Talk:Plan Dalet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


There are issues with this article. See the following links:

I did some major editing of this page and added the DISPUTE NPOV to it as it was one-sided with no links

Arguments are more effective when they are not in Bold text that is why i removed boldface and corrected grammar and spelling.

EU Plan D[edit]

I think that we should add a section (or separate article) about the EU's Plan D (that deals with its internal affairs, not with Arab-Israeli conflict)... Alinor 21:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

      Better to create a new article entitled Plan D. Queanbeyan 16:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


What do you mean by "execution" ? I am not sure to understand what you mean. Alithien 07:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Plans Aleph, Beth and Gimel[edit]

Plan Daleth is Plan 4. It is an improvement on a previous plan, viz. Plan Gimel. The wikipedia article should have at least a little about the earlier plans for context. Pappe does something in his Ethnic Cleansing, but I do not propose to copy him at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


Hello, I have a few problems with this article. I find that it puts too much emphasis on the New Historians like Pappé and Morris and neglects the official Israeli/pro-Israeli viewpoint. This article needs to be more balanced. One good example of Bias comes in the opening paragraph:

According to Yoav Gelber, Plan D was primarily defensive in nature. According to other sources it was a plan with the purpose of conquering as much of Palestine as possible and to expel as many Palestinians as possible.

This gives the impression that there was only 1 person arguing that Plan D was a defensive plan while "Other Sources" sounds like everyone else. In actuality this article is just promoting the Minority viewpoint as the Majority one. More work needs to be put into getting this article NPOV. Jason Schwartz (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I will try to explain without mentioning any new historians In Major Knesset Debates, 1948-1981, by Netanel Lorch, Moshe Sneh interrupted a Ben Gurion Knesset speech about Menachem Begin's role in the Jerusalem insurrection to point out that 'you yourself cabled me not to interfere with the Irgun'. Ben Gurion and the Speaker warned Sneh not to try and threaten them with publication of that fact.
In any event, the Haganah and Irgun were conducting attacks inside the Corpus separatum no later than December of 1948, and the text of the plan itself mentions operations beyond "the borders of the Hebrew State" against military bases, towns, and villages in the provisional Arab state.
The Partition Plan authorized the establishment and defense of a Jewish State, but it also authorized the establishment and defense of an Arab State. The UN called for the provisional authorities in each state to take the necessary steps to implement the plan. According to the terms of the Partition Plan, during the transition period which started 29 November 1947, the provisional governments were supposed to raise and organize militias to prevent frontier clashes, not initiate them.
Article 3 of the Montevideo_Convention of 1933 explains the rights of a provisional state:

:::The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts. The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.

In late April the Jewish Agency was claiming the Partition Plan had binding force, and it still included a neigboring Arab state:

:::With regard to the status of Assembly resolutions in international law it was admitted that any which touched on the national sovereignty of the members of the United Nations were mere recommendations and not binding. However the Palestine resolution was essentially different for it concerned the future of a territory subject to an international trust. Only the United Nations as a whole was competent to determine the future of the territory and it's decision therefore had a binding force. Moshe Shertok, April 27, 1948. UN Doc. A/C. 1/SR.A 127, para 7.

Plan Dalet indicates that the Jewish militias already had orders not to respect the borders of the Provisional Arab state. Unprovoked attacks launched against Arab towns and villages in another state to determine if they can offer resistance are a violation of Article 25 of the Hague Convention of 1907 and the UN Charter. The record of the People's Council and the Provisional Council of State, Volume 1, page 19 reveal that on the eve of independence the Prime Minister wanted the matter of borders left open for developments and neither accepted nor rejected what he described as the UN proposals.
President Wilson usually gets the credit for making sure that Palestine wasn't simply annexed to the British Empire. In fact, the general proscription of territorial conquest and the non-recognition of all acquisitions made by force were announced by the First International Conference of American States back in 1890. Many of these principles are cataloged in The Inter-American Reciprocal Assistance and Solidarity (Act of Chapultepec); March 6, 1945. After WWI the system of mandates was developed, the Kellogg-Briand pact was signed, and the League of Nations adopted the Stimson doctrine in 1931. In the post-WWII era those customs of international law were incorporated into the UN Charter Article 2(4) and were stipulated for inclusion in the constitutions of the new Jewish and Arab states, i.e. a democratic constitution "Accepting the obligation of the State to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purpose of the United Nations;" harlan (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The reader above is right in his concerns and the article only seems to have become worse since then. What talk wrote is completely unrelated. Mashkin (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If people aren't willing to correct the allege mistakes, perhaps the tag should be removed? CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The UN Partition Plan and Plan Dalet[edit]

Mashkin must be forgetting that the Israeli Declaration of Independence contains a reference to the fact that the UN Partition Plan called upon the peoples of both states to take such steps as might have been necessary on their part to put the plan into effect:

On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable. see THE DECLARATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL May 14, 1948

The resolution cannot be interpreted to mean that the Israeli's were entitled to conduct unprovoked military attacks against Palestinian villages outside the Jewish State to see if there would be an armed response, because the resolution itself required that the Palestinians raise a militia to handle their own internal security. The Resolution stated that:

The period between the adoption by the General Assembly of its recommendation on the question of Palestine and the establishment of the independence of the Arab and Jewish States shall be a transitional period.

Under the heading B. STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE the plan provided that each state could control its own frontiers and residence within its own borders. Freedom of transit was guaranteed, but it was subject to national security considerations. That would have precluded the transit of armed groups, such as the Haganah, Irgun, or Stern Gang, attempting to reinforce stockade and watchtower settlements in the Arab State. Here is what the Resolution said:

  • The Provisional Council of Government of each State shall, within the shortest time possible, recruit an armed militia from the residents of that State, sufficient in number to maintain internal order and to prevent frontier clashes.
  • During the transitional period no Jew shall be permitted to establish residence in the area of the proposed Arab State, and no Arab shall be permitted to establish residence in the area of the proposed Jewish State, except by special leave of the Commission.
  • Preserving freedom of transit and visit for all residents and citizens of the other State in Palestine and the City of Jerusalem, subject to considerations of national security, provided that each State shall control residence within its borders. harlan (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Exodus from Lyda[edit]

