Jump to content

Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Intervention by Arab League countries

Because of various edits, this section contains material elsewhere in the article.

Paragraph 1 is in the next section (though not verbatim).
Paragraph 2, 4 and 5 are in the section The Arab League as a whole (though 2 not verbatim).
Paragraph 3 is nowhere else but needs to go into the section, The Arab League as a whole.

I shall move paragraph 3 into the section The Arab League as a whole. I shall then delete the section, Intervention by Arab League countries. Trahelliven (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Spyflight

The spyflight source, which is the primary one with regards to the Anglo-Israeli dogfights, notes that there have been rumors, though unconfirmed, that RAF pilots from the squadron that lost 5 planes and 2 pilots to the IAF privately took their revenge by shooting down any Israeli planes they encountered, including transports. I put it in twice, and each time I later found it gone. I would like to know why it isn't suitable to put it in there, as it's too late for me to dig up an explanation (if there ever was one) in the history.--RM (Be my friend) 03:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

http://spyflight.co.uk seems to be the personal project of one person who is not named there. I don't see how it satisfies WP:RS, in fact it seems to me rather clear that it doesn't. Can you offer an argument why we should accept it as a source? Zerotalk 02:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Foreign volunteers

This war was mainly between :

  • 4 armies of the Arab League (Egypt, Transjordan, Irak, Syria)

and

  • Israel

No other official army participated to this war. (For what concerns Lebanon, it was recently established by historian Yoav Gelber). The distinction has to be made between there armies and volunteers. Else, we should add Britain for both side and the USA and France for the Israeli side. That would be a biased pov. Exactly as it is a biased pov to state to list all the Arab states in the list of combattants 81.247.71.163 (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

:Not true. For example, Saudi Arabia sent a contingent of 800[1]–1,200[2][3] men. If the Saudi government sent them, they weren't "volunteers".--Jabotito48 (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)(sock of indef-blocked user)

Nor Gelber p.55 or Morris p.205 writes that these were sent by the Saudi governement.
More Gelber points out that they were "tribesmen" and Morris points out that these forces joined Arabs armies (and so were not part of the main 4 ones he refer to in the same page) : "The invading forces consisted, on 15 May, of about 20,000 combat troops : some 5500 Egyptians [...], 4500 to 6500 Arab Legionnaires, 2750 from Syria [...], and 2700 from Iraq [...]. He reminds also that Lebanese forces never enter or try to invade Palestine, which is used by Morris and Gelber.
Instead of foreign volunteers, we can also write irregulars.
81.247.71.163 (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Lebanon

Lebanon didn't participate to the war. See eg : Benny Morris, '1948. A History of the First Arab-Israeli War', p.258 :

"But at the last moment, Lebanon (...) opted out of the invasion. On 14 May President (...) and his army chief of staff, (...), decided against Lebanese participation; (...) [The] commander of the army's First Regiment (battalion), designated to cross into Israel, apparently refused to march. The Lebanese parliament, after bitter debate, ratified the decision the same day."

That should be taken into account in the caption. 81.247.97.117 (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

They attack and occupied al-Malikiya in June (Morris p. 257). So they did enter Palestine, although in a very limited way and not on May 15. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I checked on googlebook Morris 2004 p.257 and it is not mentionned (?). I doublecheck later today.
Anyway, I am sure Gelber mentions somewhere these attacks but they were not the fact of official Lebanese soldiers. ALA was redeployed before 15 May north of Galilee to replace Lebanese army that had defected in order to protect Syrian flank. They attacked from North. Lebanese goverment and high rank officeers had declined the attack (see above). It is true that Christian officeers localy didn't prevent some of their Muslim soldiers to 'leave' their unit to join the ALA in these attacks but Lebanese forces didn't participate (as pointed out just here above) and the exact number is not known. What is sure is that the ALA counted several thousands soldiers. I think Gelber explains that given uniforms were all the same, Palmach soldiers concluded wrongly these were Lebanese soldiers given the attack came from Lebanon but they were from the Arab Liberation Army. I will check and provide the source if we agree that we will not epilogate weeks on this and just comply with what latest and more reliable 2nd sources state : "4 Arab States invaded Palestine". I think we should solve that caption issues once for all. What happens with all these reverts is a childish attitude. 91.180.65.140 (talk) 07:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Oops. The Morris book I referred to was the "1948" book, not the "Birth of..." book. Sorry for the confusion. --Frederico1234 (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Frederico,
Thank you for the information. I was not aware (or I had forgotten) this event on June 5.
Here is what I referred to (Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948, p.139) : "Confuding the ALA remnants in Galilee with Syrian and Lebanese regular troops, the 'Haganah' referred to all of them as "regular Arab army". On May 15, Yiftah brigade reported a fierce battle with invading Lebanese troops at Malkiya. These were, however, local combatants and remains of Shishakli's Yarmuk battalion. (...) The military's Christian commanders refused to involve the army in the battle, but allowed Muslim soldiers to join the ALA and the Syrian army. Only 300 troopers chose to take advantage of this opportunity."
I hope that this convinces everybody and that we can come back to the former caption.
81.247.87.96 (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Flags in caption

David Markus and Glubb Pacha were Foreign volunteers of US and British nationality. If we don't use US and British flags for them because, as an editor pointed this out, they didn't represent USA and British, they we should remove the flags of Lebanon, Saudi-Arabi, Pakistan etc because these volunteers didn't represent these countries either. What do you think about this ? 81.247.97.117 (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

i agree we should also remove those flags.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

:False. A token force of 1,000 was committed by Lebanon to the invasion. It crossed into the northern Galilee and was repulsed by Israeli forces. Israel then invaded and occupied southern Lebanon until the end of the war.[4] Saudi Arabia sent a contingent of 800[5]–1,200[6][7] men, therefore they were not "volunteers".--8HGasma (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC) (sock of indef-blocked user)

That is exactly what the sock of Jabotito48 wrote here above : ":Not true. For example, Saudi Arabia sent a contingent of 800[1]–1,200[2][3] men. If the Saudi government sent them, they weren't "volunteers".--Jabotito48 (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)(sock of indef-blocked user) and I explained to him why he was wrong here above too. 81.247.176.216 (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Personnaly, I would prefer that we keep all the flags and that we precise what was the nationality of Markus and Glubb Pacha. Without the agreement of their respective governments, all these people could not have participated. It is not a detail that David Markus had the highest rank in the IDF at the time whereas he had not the Israeli nationality and it is the same for Glubb Pacha. This information is provided by the historians when they refer to the events.
@ 8HGasma : You just copied/pasted what is in the article without reading. Nor Lebanon or Saudi Arabia sent forces. These were volunteers from Beduin tribes. I will provide the source but this becomes childish : historian refer to the 4 armies that invaded Palestine (some of the 5 but Morris and Gelber recently indicated it was a mistake and that Lebanon didn't participate to the war - see above). 91.180.65.140 (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Referring here above to the fact that the Lebanese troops who fought in the war were volunteers and were not sent by their government and that they didn't represent this, we have to :
  • whether put the flag of Lebanon but also the flag of the US next to Markus and Britain next to Glubb
  • remove all flags.
It is a relevant information that can be found in all history books on the '48 war that Markus was US citizen, Glubb British and Lebanese volunteers, Lebanese.
81.247.87.96 (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Conclusion

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

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

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

Is there any comment ? Pluto2012 (talk) 07:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I think there's a difference between Glubb and Marcus. Glubb was working for the British as well as the Jordanians. As far as I can remember, Marcus wasn't working for the US government. They knew he was there, but he wasn't working for them, IIRC. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Glubb was not working for the British. He was on the pay roll of the Jordanian army and was fidel to Abdallah. This is pointed out by Benny Morris in his book about him : The Road to Jerusalem.
And even if Glubb was collaborating with the British, it is relevant to state that they were foreigners. The participation of volunteers is well known (as well British in Jordanian army as Mahal for Israeli).
More, if we focus on Marcus : his status is exactly the same as the one of the other volunteers of the Yemen, Lebanon, Soudan etc.
If we put a flag for Yemen (which is anecdotical) we should put a flag for Marcus and Glubb who were key actors of the war.
By the way, I don't see a problem with these flags. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, I think putting a flag next to individuals who were not representing the governments of the countries those flags belong to is ridiculous. The flags belong to countries and should be used if the country itself was somehow involved, not if people from those countries acting as individuals were. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Agree with NMMNG. Marcus acted in a private capacity and did not represent the United States. The United States was not a combatant. By contrast, There are reliable sources that attest to Lebanese, Saudi and Yemen participation and not in an insubstantial way. Also, these governments expressed views (at least openly) that were consistent with the general militarist Arab position.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Whatever the choice, it has to be consistent.
If Marcus and Glubb are not referred by their nationality but by the side for which they fought, we have to remove the flags referring to Lebanon and all other countries and put a Palestinian flag or the ALA flag. There are as many reliable sources on the topic that remind that Marcus was US citizen, Glubb British citizen and that Arab volunteers came from the whole Arab world.
Pluto2012 (talk) 07:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I think the criterion for including a flag should be involvement of a government. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

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

With the same reasonning, you can add Soviet Union on the Israeli side given Stalin ordered no to respect the UN umbargo and to supply Israel with heavy weapons and ammunitions after having pronounced for the Partition.
Pluto2012 (talk) 09:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Multiple and ongoing issues littering the Lede.

