Jump to content

Talk:1948 Palestine war/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Jewish refugees

I followed the link that claims that 800,000 to a million Jews became refugees from Arab Lands between 1948 to 1968. It raises a smile. Total number of Jews in the ten countries listed is given as 856,000. And 475,000 were still there in 1958. Which kind of undermines the equivalence argument that seems to be being made here. Is there a better page with a summary of the various "leavings". Something like Yemen (1949 - 60,000), Iraq(1949 - 120,000), Egypt(from 1956) etc. Fascinating though this is it shouldn't be here. Unlike the number of Jewish refugees from Palestine which belongs with estimates of the numbers of their neighbours displaced. 10,000 seems a little high though. Will check. Padres Hana (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Padres Hana,
This should be checked !
All the numbers can be found in Benny Morris, 1948 : A History of the First Arab-Israeli War. I am quite sure of them, but maybe the number of refugees from Arab lands. 81.240.123.174 (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Why did the Yeshuv win?

I would to start a section on the various views of why the war ended the way it did. Any suggestions for a section heading? Padres Hana (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

-> Outcome of the war
What you want to do is not easy at all !
Be sure you have access to all point of views and to find a way to introduce all of them a neutral way.
Some new historians and Palestinians tend to defend the thesis that the Yishuv/Israeli were the stronger". That way, they can argue the exodus and in some cases the expulsion of the Palestians can have been planned or organised "under the cover of war" (as Esber titled her book).
Traditionnal Israeli historians, but also Lapierre and Collins, or Morris -and they are not wrong-, underline they were 600,000 Jews in an "ocean" of more than 45,000,000 Arabs and that respective armies totalised in december 47 10,000 soldiers vs 165,000.
But then everything must be nuanced :
  • Arabs were not Palesitians and until May 48, it was a war between Yishuv and the Palestinians supported by 5000-10000 volunteers of the ALA
  • The balance of force evolved extremelly much during the war, ending by a total Israeli superiority
  • Arabs didn't suffer arms embargo before 15 May and whereas Yishuv did. But due to that, Israeli organised smugglings of weapons and were supported by Soviet Union. This helped them very much when both Arabs and Israelis were subjected to an arms embargo.
  • Until Deir Yassin, the Arabs didn' want to intervene, hoping the ALA and the PAlesitnians could deal the issue alone. And when they decided to intervene, it was too late. But had they decided to intervene 6 months sooner, they would have won.
  • Arabs promised support to the Palestinians but never really gave this to them (or not as much as they could have expeced or at least needed)
  • After they decided to intervene, they were disorganised and didn't coordinate and even didn't support their allies. Abdallah even played a double game, discussing with the Yishuv and fighting in the side of the Arabs
  • In February '48, Abdallah had been given British support to take over the Arab side of Palestine but at the condition that he didn't enter the ISraeli side...
  • Globally, Israelis were better organised, had better soliders, had better officeers, had a better morale, had a stronger, more clever and more efficient leadership than Palestinians and certainly Arabs.
  • Globally too, Jewish leaders had prepared that war for at least 3 years, whereas the Arabs and the Palestinians never really prepared for this.
  • The fact the war started 6 months before the end of the Mandate and that the British didn't intervene in the intercommunal war helped the Yishuv very much. And in fact, if they had not had the opportunity to see the Palestinians flee (or to expel them), with this 5th column on their rear, Israelis may have lost the war if it has started on 15 May. The British attitude must be "nuanced" by the fact they let enter the ALA but prevent the Arab armies to intervene and by the fact they may have helped the Jews to take Haifa.
All these information must be sourced, organised, and given in respecting wp:npov. That is not an easy job. 81.240.123.174 (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this needs a separate section because as Ceedjee said, there are many different opinions on why the Yishuv/Israel won, including all of the above points. We should state the facts as attributed to reliable sources and let the reader decide. According to Morris (again I believe he is right), the main reason for the Israel's victory was far superior organization and cohesiveness. There was some infighting among Jewish forces, but this was focused around different methods for achieving the same goal. By contrast, the Arab leaders each had their own goals for the war, which were often contradictory with each other. This information is extremely important to any reader, but I don't think it needs its own section, but rather parts of it should go into each relevant section. —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

