Jump to content

Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2014

Under the below heading Irgun, there are no numbers relating to the Irgun. There is only 1 sentence relating to the Irgun - the first, ending in "by the British.[44]". Since that paragraph states the Irgun were terrorists, having unrelated information - non-Irgun information - about tens of thousands of Jewish fighters implies they, too, were terrorists. That is prejudicial and incorrect. The sentences of non-irgun information should be moved to the Manpower heading.


Manpower

In November 1947, the Haganah was an underground paramilitary force that had existed as a highly organized, national force, since the Arab riots of 1920–21, and throughout the riots of 1929, Great Uprising of 1936–39,[40] and World War 2. It had a mobile force, the HISH, which had 2,000 full-time fighters (men and women) and 10,000 reservists (all aged between 18 and 25) and an elite unit, the Palmach composed of 2,100 fighters and 1,000 reservists. The reservists trained three or four days a month[citation needed] and went back to civilian life the rest of the time. These mobile forces could rely on a garrison force, the HIM (Heil Mishmar, lit. Guard Corps), composed of people aged over 25. The Yishuv's total strength was around 35,000 with 15,000 to 18,000 fighters and a garrison force of roughly 20,000.[40][43]

Irgun

The Irgun, whose activities were considered by MI5 to be terrorism, was monitored by the British.[44] There were also several thousand men and women who had served in the British Army in World War II who did not serve in any of the underground militias but would provide valuable military experience during the war.[45] Walid Khalidi says the Yishuv had the additional forces of the Jewish Settlement Police, numbering some 12,000, the Gadna Youth Battalions, and the armed settlers.[46] Few of the units had been trained by December 1947.[40] On 5 December 1947, conscription was instituted for all men and women aged between 17 and 25 and by the end of March, 21,000 had been conscripted.[47] On 30 March, the call-up was extended to men and single women aged between 26 to 35. Five days later, a General Mobilization order was issued for all men under 40.[48]

By March 1948, the Yishuv had a numerical superiority, with 35,780 mobilised and deployed troops for the Haganah,[49][50] 3,000 of Stern and Irgun, and a few thousand armed settlers.[51]

71.237.132.211 (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — LeoFrank  Talk 06:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2015

To be historically accurate, in 1948, "Palestinian-Arab forces", sited in the article did not exist. 207.237.117.158 (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

207.237.117.158 (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done There is no mention of "Palestinian-Arab forces" in the article - it discusses Palestinian Arabs, the Arab league, and the Arab Liberation Army - all of which did exist. - Arjayay (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Jordan had partial victory, don't you think?

Jordan wanted to annex the area west to the Jordan river. Since the second ceace fire, the frontline in Samaria havent canged almost entirly, the Jordanians belived that they could exploit a silent front with the Israeli front because they didn't want to loose alot of land. In the end they annexed the West Bank and enjoyed the area and the people (gave them citizenship). Isn't it a partial victory? I mean, of course the main official plan was to destroy Israel, but all countries joined the war for their intrests in establishing a united Arab entity or just carving some lands (As Syria wanted the whole "Greater Syria" areas and they belived they could take the Galilee and Egypt wanting to annex the Negev desert). Jordan did managed to earn some of what they wanted and they havent lost to many fights in compare to Egypt.

What I offer is that we will put in the "resaults" section "Jordanian partial victory". Bolter21 (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

You are right and 2 sources can be given for this :
  • Anita Shapira, L'imaginaire d'Israël : histoire d'une culture politique (2005), Latroun : la mémoire de la bataille, Chap. III. 1 l'événement p. 91–96
  • Benny Morris, 1948, (2008), p.419.
Pluto2012 (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
@Pluto2012:Excuse me for forgetting about this talk.Seems you have solid references. Would you mind adding them to the "resaults" in the infobox? I am going on a vacation soon and ain't nobody got time for that.--Bolter21 (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense sentence

"As a result of the war the State of Israel retained the area that the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 had recommended for the proposed Jewish state as well as almost 60% of the area of Arab state proposed by the 1948 Partition Plan.[16]"

I do not know how to interpret this sentence, but any way I do it, the result is nonsense.

The Mandate of Palestine was approximately 47,000 sqmi. Approximately 20% of Palestine was allotted to the Jews, 80% to the new state called Trans-Jordan, the Arab state. So if the Jews ended up with 60% of the Arab allotment, Israel would be 5x the size of Jordan, which it has never been. Area of Israel today: 8,500 sqmi included the annexed regions of Golan and Jerusalem (18% of the Mandate), and the West Bank is 2000 sqmi (4% of the Mandate). Area of Jordan today: 35,500 sqmi (76% of the Mandate). Even if I interpret this as, "after the 1949 Armistice the Jewish area of Israel was 40% of what the UN had allotted to the Jews, while 60% was captured Arab allotments," which is of course NOT what the sentence says, this too is nonsense. I try a third time by seeing if the any Arab group lost 60% of their land, also not what the sentence says, and I find this nowhere.

The sentence leads the reader to conclude that Jews cheated the Arabs by forcibly taking vast areas of land that were Arab, when in fact nothing of a sort ever took place. One has to wonder about the intent of publishing such nonsense.

The map of the Partition is equally misleading. Leaving out Trans-Jordan leaves out 80% of the Mandate. 69.146.183.26 (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC) 69.146.183.26 (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Unbalanced statistics

Why does the Arab total not include logistics but the Israeli total does? It vastly inflates the numbers. For example, the book "Militarization and State Power in the Arab-Israeli Conflict" gives 45,000 to 70,000 Israeli troops and 94,000 Arab troops. This should really be remedied.--Monochrome_Monitor23:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe that the source you added is better than what you removed. You also didn't bother to reference it properly. Bare URLs are not adequate, especially when they don't even link to the right page. The figures are far higher that those of specialist authors and seem to be lifted from inflated numbers published by Anthony Cordesman. Zerotalk 02:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
So it's the bare URL that's the problem? Those are all over the place, seems like a red herring to me. And do you have any evidence Anthony Cordesman is not RS? I've never heard of him until now, but he's head of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Seems pretty legit. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
And surely citations are better than no citations. I didn't look in google for "biased estimate of combat troops in Arab-Israeli war". I looked for "combat troops involved in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war" with some Boolean operators and found the link. It was the closest thing to a breakdown I could find. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
And the estimates are lopsided considering the Arab troops only include combat, but Israeli troops includes logistics and reserves. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
That seems to be just your private theory. There is no reason to believe that the many good sources which estimate troop strength aren't using the same criteria for both sides. To give one example, the strength of the IDF by its own reckoning was already 88,000 by October 1948 and continued to grow until the end of 1949. So a final figure of 70,000 is simply wrong. The Arab counts in that source are far higher than in books by Israeli military specialists like Amitzur Ilan. I'm wondering if Cordesman might be counting the entire Arab armies rather than what was committed to Palestine. Zerotalk 23:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@Monochrome Monitor :
You should also take more time to the reading of the sources you use. Eg using this, you introduced the number 94,500 instead of 55,000 whereas it mentions the same numbers as currently in the article for the Arab side. If this questions of the relative forces interests you, you should try to take some hours to check the different sources on the topic and gather all the information, try to cross-check, identify potential mistakes or misunderstanding (they don't always talk about the same think), ... Pluto2012 (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
No, it's not my own reading. It literally says it in the source "only includes combat troops". --Monochrome_Monitor 03:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
And did you read your sources? That would be a miracle, because none are listed for most of the statistics. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Things in the lead, which includes the infobox, don't need to be sourced if they are sourced in the body of the article, see WP:LEADCITE. Zerotalk 11:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Monochrome,
I didn't read the sources of this article ; that's correct.
But because I know these numbers by heart. I read several books (entirely) about the 1948 war.
When sources give "new" numbers, I check them.
Sometimes I also check when I am not sure.
Pluto2012 (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I checked the link, it's dead for me. Wait, you're a bot aren't you? Don't answer that. To clarify: I'm not claiming that the Arabs greatly outnumbered the Israelis in the war like they did in 67 and 73, I believe the forces were somewhat even numerically at least with it being very possible that there were more Israeli forces later in the war than Arab forces. What I object to is the including of Israeli logistical and combat forces but the including of only Arab combat forces (again, in the source description), which is inherentely unbalanced. --Monochrome_Monitor 12:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC) What I'm concerned about is that there are no in-line references to verify the numbers. "knowing them by heart" from a book isn't reassuring. I want to know because I'm genuinely curious. I've looked into it (with a search engine) and have found the classical history (arabs outnumbered israelis in troops and firepower) and the "new history", I guess this article would follow the latter. The dichotomy between them is huge, and frankly unsettling. I'd like a citation from a reliable source that can be easily accessed online. --Monochrome_Monitor 12:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The information can be found in the following Israeli sources :
  • Benny Morris, 1948. The First Arab-Israeli War, Yale University Press.
  • Yoav Gelber, 1948 Palestine War, Sussex Academic Press.
If you are interested to undersand the '48 war I suggest you the 1st one from which you can have all details. Pluto2012 (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2015

According to the Hebrew version of this article, this war ended on July 20th, 1949, but not on March 10th, 1949. Avi12641 (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done - Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Arjayay (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Palestinian Exodus sources

Should we add a few more sources to the Palestinian Exodus section? Say Benny Morris & other 'New Historians' as they are called in Israel? Merlov1 02:13 AM, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I belive there are enough in the article on the Palestinian Exodus.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Nakba article unprotected

Does anyone find it odd that the Nakba article is unprotected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.18.217.96 (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 October 2016

The article states: "In the three years following the war, about 700,000 Jews immigrated to Israel with many of them having been expelled from their previous countries of residence in the Middle East." - Yet the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries states: "Following the establishment of the State of Israel, a plan to accommodate 600,000 immigrants over four years, doubling the existing Jewish population, was submitted by the Israeli government to the Knesset.[6] The plan, however, encountered mixed reactions; there were those within the Jewish Agency and government who opposed promoting a large-scale emigration movement among Jews whose lives were not in danger.[6]" - So it seems highly biased to say they were "expelled".