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

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

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

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

Caught my eye too. How is it called in Arabic? Or, more to the point, why is Arabic omitted? -DePiep (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion 01: // The 1948 Arab–Israeli War, known to Israelis as the War of Independence (Hebrew: מלחמת העצמאות or מלחמת הקוממיות‎, Milkhemet Ha'atzma'ut or Milkhemet Hakomemmiyut or Hebrew: מלחמת השחרור, Milkhemet Hashikhrur literally "war of liberation")13. The war was known to the Arabs/Palestinians by different names according to the relevant time frame in the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The 1948 war was fought between the State of Israel and a military coalition of Arab states and Palestinian Arab forces. It was the first in a series of wars in the continuing Arab–Israeli conflict.// talknic (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

There was an RfC about including Nakba which failed. May I once again suggest you read the archives? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Correction: The RfC was about bolding "Nakba". The term is already in the lead per consensus reached around the same time as the RfC. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd appreciate the courtesy of a link. However I assume Reuven Firestone's comment in a book this year, and he is an expert Arabist, postdates the discussion you allude to. Wikipedia is in continual evolution, as RS develop their historical insights. Talknic's point is not that nakba is not in the lead. It is that a balancing set of Arabic terms for their definition of the war does not follow the Hebrew terms. This is a clear violation of standard article leads in the I/P area, where all places, events and peoples with names in both languages have those names mentioned in sequence in the respective languages. It is an elementary point, and if the consensus ignored it, the consensus ignored the problem. Nishidani (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG The issue is not bolding. Or the Nakba specifically. The issue is NPOV, as as it has been since this ridiculous claim //" ... Second I think that "the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs" is not clear. Neighboring to whom? Syria? Lebanon? Also it's incorrect to say that the Palestinians were left under the military control of Israel, Jordan and Egypt" No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC) [2] // talknic (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Nishidani -- "It is an elementary point, and if the consensus ignored it, the consensus ignored the problem. " Precisely, by consensus and any other means possible -- Links [3] - [4] - [5] - [6] - [7] - [8] - [9] - [10] talknic (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, NMMGG. That confirms my point:
  • 2010 Nov 7 you said nakba was unsourced. Firestone sources it Arabic: النكبة‎, al-Nakba.
  • You agree with '"Nakba" is not a synonym for "1948 Arab–Israeli War" and therefore should not be bolded. Do not misrepresent the guidelines. --Orange Mike.'
Firestone says the Milkhemet Ha'atzma'ut (which is bolded in translation) is not a synonym for the !1948 Arab-Israeli War" since in Hebrew usage it refers to the civiul war and the ensuing 1948 war (as does perhaps al-nakba.
When GRuban writes:

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

You object:

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

But the Hebrew war of independence bolded here refers, per Firestone, to this and the civil war as well.
I don't see any consistency here, other than to allow a Hebrew term that covers 1947-1948 as the title for the specific Arab-Israeli War of 1948, while denying that al-nakba the corresponding Arab term for the same period, equal status. They appear from Firestone and Morris to be synonyms. Nishidani (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
If you dig a little bit deeper into the archives you'll see I addressed the issue of War of Independence as well. If you want to remove that perhaps you should start a new section.
As far as I understand it, "nakba" refers to the exodus and not the actual war. When I said it was unsourced, that was obviously tongue in cheek, my point was that it was not synonymous with the title of this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I think you are sidestepping the point. Talnic raised the issue of lack of Arabic titles for the war.
They are required by custom and policy.
One of the titles used presently in Hebrew refers to 1947-1948.
One of the titles in Arabic refers to 1947-1948
We have a first-rate source on this point (Firestone).
You support the retention of the Hebrew title.
You oppose the inclusion of the parallel Arabic title which appears to be a functional synonym.
We don't have to worry about what we personally think(as far as I understand it). We simply have to find a solution to the lack of Arabic titles, and find them. Al-nakba in Firestone is apparently one.Nishidani (talk) 04:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not sidestepping anything. Read the archives. You'll see Pluto (with a previous handle) saying nakba should not be in the lead. I'm glad you found a source saying Nakba and War of Independence are synonyms. When I have a bit of time I'll try to find other sources, but as far as I understand it (based on books I've read on the subject, not my personal opinion, obviously) the two are not synonymous. The Nakba happened during the war, it is not the war itself. Just like WWII and the holocaust, although I wouldn't be surprised if you found a scholar or two making the mistake of treating the two as synonyms.
By the way, I don't have a problem with adding other Arabic names for the topic of this article, just like I had no problem with Nakba being included. Once again, read the archives. You can start with archive #12 and onwards. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion 02: // The 1948 Arab–Israeli War, known to Israelis as the War of Independence (Hebrew: מלחמת העצמאות or מלחמת הקוממיות‎, Milkhemet Ha'atzma'ut or Milkhemet Hakomemmiyut or Hebrew: מלחמת השחרור‎, Milkhemet Hashikhrur literally "war of liberation")13. The war was a continuation of the period known to the Arabs and Palestinians as "al Nakba" (Arabic: النكبة, "the Catastrophe")[11]. The 1948 war was fought between the State of Israel and a military coalition of Arab states and Palestinian Arab forces. It was the first in a series of International Wars [12] in the continuing Arab–Israeli conflict.//
Comments please talknic (talk) 11:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
This is definitely not an improvement on the current text and is a poor summary of the article. You removed information on where the war was fought, how it ended and the preceding civil war. I don't think there's a period known as "al Nakba". Also, your source (Kelsen) does not mention this conflict. It mentions the word "Israel" once in a list of UN members and doesn't mention the word "Arab" at all. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
NMMG The discussion on "where" is addressed in Second paragraph 3) a separate sentence.
Kelsen [13] is information delineating Civil war from International War. Quite pertinent!
" I don't think there's a period known as "al Nakba" -- Odd the source I gave, first paragraph [14] ":the Nakba (Arabic: النكبة‎, an-Nakbah, lit. "disaster", "catastrophe", or "cataclysm"),[1] occurred when approximately 711,000 to 725,000 Palestinian Arabs left, fled or were expelled from their homes, during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the Civil War that preceded it" -- You didn't even look at the link? talknic (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the Nakba is an event that happened during a certain period of time. Saying that the period is known as "al Nakba" is incorrect (and not supported by the source).
Does Kelsen discuss the topic of this article?
If you want to move the nakba stuff to the first paragraph, what will the 3rd paragraph look like? It's hard to follow what you're trying to do when you change the structure of multiple paragraphs but only include one of them in your suggestion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG "Does Kelsen discuss the topic of this article?" Yes, as of May 15th 1948 it was an International War, what preceded it was a Civil War. Readers ought be informed of the difference.
I've not noticed any suggestions from you as to how we might overcome the NPOV issue here. You're forte seems to be preventing. talknic (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

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

I still think the current text is better. In your eagerness to put the nakba higher up in the lead you're completely ruining the flow of the text. Maybe some other editors would like to chime in, though. I'm getting kinda tired of this back and forth. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG -- Your tiredness is irrelevant and; What you think, helped to create and would like to keep, is in contravention of NPOV. I am attempting to address a contravention of NPOV. If the only way of addressing the NPOV issue is to have mention of the Nakba, then it should be included and the latter mention re-assessed. talknic (talk) 03:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG -- Please see third paragraph issues & suggestion for resolving al-Nakba [17] talknic (talk) 08:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Agrees with NMNG. The current wording is better (though not perfect). Generally, I don't like postponing a basic description of what an article is about to the second sentence. That is the job of the first sentence. With the suggested wordings, a reader only reading the first sentence could think the article is about some painting called "The 1948 Arab–Israeli War". --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
We're obliged per WP:NPOV to have the parallel terms in Arabic and Palestinian usage introduced after the Hebrew terminology. The present version lacks them. One source, Firestone says one of the Hebrew terms is, in its referential extension (time) synonymous with nakba, which extends from 1947-8. He's an Arabist. He may be wrong, but if a strong secondary source confirms his point, it must be included. This leaves open the Arab terminology used at the time to describe the war. Please note thirdly that one of the Hebrew terms, as I noted above, denotes 1947-1947, and does not bear the restricted sense of the war which broke out in 1948 May.Nishidani (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Frederico1234 -- The current wording contravenes NPOV, a policy. Consensus to ignore NPOV is a no no. I'm trying to improve the article to conform to policy on behalf of readers. Please make an alternative suggestion talknic (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Frederico1234 -- " With the suggested wordings, a reader only reading the first sentence could think the article is about some painting called "The 1948 Arab–Israeli War" Uh? I haven't changed the first sentence talknic (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Talknic: You added a period sign after the translations.
My suggestion would be to remove the translations. I don't see why do we need to translate the title in the first place. --Frederico1234 (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Frederico1234 - The translations (Hebrew) are there by a reasonable consensus, at the same time removing, by consensus, what is required by policy in order to have an NPOV opening paragraph. The content of the first section was not altered, the period sign is to replace "—". talknic (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Saying the Hebrew is wrong so we need to add something wrong in Arabic is just silly. If you want to remove the Hebrew (which, as I acknowledged in one of the previous discussions, I've seen used for just this part of the war but also for the whole thing including the civil war), why don't you open a new section where we can discuss that? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Look, NMMGG. Could you review what you are saying. It's getting self-contradictory and incoherent. I did not say the Hebrew was wrong. You objected, read above, to nakba because despite Firestone, you said it referred in your memory to only the exodus, not the war.I noted that the Hebrew referred not only to the 1948 war but to the preceding civil war. Firestone says this is the same overlap in nakba. My point therefore is that your objection to nakba could be used also to object to the Hebrew (a step which I do not take). One must be coherent to be cogent. The objection to one term, logically, applies to the other. You defend one, and suspect the other.Nishidani (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
How about you review what you're reading? Where did I "defend one, and suspect the other"? Seems like it's incoherent to you because you're not reading what I'm actually saying.
Also, if you are saying that "Nakba" = "War of Independence" = "1948 Palestine War" then not only should the Hebrew be removed from here and put in 1948 Palestine War, but the Nakba article should be merged into that one as well. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG -- " Where did I "defend one, and suspect the other"?" From the outset [18] and at every attempt to address the NPOV issue.
"if you are saying that "Nakba" = "War of Independence" = "1948 Palestine War" ". 'if' shmif. No one is. Both Nishidani & I are simply trying to address the difficult issue of NPOV in the opening paragraph of the Lede as required per policy. Consensus to disregard NPOV is quite bizarre. Thus far you have prevented every measure offered without making any suggestions as to how the issue of NPOV might be over come Please cooperate in the spirit of editorial policy talknic (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I think we can close this. No serious objection, as opposed to an undocumented opinion, has been given to oppose what high quality sources repeatedly attest is a normative equivalence in descriptive and meta-descriptive accounts of the 1948 war. The evidence is as follows, and so nakba goes in as a gloss on the Hebrew.

