp.307-8.

Use a brief synthesis of that as the historic background for objections, and shorten the cablegram, which draws on it, to state why they decided therefore to intervene, I would suggest.Nishidani (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
This cablegram try to legally justify the invasion. if it is not accompanied by the well supported opposite view (i.e. that legally it is not justified), then it is a POV case. Ykantor (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The cablegram explains Arab motives. What has legality got to do with it? You think Plan Dalet, which was in operation before the establishment of the state of Israel, was 'legal'? You actually believe that on May 15 no Israeli forces were outside the areas ('invading') assigned to the state of Israel by the UN Partition PLan? You cited above Warwick P. N. Tyler, p. 77 on land purchases to show Jews had actually more land than appears on the registers, forgetting that these purchases were illegal, and not de jure. You chop and change your logic and principles from section to section according to what your POV interests dictate, by the looks of it. Nishidani (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • This cablegram try to legally justify the invasion. However, there are mainstream RS who take the opposite view. So, this is a POV case.
  • Why do you extend the discussion to other issues. You can always open a new talkpage section, to clarify other points. BTW you have not replied yet, to those errors of yours [5].
  • yours: "Jews had actually more land than appears on the registers, forgetting that these purchases were illegal". So you can write in the article that it was under de-facto jewish ownership. It is not necessarily illegal.
  • Please avoid personal attacks e.g You chop and change your logic and principles from section to section according to what your POV interests dictate, by the looks of it. Ykantor (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
That is not a personal attack. I gave you an example of, on the same day, citing an illegal process with approval in one section (illegal Jewish land purchase), and protesting about a section as though it were objectionable because justifying something you think 'illegal' because the Arabs did it.
You are misusing the word POV. It means point of view. Editors must not allow their POV to influence drafting, drafting which invariably concerns the points of view of the subjects of the article. The section expounds the Arab point of view concerning the war. We are obliged to register that POV as we are the POV of Israel. 'Legality' has nothing to do with it. You're confused here and below, where you tagged POV a couple of sentences because they lacked perfect chiasmus. We write according to sources, not according to a grammatical theory of rhetorical balance which is never respected, for that matter, by our source materials.Nishidani (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure what do you mean by: and protesting about a section as though it were objectionable because justifying something you think 'illegal' because the Arabs did it.. If it is about this POV case, then the cablegram view has to be balanced, since there are RS who think that the invasion was not justified, and was not legal. So there is a need to balance, and not to delete it (does not matter for the POV case, whether it is legal or illegal)

to pluto: before the invasion, several Arab states asked secretly the British to extend their stay in Palestine

you deleted this sentence and wrote: " information without context and interest ; wp:undue".

In my opinion it is an important point . A war, which is the subject of this article, is nearly avoided in the last minute. How come that you call it without interest? undue?

Can you justify your reason for the deletion? Ykantor (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

to Pluto: I will have to open a dispute if you do not reply. Ykantor (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