144.138.159.159 (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Wikipedia cannot be used to cite itself. If you can provide a reliable, third-party source that states the contrary, we ill be happy to make the change. Topher385 (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I was thinking about adding and taking out information on this page. Also, I though about adding a couple citations. My plans are more detailed below. o Changes to strength 

 •	Final Israeli strength was 113,300, not 117,500.  
 •	Add citations Egypt and Iraq.  Change number of Syrians to 3,000 and add citation.  Transjordan change to 4,500.

o Changes to Military Assessments under Initial line-up of forces, first sentence first paragraph 

 •	The first sentence perpetuates the idea that Israel was an underdog in the fight against the Arabs.  
   -Delete “Though the state of Israel faced the formidable armies of neighboring Arab counties, yet due to previous battles by the middle of May the Palestinians themselves hardly existed as a military force.”
   -Replace with “Contrary to what most believe, the 1948 war between the Israelis and Arabs was not a clash between David (Israel) and Goliath (Arabs).  The Israelis devoted much more man power than those of the Arabs states.”
   -Delete second paragraph as it is no longer useful or true.

o Under weapons, add how the Arabs at the start of the war had more weapons, but the scale tipped through the war 

 •	Add “As the war progressed, the number of weapons procured by the Israelis increased.  Weapons and planes came from America, or were bought and sent to Israel by people like Ehud Avriel.”

All of my information and citations will be from “Israel’s Wars, 1947-93” by Ahron Bregman.

Citation: Bregman, A. (2001). Israel's Wars, 1947-90. New York, NY: Routledge.

If any body had any comments or concerns, please reply on this talk page or mine. Thanks! --Danrieck (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Unbalanced

The article is tagged as being unbalanced (since 2014) and I have not looked at the archives, nor do I see a discussion relevant to the tag, only concerning errors. If possible I would like to see some discussion concerning this. Otr500 (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Photo of night time shelling of Jerusalem

The caption of the photograph in the section Battles of Latrun - Jordanian artillery shelling Jerusalem in 1948 - is disputed. The visual evidence suggests that it is of flares being fired over the Old City. Probably during the failed attack on the Jaffa Gate which coincided with the short lived relief of the Jewish Quarter via the Zion Gate. Padres Hana (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:1948-Jordanian artillery shelling Jerusalem.jpg If its this one, you're correct that is star shells ie illuminating rounds. WCMemail 18:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2017

The name of al-Husayni is written wrongly "al-Hasayni" once: please correct. Lancioni (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lancioni: Done, thanks for your contribution. Murph9000 (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect or faulty research

The article claims that in 1948, "Although the Arab invasion was denounced by the United States, the Soviet Union, and UN secretary-general Trygve Lie, it found support from Taiwan and other UN member states." However, Taiwan was not an independent entity at the time; it was under the control of the Republic of China, which at the time controlled southern China as well as Taiwan. The ROC would only come to rule Taiwan as its own, de facto independent nation starting in 1949. The article would be more responsibly worded with "it found support from the Republic of China and other UN member states". 111.82.114.140 (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

British Funding

I believe that the two largest Arab armies in the war - Egypt and Transjordan - were both British-funded, British-trained and under significant British influence. To the extent that it is highly unlikely that they could have participated in the war without British consent.

Does anyone have any sources covering this question?

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2018

I request that "Anyway, the Yishuv perceived the peril of an Arab invasion as threatening its very existence. Having no real knowledge of the Arabs' true military capabilities, the Jews took Arab propaganda literally, preparing for the worst and reacting accordingly."[67]" ["Political Objectives - The Arab League as a whole"] be taken out as it literally repeats what was said right above it at the end of "Political Objectives - Yishuv". 78.100.252.128 (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2018

Under "King Abdullah I of Jordan": "While repeating assurances that Jordan would only take areas allocated to a future Arab State, on the eve of war Tawfik Abu al-Huda told the British that were other Arab armies to advance against Israel, Jordan would follow suit." I believe that there should be a "the" inserted into "told the British that were [the] other Arab armies..." Coreybchapman (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: "Were other" is non-specific and inserting the definite article would imply specificity. The current statement can also be read as, "if some group of armies from Arab states advanced...' while inserting "the" would make it, "if a specific group of armies form Arab states advanced..." This changes the meaning and would need verification against the source cited. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2018

Change "One of the Egyptian force two main columns" to "One of the Egyptian forces' two main columns" (added an s'). Coreybchapman (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2018

Spell "ignores" properly: "This figure ignors the Negev desert which wasn't under any absolute control of either side." Coreybchapman (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2018

Under "King Abdullah I of Jordan"

"King Abdullah was the commander of the Arab Legion, the strongest Arab army involved in the war.[74] However, the Egyptian army was the most powerful and threatening army": this is contradictory. The Egyptian army was considered Arab as well, as mentioned in various places in the article below. One should be taken out. Coreybchapman (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done for now:This represents a conflict between statements sourced to two different sources and cannot be answered through an edit request. If other editors have access to Rogan, Eugene L. and Avi Shlaim, eds. (2007) The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge UP and Morris, Benny (2008), 1948: The First Arab-Israeli War, Yale University Press, New Haven then the competing claims can be analyzed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggishorn (talk • contribs) 19:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
That definitely needed clarification, so it has been  Fixed.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  05:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  16:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC on article names

Please see the RFC discussion at Talk:1948 Palestine war, the outcome of which may impact the name of 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and 1948 Arab–Israeli War as well. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Taiwan… in 1948?

This sentence is obviously incorrect: “Although the Arab invasion was denounced by the United States, the Soviet Union, and UN secretary-general Trygve Lie, it found support from Taiwan and other UN member states.” In 1948, the civil war in China was still going on, and the capital of the Republic of China was just moved from Nanjing to Guangzhou. Taiwan was still just one of the provinces of the Republic of China. So “Taiwan” should be replaced either simply by “China” or, to avoid any possible confusion, by “Republic of China”. De wafelenbak (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Name change

The name of this article should be changed from the 1948 Arab-Israeli War to the Israeli War of Independence. The former name is misleading since more than a fourth of the war took place during 1949. Furthermore, the latter name is used much more widely - thus it's more qualified for WP:UCRN.

Due to the potential controversiality of my suggestion, I'm leaving it open for discussion here before I make the edit. (((TPG)))stalk 20:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad infinitum. Put "War of Independence" in the archive search box above and you'll get a whole page of hits. There is more debate archived on the talk pages of 1947–1949 Palestine war and 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. Given that the story is divided between three articles like this, we need to come up with three neutral names and focussing on the name of just one of the three parts won't work. Be prepared to propose and defend three names if you want to reopen the debate, but I seriously hope you won't reopen it as I'm sure that I'm not the only one who is tired of it. Zerotalk 01:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. I just scrolled through the archive. Still though, only this article's name is flawed, the names of the other two that you linked to are just fine. I don't see any reason why we would need to change any more than this one. (((TPG)))stalk 01:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
You should start official proposal for name change if want it --Shrike (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
@Shrike: 🔝Done. [1] (((TPGstalk))) 15:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 27 August 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Closing and striking sockpuppet’s proposal, which has been widely discussed very recently Onceinawhile (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


1948 Arab–Israeli War → Israeli War of Independence – The former name is misleading since more than a fourth of the war took place during 1949. Furthermore, the latter name is used much more widely, making it more qualified for WP:UCRN. Please note that I'm only requesting that this article be renamed - not the 1947–1949 Palestine war or the 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. (((TPGstalk))) 15:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • Comment War of 1812 most of the war took place not in 1812 only about a fifth of the war was fought in 1812. Per this ngram Israeli War of Independence is more common עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The word independent is a problem....and the fact the proposed title omits one of the parties involved. Academic references use "First Arab-Israeli War" to distinguish it from others....and to make clear who was involved. Benny Morris (October 2008). 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-14524-3..... Moxy (talk) 06:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME as clear by Google NGram of Israeli War of Independence,1948 Arab–Israeli War,First Arab-Israeli War.Icewhiz (talk) 06:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for three reasons. First, the proposed name is purely Israel-centric and so fails neutrality requirements. Second, the date defect can easily be changed by replacing "1948" with "1948–1949". Third, the existing name is extremely common so the COMMONNAME argument is invalid. To see how dangerous it is to rely on ngrams, try it without "1948": [2] and exactly the opposite comparison appears (and similarly if "1948" is attached to "Israeli War of Independence"). All that is being tested is the effect of attaching a year. Zerotalk 07:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
    "Arab-Israel war" (or wars - which the NGRAM above catches well.) refers to a number of wars - with Six-Day War and Yom Kippur War being of similar significance to this one.Icewhiz (talk) 07:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
True, but if you compare "1948 Arab-Israeli War" to "1948 Israeli War of Independence" the first wins by a factor of more than three. What these ngrams prove is that are lots of things you can "prove" using ngrams. Alternatively, since we should prefer usage in scholarly sources we can check "1948 Arab-Israeli War" versus "Israeli War of Independence" (using quotes) at Google Scholar. The first wins 2130 to 1340. That test is imperfect too, but these observations show that it is impossible to argue for "Israeli War of Independence" on the basis of most common usage. Zerotalk 10:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 September 2018

In the sentense: "Though the state of Israel faced the formidable armies of neighbouring Arab counties..." please replace the word "counties" with "countries". This can be found at the top of the Military assessments section. cannona (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Done.Icewhiz (talk) 08:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