Happened long after Plan Dalet was over. There has to be a good reason to mention it in the see also, otherwise it is an undue weight. Please state any reason to mention it before including it. Mashkin (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You are removing mention of Lydda from several articles citing UNDUE, but this is a misunderstanding of UNDUE. It was an important event, and several historians link it to Plan Dalet. There is no reason within policy to remove it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
You will have to convince me that this is the case. Stop inserting the lydda exodus everywhere! Mashkin (talk) 05:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The article currently says that Plan Dalet was put into effect from the start of April onwards. Can you supply a published source to support the claim that Lydda happened long after Plan Dalet was over, or that it had no connection to events?
Wikipedia should always reflect the published views about a particular subject. For example, Dr. David Tal teaches modern military and diplomatic history as a member of the Department of History and Security Studies Program at Tel Aviv University. He explains that the soldiers based their decisions regarding Lydda on the logic of Plan Dalet and an order from Aylon, dating from 6 July. He said that Ben Gurion's intervention was not required because deportations were involved, but rather because of their unusual extent. see War in Palestine, 1948: strategy and diplomacy, By David Tal, Routledge, 2004, ISBN 071465275X, page 312.harlan (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Plan Dalet was prior to the establishment of the state of Israel (prior to May 15th. Operation Danny was after the first truce, July 9-19, 1948. The Tal reference is hardly a justification to mention the exodus. If you want, you can mention what Tal says in the exodus article. Mashkin (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of what any of us think as Wikipedians, many historians write about what happened in Lydda as part of Plan Dalet. Plan Dalet was a plan regarding what to do in the event of invasion. Invasion then occurred. What happened in Lydda was in response to that invasion. The article says, "The stated goals included in addition to the reorganization, gaining control of the areas of the planned Jewish as well as areas of Jewish settlements outside its borders. The control would be attained by fortifying strongholds in the surrounding areas and roads, conquering Arab villages which are close to Jewish settlements and occupying British bases and police stations ..." That is exactly what happened in Lydda and elsewhere, as several historians point out. There's no reason for us not to mention that, with at least a See also. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
What you say does not make sense: the plan affected the rest of the 1948 war, so there has to be a reason to single out this particular event, out of all the operations an events of the war. Why not point out to Operation Danny? Mashkin (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
It makes perfect sense. Plan Dalet outlined an overall concept of operations and subsequent operations orders were issued to actually implement the details. The US military calls the later "Fragmentary Orders", or "Frag Orders". It wouldn't harm anything to list both articles in the See Also section. harlan (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
That is simply not true and not supported by the sources. Plan Dalet refers to a specific set of operations, not to a standing order or anything.
Again, the main point is not a particular operation, pretty far in the future. If you want to argue that somehow Plan Dalet was a model for the way conquered villages were handled later on in the war, try and make that case, supported by sources such as the Tal book. Mashkin (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
One of my previous posts in this thread contains a link to an Israeli Military Historian who said the decision of the soldiers of Operation Dani command was in line with the logic of Plan Dalet and the 6 July order from Ayalon. Do you have a published source which says those weren't their governing directives? harlan (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
He does not say that the orders were standing ones from Plan Dalet. Do not put words in his mouth. Read my suggestion. Mashkin (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The plan itself only speaks in generalities, and mentions other operational orders. For example, it says that a detailed list of counter attacks will be included in the operational targets of the Strategic Mobile Force (Palmach). Footnote number 8 on the Jewish Virtual Library Plan Dalet page explains that particular list wasn't part of Plan Dalet.
Dr. Tal did say the orders were standing ones. The last paragraph on page 88 refers to one of the articles of Plan Dalet. It made the decision of how to treat Palestinians that came under the control of the Haganah discretionary and left matters in the hands of the local Haganah commander, or later-on to the IDF commander. Tal mentions on page 100 that an updated version of Plan Dalet was published on the 11th of May. On page 296-297 he discusses the contents of Ayalon's letter. It supplemented the instructions in Plan Dalet and required special permission, or coordination with the Defense Minister before villages could be destroyed, or the inhabitants expelled in non-combat situations. On page 312 Tal is saying that the soldiers decisions regarding Lydda were in accordance with the logic of Plan Dalet and the order contained in Ayalon's letter.
Ilan Pappe discusses the evolution of the plan of general strategy from the Elimelech plan, Plan Gimel, and Plan Dalet on page 28 of the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. On page 151 he relates that the commander interpreted Plan Dalet as merely calling for the expulsion of Muslims, but not Druse or Christians from the village of Mghar during the operations in the lower Galilee. Those operations started on 29 June and were concluded in just ten days according to Pappe's account.
Please don't forget that I've asked for a published account that supports your position. harlan (talk) 04:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the quote the slim virgin brought and then quickly erased:

The partition plan accepted by the UN General Assembly on 29 November 1947, included Lydda and Ramle in the territory of the future Palestinian Arab state. When fighting erupted, Ramle became one of the focal points for blocking Jewish transportation. As a result, transportation from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv was shifted to a southern bypass, and Jewish Hagana semi-regular forces responded with raids on Ramle, which also damaged Arab transportation. As fighting intensified during the early months of 1948, the Hagana command began to prepare for the possibility of an invasion by the armies of Arab states in mid-May, when British rule was to end. The operational plan put together for this purpose was called Plan D (Dalet) and it was to be implemented during the week before the end of the British Mandate. Accordingly, Jewish forces were to besiege both Lydda and Ramle to thwart potential attacks on adjacent Jewish settlements. (emphasis added; Golan, Arnon. "Lydda and Ramle: from Palestinian-Arab to Israeli towns, 1948-67," Middle Eastern Studies, October 1, 2003.

Stop saying "bring me published sources". I have shown that all the stuff you are bringing is irrelevant.

Ayalon's letter is from the first truce (well after the end of Plan Dalet). All that Tal does is talk about the logic of Plan Dalet. You have not given any particular reason to refer to the exodus in plan dalet, as oppose to any other operation. Let me rephrase what I wrote above: you may want to argue, based on a source such as the Tal Book, that Plan Dalet was a model (the "logic") for the way conquered villages and population were handled later on in the war. The proper case for such a claim is in the article itself, not by a link to a ranom event.Mashkin (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

In the article you are citing, Arnon Golen wrote that Israeli forces started the expulsion of Lydda's residents on the afternoon of 12 July, after consulting David Ben-Gurion, and that the expulsion had adhered to the policy outlined in Plan D. He cites HA, 73/94, Plan D, Introduction, p.5. in the footnote.
Dr. Tal also talks about the continuing applicability of the policy contained in Plan Dalet as part of the discussion of Ayalon's letter on page 297. He explains that Alon Kadish viewed Ayalon's letter as a change in policy - because up until that moment, under Plan Dalet, local commanders had the right to decide on any measures. Dr. Tal says that he thinks the relevant article in Plan Dalet was very similar, and that Ayalon's letter was more of a reminder than a new policy.
If you had supplied a published source that supported your position, it still would not have shown that the published views of Tal, Golen, and Pappe are irrelevant. I'm interested in including other published views so that all of this information can be included in the article, but the burden of proof has shifted to you. Tal and Gelber do point out that they think the Plan was mainly defensive, but they do not deny that it called for unprovoked attacks on Palestinian villages. For example, Tal mentions the Plan's objectives for targets inside the Palestinian State on page 88:

"placing potentially hostile Palestinian cities within the Palestinian State, near the border, under siege;"

A number of authorities on international law including Jacob Robinson, W. Tom Mallison, and John Quigley have published opinions which hold that two new dependent states legally came into existence with the adoption of the resolution by the General Assembly on 29 November 1947. In any event, the representative of the Provisional Government of Israel pointed out during the first cease fire that the juridical status of the territory didn't matter:

With regard to the first point, the theory that the Charter forbids acts of aggression only against States is utterly without foundation. Indeed, neither Chapter VI nor Chapter VII, in defining threats to the peace or acts of aggression, shows the slightest interest in the juridical status of the victim. The word "State" does not occur in either of those chapters. There is no provision whatever that the attacked party must be universally recognized as a State before an armed attack upon it can be determined as an act of aggression. Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter forbids the use of force not only if it is directed against the integrity of a State, but also if it is used "in any other manner inconsistent with the purpose of the United Nations". --Mr. Eban, S/PV.340, Minutes of the 340th meeting of the Security Council, on 27 July 1948.