Unless there are substantive RS meta-critiques of this widespread narrative and specialist usage (Gelber, Tal), Talknic can go ahead with his edit 1 now, I'm sure you'll concur NMMGG, since it reflects perfectly the consensus of the academic literature. Nishidani (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, you have established that WoI and Nakba are synonyms (out of curiosity, did you see any sources that did not support this?). What you haven't established is that they're synonymous with the title of this article. The conclusion here is not that Nakba should be added but that both should be moved to 1948 Palestine War and that the Nakba article should be changed accordingly. Currently the Nakba article says it refers to the exodus and doesn't mention the WoI. I assume you'll be fixing this soon? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Division of labour. I'll fix the nakba article, and you can follow through with your suggestion:'The conclusion here is not that Nakba should be added but that both should be moved to 1948 Palestine War and that the Nakba article should be changed accordingly.' Okay? Or would you like me to remove that, and do the Nakba article edit as well. I like to have a life, and appreciate the division of labour.Nishidani (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
According to your sources, the Nakba article should say that it refers to the 1948 Palestine War, and you should also add the War of Independence there, just like you thought both belong here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Changed it. Let me know what you think. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, I see what you did there. You went to google books and searched for War of Independence and Nakba. This is classic selection bias. Did you even bother to search for Nakba and exodus? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Don't be silly. Of course I consulted google, which is what everyone does, and I consulted those works I have in my library. You see the results. Since I will emend the nakba article to show that sources indicate it extends beyond the exodus, there is no selection bias, just careful analysis of any quality sources to see what the lie of the academic land is, as opposed to just endless opinionizing.Nishidani (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
You consulted google looking for a specific result. But that's fine. As long as there's consistency over all the articles, I don't really care which of the two POVs (and if you bother to search for "Nakba and exodus", you'll see I wasn't just "opinionizing"), is represented. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Apart from what I've read, which is a lot, when I decided to wade into a morass I use a lot of combinations, on most things, for the simple reason that I read when I first started using these machines that 'a computer is a moron that reasons at the speed of light'. We all know how fucking idiotic the various selectioning algorithms are. I'm dumb, sure, in computers, but I'll be fucked if their stupidity or search machines beat me on things like this. Thanks by the way for the edit. I'll fix the nakba article now.Nishidani (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG -- OK. You put up some references or get consensus to move the whole sheebang talknic (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Further Secondary Sources Provided on 20:10, 13 September 2011. (One of numerous attempts to address the issue of a violation of NPOV by consensus)

  • 1) "1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War - Prof. Benny Morris "The 1948 War-called by the Arab world the First Palestine War and by the Palestinians al-nakba (the disaster)"
  • 2) " Futile Diplomacy: The United Nations, the great powers, and Middle East - By Neil Caplan - Routledge, 1997- Page 17 "...the war known variously as the Israeli War of Independence,an-Nakba(the(Palestinian) Catastrophe), or the first Palestine war"
  • 3) " Israel or Palestine? Is the two-state solution already dead? - Hasan Afif El-Hasan - Algora Publishing, 2010 - Page 33 "The Jews called this war The War of Independence and in Palestinian historiography it is called al-Nakba (the Catastrophe)"
  • 4) " Contemporary Muslim Apocalyptic Literature - By David Cook - - Page 15 "in the wake of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war (often called al-Nakba, the disaster)"
  • 5) " Uprootings/regroundings: questions of home and migration - Sara Ahmed -Berg, 2003 - Page 87 "The 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict, war and their aftermath (named The War of Independence by Israelis), is called al-Nakba - the catastrophe - by the Palestinians."
  • 6) " The contemporary Middle East - Karl Yambert, Arthur Goldschmidt - Westview Press, 2006 - Page 51 "The Palestinian community was shattered by the fighting and flight in 1948-1949, which they called al-nakba (the disaster)"
  • 7) " Israel/Palestine: how to end the war of 1948 - Tanya Reinhart - Allen & Unwin, 2003- Page 7 "following a war which the Israelis call the War of Independence, and the Palestinians call the Nakba — the catastrophe"
  • 8) "Issues in Peace and Conflict Studies: Selections from CQ Researcher- CQ Researcher - SAGE, 2010 - Page 216 "in what the Israelis call the war of Independence and the Palestinians call the Nakba"
  • 9) "The Israel/Palestine question - Ilan Pappé - Routledge, 1999 - Page 172 "the first Arab Israeli war, which they call al Nakba or the Disaster"
  • 10) "Israel in the Middle East: documents and readings on society, politics, and foreign relations, pre-1948 to the present - Itamar Rabinovich - UPNE, 2008 - Page 47 "what Israelis call the War of Independence, or what the Palestinians call al naqba or the Catastrophe, or what historians call, more neutrally, the 1948 war"
  • 11) " Who are the Christians in the Middle East? - Betty Jane Bailey, J. Martin Bailey - Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003 - Page 155</a> "As a result of what the Israelis call the War of Independence and Palestinians call Al-Naqba, the Catastrophe"
  • 12) " The Arab world: an illustrated history - Kirk H. Sowell - Hippocrene Books, 2004 - Page 202 "What Israelis call the War of Independence, Arabs call al Nakba, or the catastrophe"

There were no references offered in opposition by editor/s who instigated and implemented, by consensus, this breech of NPOV policy. talknic (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Talknic. NMMGG has removed the problematical terms, so for the moment, I think it best to concentrate on the other issues. Whether or not, in the future, near or far, this lead can be finessed to include nakba and the associated terms will depend on the progress generally in that and other articles, perhaps.Nishidani (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Nishidani -- NMMNG's removal of the statement is an act of blatant vandalism and was NOT per Talk as claimed. [19]. There was no consensus to remove the whole. Hoping for a self revert
On past behaviour he will likely object to every notion put forward in respect to the wording if it is moved elsewhere talknic (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I moved the Hebrew from the first sentence of the lead, put both terms on equal footing and added some context per Nishidani's sources. Isn't that what you two wanted? What's the problem? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG -- No. It's not what either of us were aiming at and you had none of the consensus you regularly demand of others. Furthermore your edit was not per this Talk section. Please self revert thx talknic (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
For the sake of readers having to go through a plethora of other pages for basic information, the opening paragraph of the Lede could be retained, including both Hebrew and Arabic. Suggestion 03: (below) is neutral, self explanatory, gives readers a source for the difference between civil war and International status of this war. The Israeli War of Independence re-directs here. The later reference in the Lede to al Nakba can be removed. Bolding might need to be re-addressed.
Suggestion 03: // The 1948 Arab–Israeli War, known to Israelis as the War of Independence (Hebrew: מלחמת העצמאות or מלחמת הקוממיות‎, Milkhemet Ha'atzma'ut or Milkhemet Hakomemmiyut or Hebrew: מלחמת השחרור‎, Milkhemet Hashikhrur literally "war of liberation". It was a continuation of what is known to the Arabs and Palestinians as "al Nakba" (Arabic: النكبة, "the Catastrophe"). The 1948 war was fought between the State of Israel and a military coalition of Arab states and Palestinian Arab forces. It was the first in a series of International Wars in the continuing Arab–Israeli conflict.// talknic (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I will not self revert thx and it seems to me Nishidani is ok with the edit. If he isn't he can say so.
If the terms are not synonymous with the title of the article, putting them in the first sentence of the lead would be a violation of WP:LEAD. You're the one who presented sources that say that Nakba = War of Independence = 1948 Palestine war. So what do you want exactly? Other than to argue endlessly? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG -- read the top of this section. I began by addressing the contravention of NPOV policy, offering a suggestion using al Nakba with an explanation thus: "It was a continuation of what is known to the Arabs and Palestinians as "al Nakba" (Arabic: النكبة, "the Catastrophe")".
In the 15 months and numerous attempts by myself to address the issue of the contravention (by consensus) of NPOV you have offered absolutely nothing in order to resolve the breech of policy issue. Furthermore I have never suggested removing the Hebrew/Israeli because the Israeli War of Independence re-directs here
"So what do you want exactly? Other than to argue endlessly? " The record shows who is arguing endlessly in an attempt to keep an obvious and blatant breech of editorial policy talknic (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Israeli War of Independence redirects to 1948 Palestine War, as it should.
What NPOV contravention are you talking about? You said Nakba should have equal status to War of Independence, which it now has. I can't imagine you're suggesting that your sources were wrong and the War of Independence started in May?
The only other policy compliant solution, other than the edit I made, is to remove all the names altogether. I think that's not a good idea since I think people expect to see the terms here, but I'm willing to consider it if other editors think it's a better solution. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG -- You constantly demand consensus. At the time you removed the terminology you did not have consensus to remove anything. You've constantly claimed issues under discussion should not be edited. Yet you go ahead and do so yourself.
"I think that's not a good idea since I think people expect to see the terms here" Ditto. You removed them, I've never suggested removing them. In fact I've suggested you revert talknic (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Nishidani asked me to make the edit. Frederico also said he prefers no names in the first paragraph of the lead. You said your issue was NPOV because WoI and Nakba should be treated equally. My edit took care of all the above. The only one complaining is you, and knowing you, you're just objecting for the sake of objecting. So, unless an editor other than you has an issue with the edit, I will not be responding further regarding this issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG -- "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_war_of_independence&action=history asked me to make the edit." ... Uh huh. Nishidani "you can follow through with your suggestion:'The conclusion here is not that Nakba should be added but that both should be moved to 1948 Palestine War and that the Nakba article should be changed accordingly.' Okay? " .. So you added Nakba here, later in the article. Now the redirect from the Israeli War of Independence has no mention of it in the opening paragraph. Rather at odds with everything you wanted desperately to keep and I tried to accommodate.
"You said your issue was NPOV because WoI and Nakba should be treated equally".. No dear chap. I was attempting to address a contravention of NPOV (by consensus) in the Lede, keeping the integrity of the WoI redirect on behalf of readers when they arrived at this article
" you're just objecting for the sake of objecting" Very funny talknic (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