New info about expulsion

"Six months after the War of Independence ended, David Ben-Gurion sought to expel more than 10,000 Arabs from the north, for unspecified 'security reasons." [3] can someone enter this article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

The letter after the war ended so it not relevant moreover the expulsion was not carried out.-Shrike (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

East Jerusalem

@Nableezy: - when the photo in diff was taken - neither East nor West Jerusalem existed, and zones of control inside of Jerusalem were in flux. Jerusalem by itself should be a neutral descriptor (alternately, Old City (Jerusalem) is also accurate and more specific).Icewhiz (talk) 10:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Old City is fine.
Are we sure “conquest” is neutral?
Onceinawhile (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
takeover? defeat? victory over? Icewhiz (talk) 10:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
”taking control over” strikes me as factual and unemotional. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Fine with me, though I think with the current sentence it would be "taking control of".Icewhiz (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Done. I also changed Jewish quarter to Old City, as the Church of the HS is not in the Jewish quarter. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: - but that's inaccurate or misleading, as the Jordanians controlled the Christian quarter. Yishuv control was limited to the Jewish quarter (the central southern bit of the old city - quite a bit away from the church) - the contact line ran through the old city. On the 28th of May the last of the Jewish forces in the Jewish quarter surrendered - and the Jordanians gained control over the entire old city - but they controlled most of the old city from the outset (from Nov 1947 - Arab irregulars priors to the Jordanians entering the fray). The dating on the photo is quite relevant - the visit on the 29th came after a significant gain (though much more symbolic than military) in the battle. Icewhiz (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Fair point – how about “took full control” or “consolidated control”. It just strikes me as very confusing to mentioned the Jewish quarter in a photo not in the Jewish quarter without explaining the relevance of the Jewish quarter, which as you say, represented completing their control of the whole old city. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Start of the war?

This recently-added chunk reads as nonsense despite being cited. 

   The first deaths of the 1948 war occurred on November 30, 1947. Occurring during an ambush of two buses caring Jewish.[4]

How do the deaths occur before the year starts? "caring" = "carrying"? etc. KellenT 05:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I have removed it. Jonney2000, you have rightly highlighted a problem here, but it is a bigger issue that just this one sentence.
Scholars who call this the "1948 war" mean the 1947-49 period of conflict. We at Wikipedia carve it into two pieces.
In the last 30 days, 1947–1949 Palestine war ("main article") has received 5,107 pageviews, 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine ("sub article, part I") has received 3,140 pageviews, and 1948 Arab–Israeli War ("sub article, part II") has received 47,079 pageviews. Something is very wrong here.
Onceinawhile (talk) 08:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Why are you removing sourced content? Morris says that the 1948 war started in 1947. This is the article about the 1948 war so it will stay.Jonney2000 (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Also 1948 Arab–Israeli War is the name of the war not the date it started.Jonney2000 (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Should just be one article, probably called "1948 War" (as most refer to it, since the conflict began in December 1949 and its main battles ended already in November 1948), and these two articles should be called something like "Civil war phase" and "Arab nations invasion". Most of the information should go to the article talking about all of the conflict, and the views will go there as well (due to the name) and the two other articles will go into further detail for these periods.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. It was a struggle to build consensus at Talk:1947–1949_Palestine_war#A_chart_showing_the_real_issue_with_the_page_titles. I think the outcome was mistaken.
Jonney2000’s statement “1948 Arab–Israeli War is the name of the war not the date it started” is well said, but of course, it refers not to this article but the one currently named 1947-1949...
Any ideas on the best way to get a consensus to fix this? Onceinawhile (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I personally believe my statements in that argument was good enough, but probably so does everyone else. Benny Morris conveniently calls it the "1948 war", and frankly speaking, I think it is the best, most common and neutral term. "1947-1949 Palestine War", and even "1948 Palestine War" is simply unacceptable. "Arab-Israeli" is wrong, since Israel didn't exist up until May, and calling it the "Nakba" or "War of Independence" chooses one side's narrative.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
It should be noted that the name of the article does not change its content, it only drags readers. The article can be called "1948 war" and the lead section can say "the war began officially in December 1947 and ended in June 1949, with its main fighting phase between March 1948 and January 1949. The war is also referred as "1948 Palestine War" or Nakba, War of Independence...", which is pretty much what the lead section already does. I have an abundance of sources about the war (books mostly), but I because most of the views go to one article, I prefer to work on this article. Most of the views should go to the article that talks about the entire war.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@Bolter21: I just read through the whole of that thread. There was no strong objection to “1948 War”, but a few people said they felt it was not specific enough. If we were to propose a move (perhaps we do it jointly so it looks bipartisan?), it strikes me we’d have more luck if we propose some brackets. Should be only one choice though, as multiple choice RFCs rarely have clear outcomes. Some options:
  1. 1948 War (Palestine)
  2. 1948 War (Palestine and Israel)
  3. 1948 War (Palestine-Israel)
  4. 1948 War (Israel and Palestine)
  5. 1948 War (Israel-Palestine)
Number 1 reflects the name of the place which was divided as a result of the war, and acknowledges Pluto’s point that there were many sides to the conflict, not just two. Number 2/3 has Palestine first (chronologically) and Israel after as new country that came out of the war. Number 4/5 is the same but is alphabetical.
Onceinawhile (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Number one shouldn't be the one we chose. People who read a bit know that "Palestine" is first and foremost a name, but in the political discourse, it is misleading due to the Palestinian narrative. I prefer either Number 3 or number 5. "Palestine and Israel" or the opposite one are also tricky. Is it Israel against Palestine? Is Palestine a land or a nation? Is Israel a land or a nation? Some readers, mostly Jewish, use the term "Land of Israel"... Therefore I think Palestine-Israel or Israel-Palestine is the best options. I don't really care about the order.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@Bolter21: Ok. Many commentators in the last discussion strongly disagreed with your first two sentences, on the basis that Palestine is the contemporary name of the place when the war happened.
However, in the spirit of compromise I am happy to go with number 3. The order of the names reflects that the region began as Palestine, and Israel was declared during the war. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
As I said, it is correct to call it the "Palestine War" just like it is correct to say "Sinai War" or "Iraq War", but it is not the common term really, and saying the 1948 War is the war about "Palestine" is supporting the Palestinian narrative, since the Arabs of Palestine define themselves as Palestinians. This the "Israeli-Palestinian" conflict. I just say that people cite Wikipedia, whether they are educated or not and whether they've read the entire article or only the lead section. The title of an article has so much power. Just think how many school projects have used the most uncommon term "1947-1949 Palestine War", and as a former student, I know how stupid students are, so I think it is important to actually be precise in every word that exists in such controversial articles.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@Bolter21: OK. I propose to make the RM request at Talk:1947–1949 Palestine war on behalf of both of us if you agree?
Background will say something like:
Any comments, and/or your blessing for this as a joint proposal, would be appreciated. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
If you are going to only propose "1948 war (Palestine-Israel)" it's fine by me. I think since there is no other article about a "1948 war", the problem about them name not being spesific is not too serious, but I am willing to compromise on that if it will result in a consensus.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 02:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@Oncenawhile: I am going back to the military tommorow so feel free to cite my approval in any RFC you make. As I said, I will support "1948 war (Palestine-Israel)".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 February 2019

Some of the facts about the Palestinian Peace contract are false. IOI8921 (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please explain what specifically you would like changed (in this case I assume its removing the "false" facts) and provide reliable sources to back up your claim that the facts are false. Thanks, -- DannyS712 (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

1948: a bipartisan proposal

Please comment here on a bipartisan proposal to help fix the long-running structure/title issue on our articles covering the 1948 war. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Please comment at Talk:1947–1949 Palestine war#RfC: Should the three articles have a common prefix?. The current proposal would move this article to 1947–1949 Palestine war (May 1948 – Mar 1949). Once we have this issue of standardizing the titles out of the way, it would be good to debate one (hopefully last) time what the appropriate name for the group of articles is. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1947–1949 Palestine war which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion taking place on the 1947–1949 Palestine war article talkpage affects the title of the current article. I'm wondering why participation in the discussion has been fairly low.     ←   ZScarpia   21:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Another inaccuracy

Under Course of the war, Southern Negev

"Two of the planes crashed, killing a pilot"

Everything I have read about this operation records that only one plane crashed and three returned safely.

I propose "One of the planes crashed, killing a pilot"

Alan3278 (talk) 11:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 December 2019

CHANGE: Lebanon's strength (under "Arab forces" and in the right pane) FROM 1,000 TO 450.

CHANGE: "On 6 June, nearly two brigades of the Arab Liberation Army and the Lebanese Army took Al-Malkiyya and Qadas in what became the only intervention of the Lebanese army during the war" TO "On 6 June, a single brigade of the Lebanese Army took Al-Malkiyya and Qadas in what became the only intervention of the Lebanese army during the war. The Lebanese Army subsequently handed Malikiyya and Qadas over to the Arab Liberation Army on 8 July and returned to its side of the border.