Whether the plan called for attacks in another country or not doesn't matter. The plan clearly calls for placing towns and villages under siege because they posed a potential threat, not because they had taken part in any hostilities.harlan (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Precisely... Wiping out villages that posed no threat was left up to the other, less regular Jewish forces (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Time for a new look[edit]

There has been no discussion at this article for two years. The third sentence is a copyright violation, a direct quote from an article by Benny Morris, which I have emboldened. The Gelber reference says no such thing. In fact the Gelber reference [2] essentially contradicts the Morris one, since "carte blanche" means no limitations on action, and Gelber says Plan D was "guidelines."

Plan Dalet, or Plan D, (Hebrew: תוכנית ד'‎‎, Tokhnit dalet) was a plan worked out by the Haganah, a Jewish paramilitary group and the forerunner of the Israel Defense Forces, in Palestine in autumn 1947 to spring 1948. Its purpose is much debated. According to Yoav Gelber and Benny Morris, it was a contingency plan for defending a nascent Jewish state from invasion but also one that gave the regional commanders carte blanche to occupy and garrison or expel and destroy the Arab villages along and behind the front lines.[1][2] According to other historians such as Walid Khalidi and Ilan Pappe, its purpose was to conquer as much of Palestine and to expel as many Palestinians as possible.[3]

Besides the copyright violation, the lead suffers WP:UNDUE weight on the aspect of expelling and destroying Arab villages. In fact, while the lead says that Dalet was "a contingency plan for defending the nascent Jewish state from invasion," it but-monkies and immediately refers notes the authority to destroy Arab towns and expel Arab population.

Even the link to Gelber does not put that kind or weight on expulsion and destruction, and nowhere does he imply "cart blanche." Specifically Gelber says ([1]) "Plan 'D' drew guidelines for management of occupied areas and safeguarding of the troops' rear. One of these procedures was demolishing villages that could not be held permanently. The instructions explained how to take over an Arab village and an Arab quarter of a mixed town. In case of resistance, the occupying forces should expel the population beyond the border. If no resistance was met, residents could stay put, under military rule."

According to Schulz and Hammer in The Palestinian diaspora "The prime purpose of Plan D was to secure the Jewish state against the expected Arab onslaught and to create 'territorial continuity between the major concentrations of Jewish population' [quoting Morris, 87]]... Eviction was thus contingent on the behavior of residents of different areas. In case of resistance the inhabitants were forced to leave, and in this regard plan D was a sort of blueprint..." [2] In other words, the plan did not give carte blance for expulsion and destruction, only in the case of resistance.

Morris describes Plan D in his book 1948 p. 20 "The plan called for the consolidation of Jewish control in and around the big Jewish and mixed towns (Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa), the sealing off of potential enemy routes into the country, the consolidation of a defense line along the borders, and the extension of Haganah protection to the Jewish population centers outside the UN-sanctioned borders." This sounds very different from "giving regional commanders carte blanche to occupy and garrison or expel and destroy Arab villages..."

According to others: "The objective of "Plan Dalet" was the conquest and capture of rural and urban Arab centers within and along the borders of the Jewish state, so as to prevent the mounting of hostile operations from them. was decided to deport the population only if they resisted the Haganahblanche forces. The number of villages that were to be destroyed was actually small, only a few in each sector of the Haganah's six brigades. A policy of destruction was scarcely implemented during the war, although some villages or parts of their built area were demolished either by local commanders due to tactical needs or as mere acts of vandalism. Deportation of residents of Arab towns and villages was carried out in certain places such as Lydda and Ramle and the southern coastal plain. [3]

I would say that the description of Plan Dalet (in the lead anyway) is insufficient as to the Israeli purpose, and at the same time putting too much emphasis on destruction and expulsion. Help wanted! to improve this article. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 05:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The new lead looks better. The last sentence starts with "according to other historians" but the lead doesn't talk about historians before that. I don't think we need to name them in the lead anyway. We can just say that according to some historians the purpose was X, while according to others it was Y, leaving the attribution in the body of the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. As you can see I went ahead and made changes. I did forget to make a note of it on the discussion page. I agree with your criticism above. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


  1. ^ reported by Jeff Weintraub
  2. ^ Yoav Gelber (January 2006). Palestine, 1948: war, escape and the emergence of the Palestinian refugee problem. Sussex Academic Press. pp. 98–. ISBN 9781845190750. Retrieved 12 April 2011. 
  3. ^ Khalidi, Walid. 'Plan Dalet: Master Plan for the Conquest of Palestine'; Pappe, Ilan. The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.

Incorrect attribution to Yoav Gelber and Benny Morris[edit]

The word 'contingency' didn't come from Gelber or Morris.

  • It's the work of one Ami Isseroff.
  • Gelber & Morris appear to have been added here
  • Gelber & Morris changed places with the first source here
  • Then had a bit of a jostle here
  • Finally the original entry for 'contingency' was ousted by Yoav Gelber (sans Morris)here
  • Then Yoav Gelber was joined by most of the (unsourced & un-cited) historians here
  • Most of the (unsourced & un-cited) historians became other (unsourced & un-cited) historians here
  • The other (unsourced & un-cited) historians changed into most other(unsourced & un-cited) historians here
  • Most other (unsourced & un-cited) historians were all unceremoniously dumped here
  • By now 'contingency' wrongly belonged to Yoav Gelber until Benny Morris appeared here.