to Pluto: I will re state this sentence again. If you delete it again, I will follow an advice received in the DRN :try restoring the material and if the user reverts then file a report at ANI for disputatious editing. This note is copied to your talkpage as well. Ykantor (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I have of course reverted you.
As you know and was explained to you in many case, this is WP:UNDUE.
As written at different places, you are in a complete WP:Point, WP:Lawyering and Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing.
Pluto2012 (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
So why do not you explain why it is undue? In my opinion it is not undue. and please stop to blame me in all those faults, when you do not bother to elaborate why it was deleted. Ykantor (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
That, in terms of chronological narrative, two bids to avoid war, one by the US State Department, accepted by Arabs, and another by Arab leaders, as mentioned by Ykantor's citation from Morris, should be noted. There was absolutely no need to give lengthy quotations for either. I have simply summarized in a couple of lines these facts. Nishidani (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • well done, concerning the un justified Pluto's deletion.
  • the Mishmar Haemek battle is deleted. In my opinion it is sufficiently important to stay in the article.
  • Concerning the American truce offers, some of the important details are POV or not accurate. Thomas Beylis writing is definitely anti Israeli (and incorrect too).
Don't state your opinion. Do not misuse the word POV, as you do here (for me all of our sources, esp. the main ones, Gelber and Morris, are strongly POV (As to Baylis, Morris is 'anti-Palestinian'. So what?), but I have no right to let that influence my editing, given their status. Remember, we are still writing these articles from the point of view of predominantly Israeli or Jewish-Israeli historians. Nishidani (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The proposal worst aspect ( in Jewish view) was the deferral of a Jewish state. A proposal of a truce and a Jewish state could be something totally different.
There is no such thing as a 'Jewish view' (or 'American' or whoever, view). Nishidani (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The supposedly benefit was supposed to be: a deferment of the declaration of Jewish statehood, would be matched by an Arab postponement of the invasion. But the Americans were unwilling to commit troops to enforce a truce. (Morris). so this was an hollow promise
And Harry Truman was up for election, and had been threatened to lose the Jewish vote in New York if he did anything, etc. So what?
  • the 48000 annual immigration limit- I have yet to search for, but in my opinion it is unlikely that Ben Gurion would have agree to such a small quota.
It's in the source. You cannot read Ben-Gurion's mind. Only Yitzhak Rabin, in the famous anecdote about ethnic cleansing, apparently could do that. Nishidani (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The reason for Ben Gurion not to postpone the independence declaration, could not have been the YISHUV SUPPOSEDLY FAVORABLE MILTARY POSITION. On 12 May, the situation appeared far from rosy. To be sure, the Yishuv had just vanquished the Palestinian Arabs. But the immediate military background was ominous... After reviewing in detail the balance of forces between the Arab states and the Yishuv, Yadin concluded cautiously that “at this minute, I would say that the chances are very even. But to be more candid, I would say that they have a big advantage, if all this force is deployed against us.” Ben-Gurion was more optimistic: “We can withstand [an invasion] and defeat it, [but] not without serious losses and shocks (Morris). Actually, during the 3 terrible weeks after the invasion and before the 1st truce, the situation was very worrying.
These are convenient quotations giving various personal assessments and can be challenged as representing the overall picture ('Yigael Yadin argued that a truce would be of greater help to the Jews. When a truce came a month later, after the Arab invasion, the Jews attained a massive superiority in equipment and manpower just because of that truce' Baylis Thomas p.77 n.50). Those opinions are dismissed by some top-ranking Israeli theorists of military strategy, like Martin van Creveld (see below) The Yishuv had an organized, European-style army, run by technical experts, and with a centralized political and logistical military command. Arab Palestinian bank deposits were a fifth of what the Yishuv, in emergencies, could draw on. The Palestinians, apart from an absurdly disorganized group of 1,500 odd men, were fighting on their own, in a ramshackle, uncoordinate village by village series of battles. The American truce offer guaranteed American intervention if Arabs invaded. 'The situation was very worrying' to make an understatement, to Palestinians, but of course no mention is made of that. They do not exist in this narrative framework. Nishidani (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • saying that the Arab states accepted the truce is misleading. Even Baylis says that Jordan was eager to invade. So the Yishuv had to consider that once Jordan invades, the other Arab state would have to join the invasion, even if the truce is accepted.
Chutzpah! You've been pressing for months to have the following quote included in the text:

King Abdullah had always acknowledged Arab (as distinct from Jordanian) weakness, and his son, Prince Talal, openly predicted defeat.

So, in one statement of yours, 'Jordan is eager to invade'. In another statement, Jordan is aware of Arab flaws, and the king's son himself 'openly predicted defeat'.Nishidani (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The arms shipment were not flowing in yet, since Bevin kept blocking the ships, until the last minute of 15 May 1948. There were couple of Ships that succeeded to infiltrate the British blocking.
Again you've forgotten that large quantities of arms were flown by air to an improvised Palestinian airstrip and (b) these claims of arms shortages in all the narratives are remarks on lack of adequate arms for the Yishuv's planned aims for a very large force that ignore all mention of the arms and logistics available to the far small Palestinian local forces before May 1948. All these narratives are very good of Yishuv worries, and silent on what the state of affairs was on the other side. It's one of Morris's strengths to ignore that kind of narrative. Hard minded ultra-patriot scholars like Martin Van Creveld can write for example (Sword and the Olive: A Critical History of the Israeli Defense Force, PublicAffairs, 2008 p.70.) 'It was the kind of operation (flying in arms from Czechoslovakia) that, however primitive the conditions under which it took place, perfectly illustrates the Yishuv's advantage over Palestine's Arab population at the time. Here were two communities, one backward and one modern, locked in moral combat. Economically speaking, the Yishuv, though small and poor by Western standards, was far ahead of the Arabs . .Man for man the Jews were better armed, better led and something that proved decisive, possessed countrywide organization, both political and military. Scant wonder they came out on top.'Nishidani (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • 1948, A History of the First Arab-Israeli War, morris, p. 173 During late April and into early May, the State Department increasingly saw the truce proposals as an alternative to trusteeship or at least as a cover through which the idea could be reintroduced…. The assumption was that a truce, which would include a deferment of the declaration of Jewish statehood, would be matched by an Arab postponement of the invasion. But the Americans were unwilling to commit troops to enforce a truce.'

'The United States was disturbed by Jewish reluctance to accept a truce. Truman warned that if the Jews refused the truce without reasonable grounds, they need not expect anything else from the United States (n.47) U.S. diplomat Robert McClintock issued a stern critique of the Jewish position:'The Jewish Agency refusal (of tyhe truce) exposes its aim to set up its separate state by force of arms - the military action after May 15 'will be conducted by the Haganah with the help of the terrorist organizations, the Irgun and LEHI (and) the UN will face a distorted situation. The Jews will be the real aggressors against the Arabs, but will claim that they are only defending the borders of the state, decided upon . .by the General Assembly' (note 48 =U.S.State Department, Foreign Relations of the United States: Annual report (May 4,1948), cited in Flapan, Birth of Israel 174).Nishidani (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