CHANGE: "On 24 October, the IDF launched Operation Hiram and captured the entire upper Galilee area, driving the ALA and Lebanese Army back to Lebanon, and ambushing and destroying an entire Syrian battalion" TO "On 24 October, the IDF launched Operation Hiram and captured the entire upper Galilee area, driving the ALA into Lebanon, and ambushing and destroying an entire Syrian battalion"

CHANGE: "At the end of the month, the IDF had captured the whole of Galilee, driven all Lebanese forces out of Israel, and had advanced 5 miles (8.0 km) into Lebanon to the Litani River, occupying thirteen Lebanese villages. In the village of Hula" TO "At the end of the month, the IDF had captured the whole of Galilee, driven the ALA out of Israel, and had advanced 5 miles (8.0 km) into Lebanon to the Litani River,[202] occupying thirteen Lebanese villages. In the village of Hula"

SOURCE: Hughes, Matthew. (2005). Lebanon's Armed Forces and the Arab-Israeli War, 1948-49. Journal of Palestine Studies - J PALESTINE STUD. 34. 24-41. 10.1525/jps.2005.34.2.024. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240759698_Lebanon's_Armed_Forces_and_the_Arab-Israeli_War_1948-49 Stork19 (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey Stork. For this to work, we need specific citations. Please name the pages where each claim is supported and quote the exact sentences. Since you are a new editor, we have no idea if you can be trusted or not, but if you already quote literature, I am happy to help, just hoping you are not a WP:SOCK.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 Done Having obtained the source cited, I agree that the proposed edits are verified according to reliable sources. In all the cases where previous sources omitted or contradicted this sources, the previous sources were problematic as either generalist secondary sources, biased non-professional sources, or outdated and not focused on the Lebanese Army but treated the latter as a part of the Arab forces without distinction. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Great.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! A couple more edits below to preserve consistency with the rest of the article: --Stork19 (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

CHANGE: "According to Rogan and Shlaim, a token force of 1,000 was committed to the invasion. It crossed into the northern Galilee and was repulsed by Israeli forces." TO "According to Hughes, a token force of 436 was committed to the invasion. It crossed into northern Galilee where it remained for 32 days before withdrawing to its side of the border."

CHANGE: "10,000 Egyptians, 4,500 Jordanians, 3,000 Iraqis, 3,000–6,000 Syrians, 2,000 ALA volunteers, 1,000 Lebanese, and several hundred Saudis" TO "10,000 Egyptians, 4,500 Jordanians, 3,000 Iraqis, 3,000–6,000 Syrians, 2,000 ALA volunteers, 436 Lebanese, and several hundred Saudis" Stork19 (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done: The first change has been made but the second has not. Although Hughes (2005) makes it clear that only one battalion was involved at Al-Malkiyya and Qadas, there was a full brigade in the south at the eve of the war. This confusion between brigades and battalions seems endemic in the historiography. Nevertheless, the statement that about 1,000 Lebanese army soldiers were available "on the eve" of the war is supported by Hughes and the other sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Adding a source for the section on the forces of the Arab States

Hello, I signed up specifically to make a comment on this matter after seeing the [citation needed] next to the description of Egyptian forces in the "Initial Line up of Forces" section, because I'm pretty sure I know what the original source is, even if I do not know where that source got it from.

The paragraph in question is as follows:

″In 1948, Egypt's army was able to put a maximum of around 40,000 men into the field, 80% of its military-age male population being unfit for military service and its embryonic logistics system being limited in its ability to support ground forces deployed beyond its borders.[citation needed] Initially, an expeditionary force of 10,000 men was sent to Palestine under the command of Maj. Gen. Ahmed Ali al-Mwawi. This force consisted of five infantry battalions, one armoured battalion equipped with British Light Tank Mk VI and Matilda tanks, one battalion of sixteen 25-pounder guns, a battalion of eight 6-pounder guns and one medium-machine-gun battalion with supporting troops.[citation needed]

The Egyptian Air Force had over 30 Spitfires, 4 Hawker Hurricanes and 20 C47s modified into crude bombers.[citation needed]″


This is almost a direct copy of the following paragraph from Arabs At War by Kenneth M. Pollack:

″Expecting a quick victory over the Jews, Egypt initially dispatched about 10,000 men to Palestine. Although they had had little combat experience during World War II, morale was high among the Egyptians because they had little regard for the fighting qualities of their Jewish opponents. Cairo’s expeditionary force was commanded by Maj. Gen. Ahmed ‘Ali al-Mwawi and consisted of five infantry battalions, an armored battalion with British Mark VI and Matilda tanks, a battalion of sixteen 25-pounder guns, a battery of eight 6-pounder guns, a medium-machine-gun battalion, and supporting troops. In addition, the Egyptian Air Force had over thirty Spitfires and four Hawker Hurricanes operational to support the invasion force in addition to twenty C-47 transports, which Egyptian mechanics had transformed into crude bombers.″

As such, I am almost certain that the source is Pollack's Arabs At War, and suggest that the article be updated to reflect this.

Lazer Raptor (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Lazer Raptor: can you provide a page number/numbers for the citation, so that can be added as well? Thanks. Seagull123 Φ 15:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
@Seagull123: The paragraph I quoted is page 32 of my PDF version of the book, although this may be different in the print copy. Sadly I do not have a print copy on me to confirm this. I hope this helps! Lazer Raptor (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done ​See my edit here. Thanks! Seagull123 Φ 14:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC) Seagull123 Φ 14:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

"Jewish Soldiers and Civilians Looted Arab Neighbors' Property en Masse in '48. The Authorities Turned a Blind Eye"

New locked article about looting: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.highlight.MAGAZINE-jews-looted-arab-property-en-masse-in-48-the-authorities-let-them-1.9201926 Can someone access it and ad the relevant info to the article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

First phase: 15 May – 11 June 1948

According to the article: 

Several hours later, Iraq and the neighboring Arab states, Egypt, Transjordan and Syria, invaded the newborn state,[138][139] and immediately attacked Jewish settlements.[17] What was now Israel had already, from 1 April down to 14 May, conducted 8 of its 13 full-scale military operations outside of the area allotted to a Jewish state by partition

This is misleading. I can't find a single example in the article of the Arab states invading the area allotted to the Jewish state. Only entering the area allotted to a Arab state by partition in which Jewish forces were conducting military operations. --77.126.61.185 (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

For example, the article clearly states that Jordan only taken areas allocated to a future Arab state. So it is false to say they invaded the newborn Israeli state. In fact, Battel of latrun, in which Jordanian forces were involved, was conducted by Jewish forces inside the area allotted for the Arab state, which suggest that Israel is doing the invading. --77.126.61.185 (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2021

Rudolf Hortz (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

This edit request does not request any edits and has been marked as "answered". If you think we've made a mistake, reply to this comment with a more specific description of your desired changes. TGHL ↗ 16:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

"Jewish bribes"

Can someone find the exact quote from Gelber? In any case I find this particular wording... objectionable. Better possibilities would be "bribes from X", where X is whatever specific Jewish entity did the bribing (Haganah, Lehi, Palmach... even "Yishuv", but do we have to say quote-unquote "Jewish bribes")? Thanks. --Calthinus (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The sentence, including the phrase "Jewish bribes" is almost word-for-word from Gelber. Gelber does not give any details of this, making it difficult to revise the wording. Zerotalk 05:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

buses spelling

two buses carrying two busses ?? 700.000 palestine do not fit in two busses... but correct your spelling plz...85.149.83.125 (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in 1st paragraph

The first paragraph currently reads: "The 1948 (or First) Arab–Israeli War was the second and final stage of the 1947–1949 Palestine war. It formally began following the end of the British Mandate for Palestine at midnight on 14 May 1948; the Israeli Declaration of Independence had been issued earlier that day, and a military coalition of Arab states entered the territory of British Palestine in the morning of 15 May."

However, the coalition of Arab states could not have entered the territory of British Palestine in the morning of 15 May, since that territory ceased to exist at midnight on 14 May. On the morning of 15 May, this invaded territory was properly known as Israel (per the Israeli Declaration of Independence).

Accordingly, this paragraph should be revised to refer to the invaded territory as either the former British Palestine or Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commenter8 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2021

Want to add a reference Sunstarrrr (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I want to add the citation of the website https://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/mfa-archive/1999/pages/focus%20on%20israel-%20machal%20-%20overseas%20volunteers.aspx for the sentence, "On 28 May 1948, Sherut Avir became the Israeli Air Force.[citation needed]."

 Done – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 05:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Identity of territory invaded by Arab coalition

The first paragraph currently reads: "The 1948 (or First) Arab–Israeli War was the second and final stage of the 1947–1949 Palestine war. It formally began following the end of the British Mandate for Palestine at midnight on 14 May 1948; the Israeli Declaration of Independence had been issued earlier that day, and a military coalition of Arab states entered the territory of British Palestine in the morning of 15 May."

However, the coalition of Arab states could not have entered the territory of British Palestine in the morning of 15 May, since that territory ceased to exist at midnight on 14 May. On the morning of 15 May, this invaded territory was properly known as Israel (per the Israeli Declaration of Independence).

Accordingly, this paragraph should be revised to refer to the invaded territory as either the former British Palestine or Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commenter8 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

War of Independence (May 1948-July 1949)

As per the IDF history page the events prior to May 1948 should not be considered part of the War of Independence nor be named as such. [1] Additionally you can use http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0761807217/theamericanisraeA/ as reference.

Course of the War - 1st phase

Southern front - Negev

The sentence:"For the first few weeks of the war, Egyptian warplanes were able to bomb Tel Aviv with almost complete impunity, meeting only ground fire. The Egyptians also attacked rural settlements and airfields, though few casualties were caused.[131] Two Royal Egyptian Air Force (REAF) Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down by anti-aircraft fire and its pilot taken prisoner. However, the Egyptians continued their bombing raids over the city, killing about 40 people. Most civilian casualties in Tel Aviv occurred on a 18 May raid against the Tel Aviv Central Bus Station.".

Thanks to Pluto's deletion, the reader may be surprised to learn that Tel Aviv arial bombing, belongs to the Negev. The "2 spitfires attack" is missing a date. It does not mentions the Egyption dakotas bombers.

Battles of Latrun

the sentence:"From these positions, the Jordanians were able to cut off supplies to Israeli troops and civilians in Jerusalem"

It is suggested to write that "the Jordanians cut off supplies and water line to Israeli troops and civilians in Jerusalem" (Morris 2008 p. 230-231)

Battle for Jerusalem

The sentence: "The Jordanians in Latrun cut off supplies to western Jerusalem.".