From talk page

The events described in this article (which seems as an aggregation of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine), started, according to the last edit by Nableezy, in November 1947 and ended late in 1949. this means that "1948 war" is not an accurate name and describes only a portion of it. This is contrary to the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, which occurred, according to the article, almost ultimately in 1948, and therefor deserves this title. BTW, it is still automatically linked from 1948 Palestine war, so navigating to this page will not be an issue. Thanks, --Hmbr (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not debating the dates. The dates are as you mostly as you described (late 1949 is not correct). Also note that the bulk of the fighting took place in 1948. 1949 is when the armistice negotiations took place. --Frederico1234 (talk) 04:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I have no opinion about the accuracy of the dates, you are welcomed to discuss them with Nableezy. however,as long as 1947-1949 are mentioned as the years when these events (which include the 1947-1948 civil war)occurred, 1948 war will be a misleading name, which blurs the boundaries between this article and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article. Thanks. Hmbr (talk) 08:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmbr is correct, the name "1948 Palestine War" is simply a synonym for the "1948 Arab–Israeli War", while this article discusses both 1948 Arab-Israeli War and 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine Marokwitz (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Frederico. Mentioning anything other than 1948 in the title is misleading, and same goes for the article 1847–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. This title suggests that the war lasted 3 years, while in reality it lasted about 1 year. Essentially the war took place between March 1948 and January 7, 1949 with minor fighting before and after these dates (from November 30, 1947 to March 1949). I have not seen a single source refer to this war as the 1947–1949 Palestine War or anything of the sort. In addition, the separation of 1948 Arab–Israeli War, which used to be about both wars, was probably unwarranted as well. The entire war, in its two stages, was mostly in the confines of 1948. —Ynhockey (Talk) 20:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should also change the name of Hundred Years War? After all, it lasted a lot longer than one hundred years... RolandR (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The "Hundred Years War" is what it's usually called in RS. Is there a source for "1947-1949 Palestine war"? I agree with Ynhockey that the current title is problematic. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
While we're on the subject, why do we even need this article? Does it have any information that is not already in 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine or 1948 Arab–Israeli War? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The scope of this article is both 1948 Arab-Israeli War and 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. Can you find reliable sources referring to these two topics as the "1948 Palestine war" as it was originally named? So I see two options, either keep the current title, or nominate the article for deletion as a duplicate of 1948 Arab–Israeli War. 06:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marokwitz (talk • contribs)
That has been tried in the past and failed. This covers a broader topic than 1948 Arab-Israeli War. nableezy - 14:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
What does this article have that is not included in 1948 Arab-Israeli War and 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
It is not supposed to have material not in those articles, this should summarize those articles. This is a "parent article" to those two. nableezy - 15:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The 1948 title never had consensus to move from. If people wish to move it from that title they should follow the normal procedure. nableezy - 14:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

What's the basis for "1948 Palestine war"? Sources? The current title is problematic. I'd even prefer something like Morris' "The First Arab-Israeli war". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Sources: Karsh, The Arab-Israeli conflict: The Palestine War 1948 (you like Karsh, right?)

p. 8: Thus began the Palestine War, probably the most important Middle-Eastern armed confrontation since the destruction of the Ottoman Empire and the creation of the new regional order on its ruins in the wake of the First World War. It was to be divided into two distinct phases. The first began on 30 November 1947, the day after the adoption of the Partition Resolution, and ended on 14 May 1948 with the termination of the British Mandate. It was essentially a civil war ... The second phase started on the night of 14-15 May 1948, a few hours after the proclamation of the State of Israel, and involved a converted attack by the armed forces of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, Lebanon, as well as a Saudi contingent, on the nascent Jewish state.

Ill get some more when I have some time. nableezy - 15:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This discussions already occured many times. We use the titles that are used by historians. Here, we have eg :

  • Efraim Karsh, The Arab-Israeli Conflict. The Palestine 1948 War, Oxford, Osprey, 2002.
  • Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948: War, Escape and the Emergence of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, Sussex Academic Press, Brighton & Portland, 2001.
  • David Tal, War in Palestine, 1948: strategy and diplomacy, Routledge, 2004

81.247.43.182 (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"Arab-Israeli war" seems to be more popular:
~2500+ hits on google books for 1948 Arab-Israeli war
~950 hits for 1948 Palestine war
By the way, the sources you supplied above don't necessarily support the current title. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
You do realize that "1948 Palestine War" and "1948 Arab-Israeli War" are not synonymous, right? That comparing google hit counts for each is meaningless, right? nableezy - 21:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, "1948 Arab-Israeli war" can encompass the whole 1947-1949 conflict (like in Morris' book), or just May '48 onward. Someone should disambig the other article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
"1948 Arab-Israeli war" and "1948 Palestine war" are completely synonymous and are used interchangeably by the academic community. Not one source has been provided making this distinction. Marokwitz (talk) 07:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Marokwitz, the 1948 Arab-Israeli war didn't start on 15 May 1948 when 7 Arab states attacked the newly born state ? Are you sure ? Some Israelis would not hesitate to lapidate you for such a claim ?
A famous academic source is eg : Howard Sachar, A History of Israeli - From the rise of Zionism to our time. He makes clearly start the war on 15 May 1948. Hopefully.
81.247.208.44 (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Historians differ on the start date of the war, but all use the term "1948 Palestine War" and "1948 Arab-Israeli war" interchangeably. They are synonymous. Marokwitz (talk) 07:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

That discussion arose here in the past and numerous sources were provided.
Those who consider that "Arab-Israeli War" is more popular (or neutral) to refer to the full period could go and discuss the title Yom Kippur War and argue to move this to 1973 Arab-Israeli War. Unless their only motivation is to wipe "Palestine". 81.247.208.44 (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to open a similar discussion on the Yom Kippur article. And it would be nice if you logged in with your account. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagreement regarding the start date of the 1948 Palestine war

The actual date when the 1948 Palestine war started is in dispute. Some scholars say that the war started on May 1948, in contradiction to what this article says. I added this information regarding this disagreement to the lead. After all, if there is a dispute between scholars, NPOV dictates that we should present both sides. Marokwitz (talk) 08:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