Rather than leave the existing to lie, suggest the issue be addressed appropriately talknic (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Noting the correction. However the source might be less than credible..."Dr Tal examines the reasons behind the new state's victories against Egypt, as well as its failures, which were decisive in delimiting Israel's borders and were finally sealed in the Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, signed on Rhodes, in March 1949".
If we look to the primary source referred to, Armistice Demarcation Lines were agreed, not borders. "It is emphasized that it is not the purpose of this Agreement to establish, to recognise, to strengthen, or to weaken or nullify, in any way, any territorial, custodial or other rights, claims or interests which may be asserted by either Party in the area of Palestine or any part or locality thereof covered by this Agreement, whether such asserted rights, claims or interests derive from Security Council resolutions, including the resolution of 4 November 1948 and the Memorandum of 13 November 1948 for its implementation, or from any other source. The provisions of this Agreement are dictated exclusively by military considerations and are valid only for the period of the Armistice. talknic (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm... your link does not go to the quote you quoted. Obviously the quote does not come from Tal since he would not talk about himself in the third person. It is not clear who is making that criticism of Tal. David Tal (historian) is certainly credible. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Snakeswithfeet -- the source -- The Armistice Agreement Both links go to what I've quoted.
If it is from the forward of the book, it should surely reflect what is in the book. If it is reflecting what is in the book, the book is not a reliable source in respect to the Armistice agreements it cites. If it is wrong in respect to the Armistice Agreements it cites, why should it be trusted for anything else it contains? talknic (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I am trying to understand you but it is exceedingly difficult for some reason. Are you trying to say that what is in the MFA document does not tally (no pun intended) with what Tal is saying, in your opinion? I don't see an inconsistency there myself, and even if there were, it would be in no way sufficient to strip him of his reliable source credentials. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Snakeswithfeet - Uh huh. It's quite simple if you dare to look. The forward/speil for the book contains glaring errors according to the documents it cites. To trust such a source based on blind faith seems rather odd for someone involved in improving an article. In WikI/Pedia however, accuracy seems to be the last thing some folk care about. talknic (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
It really is quite simple, professor David Tal is an expert in the field. You are not. If you think the Kahanoff Chair in Israeli Studies at the University of Calgary, Canada, is not a reliable source for use in this encyclopedia, you know where to take that discussion. I seriously doubt you'll find consensus for your opinion based on a blurb we don't even know he wrote and a primary document, but you're free to try. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy -- The preface or spiel for the book in the given source, is quite simply false information according to the Armistice Agreements it cites. That is the point I made. Professor David Tal, expert in the field, has a glaring chunk of twaddle attached to his book on the link given. Furthermore RS is only for particular issues tested against the benchmark for RS, even if a source has qualified for RS before on a different issue, it cannot be definitively said to be a RS on all issues.
Instead of posting excuses and misrepresenting RS policy, it would be far better to cite a secondary source source that does not contain a glaring chunk of twaddle. The notion of Wikipedia is to improve articles, not have them look like a propagandists picnic. talknic (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Since nobody is suggesting to use the preface in this article, what exactly do you want? If you think Tal can't be used at all because you think you found a mistake in the preface, you are mistaken. Like I said, you know where to go with this. In case you forgot, it's WP:RSN. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy A 'mistake'? Rather than look for a source without a piece of blatant propaganda promoting it, wave WP:RSN and fight for it to be left as is. with a 'mistake' I seem to see you saying that quite often. It's a strange way of improving articles . talknic (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I gather you understand that your argument doesn't hold water and that's why you're reluctant to take it where more editors can tell you the same thing I have. No More Mr Nice Guy ([[User talk:|talk]]) 17:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy -- The issue is: anyone reading the source given is gonna read a blurb that is blatantly wrong according to the Armistice Agreement it cites. A 'mistake' according to you. If the blurb writer is inclined to write lies or make 'mistakes' as you put it, they do the author a dis-service. If however it does reflect the author's views, then the author is 'mistaken'.
I find the motives of someone who'd rather leave a 'mistake' un-addressed, launch into justification for leaving a glaring 'mistake' un-addressed, resulting in endless discussion, while waving WP:RSN around, where there would be more endless discussion, rather than simply addressing the issue in order to improve the quality of information, rather questionable
Where as the record on every issue we have discussed shows that when you've objected, I've sought another source, reworded, tried to meet your demands in order to reach an amicable agreement in order to improve articles. talknic (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Rather than check the blurb for the book "It is not clear who is making that criticism of Tal."(Snakeswithfeet) was written by one Ephraim Karsh an alleged scholar who has misrepresented the Armistice Agreements, it is actually from the sourced book (page 502) (amazingly sloppy peer reviewing if it could be called such), and preferring to leave a 'mistake' (NMMMNG), is simply weird talknic (talk) 03:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Talknic, you have well named yourself! Efraim Karsh is also an RS. You should read his bio. If you have a sentence that you believe should be changed, by all means bring it to the talk page along with your preferred version to see if there is consensus for your change. So far, it appears to me that you are using the talk pages as a forum, whereby you put your opinions and personal analysis, which are inappropriate on the article page on the discussion page instead. This way your ideas and viewpoint get some visibility and hopefully, for you, some traction. I don't believe this is what the talk page was intended for. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 06:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Snakeswithfeet -- In this instance Karsh is proven wrong by the Armistice Agreements he cites. I've shown it above with verbatim quotes. Believing that Karsh is RS when he's just been shown to be wrong is quite frankly, stupid. BTW, your misrepresentation of policy is noted. RS is issue specific. The amount of effort to keep incorrect information (aka via NMMNG 'mistake') that has been shown to be incorrect, is simply amazing. Even more amazing is that instead of finding a better source, you launch a personal attack. talknic (talk) 08:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Seriously now, what is it that you want? The word you ostensibly object to hasn't been in the article for days, so that's not it. You want a Tal (and Karsh?) declared unusable in this encyclopedia because you think you found a mistake in a book? Is that it? That's not going to happen, and anyway this is not the forum for it. If you want to pursue that goal, take it to RSN and stop wasting everyone's time here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy -- "The word you ostensibly object to.. " How odd. You have no idea of what is actually being discussed. The notion is that editors contribute to improving articles. I contributed, resulting in a correction to the incorrect attribution. Alas the first thing one reads via the source provided in the correction [4] is disproved by the Armistice Agreements being cited, which according to you was a 'mistake'. You're quite happy, as you were with the wrong attribution to Gelber and Morris, to leave 'mistakes' as they are. Why? talknic (talk) 10:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
How do you figure that arguing endlessly about text that's not used in the article or even relevant to its topic constitutes "improving the article"? Wait, you know what, I don't care. I'm done wasting my time on this. As usual, don't taking my not responding to your endless verbiage as agreement with your argument. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
That you don't mind the first thing folk read in the given source being a mistake, wrong or plain olde propaganda, is rather telling. Defending it even more so talknic (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
And what would you call arguing the source shouldn't be used, then using it twice yourself [5] [6], while continuing to argue it's not a good source? The least you could do is show some intellectual honesty and stop wasting everyone's time with an argument your actions show you've already lost. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The record shows I did not say it was not a good source in all instances, my comment was on Karsh's cute 'mistake'. So save your false accusations. You said it was RS BTW. Furthermore, it does say in the instance I've used it, what I've claimed it says and the source link I have given bypasses Karsh. I guess you'll now take it to WP:RSN? talknic (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The record shows you said stuff like "To trust such a source based on blind faith seems rather odd for someone involved in improving an article" and "If it is wrong in respect to the Armistice Agreements it cites, why should it be trusted for anything else it contains" and "it would be far better to cite a secondary source source that does not contain a glaring chunk of twaddle", etc, etc. Feel free to continue digging your hole though, it's amusing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
What I have used is actually in the book. What Karsh says is not. RS is context dependent. What is amusing is your purposefully misrepresenting policy talknic (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, we can see examples of cooperation and contribution in Snakeswithfeet's edit. Wherein relevant RS information has been put under a new heading, thereby validating information you'd no doubt have prevented. Alas, your attempts at preventing information being added have been through misrepresenting policy, Snakeswithfeet has not. talknic (talk) 06:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

some issues[edit]