Proposed: "The Jordanians in Latrun cut off supplies and the water line to western Jerusalem." The sentence:"The Arab Legion fired 10,000 artillery and mortar shells a day'

10000 a day is probably a huge exaggeration.

Notes

  1. ^ "IDF History Page". www.idf.il.

Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Woods-Shlaim1996p219" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Bogdanor2011p82" is not used in the content (see the help page).

Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Morris2008p79" is not used in the content (see the help page).

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 April 2022

207.248.199.183 (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done, no change specified. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2022

"Operation Brosh was launched in a failed attempt to dislodge Syrian forces from the Eastern Galilee and the Benot Yaakov Bridge. During the operation, 200 Syrians and 100 Israelis were killed. The Israeli Air Force also bombed Damascus for the first time."[1] I would also suggest considering removing the information about the Israeli Air Force, I could not find corroborating information that is reliable or otherwise, and it isn't an essential piece of information about the operation. Kumquat Smoothie (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 06:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference About the War of Independence: https://m.knesset.gov.il/EN/About/documents/IndependenceWarEng.pdf was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

"Bibliography" and "Further reading" Suggestion

I'm a little confused as to why this page has separate "Bibliography" and "Further reading" sections - and what the criteria is for putting things in one place or the other. Since my guess is that there is no good reason, just perpetuated accident, I propose to meld them together.

(I came here to add the Lorch book, which I was a bit astonished to see not listed - as one of the founders of the military history division of the IDF General Staff, his work is as close to an 'official' IDF history of this war as I know of. I added it to "Further reading" section before I realized that there was also a "Bibliography", and thus didn't check to see if it was already there - which it wasn't, thankfully. But that gives a good example of how the two sections are not a good idea.)

At the same time, I notice that Battle for Jerusalem's "Bibliography" has separate "Works by involved parties" and "Secondary sources" sections, which I think is a good idea to import. In addition, the list is quite long, so I would propose adding an "Ancillary works" section, for things like Oren, "Six Days of War", which is about the '67 war, and not focused on this one.

What do people think of this proposal? (Given how contentious the overall area is, I decided not to be bold, even on such a seemingly innocuous point, but to ask here first.) Noel (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, done. I found a duplicate when I did the merge, too - another issue with two lists.
I may have missed some items that should have been moved to 'Works by involved parties' or 'Ancillary works', but I have made a start. Anything that is focused toward something other than the '1948 Arab–Israeli War' got moved to 'Ancillary works'; but they are all still there, so no big problem if they are actually important (and I mis-filed them). Noel (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 June 2022

Palestinians to Palestinian. In the 1st sentence of the Arab forces section. Wikiuser552 (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done Happy Editing--IAmChaos 00:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 June 2022 (2)

Egyptians attacks > Egyptian attacks In the 3rd sentence of the Southern front- Negev section. Wikiuser552 (talk) 07:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done I did not make it singular, but added an apostrophe to be possessive Happy Editing--IAmChaos 00:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 June 2022 (3)

In the 2nd before last line in the "End of the first phase" secrion the word " injured" is missing after "Jordanians)". Wikiuser552 (talk) 08:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: I don't think it should be there Happy Editing--IAmChaos 00:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Jewish refugees

Until I moved it here, the article had this:

During the 1948 War, 97 Jewish villages were attacked and damaged, resulting in an estimated 60,000 to 70,000 Jews becoming refugees, according to Nurit Cohen-Levinovsky and Benny Morris.[1][2]

The apparent intention is to present these figures as a counterpoint to the Palestinian refugees. As we will see, this is unjustified, indeed highly misleading. The total Jewish population of the Arab portion of the partition plan (some of which was captured by Israel) was about 10,000, plus there were a few thousand more in the Old City, Atarot and Neve Yaakov that lay in the Jerusalem enclave. All of those people became refugees, but their number was very much less than 60,000 to 70,000. The discrepancy is easy to explain: the high counts include temporary evacuees who returned home after the fighting ended. Such people are not counted as refugees when they are Palestinian, so why should we count them as refugees when they are Jews? Let's look at the references.

  1. An anonymous JVL page. JVL is an unreliable source that is useless apart from providing other sources to look at. There are three. (1) This JP article uses the word "refugee" but it is mostly about temporary evacuation; note that the only location named remained in Israeli hands. Mention is made of a book of Nurit Levinovsky. I don't have the book but I have a journal article she wrote on the subject. It is a case study of three examples, all temporary evacuations. (2) An article on the website of the well-known academic source Jewish Federation of Greater Portland which quotes Benny Morris: "About 70,000 Israeli Jews (10% of Israel’s Jewish population) likewise were uprooted from their homes in UN-mandated Israeli territory. However, after the war, they were able to return to their villages or nearby areas, thus resolving that refugee crisis." So Morris explicitly states that his 70,000 figure is about temporary evacuation. In his book 1948, Morris calls them "refugees" in quotes (p308). (3) A UN document from 1950 that says "In Israel, the Agency has provided relief to two types of refugees, Jews who fled inside the borders of Israel during the fighting, and Arabs in most instances displaced from one area in Palestine to another. Jewish refugees at first numbered 17,000 but, during the cur­rent summer, all but 3,000 of these have been absorbed into the economic life of the new State. Arabs on re­lief were first numbered at 31,000 but many have been placed in circumstances in which they are self-support­ing, so that it was possible to reduce the number to 24,000 at the end of August 1950."(A/1451/Rev.1, p5) These numbers are perfectly plausible but refute the 60,000–70,000 claim.
  2. An article at MidEastWeb, which is an unreliable amateur blog. We are allowed to ignore it, but anyway it says "The total number of such persons might have been under 10,000. They are more numerous if we include dependents." (No reason given for why dependents were not counted, maybe he meant "descendants".)

Zerotalk 09:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, that was me, but I really just put it there as a placeholder to replace the MidEastWeb, source, which looked even less reliable, particularly, as you say, the 'excluding dependents' bit. However, as unreliable as JVL may be, I imagined its Nurit Cohen-Levinovsky and Benny Morris estimates did come from somewhere, so I put it in pending the identification of the sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
However, reading your more detailed evaluation, what an exemplary lesson in why we should avoid unreliable sources altogether - noted and lesson learned. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. The Jewish refugees do deserve a mention, but a reliable source is needed. At the moment I am away from home and have little time. Zerotalk 09:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Jewish Refugees From Palestine/Israel".
  2. ^ "Jewish Refugees of the Israeli Palestinian Conflict". Mideast Web. Archived from the original on 9 October 2013. Retrieved 1 April 2013.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 August 2022

I would like to edit this page because it has a error in the infobox conflict. The error is that 'Isreai victory' is put on the numbered list which is not how its supposed to be. We stand for editing (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Start of war

With this edit, called a tweak, Daveout turns a theory into a 'fact'

The view that this was the first incident has to be attributed to Morris because Laurens states that the violence erupted the day before, on 29 November.

'Le jour meme, les premières violences commencent à Jérusalem. Elles vont a s'étendre dans les jours suivants au reste du pays.' (That same day, the first bouts of violence started up in Jerusalem, and in the following days spread out through the rest of the country) Henry Laurens, La Question de Palestine, Fayard vol.2 2002 p.605; .

'.'Dans les heures qui suivent, un mouvement spontané de violences s'étend à la plus grande partie du pays. Des heurts opposent les deux populations, faisant de nombreuses victims.' Henry Laurens, La Question de Palestine, Fayard vol.3 2007 pp.40-41.

So restore the attribution. Morris's privileging of that incident, self-evidently reflects his nationalist POV, that 'the Palestinians started it'. Nishidani (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Why is Czechoslovakia not listed as a participant?

Czechoslovakia defied an embargo to help Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Balak PreserveOurHistory (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

For the same reason that NATO is not a participant in Russo-Ukraine war. Supplying weapons does not strictly count as participating although Putin would have it differently. I think boots on the ground is probably the usual criteria for a belligerent. Selfstudier (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Lede

These two sentences add nothing of value to the article's lede, on the contrary, piling it up with unnecessary information and distracting the reader from the macro-historical narrative. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Removus! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.112.169.114 (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Historiography section

@Dovidroth: I noticed this revert citing a lack of discussion, but you do not appear to have opened a discussion yourself. If anything, reversion is more demanding of explanation, so perhaps you would enlighten the talk page. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I added my changes back and Dovidroth immediately reverted them again, without justification. The section as it was is clearly biased and needs revision, yet they insist that it cannot be changed. I think we need to flag this for admins. Meteoritekid (talk) 05:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I haven't got the time to give this the attention it deserves right this minute, but this material obviously requires further sourcing, since it is currently single-sourced, which is an impoverished state of verifiability regardless of the content. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Report has been filed re. this edit war.
Upon review, I don't see why this page has a "Historiography" section when the parent article has its own: [6]. I think the section should be removed from this article, because the historiography of the "second half" of the 1948 Palestine war should be the same as that of the entire war. Meteoritekid (talk) 09:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

It should be clarified that Martin van Creveld is an Israeli historian

In 1948 Arab–Israeli War#Military assessments it just says "Martin Van Creveld says that in terms of manpower, the sides were fairly evenly matched." without giving context on who he is. I think the sentence should clarify that Creveld is an Israeli historian and his name should link to his Wikipedia page. Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Any time any Israeli has an opinion or comment about the conflict it should clearly be stated what their background is, so that the reader knows where it is coming from. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Add link to Wikipedia article on "Plan Dalet"

Plan Dalet is mentioned in the article, but no link to an existing article about it is provided. 2A0D:6FC7:441:367C:208F:2CD7:524:D424 (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Linked. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

War started on May 15, right?