As NMMNG has insisted on the inclusion of the naming here, contrary to the agreement on his stated intentions, and as it has been included in the 1948 Palestine war (bolded) and 1948 Palestinian exodus, I've moved the section to the first paragraph to conform with the WoI redirect. Formatted accordingly same as 1948 Palestine war. After almost 15 months of certain parties attempting to retain a blatant contravention of NPOV, I intend to close this section. Objections? talknic (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I think several editors have explained to you that only terms that are synonymous with the title of the article are bolded in the lead. Also, you opened an RfC in the past about Nakba being bolded in the lead and that was rejected. I can't imagine you didn't know this would be reverted as I explained all this to you in this very section. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Interesting - to make the edit I got to the page from Israeli war of independence try it. Too many redirects for WoI might confuse readers.
"I think several editors .." .. is an exaggeration. BTW I did show you how the WoI and Nakba were synonymous with each other mid last year sometime..... Shall we mark this as done, the NPOV issue seems to be solved to everyone's satisfaction talknic (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Several editors is an exaggeration? Let me refresh your memory. You opened a discussion and then an RfC about bolding the word Nakba in the lead. Several editors (as in over 5) told you that only synonyms of the title are bolded. Your RfC was rejected. You now put Nakba in bold in the lead despite the rejection of the RfC. If I wasn't so lazy, I'd report you for that and you'd surely be indefinitely banned.
Anyhow, I'm glad the NPOV issue is now solved to your satisfaction. Not that anything changed from 2 days ago when I made the edit, but I guess you just needed to argue a bit more over nothing. Whatever works for you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG - Nakba is synonymous with the WoI and NPOV has been addressed. Both issues I've tried to correct for over a year, opposed by consensus to contravene policy, led primarily by yourself. Now resolved thanks to Nishidani. Your cooperation has only appeared after some 15 months of stubborn belligerence. Now you're threatening @ 17:54, over an inadvertent edit @ 13:11, via a confusing almost duplicate redirect, before you change it some 4 minutes later @17:46, 9 July 2012‎. I believe we're ..  Done talknic (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)



Second paragraph 1)
The war was preceded by a period of civil war in the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine between Jewish Yishuv forces and Palestinian Arab forces in response to the UN Partition Plan.

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

The above issue was Resolved: See discussion below Pre-Delineated Discussion. NMMNG has since reverted [20] a statement reached by agreement between two editors - Restored by Dalai lama ding dong (four editors agreed with the change, talknic, Gabriel, Nishidani, Dalai lama ding dong) talknic (talk) 08:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG HERE is a prior example of changes brought about by agreement between two editors talknic (talk) 08:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Suggestion 02: //The war was preceded by a period of civil war from November 1947 till May 14th 1948 in British-controlled Palestine[21], where Jewish Yishuv forces and Palestinian Arabs clashed in response to the UN Partition Plan.//
Comments, sans nonsense & moving goal posts, please talknic (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

"British-controlled Palestine" has a specific name commonly used in scholarship (hint: it includes the word "Mandate"). That's the name we should use. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG -- I've provided a reliable source as requested, cooperating and offering suggestions in the spirit suggested by policy. Now I'm asking you. Please put up a reliable source giving readers the phrase you like showing the actual status of Palestine between 1946 and 1948 under the Mandate, sans Transjordan. Thx talknic (talk)
I intend to make this edit base on the consensus below @ 18:18, 10 July 2012 .. any more objections? talknic (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


FOR -- 1) Gabriel[22] -- 2) Dalai lama ding dong (prior to 11 July 2012 ban) [23] -- 3) Nishidani[24] -- 4) talknic --
AGAINST -- 1) No More Mr Nice Guy[25] -- 2) Jiujitsuguy[26] --
talknic (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)




Second paragraph 2)
An alliance of Arab States intervened on the Palestinian side, turning the civil war into a war between sovereign states.14

As is, it infers the Arab States "turned the civil war". The source does not say 'who' turned the war into a war between sovereign states. It says this : "A war between Israel and the Arab States broke out immediately, and the Arab armies invaded Palestine. This clash continued the civil war that started after the UN resolution on partition, but differed from its predecessor in being a confrontation between sovereign states employing regular armies." To reflect the source more accurately:
Suggestion: //An alliance of Arab States intervened on the Palestinian side and the preceding civil war turned into a war between sovereign states.[27] //

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

NMMNG -- This is the issue. The source says "This clash continued the civil war that started after the UN resolution on partition, but differed from its predecessor in being a confrontation between sovereign states employing regular armies" It gives a NPOV. We can either change the source or change the present statement as it stands in the article, because the present article statement DOES NOT accurately reflect the source it gives. It is in clear contravention of editorial policy.
Furthermore, editors are not here to decide or apportion responsibility, but to present a NPOV. The UNSC, UNSC resolutions on the other hand, Armistice Agreements, Peace Treaties et al, do identify and apportion responsibility. So if as an editor you wish to show definitive responsibility, you'll have to give sources accurately conveying the documents they cite. talknic (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
i like ths suggestion.. A n alliance of Arab States intervened on the Palestinian side and the preceding civil war turned into a war between sovereign states. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I intend to make this edit based on the consensus as it stands @ 12 July 2012. Further objections? talknic (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


FOR -- 1) Nishidani[28] -- 2) Gatoclass[29] -- 3) Dalai lama ding dong (prior to 11 July 2012 ban) -- 4) talknic --
AGAINST -- 1) No More Mr Nice Guy[30] -- 2) Jiujitsuguy[31] --



Second paragraph 3)
The fighting took place mostly on the former territory of the British Mandate and for a short time also in the Sinai Peninsula and southern Lebanon.15

Not supported by the source and it is quite misleading. "the former territory of the British Mandate" could include Jordanian territory and what became Israeli territory. The UNSC resolutions and Armistice Agreements of the time call for peace in "Palestine", not Israel, not Jordan, not "the former territory of the British Mandate". The Armistice Agreements do not contain the word Mandate at all!
Secondary sources citing the Armistice Agreements, cease fires, Peace treaties should accurately reflect those documents. to be RS
Two entities existed after Israel was declared May 15th 1948. Palestine and Israel, delineated from Israel by Israel in statements to the UNSC by the Provisional Govt of Israel May 22nd 1848 and; called "Palestine" by the UNSC.
Suggestion: //The fighting took place mostly in Palestine [32] and for a short time also in the Sinai Peninsula and southern Lebanon. //

Comments please. Silence is not an objection talknic (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


FOR --
AGAINST --




Second paragraph 4)
The war concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, which established Armistice Demarcation Lines between Israeli and Arab military forces, commonly known as the Green Line.

A) The Green line is actually from the ceasefire agreement Nov 30 1948 prior to the Armistice Agreements of 1949. The Armistice's and cease fire specifically did not change any borders, futhermore they were all between existing states. Palestine has never had an Armistice Agreement or Peace Treaty with Israel.
B) As mentioned above: None of the Armistice Agreements have the word/s "Mandate" or "former" or "territory of" or "British Mandate"! They name both "Israel" AND "Palestine"
Suggestion: //The war concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, which established Armistice Demarcation Lines between Israeli and Arab military forces in Palestine. The cease fire line of 30th Nov 1948 became commonly known as the Green Line. [33]// talknic (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

BUMP!! talknic (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


FOR --
AGAINST --

Third Paragraph 1 & 2)

There are is two an issues, in the separate sentences in the second sentence

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

1st sentence: It seems the NPOV issue in the opening paragraph: is irresolvable without mentioning al-Nakba as there appears to be no definitive Arab name for the period of the 1948 war. (please see the suggestions addressing NPOV in the opening paragraph [34])  Done See discussion in Paragraph

2nd sentence: Apart from being unsourced, the State of Israel was 'established' by declaration [35] "On May 14, 1948, on the day in which the British Mandate over a Palestine expired, the Jewish People's Council gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum, and approved the following proclamation, declaring the establishment of the State of Israel"
Israel was established, by declaration May 15th 1948. Recognized as established by the US 15th May 1948. Admitted to the UN May 1949 as an established and recognized state. These events all took place before the end of the war.