No. It is not disputed by scholars. Only by you.
And if it would, it should not be the first line of the article.
81.247.205.179 (talk) 08:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
It is disputed by scholars, in fact most scholars. See the following references: [1][2][3][4][5]
  1. ^ Bitter harvest: a modern history of Palestine, By Sami Hadawi, p.92. 1991. Hadawi writes that "Israelis allege" that the war started on May 15, 1948.
  2. ^ Two sides of the same coin : Jewish and Palestinian refugees : hearing, DIANE Publishing, p. 13.
  3. ^ The Middle East: a history. by Sydney Nettleton Fisher. Knopf, 1979. Page 678
  4. ^ Economic policy in Iraq, 1932-1950 By Joseph Sassoon, p. 98. 1987
  5. ^ From the ends of the earth: the peoples of Israel. Howard Morley Sachar. p. 38. 1964

Per WP:LEDE the lead should summarize the major viewpoints and controversies. Also I'm sure you are familiar with WP:NPOV. On what basis are you saying that It is not disputed by scholars? Marokwitz (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2010 (

Welcome on the talk page.
  • "Disputed by scholars" would mean they debate about this. They don't.
  • "summarize the major viewpoints" would mean they are already in the core of the articles. They are not.
81.247.205.179 (talk) 08:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Markowitz, could you check the dates of the books you use as reference ? Are they recent ? Do they talk about the '48 war ? You just "googlebook searched" for information but did you try to contextualize the information ? 81.247.205.179 (talk) 08:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, they do debate . For example see the Sami Hadawi reference which clearly debates it and bashes the Israeli viewpoint. And I did read the content carefully - many of the books are not recent. So what? We are talking about 1948. There is no Wikipedia policy saying that newer sources are automatically more reliable.Marokwitz (talk) 08:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I added the dates. Marokwitz (talk) 08:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
They don't debate. She gives the viewpoint of the "Israelis" pov poshers. Not of the scholars.
The fact the books are not recent is important. They were written in the contact that Israeli propaganda wanted to make start the war "on 15 May when the newly born state was attacked by 7 arab states".
Since then all scholars, in recent publications, and even Karsh, Tal, Gelber, ... remind everybody that it started just after the partition vote.
It is hard to debate with Karsh, Tal, Gelber, Pappé, Shlaim, ... 30 years before they publish their work !
81.247.205.179 (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Your agenda is becoming clear. So If "Israeli propaganda wanted to make start the war on 15 May", why should this be censored from the lead ? After all, NPOV states that we should give equal validity to the views of both sides, based on reliable sources. Are you claiming that the sources that I provided are unreliable? Marokwitz (talk) 08:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • They are reliable in the context in which they are written. These are not historical books about the '48 war. You don't contextualize them in the way you use the quotes.
  • You added this in the first line of the lead. So, you think this is the most important information about that war. The fact that you found scholars in the '70s who made this war start on 15 May and that today, it is not the case... Are you sure this is the most important information ?
  • NPoV doesn't give the same weight to each point of view. NPoV gives to each pov a weight proportionnal to its acceptance among the scholars. Creationnism has not the same value as Evolution. They are not given the same weight in articles.
  • There is no debate among scholars about this. People couldn't answer 30 years before other published. And again, Karsh, Gelber, Pappé, +Khalidi, +Walidhi, Shlaim, Tal,... is a recent panel wide enough.
  • The one who has an agenda disclosed this when he quoted only Karsh and forgot all the other historians. Strangely. Do you have an explanation about this ?
81.247.59.67 (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
The widespread view of scholars is that the Palestine war officially started on May 15. This is of course a terminological issue, not a factual dispute. I used Karsh since he was cited in the article as the source for this information and I was able to verify it. I provided easy to verify citations with page numbers. Where are yours? Marokwitz (talk) 09:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
You misquoted the references you give. As it was explained to you. They are not in the right context.
It is not "my quotes" versus "yours". You are assumed to check all the documentation, which you did not. We write an encyclopaedia. We are not assumed to be JIDF fighters who defend the integrity of ISRAEL. You are an expert googlescholar. Why didn't you check in the books that were already given to you here above ? You don't like what they say ? Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent is difficult, isn't it ?
You provided page number with 1 line you interpret. The last one cannot be checekd. None from historian. Nore from recent book. None from books about the war. Just start from here. The introduction of the book of Yoav Gelber : "(...), this book attempts to integrate present controversies concerning the development of the JewishPalestinian war from December 1947 to mid-May 1948 and the consecutive IsraeliArab war."
You write : "The widespread view of scholars is that the Palestine war officially started on May 15." LOL. You can lie to yourself if you like. That will not change much. 81.247.59.67 (talk) 09:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
My point exactly, in your quote Gelber does not seem to agree with the article, which says: "The 1948 Palestine war refers to the events ... between the United Nations vote on the partition plan on November 30, 1947, to the end of the first Arab-Israeli war on July 20, 1949" . He treats it as a "Jewish Palestinian war" from December 1947 to mid-May 1948 and a consecutive "Israeli Arab war" starting in May. No mention of the so called "1948 Palestine war of November 30, 1947 - July 20, 1949". Do you have a proper source that actually agrees with the lead? Marokwitz (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
The lead fits what Gelber says. His book is about the Palestine war and he clarifies in the quote that I give you that there are two phases. One of them is the Arab-Israeli war. That is what is explained in the lead. And all is said.
I have other quotes (because I have these books) but before, you will answer my questions :
1. Are you looking for the facts and to improve the encyclopaedia or do you just attack this article ?
2. You defended here above the title "Arab-Israeli war". Will you go on the article "yom kippur war" to discuss the issue of that article after you had widely and properly checked the litterature ?
3. Why did you only give the reference to Karsh and not to the other historians ?
4. You claim here above : "the widespread view of scholars is that the Palestine war officially started on May 15." If I provide quotes from the books that were given here above, what can we conclude ?