The text under the "Northern front – Lake of Galilee" heading claims "On 14 May Syria entered Palestine with the 1st Infantry Brigade." However, the detailed Battles of the Kinarot Valley linked to it says that the Syrians did not enter until 15 May. Mcdruid (talk) 10:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Please add dates to events

Reading this article is at times needlessly difficult because a nominally chronological narrative is frequently out of sequence. I assume that happened as successive editors elaborated topically on events and their sequele, and the editors are all so familiar with the events that it’s not confusing to them. In the absence of a masterful reorganization, it would be helpful to use dates instead of comparatives or assigning events to phases of sequences. PolychromePlatypus (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Introduction seems weird - cart before horse

"seven Jews were killed in the Fajja bus attacks by Arab militants in an incident regarded as the first in the civil war.[16] This attack was retaliation to the assassination of five members of an Arab family, suspected of being British informants, by Lehi on 19 November.[17] "

Reworded. Selfstudier (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

1948 Arab–Israeli War#First phase: 15 May – 11 June 1948

Dovidroth, if you would like to discuss my edits to 1948 Arab–Israeli War#First phase: 15 May – 11 June 1948, which you reverted with the explanation Rv undiscussed, POV changes trying to justify invasion, better before you are welcome to do so.
The main issue with that section was that the text treated the topic as if there wasn't a war already well under way. As I explained in my edit summaries, Dershowitz is not a historian and there is no citation for Morris. (From a different section not relevant to this discussion. إيان (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)) The claim that the Arab armies invaded Israel also fails verification, as the title of the source is literally "The Arab Regular Armies' Invasion of Palestine". إيان (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Dovidroth was right. I don't know what Dershowitz has to do with that, but your version is a serious POV whitewashing of what happened. The word 'invasion' is widely used by the sources as you admitted (as opposed to the euphemistic "entry") and the Arab forces attacked Jewish villages and populations located beyond the proposed Arab state by the UN partition plan (which was rejected by all Arab states). They even bombed Tel Aviv. If you want, feel free to change "invaded Palestine" instead of the "newborn state" which they intended to annihilate. פעמי-עליון (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
There is no rule against quoting Dershowitz, but your version has POV, as @פעמי-עליון has pointed out. There is no consensus for the content you added, and until you achieve consensus, it cannot be adder per WP:ONUS. Dovidroth (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Dershowitz was cited in a different section; my mistake. إيان (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I have looked at the changes. The change you introduced was a serious POV. I think @פעמי-עליון explained the situation well. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
I think that the edits of إيان have merit. I restored some of the changes here[7]. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
The other changes made by إيان have been restored by User:Makeandtoss - Special:MobileDiff/1191907207. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Whilst we are still having a discussion! This is not the way to move forward and work together. Makeandtoss introduced weasel words and a serious POV which was already raised above. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
What specifically about the changes are POV or weasel words? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
@Homerethegreat: This is completely the other away around; this is the longstanding version you have been removing while a discussion is ongoing. You do not have consensus for these nonsensical changes that portray the war in complete sync with Zionist mythology that has been debunked by old and new historians. It is you who is edit warring, so please revert yourself before further steps are taken. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey there makeandtoss, (by the way, is Makeandtoss like Make-And-Toss? Just curious, you don't have to answer - just important to lighten the mood you know ;) ).
So please take note of the above discussions and also check the history of the article prior to saying I'm edit warring. Please note that following changes by إيان the user إيان 's version was challenged and opened a discussion in which 3 editors (I among them) have taken time to explain the problem. If you have further questions, feel free to ask. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
3 editors (I among them) have taken time to explain the problem—this is wrong. פעמי-עליון made some wild claims without offering any reliable sources in support and then Dovidroth and Homerethegreat piggybacked on it. إيان (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
They are mostly Zionist administrators thats why alot of the figures lack citation and still up which supposedly goes against the rules and regulations. The israeli hasbara gives courses to israelis on how to control the narrative on wiki 94.21.98.10 (talk) 08:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
The Weasel word is: entered. Instead of attacked or invaded. The changing of text and removal of content specifically: invaded the newborn state,[1][2] and immediately attacked Jewish settlements . If one would use the word entered and remove the content on the attacks on Jewish towns/villages etc... It would be unclear what was the fighting, unclear regarding situation and serious risk of misinforming. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
This is a terrible explanation. That is not what weasel words even means.
Also you've only identified one sentence as faulty, why was all the other content removed?, including my partial restoration of إيان's edit. Content seems to have been reverted here without concern for the efforts of other editors and with no effort to WP:PRESERVE or compromise. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
None of those in opposition here have dealt with the substance of the issues with this section, that the text treated the topic as if there wasn't a war already well under way. It made it look as if Zionist forces hadn't been on the offensive for the previous 6 weeks while implementating Plan Dalet—including in territories allocated according to the 1947 UN partition to a future Arab state in Palestine. These territories for an Arab state in Palestine are the territories the Arab armies entered on May 15. The text as it was presented framed the entry of Arab regular armies into the war as the initial provocation of the war, which is false. The war was well under way. إيان (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, and before Haganah's offensive in plan Dalet there was a siege of Jerusalem organized by 'Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni and several regiments of the Arab Liberation Army attacking Galilee and Samaria. So? This article isn't about the civil war in the land Palestine, but the war between the state of Israel and the Arab states which began on 15 of May. Most sources call it an invasion and the Arab countries' intervention wasn't limited to the proposed boundries of the Arab state according to the UN plan (which was already dead by 30 of November). פעמי-עליון (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I've changed it. The sources we're quoting call it an invasion. I don't believe most of what is being discussed here is relevant; we have sources calling it an invasion. There is no justification per WP:NPOV for saying "entered"; that policy requires we represent viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in the sources. All of the sources we have cited refer to the "invasion" of Israel or Palestine by the coalition. That is the most prominent viewpoint in the sources.
Here is another RS calling it explicitly an invasion. Al Jazeera no less: "As units of the Egyptian, Lebanese, Syrian, Jordanian and Iraqi armies invaded on May 15, the Arab-Israeli war was launched, and stretched until March 1949." Chuckstablers (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

This reversion [8] should probably be self-reverted and discussed. @Makeandtoss. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It is the other way around, I am restoring the longstanding version; any contested edits will have to be discussed here per WP:Burden. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
From what I can tell this dispute began with إيان's edit here [9] and Dovidroth's reversion here [10]. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the use of the word "enter" or "invade", the sources cited here are as follows:

  • "Three weeks before the Arab coalition invaded Palestine" Yoav Gelber, 'Palestine 1948', page 122, chapter title "The Arab Regular Armies' Invasion of Palestine
  • "The conference decided in principle to invade Palestine. A disagreement over the invasion’s timing [...]", idem, page 126
  • “The armies of the surrounding Arab states invaded Palestine” Benny Morris, '1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War', page 141
  • "The Arab states decide to invade" Benny Morris, idem, page 308
  • "By the end of April, they decided to invade." Benny Morris, idem, page 309
  • "The five Arab states who joined in the invasion of Palestine were Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq" Avi Shlaim, 'The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948', page 81 *Not sure if I've cited this properly*
  • 'What Happened Where' by Chris Cook reads "Israel was invaded by the armies of its Arab neighbours on the day the British Mandate ended". (Note that this is the only source of this list referring to Israel rather than Palestine as being invaded. This work seems like a bad source for such finepoint details/analysis, being described as: "This source book for teacher and student provides informative entries on the many hundreds of places of major historical significance in the 20th century. The entries are worldwide in scope, ranging from Auschwitz to Pearl Harbour, from Tiananmen Square to Entebbe. The work covers all major aspects of the history of the century from diplomatic crises (Agadir) to famous battles (Anzio, Ypres), from world conferences (Bretton Woods, Tehran) to scandals (Chappaquiddick), from massacres (Soweto) to assassinations (Sarajevo, Dallas).")
  • Zeev Maoz, 'Defending the Holy Land', University of Michigan Press, 2009 p. 4 is also cited and quoted as "A combined invasion of a Jordanian and Egyptian army [...]"

So it seems to me that using the word "invade(d)" is keeping with the cited sources. Although the object of the invasion should be "Palestine" and not "the newborn state". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, except the movement of Arab armies happened *after* the declaration of "the newborn state", as well as after the expiration of the Mandate. As well, the armies entered territories demarcated for both populations (and invaded the Jewish one with the stated purpose of dismantling or destroying the entity).
Definitely appropriate to point out the difference between territories they entered ("invaded the newborn state" and "entered Palestinian (or Arab) territory"), but to generalize it to "Palestine" is not specific enough to the actions undertaken (as well as confusing because are we talking about the region or the mandate?) Mistamystery (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
This is not a valid objection as it is purely original research. Do you have any other reasons to object to my proposed change of "invaded the newborn state" to "invaded Palestine"? Or do any of the previous editors who objected to إيان's original edit disagree with this proposal? @Homerethegreat, @Dovidroth, @פעמי-עליון.
IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Sure, seems invasion is the used terminology, and also, as stated, invasion of Palestine and certainly not the fringe phrasing "invasion of the newborn Jewish state" and other outdated traditional myths debunked by the new historians. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

gross source misrepresentation in section #Air operations

1948 Arab–Israeli War#Air operations cites p. 261 of 1948: A History of the First Arab–Israeli War extensively for claims that are nowhere to be found in that text.

Here is the relevant text for reference so we can collaboratively make sure the section fairly represents the source:

Air and naval operations were also of no great importance in most theaters of operation and battles between 15 May and 11 June 1948. Both Israel and the Arab states lacked serious air and naval capabilities. During the first weeks of the conventional war the Israelis' light aircraft continued to bomb Arab encampments and columns, usually at night to avoid enemy interception, and usually with little effect, except marginally on morale.

However, the Haganah had half a dozen combat-trained pilots, and soon they were joined by dozens of experienced North American, Common-wealth, and Western European flyers, who were to constitute the backbone of the IAF (formerly the Air Service).