I think most of the recent edits to the article were good, but I have have some issues with the following so I moved them from the article to the talk page for discussion:

  • Who is J.C. Bosma and what is his expertise relevant to this article? I suspect it's the user who inserted the material, in which case he should familiarize himself with WP:COI.

According to J.C. Bosma Plan Dalet and the question of Zionist intent should be seen in the context of the "contradictions of Zionism". Bosma considers that the Zionist imperatives of turning an Arab country into a Jewish one and of, at the same time, acting moral posed a severe problem for Zionism. As a consequence Zionism is susceptible to self-deception and used Plan Dalet as a dubious legitimation:

Ben-Gurion and the military leadership did not send their troops to destroy or "occupy" Palestinian villages without an explanation and legitimation. The troops were ordered to "move to State Dalet for an operative implementation of Plan Dalet". Plan Dalet and its stated defensive rationale were referred to and therefore automatically provided a framework that legitimated these orders. ... the politicians need not worry about the moral side of this, because these actions were justified by a defensive military plan.

Bosma investigated the military logic of Plan Dalet and points out seven aspects of it that are inconsistent with the stated defensive purpose.[1]

  • J.C. Bosma, "Plan Dalet in the context of the contradictions of Zionism", Holy Land Studies 9 (2), 2010, p. 209-227
  • Does Teveth link the following to Plan Dalet?

According to Shabtai Teveth the Yishuv had started to prepare for war already in the early 1940's.[2]

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The journal "Holy Land Studies" is a scholarly journal and a reliable source, so there is no need to take the "J.C. Bosma" stuff out.
Teveth does not refer to Plan Dalet, but of course his observation is relevant for the "background". Don't you think so?
JaapBoBo (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
You are right that J.C.Bosma and me are the one and same, but COI states:
Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies.
I think the edit is in line with this policy.
JaapBoBo (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I believe being published by a scholarly journal is not enough, per WP:SOURCES - The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability. Does J.C Bosma have any expertise in history? His field seems to be chemical engineering.
Tevet - it depends on the context. Started to prepare by hoarding food or by buying guns? War with whom? Etc. Could you post a short quote from the book? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
COI - I wasn't accusing you of having one, just noting you should be aware of the policy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Is "Bosma" a reliable source?[edit]

Agree with NMMNG - Jaap, you are a chemical engineer, not a historian nor military expert. Your opinions, even if published by a 3rd party, are not notable for this aeticle. Rym torch (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:Source says: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. "
Whether I'm a chemical engineer is not relevant. What counts is that I'm also a historian and that this is a peer-reviewed journal. It is not up to wikipedia-editors to question the expertise of peer reviewers. So there is really no issue here.
JaapBoBo (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
What are your credentials as a historian that put your opinion on the same level as 6 of the most well known professors in the field? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
One of those professors, Ilan Pappe, is in the editorial board, as is another well known professore, Nur Masalha. Do you think they would accept an article if it were not of an academic level? Obviously they accepted my interpretation is a worthy scholarly contribution.
I put the question on the notice board. Please give your views there ...
JaapBoBo (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think Ilan Pappe is known to have accepted at least one academic work that is not of an academic level, but that's neither here nor there. I responded at the board. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
You are probably referring to the "Tantura" massacre. This case is not known to be not of academic level or, for that matter, of academic level, but is disputed. Small wonder with Zionism's preoccupation wih everything related to the legitimacy of what they are doing. JaapBoBo (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I see multiple problems. To me the would-be section is a mouthful of psycho-jiggly: "the question of Zionist intent" "should be seen" "in the context of the 'contradictions of Zionism'"? What kind of mumbo-jumbo is that? I say it is highly un-encyclopedic. "Bosma considers that the Zionist imperatives of turning an Arab country into a Jewish one..." What this sentence seeks to do is to establish that it is a "Zionist imperative" to "turn an Arab country into a Jewish one". Who says there is such a thing? To say so is clearly POV in a broader sense than just this article on Plan Dalet. All the while, Bosma asserts, the Zionists are "acting moral". Bosma has set himself up as interpreter and judge of Zionists' true intentions, telling the reader in what light it should be understood, postulating as a "given," an immoral position by the Zionists. Oddly, the quote given by Bosma from his article is rather mundane in that doesn't reflect his lead-in to it. I believe his intention is to draw attention to his article, and to his "seven aspects" of the plan that he deems inconsistent with the defensive nature of the Plan. This is acknowledged original research (with an attitude), and I would want to see some peer review of this analysis before it should have (any) weight in this article. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
If the source is deemed reliable and the weight appropriate, the fact it's POV is not an issue. On the contrary, we're supposed to include all significant POVs. Whether this is a mainstream POV or WP:FRINGE is another issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
If this is a significant viewpoint, then we should be able to find others that say the same. This sentence "Bosma considers that the Zionist imperatives of turning an Arab country into a Jewish one and of, at the same time, acting moral posed a severe problem for Zionism. As a consequence Zionism is susceptible to self-deception and used Plan Dalet as a dubious legitimation" which doesn't say clearly that it is Bosma's opinion that it is a Zionist "imperative" to turn an Arab country into a Jewish one ...while "acting" moral, and "susceptible to self-deception". The sentence says that Bosma considers ... pose a severe problem for Zionism. What it is he considers a problem for Zionism (its imperitive and its moral hypocrisy) is given as if it were a fact. I have a problem with someone who has a viewpoint like this inserting his views into the article. Simply because an acknowleged biased source has seen fit to publish his material does not make him a valid reference. The view that Plan D was not defensive in nature and that it was merely an excuse for "the ethnic cleansing" of the Arab population has already been thoroughly covered in this article. In fact it is weighted heavily with that viewpoint under "the intent" section with only the last three short paragraphs (out of around 13) supporting the position that Plan was defensive in nature. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
You say: "I have a problem with someone who has a viewpoint like this inserting his views into the article." That is certainly not a valid argument on wikipedia.
I don't agree with you that it is not clear that "As a consequence Zionism is susceptible to self-deception ..." is presented as a fact. It follows right on "Bosma considers that ...", which creates the context for the subsequent sentence.
Anyway, a neutral formulation should not be a problem. JaapBoBo (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Your viewpoint strikes me as highly moralistic and judgmental - not the least encyclopedic. Your premises are not generally accepted and are highly speculative. I don't know how many articles or books you have written (I find 2 articles on ph at World Cat) or what your background in history or political science is, but I am fairly well read in the area and have not come across your name before. It is not at all clear how much weight to give to your work, if any, in this particular context. As noted by another editor, the Wikipedia article is fully referenced by first-class names in the field from both sides of the argument already. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Given that Holy Land Studies is a peer-reviewed academic journal published by a university press, I don't think WP:RS can be used as an argument for excluding material it contains. I'm sure an appeal at WP:RSN would fail. A case based on the content of a specific article doesn't cut it either, nor does the background of the author, since the peer-review process is assumed to take care of quality issues. Weight and relevance are permitted grounds, however. I didn't study this particular case so this is not an opinion about it. Zerotalk 16:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