81.247.59.67 (talk) 10:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The Gelber quote you provided does not say anything about the "Palestine war" consisting of two phases. Perhaps he says so, but you didn't provide a proper citation or quote, and I have no way to verify this. And he provides different dates which clearly contradict the article lead. So far in my research I saw that the vast majority of sources refer to the 1948 "Palestine war" as beginning in May 15, a matter which the article completely ignored. And even if there are scholars who divide things otherwise, both opinions should be mentioned. Regarding your questions,
  1. Yes, I am aiming to to improve the encyclopedia and add notable facts which some editors prefer to censor.
  2. Not currently, that war is not a topic of interest to me at this point. I rather stick to this article.
  3. That source already cited by the article and readily available . By the way Shlaim does seem to agree that the Palestine war stared in May 15 .
  4. Providing better quotes from reliable sources would have effect on due weight that should given to each viewpoint. Marokwitz (talk) 10:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Gelber wrote a book about the "1948 Palestine War" and he descrides two phases for that war. A civil war and the Arab-Israeli war. That is not a quote : that is a full book that sustains the lead. As all the other books given.
The only source that says the contrary, up to now, is the one you gave from Shlaim. It deserves consideration. There is also one book of Pappé that states the contrary and I found one that makes start the 1948 Arab-Israeli War on 30 november...
If (1) was true, you would have written on the talk page of (2) and you would have provided all other sources with their cleam instead of censoring them. You failed purposedly to answer to point (3). You only quoted Karsh whereas there are many other sources that corroborate your point of view, which is in contraduction with (1). Why else ? The reliality or not of (4) will prove who has an agenda and who censors (as not giving all the sources he founds. - By the way, didn't you agressively claim here above the article had to be named 1947-49 Palestine war ?). So, if (1) was true you would already have provided all the sources that corroborate the 30 november 1947. It is not too late. 81.247.59.67 (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't fully understand your response, too many twists for my feeble brain. I provided many reliable and academic sources, which you don't like for some reason (new historians are more reliable?). I have no idea how the other article about the Yom Kippur war is relevant, I'm not involved in editing it. Please stop attacking me and focus on the topic itself. Are you intending to provide the quotes and exact citations as promised? Marokwitz (talk) 11:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
You provided one reliable source for what you sustain and for one of them you didn't read fully because and misinterpret this. I don't attack you. I just anticipate a little bit. Next time you will attack an article with this method it will be easier to prove where you go (or want to go) with this "hypercritical method". For you that is a game to attack articles. For others, that is vandalism of their work. Once again, collaboration would have meant to put all material you gathered, which you did not. 91.180.143.179 (talk) 06:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
You are clearly violating WP:AGF. Do you feel that hiding behind an IP makes you exempt from Wikipedia policies? Marokwitz (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't violate WP:AGF. I asked you many times why you didn't provide all the information you got and only gather material from one side. More, you come on a topic which you don't know. 91.180.143.179 (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you stick to the facts rather than try to impinge other editors? You didn't give all the sources either, now did you? Or have you never heard of Morris's book "1948: The first Arab Israeli War" which was published in 2008? How about Karsh? All your talk about JIDF and Israeli propaganda is pretty transparent. Also, You're an experienced editor. Why don't you login with your account? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Efraim Karsh, Yoav Gelber and David Tal are new historians ? Since when ? They would not appreciate. No. But they are recent ones all these three opposed to New Historians virulently.
Mr Guy, I provided in the past many sources from all sides. They are gathered eg, in this article and they are also in the IPCOOL projet. A soon as you can provide a source, please, don't hesitate. Morris last book gives another definition of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and makes this start on November 30. (Not logging prevents wp:wikistalking...)
You both attacked on this article (because this is an attack), first on the title, now on the definition of the dates. This is part of the "historiography" of that war.
Here below is a list of link to sources sustaining the (obvious) start of the "Palestine War" on November 30. Markowitz found all of them in his google reasearch but didn't report them (he reported one but it says the contrary). Anyway, all this must be analysed, as always, when just "looking for a sentence" with googlebook and reading the full book.
I have also other links that does not sustain this (Morris and Pappé ; Markowitz found one with Shlaim). All this must be formated properly and all the sources must be compared and contextualized according to who talk and when. I currently lack time and that will be for next WE for what concerns me.
Another step is to gather quotes from paper books and historical books (such as 1948 from Morris). Then to understand why some as Pappé and Shlaim made this start on 15 May.
The mountain will give birth to a mouse but that is the way it works here. If wikipedia thanks to some editor pressure would prove the Palestine war started on 15 May, these articles should be speedy deleted : Operation Nachshon (4 April), Operation Bi'ur Hametz (20 April) or Operation Yiftah (April-May). 91.180.143.179 (talk) 06:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Finally, you are giving verifiable sources. Sadly, it seems that you completely misunderstood the motives. Nobody is trying to "prove" that the Palestine war started on 15 May. We are simply guided by reliable sources, which differ on this topic. The intention is to show that there are differing definitions of when the war started, as the sources (including ones provided by you) clearly show, and have the article reflect the different viewpoints, according to the principle of NPOV, which says that all majority and significant minority views should be represented. Attacking editors, failing to assume good faith, and rejecting reliable, published sources without any policy-compliant reason are simply disruptive. Marokwitz (talk) 09:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The dates are in the link. Just read them. 91.180.143.179 (talk) 13:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