  • From the last week of April, the State Department focused on obtaining a deferment of a Jewish declaration of statehood, arguing that the declaration would precipitate an invasion. The consensus in the US government departments was that the Arab states would attack the Jewish state and persist in a guerrilla war for as long as it took: “It is extremely unlikely . . . that the Arabs will ever accept a Zionist state on their doorsteps.” Without “diplomatic and military support” from at least one Great Power, the Jewish state would go under within “two years,” they believed. Their advice against American intervention in support of a Jewish state was unequivocal.
'They (the Jews) seemed confident on the basis of recent military successes and the prospect of a 'behind the barn' deal with Abdullah, that they could establish their sovereign state without any necessity for a truce with the Arabs of Palestine'. George Marshall to Ernest Bevin, cited Shlaim, Collusion p.190 (Baylis Thomas p.77 n46)Nishidani (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


  • I do not believe in different narratives. There is only one truth. However, quite often, the facts are not known for sure , or missing, so different historians may have different interpretations. But here, most of the facts are known, so most of the interpretations should be the same. In my opinion, in this talkpage, the facts are agreed upon, so interpretations should be the same. BTW I am surprised to learn for the 1st time that Morris is considered anti Palestinians. He was one of the 1st so called "new historians"!.
'I do not believe in different narratives. There is only one truth.'That is theology, not human history. (b)Most of the 'facts' come from the side that had archives (ask Benny Morris ); (c) wikipedia's working assumption is that the articles do not give the truth, but the various POVs as they are stated in RS. (d)If you have learnt for the first time Benny Morris is 'anti-Palestinian', you are extremely young or don't follow the game. he declared this publicly of them(Palestinians) 9 years ago:'"Something like a cage has to be built for them. I know that sounds terrible. It is really cruel. But there is no choice. There is a wild animal there that has to be locked up in one way or another".' Ehud Barak spoke of the villa(Israel) in the jungle' (Middle East), and the jungle is full of animals, insects, vermin (all terms used by prominent Israeli politicians and religious leaders to refer to Palestinians.Nishidani (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The proposal worst aspect ( in Jewish view) was the deferral of a Jewish state. it is important to know why the Yishuv turned down the truce offer. So the Jewish view is important. On the same token, it is important to write in the article that one of the reasons for the Arabs states invasion, was their view concerning natural justice (as Traherliven says): to help their brothers
There is no such thing, I repeat, as a 'Jewish view'. To say so means that Jews who disagree with this fiction are not Jews, or are Jewish self-haters, a stupid term. What you are talking about is the majority perspective of a congeries of people, in the elite of the period. [[Nahum Goldmann[]] was both Jewish and Zionist and on precisely this disagreed with Ben-Gurion. Nishidani (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Baylis claims that the Yishuv turned down the truce proposal since it was confident in winning the war. This a lie, (even the great general Marshall is wrong sometimes). and the facts are clear:
    • - General Yadin said that the chance to hold up is even
    • - The Israeli (embryonic) Government voted for the independence declaration , but 4 out of 10 of members voted were against it!. Shertok, voted for, but until the last day he was against!
Baylis provided documentation, and is RS. It is his legitimate interpretation, which is not a lie but an historian's POV. Saying that Marshall is wrong, and Baylis a liar, is to exceed the boundaries of what we are supposed to do here. Look at the available literature and see how events are interpreted. You are, once more, confused, making personal judgements about the truth or otherwise of reliably reported historic statements. You haven't understood how wikipedia works.Nishidani (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
if you think that Harry Truman was up for election, and had been threatened to lose the Jewish vote is important to insert it here, so go ahead. this is a well known fact.
It is historically important, but not appropriate here. It is not necessarily what I think, but what the source you earlier cited happened to say.Nishidani (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
The Yishuv was well organized and better financed. But when the Arab state invaded, the arms were abroad. The cricial question was if Israel would hold up for the first weeks. Ben Gurion was confident that later on, the Israeli army will be sufficiently strong.
(a)There was not the slightest doubt Israel would trounce its adversaries, and had it not, given the postwar post-Shoah holocaust, it would never have been allowed to have been beaten. That is obvious, and both my point and your reply are irrelevant.Nishidani (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Yigael Yadin argued that a truce would be of greater help to the Jews. When a truce came a month later, after the Arab invasion, the Jews attained a massive superiority in equipment and manpower just because of that truce' . This is correct. Note that this is a different truce. The early May truce proposal demand for deferring the declaration, made a whole lot of difference. The arms shipment are extremely different too. After mid May the arms shipment arrived regularly, but before that, the British navy blocked them (other then a couple that infiltrated starting at April)
You quoted Yadin as saying the chances were even. I quoted Yadin to say a truce at that very moment would massively assist a Jewish victory. My point was to highlight the danger of selective quotation.Nishidani (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The American truce offer guaranteed American intervention if Arabs invaded. That what I called an hollow promise. We know (from experience) what is the worth of an American guaranty. If they were serious, they would have to position American soldiers.
'Hollow promise'? 'We know (from experience) what is the worth of an American guaranty.' Yes we do, indeed. They haven't done anything for Israel. Nishidani (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It was the kind of operation (flying in arms from Czechoslovakia) that, .., perfectly illustrates the Yishuv's advantage over Palestine's Arab population at the time Sure, but that happened after the invasion ( except 1 flight at early April). So it should be compared to the invading armies.
No. That happened before the invading armies. Nishidani (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • the military action after May 15 will be conducted by the Haganah ... the UN will face a distorted situation. The Jews will be the real aggressors against the Arabs. This is an absurd. At the 1st invasion day, the Egyptians bombed Tel Aviv and attacked Nirim (a settlement in the designated Jewish state). So , who is the aggressor?
You find 'absurd' an analytical judgement on the eve of the outbreak of war made by an American diplomat. Actually everything he said in that remark predicted uncannily what was to happen. But this comment is irrelevant. What he said is relevant because it forms part of the historic record, and you are again violating wiki procedures by dismissing historical facts as 'absurd'. Nishidani (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • but will claim that they are only defending the borders of the state. There never was such a claim. Once the Arabs invaded, the Israeli aim was at first to survive, and later to a attack them (even within their state borders) and to stop the war in a situation where Israel can co exist with them. For comparison, the Germans invadedd Russia on 1941, and the Russian eventually won, but they have not stopped after they regained their territory and a some more. No, They concluded the war up to Berlin. It is not a full comparison, since Israel was too weak and was very much interested mainly with absorbing the Jewish refugees from Europe and from Arab states.
Yawn. Nishidani (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Chutzpah! You've been pressing ... included in the text: King Abdullah had always acknowledged Arab (as distinct from Jordanian) weakness. I agree. It is a Chutzpah, but it is king Abdala's Chutzpah. He used to contradict himself every now and then. Every politician is doing that, but Abdala was a special case. No wonder the kings / presidents of the Arab states hated him. How ever, in that case It could be that he did not expect an Israeli opposition within the west bank. He might have thought that he has a good chance of wining Jerusalem. If the Israeli army would prove weaker than expected, he might conquer Bir Sheba and Gaza. Moreover, he had an insurance as a defense greement with the U.K . In case of a failure, the U.K will help him. Actually the U.k has threatened Israel after it bombed the Aman (both military and civil) airport.
  • Generally , I think there is here some mixing of different periods. The discussion started has with "just before the invasion" but somehow drafted for latter periods. The difference is huge. Just before the invasion, the Yishuv was extremely worried. However, after the 1st truce, Israel became much stronger. Ykantor (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