Suggestion 01: Combining the two sentences -- //Roughly half of the 1948 Palestinian exodus occurred amidst this war and it is also considered one of the main triggers for the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries.// talknic (talk) 07:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)  Done See discussion in Paragraph

The bit about the establishment of Israel was put there to point out that some of the Jews who left Arab countries after the war did so for ideological reasons rather than the persecution they suffered because the Arabs lost. I'm a little surprised you'd want to remove that, not to mention I'm not sure why you think the fact that Israel was established before the war ended invalidates the current sentence. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG -- Nice try. However, it doesn't 'point out' or convey anything of the sort. It's un-sourced and directly contradicts "the fact that Israel was established before the war ended". It's more likely an attempt at propaganda talknic (talk)
You are mistaken, but I see no point in arguing with you. If other editors would like to weigh in I'd be happy to discuss with them. As usual, do not take my silence as support for your suggested change. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG - "You are mistaken" is no reason for keeping a phrase you like. It's simple, put up a source for the statement.. thx
BTW I don't believe one needs consensus to abide by policy talknic (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

BUMP talknic (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


FOR --
AGAINST --




Pre-Delineated Discussion

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

On first look, none of these changes seem particularly controversial. I think you need a hyphen in British-controlled Palestine (I'm not completely sure if controlled in this case is an adjective, in which case you'd use a hyphen or the past form of a verb, in which case you wouldn't). I don't agree with your wording in paragraph 2 - it is clear that the Arab states' decision to intervene was the immediate cause of the war entering a new phase. I would insert the word Mandatory before Palestine in your suggestion in 3 to disambiguate the multiple uses of the term Palestine.GabrielF (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
GabrielF - OK hypenated British-controlled Second Paragraph 1 //The war was preceded by a period of civil war from November 1947 till May 14th 1948 in British-controlled Palestine, where Jewish Yishuv forces and Palestinian Arabs clashed in response to the UN Partition Plan.// Done!.
Second Paragraph 2 - A new phase began the moment the Israeli Declaration became effective "at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time" [36]. With Jewish forces already outside of Israel, by default the civil war immediately became a war between the State of Israel and the non-self-governing territory of Palestine.
Another new phase when the Arab states invaded "Palestine". (The Independent State of Israel was no longer in or a part of Palestine [37]). The current source says "continued the civil war that started after the UN resolution on partition, but differed from its predecessor in being a confrontation between sovereign states employing regular armies" The "war" differed from the "civil war".
Second Paragraph 3 "insert the word Mandatory before Palestine in your suggestion in 3 to disambiguate the multiple uses of the term Palestine"
Why? There was no Mandatory as of May 14, 1948, on the day in which the British Mandate over a Palestine expired.
The Provisional Israeli Government acknowledged the delineation of Israel from Palestine in it's statements to the UNSC May 22nd 1848. The continual use of "the territory of" "Mandatory Palestine"/"British Mandate"/"British Mandate of/for Palestine" is fog, requiring readers to go elsewhere to try to ascertain what it means, only to find more fog talknic (talk) 09:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with all the suggestions above, most of which were discussed at length before talknic got topic banned, and failed to gain consensus. Coming back over and over with the same stuff is just tendentious. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy - Leaving material contravening NPOV by consensus is tendentious. Attempting to resolve NPOV issues in the proper manner is in line with editorial policies. My ban was for not for raising these issues BTW. Address the points raised please. talknic (talk) 05:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Talknic, very good work and well-reasoned proposals. I hope Pluto2012 notes them and comments. He is the outstanding wiki editor on this period, and anything he says is usually spot on. I can't myself see anything objectionable here.Nishidani (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Is Zero an acceptable editor? He was one of the people who supported "former territory of the British Mandate". Check the archives. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG -- Zero? The agreeing editors thus far are talknic, Gabriel, Nishidani, Dalai lama ding dong. I believe that's 4:1 consensus on Second paragraph 1)
None of the Armistice Agreements ending the fighting have the word/s "Mandate" or "former" or "territory of" or "British Mandate"! They name both "Israel" AND "Palestine". Weasel words have no place here. Please undo your revert, or I will ... thx talknic (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The comment about Zero was to Nishidani. I hope he reads the archives and sees the previous, what, 5 times you tried to make some of these changes?
If in a few days there's a consensus to change the text you can do so. In the meanwhile I suggest you read WP:BRD. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG -- Perhaps if you had the courtesy to address your comments.. thx. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]? or Pluto2012? BTW It is irrelevant how many times one attempts to bring about changes while the existing dialogue in articles appears to be flawed. The notion of being an editor is to remove flaws by working towards agreement. Arguing facts, not personalities. Not making misrepresentations and; without ignoring questions
Meanwhile, I suggest you read WP:BRD yourself, an essay BTW, which never the less says: "BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow. "
"If in a few days there's a consensus to change the text you can do so" Oh? Is this yours "I added a source for the PP not being implemented." without the same consensus you demand here? talknic (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with NMMNG. I don't see Talknc's suggestions as an improvement. In fact, some of his suggested modifications are somewhat misleading, as pointed out by GabrielF. I would oppose these changes.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Talknic's gone to some considerable trouble to examine minutely an old area of controversy. He presented to us several points, and his proposed emendations. To just reply and say, I don't like this stuff, is not helping him, nor the page. If there are criticisms based on the same grasp of the issues he shows, please be forthcoming with them. I myself have suggested one of our resident experts review it, since I don't trust my own judgement on such complex historical issues. But they strike me as serious, well-formulated proposals,-unless I am mistaken Gabriel also had the courtesy of suggesting they merited attention, -and are in the works. You just don't vote them away or refer vaguely to past discussions. That is not collegial.Nishidani (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
"You just don't vote them away or refer vaguely to past discussions. That is not collegial." And yet two days ago you wrote this... Is this the sound of a pot clanking? Ankh.Morpork 18:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there you wished to change the use of the word judaization as 'antisemitic'. I.e. your personal impressions of the word, ignoring archives, were that it was prejudicial (it can't be. In Hebrew, judaisation was often used of planning for the Galilee) It happens to be customary usage in RS that have nothing to do with antisemitism. This has been determined exhaustively in the archived discussions. Here, looking through the links NMMGG kindly provided me, I can see little discussion on RS, and a huge amount of argument. For me, on these issues, RS in determining names is decisive. The less we bring our own opinions into these matters, the better for the article. If a problem arises look at RS. If archives exhaustively establish RS back the use of a term, one uses it. If archives show no interest in exhaustive RS-discussion, then they haven't faced the merits of the problem. It is a key way of resolving conflict, and I dunno why few of you care for it.Nishidani (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Nishidani -- I provided the links. For some reason no signature appeared, maybe because I also edited and signed some other part of the discussion talknic (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Could we discuss them one at a time though. I thought most looked OK but would like to see other comments. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Itsmejudith --- Sure. I'll delineate them. What say The opening paragraph: talknic (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Nish, When the same person brings the same issues to the same talk page over and over and over again, do you really expect other editors to reply at length with the same arguments? Take a look at the archives before you call something not collegial. You'll see several editors addressed these points multiple times. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG --- The issues remain. Please address them talknic (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
How many times do you expect me to address the same issues? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG. I can't see in the archives where point 1 is adequately addressed, for starters. But, sure, I'm a complete fuckwit when it comes to searching wikipedia, and may have missed something. GabrielF and Gatoclass both see merit on at least one point he's raised, and so, rather than just waving it away (it's tempting: we all get tired of these things), along with the rest, I think we should take each on its merits. By all means, ignore the rest if you think it's resolved, or naysay. Nishidani (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG --- I don't 'expect' you to do anything. You're here of your own accord. There are a number of new issues raised and new supporting evidence provided. As I explained here This again? wasn't and the points I gave to show it was not "This again?" you completely ignored talknic (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

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

I disagree about suggestion 2. The war did not turn into an international conflict on its own. Had the Arab states not intervened, this would not have happened. So the intervention of the Arab states is what turned it into an international conflict.
I agree with you about suggestions 3 and 4, and I think that on closer inspection you'll see that saying it was "British-controlled" is too general (controlled how? Occupied? Part of the UK? A dependency? Colony?) when there was a specific term for it called the "British Mandate". That's where the civil war happened and I'm pretty sure that's what most RS use. Perhaps talknic can provide a reliable source calling it "British-controlled". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
That's not true. All the actors anticipated far in advance of May 1948 that there would be a war if and when the state of Israel was declared. Ben-Gurion knew that as inevitable, and is on record as saying as much. This is a terribly complex matter, juridically and descriptively. Jordan, for example, wasn't recognized as a state at all by the United Nations, yet we summarily call it one here. It was not technically bound by any UN resolution. Glubb sent envoys to the Haganah weeks before the new war for clarification on what boundaries precisely would a future Israel consider its proper territorial boundaries. Would they stick to the partition borders, or did they consider all of Palestine their territorial objective? The Haganah gave no clear reply: that's up to the politicians, we just carry out orders, etc.Nishidani (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
But for the Egyptian/Syrian/Iraqi/Jordanian/Lebanese intervention/invasion, the war would have remained localized. So the proposal for paragraph two is not just misleading, its actually wrong. At the very least, it's constitutes a fringe theory that is not accepted by mainstream scholarship and is rejected by most historians.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The responsibility for the war lies with the International powers, and the British esp. If the states had not intervened. Israel would have been all of pre-Partition Palestine ('localised'). That was not what the UN resolution intended. But this is neither here nor there for the purposes of the improvements Talknic is proposing.Nishidani (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Had the Arab states not intervened, this would not have happened. - NMMG
By the time the Arab states intervened, some 300,000 Palestinians had already been expelled from their homes and become refugees in neighbouring countries. In such circumstances, how could the Arab states not intervene?
My point is that responsibility for this war is not a black-and-white issue, and that it is therefore important to employ neutral language that does not imply one side is more to blame than the other, which is why I supported suggestion 2. Gatoclass (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The issue isn't if they should have intervened or not or whether they were responsible or not. The issue is what turned it into an international conflict. Think NATO invading Syria if that makes it easier. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Second Paragraph 2 The current statement is NOT supported by the source. Again NMMNG demands of others but fails apply his own criteria to he wants to retain talknic (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Recent changes to 1949 Armistice Agreements

Rationale for changes
1) Informed readers of the status of British administered Palestinian territories as they stood after Transjordan's independence in 1946.
2) Changed 3rd sentence to accurately reflect the current source which says "but even with the occupied territories....etc etc"[38]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Talknic (talk • contribs) 11:59, 6 July 2012‎ (UTC)

Twitter account

I added a link to a twitter account retelling this war - any objections? 82.122.45.128 (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This isn't appropriate. Specifically mentioned in WP:ELNO. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
ELNO says that twitter links should be avoided, not that they are outright banned. It gives a generalisation that is intentionally flexible so that it can be adjusted to specific cases. This link provides a unique way to study the war. If this encyclopedia is meant to promote knowledge and understanding, then this link should definitely be here. 82.122.45.128 (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The obvious issue that I see is a complete absence of accountability. The Twitter account is outside the control of Wikipedia. Who runs it? And who do they answer to? How do Wikipedia editors know it gives a reliable, neutral account of the war? How can anybody determine if it is a reliable source? It's a nifty idea, if done well, but it's not right for Wikipedia. I'm reverting to edit by the the bot pending consensus here on Talk. Belchfire (talk) 05:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