As pointed by Zero0000 here above, the Holy Land Studies is a wp:rs sources and nobody can go against this. But as he points also, there is a question of due:weight : even if Bosman's article is published in a wp:rs source, we have to analyse if what he says is relevant for the article.
To solve this issue, there are two ways :
  • we have to see who among his "peers" (ie other wp:rs sources) refer to his article.
  • we have to check if this person is notorious by himself.
An exemple of the first case on the topic of the '48 events is Childers who published one work but whose work is refered by many other scholars. This is pertinent. An exemple of the second case is Pappé or Karsh to whom not much scholars refer to but who are notorious by themselves (whether for notorious work published in the past or for their controversies or for both)
If we apply this to Bosman, I personnaly conclude that he enters in none of these categories and therefore, his work should not (let's say -yet-) be considered pertinent and we should not refer to it in this article. As a conclusion, we have to remove this. Noisetier (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing all the discussions, I see no good argument that Bosmá is not a reliable source. So I have included his view in the article. Of course, some people might think this is undue weight, but I don't agree with that. WP:NPOV says "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;". Well, the article has been approved by Nur Masalha and Ilan Pappe, the editors of Holy Land Studies. JaapBoBo (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

At least 5 editors both here and at RS/N have said this should not go in the article. Other than you, the author of this work, no editor supports its inclusion.
I'm removing it. The least you could do is wait for someone other than yourself to support the inclusion of your work, and even then there would still be a pretty wide margin for not including it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
1) Nobody has brought up a good reason for not regarding it as a reliable source. Do you agree with that?
2) Other points that were brought up by editors (like due weight) were not discussed. We should discuss them.
3) Most editors said that undue weight might be or seemed to be a problem; but not that they knew that it was a problem. So we should discuss due weight.
4) With all respect for most editors and for their good faith, but we can't consider them as experts on Plan Dalet can we?
5) I have brought up some points regarding due weight, and I will add more. Bosma's article is only the second peer-reviewed article after Walid Khalidi's (that appeared twice) that is fully dedicated to Plan Dalet. Of course that makes it signifficant enough for a wikipedia-article on Plan Dalet.
Please show your good faith by giving real arguments.JaapBoBo (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Have you seen the template at the top of this page? All Arab-Israeli related articles are under active arbitration remedies which include 1RR (1 reversion per 24 hour period). I assume you're aware of it since your name was brought up in the original arbitration case. I suggest you self revert your last edit. Not only are you edit warring, you're edit warring to insert your own work into an article.
I'd be happy to discuss whatever you like, but not when you're edit warring against the opinion of at least 5 editors. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
It may be possible that my rationale was not clear but my conclusion is still that the publication of J. Bosma in Holy Land Studies is a wp:rs but that neither the work nor the author is not notorious enough to be in this wp article.
I underline that after reading this paper, I find this far more convincing than Khalidi's work to argue that Plan D was not/would not have been defensive in nature. Anyway, that is not the issue here
Noisetier (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Mr. Bosma (JaapBoBo) is not an historian and has apparently written one article in this area published by an editorial board that includes Ilan Pappe (who already has a pony in the race), and shows a clear political bias obvious to anyone who reads in this area. JaapBoBo has acknowledged this [7]
"I would say it is offers a forum to the anti-Zionist side rather than to the Zionist side. Some "Zionist sources" are certainly ideologically biased, e.g. the article Plan Dalet also refers to Zionist historians like Gelber, Morris and Tal."
(Using his terms) When Jaap refers to the above "Zionist" historians as ideologically biased is that to say that the article itself is biased should be counterweighted with (more) "anti-Zionist" historians or material of his own? If so, I read the Wikipedia article several times and don't agree. It can certainly be improved, but it isn't biased. Khalidi and Pappe are strong advocates for the "anti-Zionist" side. Morris is quoted the vast majority of the time by "anti-Zionists," and is generally accepted as an advocate for (much of) the Palestinian narrative. Why else call his book Righteous Victims when referring to Palestinians? It is true that he has backtracked on some of his personal beliefs, but that has no bearing on his scholarship. He is more often critically attacked by Zionists than by anti-Zionists. So you can not really put him in the "Zionist" corner as far as weight goes and Morris is used most often in this article. I don't believe Wikipedia should encourage self-promotion, which is what I see this as, and if JaapBoBo wants to improve the article, it would be better for him to expand/clarify/better express the ideas of the historians that are already in it.
On a side note: About Esber and the Childers in the REFERENCES section. Could someone explain why they are in the references section but do not appear to be in the footnotes?Snakeswithfeet (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I added Esber's book because in the pages that are given there she gives a detailled description of the different scholarly points of view about the Plan D. Anyway I didn't take the time to add references to this in the article.
NB: Per my understanding, References section gathers all the books/articles published about the topic that is studied in the article and the footnote gathers all the ones that are used in the articles in precising the page.
Noisetier (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I see. Well I haven't checked the Esber book, but the Childers' article doesn't seem to mention Plan D at all. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
You are right. I removed Childers from the references. My mind is that his name is so 'famous' on the topic of the exodus that nobody realized he doesn't discuss the Plan D. Noisetier (talk) 06:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Plan Dalet as a plan of total conquest - is there other evidence?[edit]

I believe there may exist evidence to substantiate that plan Dalet was a design for total conquest of Palestine. I think it should be added as a source; and historians must look further into it.

The Wikipedia item states in part:

“Khalidi calls Plan Dalet a ‘Master Plan for the Conquest of Palestine’. He points to the Zionist ideas of transfer and of a Jewish state in all of Palestine, and to the offensive character of the military operations of the Zionists as the main proof of his interpretation.”