A POV problem: The Yishuv worked to convert malaria swamps to this fertile land

BTW these sentences have a POV problem. While complaining that the better agricultural land was given to the Yishuv, it hide that a lot of this fertile land became suitable only because the Jews has successfully fought against the swamps and the malaria.

Hillel Yaffe#Fight_against malaria

Aryeh Leib Frumkin

Khulda#History

History of Zionism#The second aliya

[http://books.google.ca/books?id=Zt9Do3WEUQoC Healing the Land and the Nation, Malaria and the Zionist Project in Palestine, 1920 to 1947 Malaria and the Zionist Project in Palestine ] Ykantor (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's just find a Zionist children's coloring book and copy in the text about making the desert bloom. Sigh. I used to know an old guy who spent the early part of the 1940s spraying DDT around to control mosquitoes. Like most people doing that sort of thing, he was working for the mandatory government (later he became an assassin for Lehi, but that's another story). It is quite true that the Jewish land companies did a lot of swamp draining and malaria control, but they didn't do it by themselves. It was a major undertaking of the British administration, which planned and financed most of the projects. Part of their policy was to provide swampy land cheaply on condition it was drained, which is why so much of it came into Jewish hands. They also passed laws requiring landowners (Arabs included) to drain their land. The British military did some of it themselves (for example the Na'amein swamp near Haifa). The book of Sufian is a useful source, another is this book. But I don't think malaria should be even mentioned in this article since it played little part in the war. Zerotalk 12:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

This how the Hope Simpson report summarised it:

At the time of the Occupation Palestine was a country saturated with malaria. Since that time much good work has been done, not only by agencies of the country, but also with the help of outside scientific enquirers. The Rockefeller Foundation, the League of Nations, the Jewish Joint Distribution Committee have all rendered invaluable assistance in investigation, in research and in advice. Very much has been done in the drainage of swamps and marshes, in great part by Jewish agency and in great part by the Government. The Supreme Moslem Council has also taken a share, and its work in the drainage of the extensive and very malarial swamp at Wadi Rubin, under the advice of representatives of the Rockefeller Foundation, has been a complete success. A similar work of even greater magnitude which is now nearing completion is the drainage of the Kabbara Swamp by the P.I.C.A. The Zionist Agency was responsible, among other works, for the drainage of considerable areas in the Vale of Esdraelon. The Government Department of Health revolutionised certain areas of the Jordan Valley at comparatively small cost, by draining of marshes. Zerotalk 12:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The issue is not malaria. The Issue is a POV, since the text complains against the Yishuv getting the best fertile land, while neglects to mention that a lot of these land became fertile because of the Jews. Even your quotation (the Hope Simpson anti Jewish report):in great part by Jewish agency.
  • some of the malaria fighting started before the British occupation. e.g Hillel Yaffe#Fight against malaria
  • Just to show the anti Jewish attitude of this report:
  1. As for Arabs, the report say:" illicit immigration through Syria and across the northern frontier of Palestine is material" . During those times, most of the Haifa port plain workers came from the Horan region in Syria.
  2. As for Jews: The case of the ´pseudo-traveller´ who comes in with a permission for a limited time and continues in Palestine after the term of his permission has expired. It was added as to balance the report, but actually, during a some of the late 20's years , The Jewish immigration was smaller than the quota. So the amount of Jewish visitors who remained illegally, was probably very small.
  • The report claims that Jewish purchase of land ,have caused an Arab unemployment.However, comparison of Palestine Censuses (or censi) shows:it may be concluded that emigration from the Central Range is almost entirely to other parts of Palestine. The relatively small intercensal increase in Esdraelon and Emek (19.6 percent) rules out, in all probability, the possibility of significant movement from the Central Range to that natural division; the increase in Galilee is about the same as that of the natural population if allowance be made for the increase due to transfer of population from Syria; it follows that the emigration from the Central Range is towards the Maritime Plain. This is in complete obedience to economic laws: development attracts productive labor from areas where development is not anticipated, or where livelihood is stationary." palestine 1931 census excerpt, p. 3. So actually Arabs workers got more jobs in the coastal region, some of it in the Jewish settlements. Ykantor (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
You've been told not to introduce off-topic divagations. First the (a) 'arid' Negev, then (b) clearing malaria in swampland, now Jewish industry =more employment for Arabs, and emigration to the coast. This article is about the 1948 war: the talk page is not a blog to discuss all the finer angles of the history of Zionism or Palestine. Nothing you are saying is relevant to the text, and worse still, if one responds, you keep moving up other items until this assumes the form of an encyclopedic blogger run by you, while the page begs for serious accurate editing.Nishidani (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
We could hardly go deeper to WP:OR... Starting arguing about the swamps that were cleaned by Zionist Jews in the Hula Valley to argue about the fairness or not to report a given pourcentage of the Mandatory Palestine allocated to Jews by the Partition Plan is nosense. Even less that this article is about the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and not about the Partition Plan. And even in that case : such considerations should first be reported in wp:rs sources and then discussion in a very specialized article around the partition. If there are historians to talk about this. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

"by 1936 the Jews dried 32.5 km2 swamps and as a result 453 km2 became satisfactory for agriculture" ("The Claim of Dispossession: Jewish Land-Settlement and the Arabs, 1878-1948", By Aryeh L. Avneri, p. 234) Ykantor (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting. That would be a significant part of the coastal plain.
If a better (and even several other) source(s) can be found that analyse this point, that could be part of a section in the article about the Partition. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I guess that those figures include the Jezreel valley swamps draining too. Thus it does not indicate an upgrading of such a significant part of the coastal plain. Ykantor (talk) 09:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
It's not one of our problems here, any more than the fact that many such projects were overseen by the Mandatory Government, or the fact that 2/3rds of Mandatory funding for agriculture in 40-45 went to the one third of cultivators who were Jewish etc. Nishidani (talk) 10:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It is a pity that you do not look at the provided source. These swamps were drained and financed by the Jewish National Fund.
  • what is the source of yours: 2/3rds of Mandatory funding for agriculture in 40-45 went to the one third of cultivators who were Jewish ? Could it be that the government funded whoever was draining the swamps ? may be because the Arabs has hardly drained any swamps? It is better to check the facts before claiming supposedly anti Arab actions. Ykantor (talk) 10:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Charles S. Kamen,Little Common Ground: Arab Agriculture and Jewish Settlement in Palestine, 1920-1948, University of Pittsburg Press 1991 p.66. But this whole section has nothing to do with the article. Please stay focused on actually potentially useful edits to this page. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • you replied as for the data source. I have no access to this book. You have not replied yet to:
  1. Could it be that the government funded whoever was draining the swamps ?
  2. may be because the Arabs has hardly drained any swamps?
  • Moreover, even Sufian anti-Yishuv book p. 137 admits that the mandate government have not financed important projects: "the mandatory government argued that it was not obliged to actually carry out or finance schemes but only to advise and supervise" . I can not understand how come that the facts (not interpretations) are disputed. Ykantor (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor. Explain the tags

here you placed POV tags, on what are statistics that, give or take a percentage or decimal point, are frequently mentioned in reliable sources. Are you saying that the statistical data is a POV? More generally, are you contesting our right or duty to note that the minority population (30-35%) was given the majority of the land (55-56%) while the majority of the population 64-66% was allotted 43-4%? Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