DP

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

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

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

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

Anyway, we have a specific reliable number: 700,000 Jews settled in Israel between 1948 and 1951. If 300,000 were from Arab and Muslim countries... where the difference (400,000) came from? Australia? No, Europe. After all, many Jews escaped to the East during World War II. Of the nine million Jews who had resided in Europe before the Holocaust, approximately two-thirds were killed. So three million Jews lived in Europe after the war (not 250,000, who where only the Jews living in DP camps in Germany, Austria and Italy). Romania (117,950), for example, is not included in DP, despite being the biggest source of immigrants to Israel during this period, along with Poland (106,414) and Iraq (123,371).--Sonntagsbraten (talk) 06:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Soontagsbraten,
I don't say that your conclusions are wrong but what you make is WP:OR.
You have to provide reliable sources for any information introduced in the article.
The 1952 book is not one. The Jewish Virtual Library is not one. CBS is not one. For an article related to a topic that has been studied by the academic world, we need books from scholars.
I will revert you in a few hours and look for academic references but you have to do the same.
Pluto2012 (talk) 07:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I didn't add any specific number regarding immigrants from Eastern Europe. I tried to make a balanced and objective edition saying that among the 700,000 Jews who settled in Israel there were 136,000 from DP in Germany, Austria and Italy (as the source says), but also from Eastern Europe (mainly Romania and Poland, see this table). You have no reason to revert it and if you claim the only European Jews who immigrated to Israel are DP, you'd be introducing an incorrect information.--Sonntagsbraten (talk) 08:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
You provided a good source here. Why should we not include it in this article?--Sonntagsbraten (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
By the way :
  • Tom Segev, 1949. The First Israelis, Owl Books, 1986, p.96 states that 271,188 people coming from Eastern Europe settled in Israel from 15 mai '48 to 31 march '51.
  • Michael Berenbaum, The Holocaust and History: The Known, the Unknown, the Disputed, and the Reexamined, Indiana University Press, 2002, p.734 writes that The following three years [after 1948] are known in the litterature as the 'years of mass immigration'. (...) The Jewish community in Palestine (...) received 717,923 immigrants in those three years, among them 373,852 Holocaust survivors.
Nb: note there is difference between being an Holocaust survivor and surviving the extermination camps. Many Jews took refuge among population or hid. Few escaped the death camps. The author refers to those who lived in the territories occupied by the Nazi and their allies during war.
Pluto2012 (talk) 09:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

belligerants

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

The following quote from Gelber (Ref. 90, dead link) is factually incorrect as it stands and should be removed.
"Ben Gurion "arrived at an agreement with the Maronite religious leadership in Lebanon that cost a few thousand pounds and kept Lebanon's army out of the War of Independence and the military Arab coalition.""
The statement is false because Lebanon was indeed an active belligerent in the 1948 and did indeed join the pan-Arab invasion of the territory of the former British Mandate of Palestine, albeit on a limited scale as confirmed elsewhere in the aticle. Lebanon commited to the cause about 1000 soldiers out of a total of 3500 soldiers in its army. The capture and occupation by the Lebanese Army of al-Malikiya in the Upper Galilee, and Lebanon's support of the ALA's role in the war, acting from Lebanese territory, is a case in point.
It is true that in May 1946, a secret treaty was concluded bbetween the Jewish Agency and the Maronite Church. However, by January 1948 the treaty was abandoned by the Maronite Church when its cover was blown during an internal dispute. See pg. 75 of the link below:
https://bir.brandeis.edu/bitstream/handle/10192/29/ThePromiseandFailureoftheZionist-MaroniteRelationship,1920-1948.pdf?sequence=1
JD
If this is true, we should add it on the article. I mean, the fact that there was an agreement but in the end it wasn't respected.--Sonntagsbraten (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
But this is not true.
This is not just based on this quote from Yoav Gelber. Lebanon didn't participate to that war both officially and in practice. This is explained here.
The flag of Lebanon must be removed from the belligerants of the Arab side. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
You are correct only in regard to the initial pan-Arab invasion of May 15, in which Lebanon did not directly participate. However, a month later, the Lebanese Army did indeed attack, and did indeed captured the village of al-Malikiya in the former territory of the Mandate of Palestine.
I refer you to pg. 257 in "1948:The First Arab-Israeli War", by Benny Morris, which says the following in relation to Syria's attack at Mishmar Hayarden:
"The attack was probably coordinated with the Lebanese army, which on 5 June surprised and attacked the small Jewish garrison at al-Malikiya and overwhelmed it (the village had been taken in a commando-style attack by the Palmah on the night of 28-29 May). A few days later, the ALA, which had withdrawn from central Palestine a fortnight before, returned to the country via al-Malikiya. Al-Qawuqji established his headquarters in Nazareth.
The Lebanese success at al-Malikiya marked their only real participation in the war, and gave Beirut cover against accusations of indifference to the fate of Palestine"
And further, on pg. 260:
"But on 5-6 June, as we have seen, the Lebanese army, assisted by a Syrian battalion and the ALA, recaptured al-Malikya, which had been left in the hands of a Haganah garrison company. The conquest reopened a major supply route from south Lebanon to the upper central Galilee, where the ALA was now concentrated. The attack - Lebanon's only success in the war - enabled Beirut to argue, at last, that they had participated in the assault on Israel. The Lebanese army withdrew from al-Malikiya, handing it over to the ALA, on 8 July, at the end of the First Truce".
It is clear that the Lebanese army was involved actively, albeit on a limited scale, in the the 1948 War, and there are no grounds for removing the Lebanese flag from the list of belligerents.
JD
"It is clear that the Lebanese army was involved actively, albeit on a limited scale, in the the 1948 War"
Could you re-phrase what you mean by "was involved actively" ?
Pluto2012 (talk) 08:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
The Lebanese Army did not participate directly in the pan-Arab invasion of May 15, 1948. However, the Lebanese Army did participate directly in the battles of June 5-6, 1948, and did capture the village of al-Malikiya, and held it until July, 1948.
So, going back to my original point, the inaccurate quote from Yoav Gelber should be paraphrased or removed, to reflect the fact that the Lebanese Army was not kept out of the Arab coalition and the war throughout its duration...only initially.
JD
I share your mind. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Can you clarify whether these indicate Lebansese involvment: The Lebanese Army took the village of Malkiya, which was recaptured by the Israelis three days later.[8] On 6 June, a Syrian-Lebanese-Arab Liberation Army force retook Malkiya.[9] Ankh.Morpork 11:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
The second one does. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Volunteers

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

Copyedit request

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

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

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

Sean.holyland's bad logic

"but what matters is what you do to ensure that banned editors can't influence article content and disrupt the topic area." Why is that? That is the logical fallacy called "Throwing the Baby Out With the Bathwater." It's childish too. So because someone is banned, and they post something that is true and evident, you should delete it anyways? You're what's wrong with Wikipedia, it's filled with pride-filled, illogical, irrational, biased people like you. You're like a Pharisee. Pharisees with their Talmud, that is what Wikipedia is. And stop with the "but Wikipedia isn't about truth" whenever it's convenient to say such a Satanic thing. Of course Wikipedia tries to be truthful when it doesn't see it will compromise IT'S LIES. That reminds me, it's very noteworthy that Wikipedia claims to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit yet has moderators instructed to, and they do, ban anyone with a name that it believes compromises the "integrity" (meaning?) of Wikipedia. If that is true, anyone who points out that Wikipedia is flawed, is a propaganda tool of liberals and the biased in general then you should ban me. If you do, just remember, all the bans in the world won't keep the Pharisees from being banned in Hell forever. God always gets his way despite anyone's belief that they are somehow defeating him.Omegadeluxesupreme (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you want to discuss any particular edit to the encyclopaedia? Itsmejudith (talk) 08:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
You edited other people's posts in the section above. Don't do that again. My name is hoyland not holyland. They mean quite different things. Read WP:TALK to find out what talk pages are for. Thanks for your feedback but I use prayer to check with God before I make any edits. I haven't had any complaints so I think we're good. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:RS

Considering some comments from before about WP:RS, can you suggest several sources you consider WP:RS for both sides, so we can update some of the counts? I don't want add numbers only to realize that the reference for them in the book is controversial.--Mor2 (talk) 09:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Morris is fine. Karsch and Pappé are better avoided. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
The article currently contains 81 Karsh citations, probably the most cited author by some distance. The extensive "British diplomacy in support of the Arabs" section is based entirely on Karsh. I very much doubt the level of representation he receives in the article is supported by his prominence in the literature. Dlv999 (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Deleted content