The air forces of Egypt, Syria, and Iraq (Jordan and Lebanon had none), though relatively formidable on paper, in fact counted for little. Many of Egypt's fighters and bombers were unserviceable; few of its pilots were competent; ground control, aircraft maintenance, and air intelligence were all poor to appalling. The same applied for the much smaller Syrian and Iraqi air forces. Because of losses and diminishing stocks of ammunition and spare parts, all these air forces contracted during the war.

By contrast, the IAF grew steadily. The first four (Messerschmitt) fighters arrived in mid-May—and went into action on 29 and 30 May. By II June eleven Messerschmitts were operational and by 12 August twenty-five.

The Egyptian air force, using bombers and Spittires, repeatedly attacked Israeli air fields, ground forces, rural settlements, and towns. Few casualties were caused, and these gradually fell off as Israeli air power grew and interception became more effective. In Tel Aviv, which was repeatedly hit by Egyptian air raids, more than forty civilians were killed. Most died on 18 May at the central bus station.

Following the Messerschmitt attacks on the Egyptian and Iraqi columns, Egyptian fighters repeatedly hit Eqron Airfield, where the Israeli fighters were based. On 30 May Egyptian bombers, aiming for 'Eqron, hit the center of the town of Rehovot, including the Sieff (later, Weizmann) Institute, killing seven and wounding thirty. The following day, they hit 'Eqron Air field, hitting two partially assembled Messerschmitts. 373

In part a response to the Egyptian air attacks and in part a gut response to the Jordanian victories at Latrun, Ben-Gurion decided to bomb the Arab capitals. He seemed to think-based on his memories of the German Blitz against London-that air power could prove decisive (though given the poverty of Israeli resources, this was plain silly): "Our air force has to bomb and destroy Amman. The weak link in the Arab coalition is Lebanon.... When we break the [Arab] Legion's power and we bomb Amman, we will also destroy Transjordan, and then Syria will fall. If Egypt will still dare to fight—we will bomb Port Said, Alexandria and Cairo. And thus we will end the war—and pay back for [the treatment of our forefathers by] Egypt, Assyria [that is, ancient Iraq] and Aram [that is, ancient Syria]. "374

In the early morning hours of 1 June, two IAF Rapids and one Bonanza flew to Amman and dropped several dozen fifty-five- and no-pound bombs on the town, the king's palace and the adjacent air field (under British con-trol),375 About a dozen persons died and a number of (British) aircraft were hit. The British warned Israel that if this recurred, they would hit its air fields and aircraft. 376 Israel did not bomb Amman again.

Ten days later, early on In June, hours before the First Truce came into ef-fect, a lone Dakota, loaded to the gills with 176-pound bombs and incendi-aries, took off from 'Eqron, heading for Damascus. It was crewed by seven Britons and South Africans. Flying northward, they could see Haifa to the west, "lit up like a Christmas tree." At 3:12 AM the first bomb was thrown out of the rear door by two crewmen. In all, the plane made six passes over the Syrian capital, delivering sixteen high explosive bombs and ninety four-pound incendiaries, dispersed indiscriminately. The Syrians were caught completely by surprise; they sent up no interceptors, and antiaircraft fire only began ten minutes after the plane had left the area. A Western journalist who witnessed the bombing later wrote that twenty-two Syrians died and more than a hundred were injured, and it "put the fear of God into the inhabitants of Damascus."377 More significant, it forced the Syrians to think seriously about bolstering their air defenses and resulted in a diminution of their aerial activity over Israel during the following bout of fighting, in mid-July. (pp 261--262) إيان (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I think a lot of this article needs work and suffers from misrepresentation of sources. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
True. إيان (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Images and NPOV

Is it just me, or are the images in this article rather one-sided? Here is a list of the images in the article right now, from top to bottom:

  1. Lead image: hoisting of Israei flag
  2. Map
  3. Israeli tank
  4. Israeli plane
  5. King Abdullah
  6. Israeli tanks
  7. Israeli tank
  8. Israeli tank
  9. British tank (used to depict similar Egyptian tanks)
  10. Map
  11. Israeli vehicle
  12. Israeli soldiers
  13. Israeli soldiers
  14. Israeli workers
  15. Israeli vehicles
  16. Map
  17. Shelling of Jerusalem
  18. Ruins of a synagogue (with Arab soldier)
  19. Israeli civilians
  20. Israeli civilians
  21. Israeli soldiers
  22. Syrian tank destroyed by Israelis
  23. Arab soldier
  24. Egyptian plane destroyed by Israelis
  25. Israeli wounded
  26. Israeli plane
  27. Israeli plane
  28. Israeli planes
  29. Israeli ship
  30. Map
  31. Sinking Israeli ship (destroyed by other Israelis)
  32. UN mediator
  33. Egyptian artillery captured by Israelis
  34. Israeli soldiers
  35. Israeli vehicles
  36. Arab POWs
  37. Israeli soldiers
  38. Map
  39. Israeli soldiers
  40. Israeli soldiers
  41. Israeli soldiers
  42. Israeli soldiers
  43. Israeli soldiers
  44. Israeli soldiers
  45. Israeli convoy
  46. Funeral of British soldier killed by Israelis
  47. Map
  48. (Nakba navbox image)

That is a lot of pictures of Israeli stuff and very very few pictures of anything non-Israeli... and when "the other side" is depicted, it's most often a picture of "enemy equipment destroyed by Israeli military." I may someday come back and switch out pictures but thought I'd mention it in the meantime. (I left a similar message at Talk:1948 Palestine war.) Levivich (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Levivich here and at 1948 Palestine war. For the infobox, the best solution is to have a number of images, which seems to be the common choice in major war articles. إيان (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 January 2024

Change "IDF" to "Haganah" or "Irgun" because there was no IDF at that time.

The IDF forces gathered to attack the city numbered around 8,000. It was the first operation where several brigades were involved. The city was attacked from the north via Majdal al-Sadiq and al-Muzayri'a, and from the east via Khulda, al-Qubab, Jimzu and Daniyal. Bombers were also used for the first time in the conflict to bombard the city. The IDF captured the city on 11 July.[188] NJHakim (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done - There was indeed an IDF at that time, and they were the ones who carried out Operation Danny, including the 1948 Palestinian expulsion from Lydda and Ramle. Levivich (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Inconsistencies surrounding the outbreak of violence in 1947

There are apparent inconsistencies around the outbreak of violence in the civil war, and subsequent invasion by foreign forces from Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, and Iraq. In paragraph 3 of the introduction, the article presents a timeline as follows:

  1. The civil war starts in 1947
  2. Israeli forces launch an offensive in April 1948
  3. Israel declares independence in May 1948
  4. Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, and Iraq invade and 10 months of conflict ensue.

In the Background section, the timeline appears inconsistent with this, as it sources information that an Egyptian force organized an embargo of supplies to 100,000 people that precipitated an offensive directly against it:

  1. The UN passes a resolution on the partition of Palestine in 1947
  2. Low level skirmishes take place in 1947
  3. The Arab Liberation Army consolidated positions, and the Holy War Army from Egypt blockaded Jewish settlements in Jerusalem in 1948.
  4. Israeli forces implemented mandatory conscription and secured arms supplies from the Soviet Union, with shipments arriving in March 1948.
  5. Israeli forces launched an offensive.

In the Initial Line-up of Forces section, under Arab forces, Lebanon is listed among the countries, however, Lebanon is omitted from the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fileyfood500 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

'Infobox results' recent changes

Made some recent changes to the infobox results and territorial changes.

Added 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight though not sure if it belongs there.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I think what's unclear currently is that it's listed under "Palestinian, Egyptian, and Syrian defeat", however this is specific to the Palestinians. You can create a separate section for Palestinian defeat and that would be more consistent. Fileyfood500 (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Disputed passage

Is this page accurate? (Sourced only to Yoav Gelber):

The Yishuv perceived the peril of an Arab invasion as threatening its very existence. Having no real knowledge of the Arabs' true military capabilities, the Jews took Arab propaganda literally, preparing for the worst and reacting accordingly.

Ilan Pappé writes the opposite in The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine:

In public, the leaders of the Jewish community portrayed doomsday scenarios and warned their audiences of an imminent ‘second Holocaust’. In private, however, they never used this discourse. They were fully aware that the Arab war rhetoric was in no way matched by any serious preparation on the ground. As we saw, they were well informed about the poor equipment of these armies and their lack of battlefield experience and, for that matter, training, and thus knew they had only a limited capability to wage any kind of war. The Zionist leaders were confident they had the upper hand militarily and could drive through most of their ambitious plans.

[...]

When, on 18 February 1948, Sharett wrote to Ben-Gurion: ‘We will have only enough troops to defend ourselves, not to take over the country,’ Ben-Gurion replied:

"If we will receive in time the arms we have already purchased, and maybe even receive some of that promised to us by the UN, we will be able not only to defend [ourselves] but also to inflict death blows on the Syrians in their own country – and take over Palestine as a whole. I am in no doubt of this. We can face all the Arab forces. This is not a mystical belief but a cold and rational calculation based on practical examination."