  • You complain about opening too many sections, and then you yourself open an unnecessary new one.
  • It is a pity that you write before reading my points, which are directly linked in the tag.
  • Anyway, I repeat it. The percentage sentences are important, but it should be balanced. e.g. The Jews, who owned 6-7% of the land, would get 56%,, should be balanced by The Arabs, who owned xx% of the land, would get 43%,. Ykantor (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
That is not clear from your edit summary nor the hieroglyphic 22The_Jews.2C_who_owned_6-7.25_of_the_land.2C_would_get_56 If you want to make a point, you provide a diff for where you raised the precise point on the talk page you say you now repeat. Palestinians (66% of the population) owned 47.7% of Palestine, Jews (30-34% of the population)owned 6.7% at Partition. The Palestinians had their private ownership clipped by almost 5%, the Jews were given a rise from 6.7% to 56% by a massive donation of, to British but not to Arab eyes, public land, and by a mapping which incorporated substantial Arab landholdings within Israel. In the 56%, Arab landholdings are included within Israel: in the 43% Palestinian arab territory, Jewish landholdings are statistically insignificant. If you wish to finesse this, the nature of decisions Arabs thought appalling will become even more self-evident.
There is nothing POV about the sentences. They state facts, indeed, they understate the full factual picture to Israel's advantage. This doesn't trouble me. But you're not satisfied.Nishidani (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Your writing is not clear, in my view. My "cryptic" writing is well understood by other editors. Anyway, as you state, the Arabs owned 47.7% of Palestine. This is strange , since the state property included the Negev desert,( half of Palestine) and a significant portion in the other half . The rest were divided between the Arabs, Jews, Churches etc. So the Arab and Jewish ownership together must be less than , say 40%. If you add a to the article, a sentence which states this percentage ( well supported), it will balance the existing sentence. The same goes for the other POV sentence. Ykantor (talk) 03:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
If it's not clear, tell me what you can't understand and I'll provide a paraphrase (don't confuse 'who' with 'which' by the way). There is nothing 'strange' here. Ownership by legal title is one thing, usufructuary use, traditional rights of customary usage another. Take the latter into consideration and the picture is even more unbalanced (esp.the Bedouin of the Negev even to this day are being ethnically cleansed because, precisely, inherited 'statist' definitions are used to deny customary use rights. Ownership here is an imposed Western imperial concept that ignores the indigenous POV). Sentences are not POV because they lack perfect correlational chiasmus between two subjects and their corresponding predicates. There is no such rule in wikipedia, nor in scholarhip. Nishidani (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ykantor (talkcontribs) 09:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Question: Nishidani brings a source above which states only 20% of the land was surveyed by the British. So how can we use these %ages? Also, it seems odd to state the private Jewish ownership, but not the Arab ownership. The Arabs thought the allocation of any land to the Jews was "appalling". That they found the 1947 allocation of 45% unfair is really a moot point. They would not tolerate Jewish sovereignty anywhere. They rejected outright the 1937 plan which would have given them 80% of Palestine! - roughly the same amount of extra land they did not own as the Jews were allocated in '47. They were not satified with the extra 40% "public land". Chesdovi (talk) 10:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
This is not a forum. and we are dealing with specific textual cruxes. I have already provided one source in the footnotes for Arab ownership and mentioned it here,so you are not paying attention (45 =43) The method is to use quality sources for the material regarding land, population and partition 47-8, not to indulge in metadiscourses. So stop blathering. Nishidani (talk) 10:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Do you have any idea how these British %ages are used when "about 20% of Palestine was surveyed and registered."? Chesdovi (talk) 10:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Idem Nishidani (talk) 11:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
It is better to keep this section dealing with the POV case, and open another section for this content discussion. I apologize for my English. One of the 2 sentences POV problem, might be solved if you add to The Jews, who owned 6-7% of the land, would get 56%,, this sentence The Arabs, who owned 47.7% of the land, would get 43%,. You quoted the value of 47.7% which seems rather high (as discussed previously), so we will see the RS behind it. An example to an unclear sentence:The Palestinians had their private ownership clipped by almost 5%. Ykantor (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
'Clipped'. This is an offhand comment on a talk page. It was not meant for the article, and therefore is not problematical. The difference is between 47,7 (1945) and 43 (1947 UN plan) = almost 5%. That is not 'unclear'. It is implicit.Nishidani (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
No, actually you are right. It is not clear. The point is that the Palestinians were to receive over 4 percent less of the land that they had in title. The difference is not a clipping of Palestinian property, but rather the fact that a lot of Palestinian landholdings would be located in that 56%, under Arab title but subject to the future laws of Israel. What is noticeable is that, 47.7 to 43 percent means effectively no state land of any significance was given to Palestinians. There is a net loss, in any case. None of this has any bearing on the text. Nishidani (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
No need to apologize. I was being a dickhead. I like to edit, not spend hours repeating myself. (a) the POV problem is so in your view. I think for the 4th time I have said the datum is in the Mattar article. I put that into our source notes yesterday. Apparently, no one follows the details of what is done. I said I would provide the statistic and page no. and source, when the line is crafted adequately. Of course, if someone thinks I am cheating on this, by all means, . . . The text I am drafting replies exactly to your requests. Specifically, the first sentence runs:-

The Jews, roughly 33% of the population, and owning approximately 6.59% of the land, were to get 55% of the Mandatory territory. The Palestinian Arabs, about 66% of the population, owning roughly 47% of Palestine, would be allotted 43% of the land.