References

Still no time today. Next steps are to gather relevant books about the topics, give the quotes and/or information on the talk page, contextualize them and compare the notoriaty of the different authors. 81.247.201.247 (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I already added some of your references as citations to the article. Go for it. Marokwitz (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be much easier to check and correct these links if you could indicate exactly where they are in the article. RolandR (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"...in which Transjordan, Egypt, Syria and Iraq sent expeditionary forces into Palestine where they fought the Israeli army."

Since this is after the founding of Israel, shouldn't it be "sent expeditionary forces into Israel where they fought the Israeli army"? And even that sounds like weasel wording in favor of the Arabs... Twin Bird (talk) 04:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No, because the forces were sent to areas designated by the UN partition resolution as part of the Palestinian state. Israel had not then (and still has not) defined its borders, so this cannot be described as an invasion of Israel. RolandR (talk) 07:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Twin Bird. The Arab armies invaded Israel both de jure and de facto. Egypt crossed the border between the designated Arab and Jewish states, Syria crossed the international border, and even Jordan and Iraq attacked areas that were designated for the Jewish state. —Ynhockey (Talk) 20:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Jordan did not attack the areas designated for the Jewish state. They concentrated on holding on to the West Bank. Iraq mainly held static positions in the West Bank. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Where did you get that information? I can think of a few examples where Jordan either participated in attacks against Jewish-designated areas, or occupied land designated for the Jewish state. It is true that on the political level, Jordan tried not to invade Israel "proper", but because of what they were doing in the war, this was quite difficult.
1) In the beginning of the war, Jordan actively participated in the Battle of Gesher, including on territory of Israel "proper", although the Iraqis made the major push (and failed).
2) On June 10, 1948, Jordan attacked and occupied Gezer, which was on the side of the Jewish state. AFAIK this was their main operation against Israel "proper".
3) Throughout the war, Jordan occupied parts of the Arava, and in March 1949 even engaged Israeli forces in Operation Uvda on the Israeli side of the Arava (the Jordanians retreated afterwards).
These are just the examples I could think of off the top of my head.
In any case, if there is such strong opposition to Twin Bird's proposal, perhaps we should expand the sentence to be more accurate and nuanced. For example:
sent expeditionary forces into former British Mandate territory, including areas designated for the Jewish and Arab states. There they fought the Israeli army.
—Ynhockey (Talk) 19:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
"including areas designated for the Jewish and Arab states" pretty much means all of Palestine (excluding corpus separatum). The sentence as it reads now is accurate and balanced. Twin Birds was simply misinformed when he suggested that it needs to be changed. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
While I don't shy away from using the word Palestine where it's needed, it does have quite different connotations today. What objections do you have to my version? —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I think we could expand this sentence but we have to take care of nuanced/npov then.
Different comments : 1. The initial sentence is extremelly nuanced if we compare this to "The Arab armies invaded Israel". 2. Gesher was an intervention, not an occupation and it occured before 15 May. 3. Gezer was a 1-day counter attack after an attack against Latrun salient. There is Kfar Eztion too but no other case with Jordan. 4. On the other side Iraqis, Syrians and Egyptians tried to invade the territory allocated to Jewish State, but not Jordanians. 5. But if we talk about invasion, on the other side, Israeli forces had already invaded territories allocated to the Arab state before 15 May : Jaffa, the whole coast north of Acre, and the Bab al-Oued / Jerusalem road. 6. we cannot forget the corpus separatum where Jordan and Egypt (at Bethlehem) sent forces too and that Israelis forces tried to control and where fights were raging.
If we want to be more complete (and nuanced), we could write :
On 15 May, Israel forces had defeated the Palestinian Arab militias and had invaded territories allocated to the Arab State. Palestinian Arab population was living a massive exodus and battle was raging in the corpus separatum at Jerusalem. Arab leaders sent the expeditionary forces they had prepared for intervention. Lebanon didn't take part to the fights. Syrians, Irakis and Egyptians tried to invade Israel but were stopped whereas Negev allocated to the Jewish State was isolated from the main land. Jordanian Arab Legion deployed in territories allocated to the Arab state. They blockaded Jerusalem in cutting the Tel-Aviv Jerusalem road at Latrun in Arab territory and intervened at Jerusalem where they fought the Israelis forces.
But this may sound complex and :
Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq sent expedionary forces to Palestine where they fought the Israeli army is a fair summary.
81.247.87.120 (talk) 06:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Reverting based on OR to a version that is OR