This letter was wholly consistent with other letters the two had been exchanging ever since Sharett had been dispatched abroad. It began with a letter in December 1947 in which Ben-Gurion sought to convince his political correspondent of the Jews’ military supremacy in Palestine: ‘We can starve the Arabs of Haifa and Jaffa [if we wish to do so].’15 This confident posture regarding the Hagana’s ability to take Palestine as a whole, and even beyond, would be maintained for the duration of the fighting, inhibited only by the promises they had made to the Jordanians.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Here's a few quotes from Morris and one from Masalha that I happen to have in my notes:
  • Morris 1948
    • p. 97: "Through the civil war, the mufti and the AHC never issued a general call to arms or a blanket order to attack “the Yishuv.” Neither did the Arab states. British intelligence assessed that at the Arab League’s Cairo Conference in December 1947 the Arab leaders agreed that “the campaign must not start prematurely, for the Arabs are not ready, neither organized nor armed. The first real move should be made in May, by when the Mandate will have terminated.” It appears that the Arab leaders were primarily motivated by fear of antagonizing the British."
    • pp. 196-197: "If Arab war aims were disparate, the Yishuv’s initial goal was clear and simple: to survive the onslaught and establish a Jewish state. This was the chief aim both when Palestine’s Arabs attacked and when the Arab states invaded. But gradually, from December 1947 onward, one and possibly two aims were added. The first is unarguable and clear: to expand the new state so that it emerge from the war with more defensible borders and additional territory. The second was, at least among some of the leadership, to reduce the number of Arabs resident in the Jewish state ... The pan-Arab invasion of mid-May ended the hesitancy: if the Arabs were defying the United Nations and were bent on destroying the Jewish state, the Jews would take what was needed for survival, and perhaps a little more."
    • p. 397: "The Yishuv’s war aim, initially, was simpler and more modest: to survive; to weather the successive onslaughts, by the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab states. The Zionist leaders deeply, genuinely, feared a Middle Eastern reenactment of the Holocaust, which had just ended; the Arabs’ public rhetoric reinforced these fears. But as the war progressed, an additional aim began to emerge: to expand the Jewish state beyond the UN-earmarked partition borders. Initially, the desire was to incorporate clusters of Jewish settlements in the state. West Jerusalem, with its hundred thousand Jews, figured most prominently in the Zionist leaders’ imagination. But as the war progressed, a more general expansionist aim took hold: to add more territory to the minuscule state and to arm it with defensible borders."
  • Masalha, Nur (2003). The Politics of Denial: Israel and the Palestinian Refugee Problem. Pluto Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctt18dztmq. ISBN 978-0-7453-2120-2. JSTOR j.ctt18dztmq., p. 26: "On 30 December a British Intelligence observer reported that the Haganah was moving fast to exploit Palestinian weaknesses and disorganisation, to render them ‘completely powerless’ so as to force them into flight. [A report by G. J. Jenkins, 30 December 1947, British Embassy, Cairo, PRO, FO 371/68366, E458.]"
Levivich (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Remove/replace humiliating symbol from a name

Please remove or replace the cross symbol next to Mickey Marcus in the chart. It is particularly humiliating when Christians use it when referring to Jews, regardless of any meaning they intend or do not intend by it. 2003:F9:6F1B:5500:A5A1:257B:AB22:C8CD (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. The 'alternative' template that just displays (KIA) should probably be the standard template. Sean.hoyland (talk) 01:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
It’s not a cross, rather a dagger symbol. Represents that a commander was killed in battle The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
The IP might be interested in Dagger (mark), but these kinds of things seem like easily avoidable ambiguities given the alternative (KIA) template. 'Is that a dagger or a Holy Lance?' seems like the kind of question that is not impossible thanks to Murphy's Law. Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 May 2024

Original: After Israel occupied the West Bank in the 1967 Six-Day War, the Palestinians there remained Jordanian citizens until Jordan renounced claims to and severed administrative ties with the territory in 1988.[citation needed]

Suggestion: Include this citation: https://www.hrw.org/news/2010/02/01/jordan-stop-withdrawing-nationality-palestinian-origin-citizens#:~:text=In%201988%2C%20however%2C%20King%20Hussein,West%20Bank%20at%20the%20time. HeloPait (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This sentence is not in the article. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
The sentence in the source is: "In 1988, however, King Hussein severed Jordan's legal and administrative ties to the West Bank, relinquishing claims to sovereignty there and withdrawing Jordanian nationality from all Palestinians who resided in the West Bank at the time."
The sentence in the Wikipedia article paraphrases it. HeloPait (talk) 02:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 August 2024

In the section titled End of the first phase missing one occurrence of the word injured (fifth paragraph).

Original: the Jordanian Arab Legion had 300 of its men killed and 400–500 (including irregulars and Palestinian volunteers fighting under the Jordanians);

Suggestion: the Jordanian Arab Legion had 300 of its men killed and 400–500 injured (including irregulars and Palestinian volunteers fighting under the Jordanians); — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wclaytong (talk • contribs) 07:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

✅ Done. Thank you. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Infobox image(s)

What is the reason for this revert, @Snowstormfigorion? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The thing is I don't see that there's a reason for placing a collage in the infobox; the images are identical in purpose of demonstration and sentiment to the ones in the body, which, per MOS:PERTINENCE, are much ample and number 40+ and include multiple galleries. One of the images in the collage, albeit slightly cropped, is already used in the body. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 11:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
@Snowstormfigorion: For me, I don't see a reason to place an exclusively Israeli picture in the infobox. We can either replace it with a more neutral picture or use a collage. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
The image is not meant to portray one side over the other; rather, it merely captures a pivotal moment in the conflict. As for the collage, as per the above, I don't see that there's a need for whatsoever given that the article is ladened with images and galleries/collages in the body. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
How is multiple images not superior to a single image? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
See the above; the number of images used in the infobox by itself is impertinent. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
"The number of images used in the infobox by itself is impertinent"? Then why have you reverted my edit? This doesn't make sense. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Impertinent as in simply more images are not "superior" to less and vice versa; again, see the above for why a collage in the infobox is redundant in the case of this article, which further applies to 1948 Palestine war. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
So your opinion is that it doesn't matter either way whether we use one or multiple images? Myself and seemingly Makeandtoss prefer multiple images so why not go with that? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Because that's not how this works, we don't merely go by opinions or preference; I've presented based on policy why a collage in the articles(s) is not needed, unless you're willing to refute this in a parallel manner a notion alone does not constitute a counterargument. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
How can I refute that "a college in the articles(s) is not needed"? Obviously it isn't needed but the question is is it preferable. I and another prefer it. You oppose it. I think we'll need more input from others. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
If it's not needed and "obviously" so, it's WP:NONCONSTRUCTIVE. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
The 1973 War was far shorter, less consequential than the 1948 War, and has an image collage. I think the article should feature a collage. Lightiggy (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Seems it is three to one in favour of using multiple images. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Drop the multiple mini images from one that is accessible for all. Moxy🍁 02:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Support multiple images per NPOV. It's standard for major war articles. See World War I and World War II. Besides, the flag image is before the entry of Arab regular armies the following day, when the 1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine really became the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. إيان (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
The flag image is from 10 March 1949 I believe. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Moxy, not sure I'm following where you're getting it; could you please further elaborate? Snowstormfigorion (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
@Snowstormfigorion: Reverting three times against multiple editors in an ARBPIA article is WP:edit warring. Please self-revert. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
I've reverted IOHANNVSVERVS as per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY; major changes to ARBPIA articles are decided through community discourse and consensus, see WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, not through vote-tallying. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 09:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
@Snowstormfigorion: That is correct, but consensus is established through talk page discussions, not through edit warring your preferred version. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, last time I reverted was nine days ago, the two reverts were two days in between and I explained throughly in the talk page the rationale behind them, with the reverts being to the status quo and as opposed to my "preferred version"; wouldn't call this edit warring, but I guess by some definition it could be. If so, then my apologies, keeping this here henceforth. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 11:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Implemented above consensus. Selfstudier (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
@Selfstudier: Again and as per the above, this is a major change to a contentious topic, ARBPIA article, see WP:NHC and please self-revert until further editorial input is given and consensus is evidently clear. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 12:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
The consensus IS clear. Selfstudier (talk) 12:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
No, it's not. As per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, discussion is still ongoing and currently only involves a handful editors; again, please self-revert. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
As I've said above I committed myself to keep the discussion in the talk page, however, Selfstudier, it’s not your jurisdiction to decide that consensus has been reached in an ongoing discussion concerning a major change to a CTOP article. Moreover, as said above, more community and editorial input is needed for such change and an WP:RFC would also be constructive in reaching a collective community consensus as per WP:CONACHIEVE. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
See ur talk page. Selfstudier (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Seen, see yours. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 10:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Just so you know, guys, there's this wonderful little template called {{outdent}} designed for situations exactly like this. In my experience it's a little easier to assume good faith and resolve disputes without outside help when you're not reading and responding to text jammed into an inch (2.54 cm) or so. Daniel Case (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 September 2024

Change "At the end of a series of offensives that began April 1948, in which Zionist forces had conquered cities and territories in Mandatory Palestine in preparation for the establishment of a Jewish state, Zionist leaders announced the Israeli Declaration of Independence on 14 May 1948.[16] The following morning, after the termination of the British Mandate, Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, and expeditionary forces from Iraq entered Palestine." to " At the end of a series of offensives that began April 1948, in which Zionist forces had conquered cities and territories in Mandatory Palestine in preparation for the establishment of a Jewish state, Zionist leaders announced the Israeli Declaration of Independence on 14 May 1948.[16] The following morning, after the termination of the British Mandate, Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, and expeditionary forces from Iraq entered Palestine."

to

"Zionist leaders announced the Israeli Declaration of Independence on 14 May 1948, and the following morning, after the termination of the British Mandate, Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, and expeditionary forces from Iraq invaded Palestine and Israel."

There is no citation indicating that "Zionist forces had conquered cities and territories in Mandatory Palestine in preparation for the establishment of a Jewish state", because there is not any historical record of this. There is also no credible citation detailing any "series of offensives that began April 1948". 2607:FEA8:539F:FA00:9C3C:BD87:A464:1402 (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Not done, there is citation 16 in the lead and 151 in the article body.Selfstudier (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference ReferenceA was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Gelber2006p138 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1948_Arab–Israeli_War/Archive_21&oldid=1259851372"