Any number of sources confirm this picture. 47.7% (which I lower) is from Fischbach, whose paper on 'Land', no one noticed, is already in the article.
That is the balance you asked for, with proper correspondance in phrasing. No frills, and I think this should be done for the other two sections. Leave it to the reader to interpret it.Nishidani (talk) 11:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
We agree how to solve the POV problem (although there is no agreement that there was such a problem). We may summarize it in a table:
group land belongs to the population share the area allotted for the proposed state
Arabs 47% 66% 43%
Jews 7% 33% 55%
There is more relevant information in Mandate Palestine#Land ownership. Ykantor (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Umm, well ye, kind of, but the narrative form is better because the passage we are dealing with has three elements, of which the sentence summarizes one: the other is (b) the 'coastal fertile' plain passage, and (c) the third is the population densities of the Jewish and the projected Arab state. To uniformly tabulate that would be pointless. To single this out, ruins the prose narrative. (By the way I lowered my source-given figure of 47.7 (1945) to allow for some undocumented land sales in the intervening one and a half years, rounding it off below that, to 47. You have, contrariwise, upped the Jewish figure from roughly 6.6 to 7.:) If you used tables for all three, or only one, you wreck the prose, and people don't read tables. Bear with me a day or so, and I will show you how the neutral three sentences, covering all three topics, can be modulated so that you have a data-focused, fluent half-para. Of course, if you wish to make your own proposals for all three, that's fine.Nishidani (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
It does not matter whether it is presented as a table or with prose. concerning the 6.6% or 7%, it is not important as well. BTW One of sources in Mandate Palestine#Land ownership claim for Jewish ownership 7.5% (if you calculate it ), including the Jewish owned land which stayed registered under Arab names. I still suspect the figures, since It does not make sense that the Arab+Jewish land together is more than a half of the total area. However it is not that important , so there is no reason to search for an explanation. Ykantor (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Der lieber Gott steckt im Detail. Details do matter - take that from a pagan. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I never look at wiki pages when writing a page, but prefer to write from independently researched sources, to make sure the encyclopedia doesn't become a copy-and-paste- somebody's-results hodgepodge. We aren't allowed to make calculations (WP:OR), except when commonsense suggests it, which is not the case where controversy reigns. It does make sense that Jewish land+Arab land totalled (6.6+47.7 =54.4%), Add this to the 45.4% the British at the end of the Mandate classified as 'public land' and you get 99.8%. Roads and rivers etc weren't registered as public land, which makes up the difference.One can suspect this,-the British classification has its problems, as Palestinians also protest - but that it not our remit, the data is that given by the legal authority towards the end of the Mandate, and all me do is follow the best sources on the issue.Nishidani (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • yours: Wikipedia is not a reliable source.. This section quotes 2 sources, one with 1850km2 and the other with 2000 km2, which is about 7.5% . Again, it does not really matters if the used figure is 6.4% or 7.5%.
  • yours:We aren't allowed to make calculations. Routine calculations do not count as original research. I guess that a percentage calculation is sufficiently simple to be within Routine calculations. Ykantor (talk) 11:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and that page violates WP:Undue by clearly highlighting calculations that challenge the most frequently cited statistics in the scholarly literature. Secondly, it clearly states that no consensus exists and the upper figure happens to be a minoritian surmise. The British statistics are neutral to both sides, though incomplete.
You are wasting time by ignoring my qualification,'except when commonsense suggests it, which is not the case where controversy reigns.' Please don't waste your or my time doing that. Nishidani (talk) 10:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Why such minor technical points are misunderstood and followed by a dispute? Ykantor (talk) 08:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Aua answered you and you gave your mind here. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
To state only the amount of land the Jews owned is misleading as it implies the other 93% was owned by the Arabs, an erroneous view disseminated by Dr. Mustafa Abu Sway and others no doubt. This myth is further circulated when supposedly prestigious publications publish comparison maps which imply that all non-Jewish owned land was Arab owned, these maps based on their idiotic Palestinian propaganda counterparts. So it is good we are tackling this. After viewing Land Ownership, I want to see some stats regarding how much land was owned by Ottoman Landlords, the Orthodox Church and other non-Palestinian Arab owners. Did the Arabs domiciled in Palestine really own 47% of the land? Chesdovi (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are not reading the text draft. There is no implication in what I wrote that the Arabs owned 94%. To the contrary. I rarely use the word, since illogical and evasive wikipedian editors love it, but what you write is a strawman argument.Nishidani (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

More Israeli POV

"Ben-Gurion decided that the Yishuv would probably have to defend itself". No, Ben-Gurion decided (actually, knew already for a long time) that his plan to establish a Jewish State would be resisted. Zerotalk 10:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Concerning "more POV" , it is funny, since this article has a lot of pro Arab POV.
  • The full sentence is: In 1946, Ben-Gurion decided that the Yishuv would probably have to defend itself against both the Palestinian Arabs and neighbouring Arab states and accordingly began a "massive, covert arms acquisition campaign in the West". You are right that this sentence is not accurate. Ben Gurion has not dealt with security before 1946. At that time, he started to research the security issue, and realized that a future Jewish state would have to defend itself against Arab states armies, and not against Palestinians only, as all the other Jewish leaders maintained. A more accurate sentence could be: In 1946, Ben-Gurion realized that a future Jewish state would probably have to defend itself against Arab states armies and not Palestinian Arabs irregulars only... . Ykantor (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
No, by 1947 he was openly saying that the intention was to take the whole of Palestine, and that he had only agreed to partition as a prelude to establishing a Jewish state and that it was now time to prepare for war with the Arabs, and to deny the Palestinians a state, at least according to one strong interpretation.