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

The material was added by a notorious sock and banned user. And it was partly not correct, and partly badly sourced. Huldra (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Someone took responsibility for it, so the fact it came originally from a sock is irrelevant.
What specifically is badly sourced and not correct? It looks like it's sourced to Morris and Karsh and Pollack among others. If you have a problem with a specific section being badly sourced, you can remove that. But removing properly sourced information is not allowed and I'll be putting it back unless a good reason is supplied. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
There are better sources that Karsh, surely? And some were not sourced at all, eg the paragraph which started with "Over the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops (initial numbers) invaded the newly established state,". This is simply (mostly!) a lie, AFAIK. Correct me if I´m wrong, but apart from some Syrian forces which invaded the Galilee, no Arab forces invaded the "newly established" state of Israel; they invaded what was to have been the Arab/Palestinian state. In general, may I suggest that people do not add 5-6 k info at a time, without discussing first? Huldra (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The fact that it came from a sock is very relevant. It was restored by a sock too. Dishonesty is wrong. Don't facilitate it. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
@Huldra Karsh is a totally acceptable source. If you have a problem with just that one sentence, you can remove just that one sentence. I'll restore the stuff and you can remove only things you have a specific objection to and which are not properly sourced.
@Sean it was restored by brewcrewer who as far as I know is not a sock. I'll take your statement about facilitating dishonesty more seriously after the first time you report a sock you agree with politically (I know, I know, you are now going to claim you are not something everyone knows you are. Good luck). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
All these huge paragraphs didn't come from me (what you call "a sock"), but were there long time ago and it were arbitrarily removed by Pluto2012 without explaining anything in the talk page, despite he is the only one giving redundant information twice.--MelissaLond (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Blocked and tagged. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Yay, another political opponent removed. I'm still going to restore the information, unless someone has some policy based objection. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
There are policy based reasons for its removal. See article history. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
What specifically in the article history are you talking about? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
See here. nableezy - 21:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

NMMGG, instead of starting an edit war in supporting a sock that destroys the work of all of us, what kind of information precisely do you think should be [reinserted?] Most information was there twice (and contradictory) and other points are details. We talk about a WAR and some information talk about 2 planes that crashed here or this kibbutz that withstood to this or that. That is [nonsense]. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The information is sourced and these blanket reverts of sourced information with not even a nod towards policy will not stand. If you have a problem with specific text we can discuss it, but removing 5k of sourced information because it's "from a [sockpuppet]" is just not good enough anymore. As usual, in this as in everything else, I follow you guys' lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
You should stop facilitating dishonesty in the form of sockpuppetry. The political views of the sockpuppet are not relevant to this requirement. Questioning my integrity on this issue crosses a line[,] but what matters is what you do to ensure that banned editors can't influence article content and disrupt the topic area. You should review Wikipedia:Ban#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_banned_editors. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
No, sorry. Your obsession with socks is your business and interests me not much at all. If Zero doesn't think he needs to "ensure that banned editors can't influence article content" then neither do I. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
What information do you think that should be added? Pluto2012 (talk) 11:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Removing content added by a sockpupet is [in line] with the Wikipid[i]a['s] guidelines, but this long over and the discussion has change to introduction of valid content. I tend to agree with 'No More Mr Nice Guy', some of that content can be integrated, especially the parts of the last paragraph which links to 3 battles that took place during the war and not refereed anywhere else on this article(inside there many none karsh sources, if you decide he is not a valid source[, but], I have no opinion on the matter)--Mor2 (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


Regarding the recent yet again re-add/removal of info.

  1. I don't have objections with this [39] removal. Not because he is a sock but because I too think the info is little excessive, considering the air camping role in the grand scheme of things, plus the airbase incident already covered in the 'British forces in Palestine' section above. However, the Egyptian air campaign might be worth mentioning, in the context of them loosing their air superiority?
  2. I don't agree with edit[40] I think its worth noting Israel plan, just as we state the arb states plans, plus it lends it self nicely with reinforcements and weapons arriving after the first truce. Though it needs a source.
  3. I agree with this edit[41]. I am not certain about the volunteers from the Muslim Brotherhood role, if necessary merge them in the next section.
  4. As for this edit[42] there is some info that can be merged, for starters I added the links for the three battles.--Mor2 (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I reverted edit #2 based on you argument. --Frederico1234 (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The battle of Be'erot Yitzhak, for example, is described in detail in this article, like many other battles:

"The Egyptians then assaulted the lightly defended village of Be'erot Yitzhak. The Egyptians managed to penetrate the village perimeter, but the defenders concentrated in an inner position in the village and fought off the Egyptian advance until IDF reinforcements arrived and drove out the attackers. The Egyptians suffered an estimated 200 casualties, while the Israelis had 17 dead and 15 wounded. The battle was one of Egypt's last offensive actions during the war, and the Egyptians did not attack any Israeli villages following this battle."

So I don't understand why this edition can't be included as well:

"In one instance, Kfar Darom, after withstanding an attack by the Muslim Brotherhood, was attacked by Egyptian tanks who retreated after losing one tank to a PIAT.[10] Another example was the battle at kibbutz Nirim, where about 40 Israelis fought off repeated Egyptian attacks backed by artillery, armor and air power.[10] The most notable of these engagements was the Battle of Yad Mordechai, where an inferior force of 100 Israelis armed with nothing more than rifles, a medium machinegun and a PIAT anti-tank weapon, held up a column of 2,500 Egyptians, well-supported by armor, artillery and air units, for five days.[11] At the fifth night, the Israeli defenders, exhausted from the fighting and low on ammunition, withdrew from the settlement. This was unknown to the Egyptians who, on the following day, bombed the now empty kibbutz for four hours.[12] The Egyptians attacked Kibbutz Nitzanim which surrendered after a long firefight. Several Kibbutz members were killed after surrendering, but Egyptian soldiers prevented the local militiaman who had fought beside them from killing more POWs.[13] These battles were delaying actions, designed to give the Haganah time to prepare for the Egyptian attack."--Wolfgang Fontaine (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

We don't want to overwhelm the reader with excessive detail. If every battle is to be covered, this article will grow into a megabyte monster article. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, every battle is superficially covered in this article. No more than a sentence or two per event. We should apply the same standard to all operations and battles, furthermore if they were decisive engagements like the Battle of Yad Mordechai. And don't worry, because adding the paragraph above won't transform the text into a "megabyte monster article".--Wolfgang Fontaine (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
To be honest Wolfgang Fontaine has a point. For example see the amount of detail in the 'Anglo-Israeli air clashes' section, a couple of clashes has almost the same weight in the article as the whole third phase of the war.--Mor2 (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Every battle is superficially covered in this article? So I won't find any missing battle? No fight over a single village or hill not named in this article? --Frederico1234 (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Each battle should be given 1 or 2 sentences and no more indeed.
That is right. But it doesn't mean at all as the pov-socker does that it is a legitimate reason to add more details regarding other battles. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
There is not a single detail regarding the Battle of Yad Mordechai (for example) in your version. In any case, you didn't explain why you arbitrary removed some battles but not others. While the sockpuppet (I guess you refer to him when you say "socker") was blocked a few days ago. See here.--Wolfgang Fontaine (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
.
.
If the article covers the battle of Degania – talking about Molotov cocktails, hand grenades, PIAT and Napoleonchiks – so there is no argument to exclude decisive battles like Kfar Darom, Nirim, Yad Mordechai and Nitzanim. Specially if these events were delaying actions, designed to give the Haganah time to prepare for the Egyptian attack.--Wolfgang Fontaine (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The initial plan

Any though on how re rephrase the initial plan by the arab states, to reflect the actual situation (which was very similar minus co-operation part) without repetition . I am afraid that the "the plan was not carried out in the spirit envisioned" is to vague. --Mor2 (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If you have access to this book, you can have much more information about the Arab initia plan and the way it was finally implemented : Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948, Sussex University Press.
It can be said that "the plan was not carriedout in the spirit envisioned" but I agree with you it is vague.
Pluto2012 (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Egyptian air campaign

Regarding these texts, if the article in its current version cover the almost insignificant Israeli airstrikes over Amman, Arish, Gaza, Damascus and Cairo; so the first paragraph regarding Egyptian bombings of Tel Aviv should be included as well. About the second paragraph... I couldn't find any redundant information in the Anglo-Israeli air clashes section about the incident in Ramat David.--Wolfgang Fontaine (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You claim the airstrikes over Amman, Arish etc where "insignificant" and you argue this is a reason to keep the one on Tel-Aviv.
I assume that you meant that these ones should be removed too. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
No, as you never explained why did you removed specifically these paragraphs (without consulting here) and not the Israeli bombings on Arab cities.--Wolfgang Fontaine (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

neutrality dispute?

Which part of the article is or was disputed ?--Mor2 (talk) 04:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This flag is very old... Pluto2012 (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Removed stale tag that was about the lede. Apteva (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Transjordanian victory?

Could the user who paraphrased the result column to include "marginal Transjordanian victory" please explain what lies behind this unusual claim? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mirobolgeovn,
You question is legitimate.
It was well known but it is now more widely taken into account by historians that during the '48 war Jordan and Israel had the "unformal" agreement / mutual objective to share Palestine and to avoid the birth of an Arab State lead by the Mufti. In February 1948, Britain promised her support to the annexation of the Arab State by Adbullah if he agreed not to attack Israel.
So Jordan entered the '48 war with this objective... and it succeeded complying with it : they annexed West Bank and even captured East-Jerusalem.
Israel attacked them, particularly at Latrun but they succeeded to keep this important place. On the other side they failed to keep Ramlah and Lydda and the coalition in which they [were claiming] fight[ing], which had the objective to prevent the birht of the Israeli states failed.
So, it is not a total victory, such as Israel's one but a marginal victory.
Pluto2012 (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Any comment ? Pluto2012 (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
.
It was Pluto2012. Ask him.--Wolfgang Fontaine (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC) blocked sock
Hi miroblogeovn,
I checked and I see that user:Pluto2012 added this.
I don't know why he added this but we may have more information in asking him.
Pluto2012 (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Note for anyone concerned RE: PC2

Per a consensus on AN/I, this page has been PC2 protected for the time being, under the Ignore All Rules 'rule'. Anyone who needs an edit reviewed can either contact me on my talkpage, or go to #wikipedia-en-pc connect and ask someone there. Thanks. gwickwiretalkedits 04:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Foreign volunteers

If we indicate from where came the foreign volunteers who fought on the Arab side, we should indicate from where came the ones who fought on the Israeli side. Or to remove both : USA and France mainly. The other solution is just to specify Arab and Muslim world. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The volunteers for the Israeli side came from: USA (about 900), South Africa (600 - 700), UK, France, Canada and Latin America (200 - 300 each), Scandinavia (100 - 150) and some tens from other countries. Almost all of them were Jews, but some 150 were christians, generally hired professionals: air crews, maintenance experts etc.147.237.70.62 (talk) 11:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Weapons Section Needs to be Cleaned Up