There is a real map in the U.S. Library of Congress which appears to plan for this. From what I can tell, very few people are taking the map seriously, and they should. It shows not only all of Palestine as comprised in “Hebrewland”, but is a world map of socialist continental and regional unions. There is no Canada on that map, which is why it caught my attention, given the plans underway now — in fact, underway for decades — which WILL eliminate Canada as a nation, and even as a place name. If Hebrewland is evidence of a Zionist plan, then so must be the rest of the map; therefore, the conversion of the world to continental unions — largely accomplished, now — and the absorption and disappearance of Canada, must be a part of that same Zionist plan.

The map was completed in October, 1941, before Pearl Harbor. It seems to me this vision of Palestine as comprised in a state of Hebrewland was therefore well laid before anyone had any inkling of a “6,000,000″ genocide of Jews as a pretext for taking over Palestine.

I’ve started a blog on it, here, and all the links are there, both to download the map and to view it online at the U.S. Library of Congress:

See paragraph 26 on that page, transcribed from the 1941 map:

“26. The area of the Holy Land of the ancient Hebrews, at present known as Palestine and Trans-Jordan, and the adjacent requisite regions as outlined on map, for considerations of history and the imperative necessity to alleviate a post-war refugee problem, shall be unified as a demilitarized independent republic of ‘Hebrewland’.”— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

A Communist kook fantasy about the new world order cannot bear any relation to Plan 4 whatsoever. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


  1. ^ J.C. Bosma, 2010
  2. ^ Teveth, 1985, p. 200


What we have here is very, very cleverly composed language which portrays a position for which there is very little evidential support as "one extreme" while describing a position for which there is a lot of evidence as "the other extreme". It's a clever exploitation of the golden mean fallacy.

As Vladimir Bukovsky puts it, the middle ground between the Big Lie ... and the truth is a lie (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no "truth" in Wikipedia. There are only degrees of credibility/reliability of the sources, and what is credible/reliable is often a matter of opinion or perspective. The golden mean fallacy only applies in a philosophical and hypothetical situation where there is a "truth", but this assumes we all know and agree on what the "truth" is to begin with. In that case we should all come to Wikipedia and write the "truth", offer no sources or references, and be done with it. Wouldn't that be nice? Patwinkle (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

the article has POV and "dubious" problems[edit]

the article has POV and "dubious" problems. see tags "dubious" and "citation needed" in the article. Ykantor (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

some examples:

  1. the Zionist movement designed and implemented four general military plans. wrong. the Zionist movement had nothing to do with military plans
  2. ultimately leading to the creation of Israel and the dispossession of the Palestinians .wrong.
  3. 'plan B deal with growing opposition from surrounding Arab states to the Zionist partition plan.. wrong.
  4. Plan C was designed to enhance Zionist military and police mobilization and enable action as needed. wrong.
  5. plan D Its overall objective was to seize as much territory as possible. wrong
  6. Shooting, stoning, and rioting continued misleading. The Arabs initiated and continuously attacked.
  7. Plan Dalet was implemented from the start of April onward. wrong.
  8. Plan D has not embarked yet, during operation Nachshon and most of the other mentioned operations.
  9. According to Benny Morris the Plan's execution lasted about eight weeks. wrong and a lie. Morris does not say that.
  10. Pappe views are extensively mentioned, although he has fringe opinions. Ykantor (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Ykantor (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Can you please cite your opposite sources for the "wrong" points? --aad_Dira (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC).
I am sorry but I am rather busy at the moment. Anyway, the sources are Morris and Gelber books, each of them is called "1948". Please have a look in the quotes section, and you will find quotes taken from those 2 books. Those quotes are already supporting some of those examples. Ykantor (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, I didn't notice the response here. Reviewing the dubious templates, there's at least three of them (1st, 2nd, & 5th) assigned to an already referenced material. There's also a "citation needed" assigned to a sourced sentence at the first paragraph of The Plan section. All the quotes you provide are from two scholars, which both are Israelis, therefore not neutral enough for the subject. I would like to have more sources from countries not related to the conflict. In any case, Gelber doesn't show any counter-facts for the "dubious" sentences. The only quote that maybe really related to the assigned templates is the fourth one from Morris. His article states clearly that he regard himself as a Zionist, which makes him unneutral source. Also, when you have time, there should be a referencing for all other points of the templates --aad_Dira (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC).
  • I have numbered the points. Are the new numbers in line with your numbers?
  • Concerning Gelber and Morris, I use them extensively and find them reliable. BTW Morris in his book Righteous Victims, is opposing the Israeli Government concerning the Lebanon war at 1982, and in other occasions as well. However, I understand your worries and propose that if you have a RS with opposing views, then both views will be added to the article. i.e According to Morris then aaaa, but according to xxx then bbb.
  • yours:" when you have time, there should be a referencing for all other points of the templates ". you are right. I have to start referencing. Ykantor (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