To make it clear that the Yishuv’s primary mission was to establish a Jewish state and to prevent, by force of arms, the creation of a Palestinian state, he reiterated on several occasions during this period that there was a substantive difference between the politics of the two struggles-against the British and against the Arabs’ (pp.149-50) (with the Brits one would use diplomacy, but regarding the Arabs the solution would be ‘fundamentally military'). 'Ben-Gurion thus stated overtly that there was only one way to solve the Jewish-Arab conflict. His comments revealed for the first time a militaristic perception of reality on the part of the veteran political leadership. On May 13, 1947, Ben-Gurion told a meeting of the Jewish Agency Executive which was held in the United States: “We want the Land of Israel in its entirety. That was the original intention. A week later, speaking to the Elected Assembly in Jerusalem, the leader of the Yishuv wondered: “Does anyone among us disagree that the original intention of the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate, and the original intention of the hopes harboured by generations of the Jewish people, was finally to establish a Jewish state in the whole Land of Israel?’‘The intention, he said, was to establish a state in part of Palestine and then to build up the country until it became possible to confront the Arab majority. Now in 1947, even before a genuine Arab threat had emerged and before the United Nations’ adoption of the partition resolution that November, Ben-Gurion had reached the conclusion that it was time to actualize the original intention.’ Uri Ben-Eliezer,The Making of Israeli Militarism, Indiana University Press 1998 p.150

Indeed precisely at that time he took over the Security portfolio and abolished the name haganah (defense) for a term more appropriate to his military intentions (bitahon security). Nishidani (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry but as you come up with new (and some incorrect) facts, you do not reply to previous questions, where you have been wrong (in my opinion). Thus it is a waste of time to discuss your points which are not directly related to the issue here, which is the sentence Zero complained about. However some of your details are wrong:
  • to deny the Palestinians a state. what is your source?
  • precisely at that time he took over the Security portfolio and abolished the name haganah (defense) for a term more appropriate to his military intentions bitahonsecurity). wrong. The name Hagana remain valid until Mid 1948, when the name was changed to "Israel Defense Army", while absorbing IZL and LHI people.
  • BTW as you describe Ben Gurion as a Satanic clever enemy, how come he was sufficiently "stupid" it expose his "bad" intentions by adapting a "bad" name (security) ? Ykantor (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Please learn to read. Zero zeroed into the 'Ben-Gurion ..Israel would have to defend itself'. I quoted a source (Uri Ben-Eliezer) citing Ben-Gurion's change of haganah (defence) to bitahon (security) within the context of what Ben-Gurion thought must be done, i.e., prepare a state to wage war and deny Palestinians a state. This bears directly on the issue raised by Zero (and of course does not pretend to cover all of the angles) and therefore was highly appropriate. And, don't ask me for a fucking source when I just provided it and it is before your eyes, with a long quote and the page number. It means you simply don't read slowly and carefully, as is evident from several misreadings of the quote. And don't imply you are permitted to accept or discard material on the presumed basis you know more than a senior lecturer specializing in the subject at the University of Haifa, a peer-reviewed RS published by Indiana University Press. You may (I see no sign of it), but that's not of our business here.Nishidani (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    • ^ a b Karsh (2002), p.32
    • ^ Yoav Gelber, 'Palestine 1948', p.20; The Scotsman newspaper, 6th January 1948; Walid Khalidi states that 25 civilians were killed, in addition to the military targets. 'Before Their Diaspora', 1984. p. 316, picture p. 325; Benny Morris, 'The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949', Cambridge University Press, p.46.
    • ^ Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, p. 123.
    • ^ Larry Collins/Dominique Lapierre, 'O Jerusalem'.History Book Club/ Weidenfeld and Nicolson. London. 1972. p.135: 'two fifty-gallon oil drums packed tight with old nails, bits of scrap iron, hinges, rusty metal filings. At their center was a core of TNT...'
    • ^ Collins/Lapierre. Page 138: 17 killed. Dov Joseph, 'The Faithful City - The Siege of Jerusalem, 1948'. Simon and Schuster, New York, 1960. Library of Congree Number: 60-10976. page 56: 14 killed and 40 wounded.The Scotsman, 8 January 1948: 16 killed, 41 injured.
    • ^ Embassy of Israel, London, website. 2002. Quoting Zeev Vilnai - 'Ramla past and present'.
    • ^ Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem revisited, p.221.