No More Mr Nice Guy's revert [6] is to a version which oddly enough, is OR. Furthermore, he did not revert the previous edit, which is also OR. The word "annexion" was already there. NMMNG didn't complain or revert it until I corrected it to "annexation". Which seems to indicate he's watching my edits rather than attempting to correct already standing errors
To the OR information the article now contains:
1)"Israeli victory, tactical and strategic Arab failure" Numerous articles already tell readers the Arab States achieved a large part of their stated aim, retaining Gaza and the West Bank. It is in fact already in the section being disputed. "Jordanian occupation of West Bank and East Jerusalem, Egyptian occupation of the Gaza Strip"
2)"State of Israel established from captured territories (West Jerusalem included)" To quote NMMNG, it's "bullshit". Wikipedia articles already tell readers - The State of Israel was recognized by the US 11 minutes after Israel was declared. The State of Israel was already legally established before being accepted into the UN. Israel was already legally established before the Armistices Agreements were signed ... talknic (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I share NMMNG analysis even if it is me who added the word "annexion". If wanted to make a distinction between the Egyptian occupation and the (Trans)jordanian one but he points out that annexion occured after the war. He is right and it is not OR from his side. I could have answered that historians report that the aim of Abdallah dating back at least 1939 was to annex an as great as possible piece of Palestine but he could on his side answer that an aim is not a fact. So, statu quo is ok from my point of view.
For what concerns the Arab defeat, I share his point of view again. Talknic, where on earth did you read that the fact the '48 war would have been an Arab -even partial- victory ? Arab historians and politicians immediately referred to the events as a '"catastrophe" (Naqba).
Eventually, it could be written that it was a Transjordanian marginal victory too if a source can confirm this.
Noisetier (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Noisetier - I have no problem with annexion/annexation being struck out. "..where on earth did you read that the fact the '48 war would have been an Arab -even partial- victory ? " From the text in the section we're discussing "Jordanian occupation of West Bank and East Jerusalem, Egyptian occupation of the Gaza Strip". The Palestinian people suffered the "catastrophe" (Naqba) BTW. Arab civilians from the Arab States weren't dispossessed
Any comments on this gem "State of Israel established from captured territories (West Jerusalem included)" ?? ... talknic (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
"the Arab States achieved a large part of their stated aim, retaining Gaza and the West Bank"? That's ridiculous. Show me an historian who says that. The aim of the "Arab States" was to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state, in which they completely failed. I'd accept that Jordan had a marginal victory by conquering part of the territory they wanted.
And yes, Israel was established on the territories it captured, your OR about legal establishment etc notwithstanding. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
NMMNG -- You want evidence for wording never intended for the article? How bizarre. "The aim of the "Arab States" was to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state" Uh huh... so why didn't they invade Israel? "The State of Israel came into being on the evening of Friday, 14 May 1948. On the night of 14-15 May, the regular forces of Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon invaded Palestine" [7]. Seems the Israeli Govt knows there were two entities in the region from the moment of Israel's declaration. BTW, you can show a condemnation by the UNSC in a Secondary Source or even a Primary source for the Arab States invasion of Palestine? Yes?
"Israel was established on the territories it captured" On what date did Israel annex those territories? Secondary or even a Primary source would see you right. The onus is on the editor, except it seems when it's OR you like
"I'd accept that Jordan had a marginal victory by conquering part of the territory they wanted" Allegedly, according to sources that tell us Transjordan was in collusion with certain parties, resulting in Transjordan not invading Israel. If Egypt had no success, best start hacking away at the rest of the statement, because "Jordanian occupation of West Bank and East Jerusalem, Egyptian occupation of the Gaza Strip" contradicts the first part ... talknic (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand the reasons of this quarrel...
  • Syria and Egypt tried and partially succeeded to invade Israel, located in Palestine. Iraq too but failed. Jordan "only" invaded parts of Palestine outside the territories allocated to Israel by the Partition Plan. The best synthesis is to write they invaded Palestine (as historians do) but it doesn't mean Arab states didn't intend to attack and fight Israel.
  • As far as I know, one of their aim was indeed to prevent the establishment of a Jewish State (rescuing alestinian Arabs too ; annexing some parts of the Arab states (for all of them !) and preventing the annexion by the other State...). It is a complex issue and historians say that their aims is not known and it is required to have access to archives to have an scientific answer to this question.
Noisetier (talk) 06:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Noisetier - "I don't understand the reasons of this quarrel..." Reverting to OR whilst complaining about OR. I believe it is at the top of the section discussion.
"Syria and Egypt tried and partially succeeded to invade Israel, located in Palestine." An Independent Sovereign State cannot be in or part of a non-self governing territory and be an Independent Sovereignty. Furthermore the Arab States, with the exception of Transjordan, were all UN Member States. If they attacked Israel, why is there no condemnation of it in any UNSC resolution? The UNSC was/is obliged to condemn any such action by it's members