  • point 4. The article: "Plan C was designed to enhance Zionist military and police mobilization and enable action as needed". Morris 2008 p. 87: "Another element was planning. Before 1946, the Haganah General Staff (HGS) had prepared plans for resisting a renewed Arab rebellion—with the Haganah seen as an auxiliary to the British military. In May 1946, the HGS formulated tochnit gimel (Plan C or the May Plan), addressing the possibility of mass, organized Arab attacks on the Yishuv. The plan included guidelines for Haganah retaliation against Arab leaders, villages, and urban districts; ad- denda, from October and December 1946, related to possible British assistance to the Arabs. In doctrinal terms, the Haganah from this point on took on sole responsibility for the defense of the Yishuv". Some article details are wrong. The article does not specify what is the difference between the successive plans.
  • point 5. The article: "plan D Its overall objective was to seize as much territory as possible". The meaning is occupying all of Palestine and some of the neighboring states territories. This is wrong. Morris 2008 p.119:""Plan D called for securing the areas earmarked by the United Nations for Jewish statehood and several concentrations of Jewish population outside those areas (West Jerusalem and Western Galilee). The roads between the core Jewish areas and the border areas where the invading Arab armies were expected to attack were to be secured". see also an article quote:Yoav Gelber (1 January 2006). Palestine 1948: War, Escape And The Emergence Of The Palestinian Refugee Problem. Sussex Academic Press. p. 306. ISBN 978-1-84519-075-0.
  • point 6. The article: "Shooting, stoning, and rioting continued". It is misleading. The Arabs initiated and were the offensive side. The Yishuv was in the defensive side, busy with retaliating and trying to calm it down. Morris 2008 p. 117:" 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. But by the end of March, recruitment and the reorganization of the militia in battalion and brigade formations were fairly well advanced. And Czech arms at last began to arrive."
  • point 7. The article: "Plan Dalet was implemented from the start of April onward". The reference is Morris 2008 p.116 : "Nahshon heralded a shift from the defensive to the offensive and marked the beginning of the implementation of tochnit dalet (Plan D)—without Ben-Gurion or the HGS ever taking an in principle decision to embark on its implementation". The article is wrong, since it was not embarked. see also Morris quote of point 9. see also: --ref name="Gelber2006">Yoav Gelber (1 January 2006). Palestine, 1948: War, Escape and the Emergence of the Palestinian Refugee Problem. Sussex Academic Press. p. 305. ISBN 978-1-84519-075-0. However, Plan D was not executed according to this layout, apart from the Upper Galilee region. Its architects believed that the British withdrawal would take place in one fell swoop across the country and Plan D would be launched on this “D-Day” of the evacuation, with no British troops present in Palestine. Actually, the British withdrawal was gradual and had begun earlier than expected, in mid-April 1948. Consequently, Plan D had no D-Day and no zero hour. Its objectives were only partially accomplished ad hoc during the last month of the British mandate in Palestine, not as a single concerted preplanned operation. Military gains were the result of local initiatives that took advantage of prevailing conditions in the field — without consideration of the Plan’s guidelines and some times against its principles or recommended procedures. In several places, the Plan’s targets were occupied by Arab troops who were quicker to seize the opportunity than the local Haganab units. Only four days before the end of the mandate Plan D was hastily altered to address the new threat of an invasion by regular Arab armies and the unexpected prolonged presence of British troops in Haifa enclave after the termination of Great Britain’s mandate. </ref>. see also: --ref name="Tessler1994">Mark A. Tessler (1 January 1994). A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Indiana University Press. p. 295. ISBN 978-0-253-20873-6. Plan D was not put into effect officially until May 14 </ref>
  • point 8. The article: "However,"Plan D" has not embarked yet, during Operation Nachshon.[qt 3]". I have already added this text. also: --ref>ronald w zweig (2013). David Ben-Gurion. Routledge. p. 180. ISBN 978-1-135-18886-3. </ref>. see also: gelber 2006 p. 305, Tessler1994 p. 295 (see text of both at point 7)
  • point 9. The article: "According to Benny Morris the Plan's execution lasted about eight weeks". Morris 2004 p.165: "In effect, Plan D was carried out during the eight weeks following 2 April. But most of the units mounting these offensives and counteroffensives were unaware that they were, in fact, carrying out parts of the grand design; most thought in terms of their own, local problems and perils, and their amelioration. Only the Alexandroni Brigade, responsible for the Coastal Plain from just north of Tel Aviv to just south of Haifa, appears from the start to have regarded its offensive operations, starting in early April, as parts of Plan D. In fact, the brigade explicitly ordered its battalions, during the first week of April ‘to complete [the implementation] of this plan during the week following 8.4.’4 Elsewhere, Haganah brigades unleashed offensives and counter-offensives in the spirit of Plan D without quite realising that this was what they were doing." So, practically it was carried out during the eight weeks , but formally it was not carried out ( except of Alexandroni Brigade). The article text is misleading. Ykantor (talk) 03:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I was indicating your points 4, 5 & 9. As you can see, the sources provided for them in the article are neutral, unrelated to neither sides of the conflict. So for opposite facts, we would need other neutral sources. Morris maybe indeed reliable on a general historical broad, but bias in those subjects, even if not meant, can be unconscious due to the cultural background. Also, WP:UNDUE should be taken into account --aad_Dira (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC).
  • We can ask the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for the sources quality. BTW Khalidi, Davidson and Pappe are not neutral, in my opinion.
  • The point 9 source is Morris, but it is misleadingly used here.
  • As proposed, eventually both views will be added to each of the article points. i.e According to Morris then aaaa, but according to Khalidi then bbb. Ykantor (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The fact that you consider they are not neutral is not the problem : Walid Khalidi is WP:RS as well as Ilan Pappé and therefore, given you have to be neutral (they don't have to), you have to take their analysis into account in your redaction of wikipedia. You cannot dismiss WP:RS sources because WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
Morris, Pappe and Khalidi are not the only sources on the topic, it is not relevant to focus only on both of them. The article must cover all the analysis on the topic. Concerning Plan D, Yoav Gelber made a major contribution. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Yankor, I think you need to get away from the idea that something is "wrong" because one of your preferred historians doesn't agree with it. Writing Wikipedia articles is about representing all significant published views. Dlv999 (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

"with historians on the one extreme asserting that it was entirely defensive, and historians on the other extreme asserting that the plan aimed at maximum conquest and expulsion" - Yet there's a "dubious" template only against one view point. How is that anything other than an attempt to bias readers? (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

"with historians on the one extreme asserting that it was entirely defensive, and historians on the other extreme asserting that the plan aimed at maximum conquest and expulsion" - Using the rhetoric of two opposing "extremes" implies that there are two radically different political ideologies with the truth being somewhere in the middle. In fact, only Zionist historians feel the need to qualify Plan Dalet as purely "defensive." Obviously, to conquer the land and expel the potentially hostile Arab population was perceived by Zionist forces as a defensive act. Saying that Plan Dalet is purely defensive is therefore unambiguously a Zionist narrative ("defensive" for whom?). Of course the people who devised the plan saw it as defensive. I suggest to make the ideological bias of these historians visible to the readers by writing "with Zionist historians asserting that it was entirely defensive, and other historians asserting that the plan aimed at maximum conquest and expulsion." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmalabi (talkcontribs) 11:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Possible issues with 'Details' section[edit]

Just read that section. While the majority of the rest of the page is sourced, the 'Details' part is not and it is unclear which source is used. If it is MidEast Web (which, for all possible definitions is a blog) I'd personally rather see some peer-reviewed academic source if possible (or at least an distributed book from an investigator since it is hard to tell who writes what on an multiple-author blog). Also the details section contradicts as far as I observe the strict neutrality rule and presents theories of what the plan is as-is instead of possibly-was (which is used at the rest of the wiki entry).

I'm also comparing against Gordon Thomas' Gideon's Spies: The Secret History of the Mossad and while the rest of the page and info in it seems the style of the Hagannah as described in part by Thomas and the ones he interviewed for the book, the Details section doesn't paint the same finesse combined with sometimes 'necessary cruelty' (for a lack of a more 'neutral' term) as observed in Thomas' book, as well as other records on both this page (Plan Dalet wiki page) as well as the rest of the historical records regarding the 1915-1950 period.

Hence why I'm wondering where this Details section comes from since it feels off. (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Dates - which year?[edit]

Some events are specified by month, but it sometimes not clear which year, even after searching back and forth in the context. Confusing at best. Keith McClary (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 February 2017[edit]

Quotation marks around population transfer under first bullet point of section on Historians asserting that the plan was defensive does not close; suggest closing quote properly Kawakji (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Done Thank you for pointing that out! regards, DRAGON BOOSTER 05:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)