The link is dead and the Israeli weapons are wildly inflated as far as I can tell. The only thing I can find as far as dated weapons are Avia 199s and Spitfires. I found an undated picture of a B-17 and some P-51Ds but the P-51s appear to be from the Sinai Campaign of 1956, not the War of 1948-49. As far as tanks go I can find one period picture of a H-35 and a modern picture of a Cromwell but I can't find the date. It appears to be after the war. I also found a picture of one broken down M4, but no information on it.

http://idf-israel1948.blogspot.com/2009/01/armor-and-tanks-1948-war-of.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalebfb (talk • contribs) 20:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. A P-51D is a P-51 broadly speaking... More the article about the P-51 gives the references for the use of Mustangs in the '48 war. We don't mind much blogspots. Secondary sources from books are more reliable.
Regarding the M4, I think IDF bought some disarmed ones in Italyin '48. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change the template {{pp-semi-sock}} to {{pp-protected}}, the page is not semi-protected. Also, please remove the {{pp-pc2}} template, PC protection was removed. Thanks. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

wiki-ize text

There are some good links not being used, such as Transjordan in the first paragraph rather than later on. Protection prevents established users from readability edits, which in some cases are sorely needed. So perhaps a lesser degree of protection is needed, or a Working Group established for such important articles. (DF - ubiquitous IP editor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfoofnik (talk • contribs) 13:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

suspected error-Took control of almost 60% of the area allocated to the proposed Arab state

On the 60 per cent, that's easily calculated in order to get an idea of what to google for.
  • Ruth Kark, ‘Planning, Housing, and Land Policy 1948-1942: The Formation of Concepts and Government Frameworks,’ Selwyn Ilan Troen, Noah Lucas (eds.) Israel: The First Decade of Independence, SUNY Press 1995 pp.461-494p.478 ‎ reads:

The UN Partition plan allocated 11.4 million dunams to the Arab state and 14.92 million dunams to the Jewish state. But when the fighting ended, the land area of Israel had grown to 20.6 dunams-and increase of 5.7 dunams.

As we all know the UN plan allocated 56% of Palestine to the minority, and at war's end Israel had 77.2 of the land (Philip Mattar (ed) Encyclopedia of the Palestinians, Infobase Publishing, (2000) 2005 p.294), thus gaining roughly 21% more land than it was allocated. With this elementary data, the calculations seem simple enough to establish what percentage of the land allocated to the Palestinians was incorporated into the nascent state of Israel.Nishidani (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
to Nishidani: based on your figures, The Arab territory was reduced from 11.4 by 5.7 million dunam. Thus it was reduced by 5.7/11.4 = 50%. This is a crude calculation, since it ignores the international enclave. A similar calculation based on other alternative ( that the growth includes whole of the Int'l enclave) leads to a lower percentage. The correct percentage is between these 2 number. However, it is forbidden to add an original research. Thus lets hope that someone may find the correct figure based on a good source.
We are actually allowed to make arithmetical calculations; they do not count as original research. But there isn't any particular need for it, so I think we should start with Kark's figures above. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

suspected error- The Arabs fought the 1948 war to meet Abdullah's political goals

suspected error-The Arab League blocked recruitment to al-Husayni's forces

  • "The Arab League blocked recruitment to al-Husayni's forces," - Al-Husayni moved at 1947 into Palestine with hundreds of fighters. Later he looked for more Palestinian fighters, rather than volunteers from Arab states. Thus this sentence is irrelevant. Ykantor (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Why is it relevant ? I don't undestand. Pluto2012
to pluto: After moving to Palestine, al-Husayni was busy with his army, trying to receive more arms and attract palestinians fighters. I don't recall anyone saying that al-Husayni have been actively calling for volunteres from other arab states.He might have financial problems with maintaining his army, but lack of fighters from abroad was not one of his main problems. Ykantor (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I never heard either that the Arab League would have blocked recruitment of al-Husayni troops so we would check this information from other sources and remove this.
Anyway al-Husayni had Bosnian fighters in his troops. Maybe the source refers to this (?). I don't know.
I wonder anyway if this is wp:due and if this could not be removed on that base.
Pluto2012 (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

suspected omission- The Arab leaders reluctantly decided to invade Palestine

  • "In April with the Palestinian defeat, the refugees coming from Palestine and the pressure of their public opinion, the Arab leaders reluctantly decided to invade Palestine" - King Abdulla wasn't reluctant, but rather enthusiast to take over the Arab territory and especially Jerusalem. Ykantor (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes. And another omission is that Ben Gurion didn't fix the bordars of Israel in the Independence proclamation. We need to explain how Palestinian Arabs were betrayed by everybody.- by pluto
You are right about Ben Gurion.
I understand the feeling of betrayal, but looking at retrospective (which is easy!) The Arab states were not sufficiently strong to defeat the Hagana , and should have told the Palestinians that a war is even worse than accepting the partition plan. But the Arab states didn't care about the Palestinians, and because of their own interests, lied to the Arab people and told them the opposite.
However, at real time,the Arab leaders had to take a major decision, based on assumption like: "At the start of the civil war, Whitehall believed that the Arabs would prevail. “In the long run the Jews would not be able to cope . . . and would be thrown out of Palestine unless they came to terms with [the Arabs],” was the considered judgment of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff". (benni morris, 1948, p. 81 ) Thus , it is difficult to assess what they should have done. Ykantor (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
"Only for Jordan’s Abdullah was the invasion—viewed as a means to expand his kingdom—an immediate political priority" (benni morris, 1948, p. 186 ) Ykantor (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok. But do you mean we should remove the sentence "In April with the Palestinian defeat, the refugees coming from Palestine and the pressure of their public opinion, the Arab leaders reluctantly decided to invade Palestine" ? Pluto2012 (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
to pluto: this sentence is Ok , except the "reluctantly" issue. One should add that Abdula was eager anex the planned arab state territories. Ykantor (talk) 09:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I understand.
I think the "reluctantly" comes directly from Gelber.
(...)
I checked : it is at the end of p.11 of his book Palestine 1948 (2006).
He also gives a summary for Egypt, Lebanon and Transjordan. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

suspected error-The Arab Legion fought only in the areas that King Abdullah wanted to secure for Jordan

  • "The Arab Legion joined the war in May 1948, but fought only in the areas that King Abdullah wanted to secure for Jordan: the West Bank and East Jerusalem." The legion has attacked Jewish convoy at Ben Shemen, during early 1948, and Kibuts Gezer at mid 1948. Ykantor (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    • That is not enough to claim that it would be wrong. The attack of the convoy was done under British rule and the Kibbutz of Gezer attack was a counter-attack during the offensives of Latrun. That cannot be counted that way. Again the global pictures counts.
    • Anyway, if you want we can go to that direction.
    • We should add that Haganah invaded territories of the future States in April. Haganah took Acre and Jaffa. It also conquered the West Coast above Acre and took a number of villages between Latrun and Jerusalem which were located in the Arab State. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
to pluto:you are right, that the Hagana took over those place, although it were in the planned Arab partition. "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" ( benni morris, 1948, p. 119)
to pluto: The attack of the Arab Legion on Gezer, is not a Counterattack as defined: "The general objective is to negate or thwart the advantage gained by the enemy during attack, whilst the specific objectives typically seek to regain lost ground or destroy the attacking enemy". Ykantor (talk) 01:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "The Arab Legion has attacked Jewish targets as early as starting of 1948" - quotation: "On 14 December, a second convoy, headed for Ben Shemen, near Lydda, was shot up near the Beit Nabala military camp: fourteen Jews were killed and ten injured—shot by Arab Legionnaires serving with the British army in Palestine." The full date is 14 Dec 1947. source: Benni Morris, 1948 A History of the First Arab-Israeli War, p.105. Ykantor (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I answered here above. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
What is your proposal to keep fairly the global idea and to make the sentence totally right ? Pluto2012 (talk) 08:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
to pluto: it would be more accurate to write: "The Arab Legion re-joined the war in May 1948, and fought mainly in the areas that King Abdullah wanted to secure for Jordan: the West Bank and East Jerusalem". If you add info concerning Acre and Jaffa and so on, it is OK as well. Ykantor (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with your proposal (and I don't think more information regarding Jaffa and Acre are required given your proposal). In fact : only -> mainly.
Pluto2012 (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ Gelber, p.55
  2. ^ Uthman Hasan Salih, DAWR AL-MAMLAKA AL-`ARABIYYA AL-SA`UDIYYA FI HARB FILASIN 1367H/1948 (The role of Saudi Arabia in the Palestine war of 1948), Revue d'Histoire Maghrébine [Tunisia] 1986 13(43–44): 201–221. ISSN: 0330-8987.
  3. ^ Morris, 2008, p. 205. Morris cites British diplomatic communications.
  4. ^ Rogan & Shlaim, 2001, p. 8.
  5. ^ Gelber, p.55
  6. ^ Uthman Hasan Salih, DAWR AL-MAMLAKA AL-`ARABIYYA AL-SA`UDIYYA FI HARB FILASIN 1367H/1948 (The role of Saudi Arabia in the Palestine war of 1948), Revue d'Histoire Maghrébine [Tunisia] 1986 13(43–44): 201–221. ISSN: 0330-8987.
  7. ^ Morris, 2008, p. 205. Morris cites British diplomatic communications.
  8. ^ Karsh 2002, p. 26
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference Karsh2002p60 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Karsh2002p56 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ Karsh 2002, p. 57
  12. ^ Pollack (2004), p. 17
  13. ^ Morris, Benny (2009). 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War. Yale University Press. p. 244. ISBN 978-0-300-15112-1.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1948_Arab–Israeli_War/Archive_17&oldid=1144150228"