"one of their aim was indeed to prevent the establishment of a Jewish State" Any state without it being determined by the people of Palestine, per the LoN Covenant and the UN Charter. That the lobby group pushing for a state in all of Palestine and who weren't even based in Palestine until 1936 happened to be Jewish, is beside the point. Had they been Inuit, Brazilian or Chinese, do you think their objection would have been any different? ... talknic (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
1. Don't edit my comments, talknic. I believe we had a discussion about this already.
2. If historians say that Egypt's not even reaching Ashkelon while trying to reach Tel Aviv is a "partial victory", then it can go in the article. As far as I know not only do historians not say that, the Egyptians themselves don't consider it a "partial victory", but I'm open to learning something new. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
NMMNG -- "Don't edit my comments" -- inadvertent, mistakes happen. As before, apologies. BTW don't revert complaining about OR to a version which is OR .. thx NMMNG!
"2. If historians say that Egypt's not even reaching Ashkelon while trying to reach Tel Aviv is a "partial victory" Which unbiased NPOV historian said they were trying to reach Tel Aviv, exactly what did they say and; on what did they based their assertions? Because moving north from Egypt towards the US recognized Israeli border on the coast, would equally have been moving towards Isdud.
The issue we are discussing is reverting to OR whilst complaining about OR and; the contradiction between a totally victorious Israel and Transjordan and Egypt having retained territories on behalf of the Palestinians, per the Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine [8] ... talknic (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
At some point when these "mistakes" happen too often, it's quite difficult to keep assuming they are actually mistakes. Also, could you please thread your comments properly? You are now hitting probably 5 of the examples in WP:TENDENTIOUS. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
NMMNG -- "At some point when these "mistakes" happen too often" It has happened twice, inadvertently, in what must now be several hundreds of comments. I have apologized both times. "could you please thread your comments properly?" exactly where has that occurred in a disruptive or tendentious manner?
"You are now hitting probably 5 of the examples in WP:TENDENTIOUS" I have no doubt you'll report me immediately you actually have anything worthwhile. The subject please ... talknic (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
4 comments up you inserted your comment between Noisetier's and mine. Don't do that.
Making a case about your tendentious editing, while quite easy to prove, would just be too much work. I figure that at some point you'll be reported for something else and an admin will notice your editing "practices" and take action. Like the first time you were reported at AE which earned you a topic ban. I could probably report you for something every week, but it's just not worth the effort. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
NMMNG - Apologies for whatever it was I inserted, not done to purposefully mess up the discussion, nor have I ever done anything to purposefully disrupt a discussion. Please address editing "practices" calmly and appropriately on my Talk page, example [9]
"Like the first time you were reported at AE which earned you a topic ban" Terrifying. "I could probably report you for something every week," ditto [10] "Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack"[11] ... Now can we please address the topic ... talknic (talk)
NOTED - Noisetier's edit to: // Establishment of the State of Israel over the borders proposed by the Partition Plan ; no establishment of a Palestinian Arab State ; Jordanian occupation of West Bank and East Jerusalem ; Egyptian occupation of the Gaza Strip ; Syrian foothold North and South of Lake Tiberias//
"Establishment of the State of Israel over the borders proposed by the Partition Plan" Incorrect. The borders proposed by the Partition Plan did not allot the Jewish State a big chunk to the South East of the Gaza Strip along the border of Egypt, nor did it allot a big chunk of territories to the North, bordering Lebanon. None of these territories have ever been recognized as Israeli, nor have they ever been legally annexed. Israel acquired, by war, some 50% of the territory allotted the Arab State under the Partition Plan, establishing itself de facto in those territories
"no establishment of a Palestinian Arab State " The establishment of a Palestinian Arab State by war WAS NOT an aim of the Arab League's Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine [12]. Their aim was to protect Palestine from Israeli forces already outside of Israel by May 15th 1948 and to maintain order in Palestine as Regional Powers, per the sacred trust in Chapt XI of the UN Charter. Statehood was for the people of Palestine to decide, per the notions of self determination inherent in the Lon Mandate for Palestine and the UN Charter. Egypt successfully protected Gaza, Transjordan successfully protected what became the West Bank. I suggest rendering the statement thus :
// Israel protected it's territories as proposed by the Partition Plan and occupied some 50% of the territory allotted the Arab State; Jordan protected and occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank and; Egypt protected and occupied the Gaza Strip ; Syrian foothold North and South of Lake Tiberias// ... talknic (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Propose merge. We need to decide either to treat all the conflict from 1947 partition plan onwards as one war, or to separate it into the 1947-48 Civil War, followed by Arab-Israeli war after the declaration of independence in May 1948. The current layout of articles is only going to confuse readers. If this is about a war in 1948 only, as the name implies, then it is about exactly the same topic as 1948 Arab-Israeli war. The fact that all this is still extremely controversial doesn't mean that we don't have a need to inform readers. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

  • This article was meant to encompass both the 47-48 Civil War and the wider 48 Arab-Israeli War that followed Israel's declaration of independence. Both of those phases are treated as separate parts of one larger conflict in a large number of sources. The idea was that this would have summaries of both of the other articles per WP:SUMMARY. nableezy - 16:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I did see that argument. Thank you for putting stating so succinctly, Nableezy. Do you think that solution will actually work, i.e. can content be removed from this article so that readers can go to one sub-article or to the other? My main concern is that we have too many articles telling the same story over again. Which is making the task of bringing NPOV to all of them near impossible. I just found Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is very poorly sourced. There is also Nakba. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Nakba is just a redirect to 1948 Palestinian exodus and I cant imagine that article being merged anywhere. It is related, obviously, to the 48 war, but it is its own topic. Would the SUMMARY solution work? I think so, but nobody has really tried. But I for one would be fine with removing some of the content from here that more logically, due to level of detail, fits in one of the sub-articles. But this should still cover both at a higher level (as well as, though to a lesser extent, the 1948 exodus page). nableezy - 17:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
How can an article called 1948 Palestine war cover both the 1947-48 Civil War, and the 1948 Arab-Israeli war? The current name makes no sense. Frankly I don't see why this article is needed. We have an article about the Arab-Israeli conflict, I don't see why we need a separate, repetitive article about these two periods. Marokwitz (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Because that is what historians call it? 1948 by Benny Morris starts with the partition resolution, then goes in to the civil war, and not until chapter 5 starts to deal with the wider Arab-Israeli war. Karsh's The Arab-Israeli conflict: the Palestine War 1948 also starts with the inter-communal war and then gets into the wider conflict. Gelber's Palestine, 1948: war, escape and the emergence of the Palestinian refugee problem also starts with the civil war. The fact is that historians treat both the civil war and the interstate war as part of one conflict. I realize that some people dislike the name for various reasons, from the use of 1948 to the use of the word Palestine, but that remains an invalid reason on Wikipedia. The sources combine those two conflicts into one larger one. That is why the name is what the name is and that is why this article exists. nableezy - 17:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I think there is a common confusion about what is the meaning of those authors. The 1947-1949 event is largely considered as the "1948 Arab-Israeli War" (also named "1948 Palestine War" and "Israeli Independence War") with the "Civil War" being the first phase of it and the "Invasion of Arab States" being the second phase (the invasion is largely identified as the main part of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war). This is the spirit of Benny Morris, as he counts the casualties of "1948 Arab-Israeli War" to include those of the "Civil War" phase altogether [13] (sorry for the tertiary link, but i believe that sutisfies to all who did read his work).Greyshark09 (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Against - I can't comment there, but I think there's a clear differentiation between the war between countries (this article) and the civil unrest prior to that. JaakobouChalk Talk 09:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC) clarify 09:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
p.s. it doesn't matter really what I think -- Gelber, Yoav Palestine, 1948: war, escape and the emergence of the Palestinian refugee problem. 2nd ed. Sussex Academic Press, 2006 p. 138. thinks that there's a clear differentiation. JaakobouChalk Talk 09:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
That's not exactly the issue. It's whether we need 3 articles, one on the first "phase" (if phase it is, civil war), one on the second "phase" (Arab countries also involved), and one overall article. It's the existence of the overall article that I'm most concerned about. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think a merge can happen. Since some historians refer to both the civil war and the international war parts of one unit (as someone correctly pointed out on the other page) we'd need to merge both the civil war and this article into the 1948 Palestine war article, then that would become too big and then we'd just need to split it again. So there's really no point.
If you want to give it a shot, go ahead though. Consider me neutral. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The three articles are 1) 1948 Palestine war, which is meant to be an overview from 1947 through 1948; 2) 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine which is meant to cover the "first phase" of the whole war (or is it a civil war in its own right?) and 3) this article which is meant to cover the "second phase" of the whole war (or is it a war in its own right?). There's a potential for readers to get very confused. Do historians usually describe one war in two phases or two separate wars? I think maybe one war. Then the argument is that if all three articles were merged, the result would be far too long. That would certainly be true if all the current material were kept in, but it may also be possible to take out some of the purely military detail into sub-articles that aren't POV forks. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it would be advisable to smoosh everything together into one big article, since the post-May-14th-1948 fighting was much more internationalized, and with free use of heavy weapons (tanks, artillery, planes), while the British were absent (except of course for "Glubb Pasha") etc. etc. -- so there was a real difference. AnonMoos (talk) 12:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
This is a personal observation not based on sources or knowledge of the occurrences -- but why not merge 1948 Palestine war into 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine? JaakobouChalk Talk 08:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
A lot of thoughtful arguments have been made, many thanks to all contributors. I'll let the discussion go a little longer and then post on the 1948 Palestine war page. There are several possible solutions and I'll summarise the pros and cons of each (as I see them). Itsmejudith (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support the merge - "1948 Palestine War" is a WP:FORK article of the "1948 Arab-Israeli War". Creating it probably meant to be a good thing but is not much supported by sources. Usually the 1948 Arab-Israeli war includes as well the preceding 1947-1948 Civil War in Palestine as a subconflict, but some confused the official "start of the war" as 15 May, though it had actually been the 1st of December 1947. Lets just look at the casualties of the "1948 Arab-Israeli War" and the casualties of the "1948 PAlestine War" - it is the same.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Against - Rationale; The civil war was not between States. As of May 15th 1948 recognized internationally borders existed between Israel and it's state and non-state neighbours and; the subsequent legal ramifications under the UN Charter and customary International Law are vastly different as of May 15th 1948. Prior to and during the civil war, Palestine was a non-self governing territory (UN Charter Chpt XI) under protection of the British Mandate. As of May 15th 1948 after Israel was declared, only what remained of Palestine fell under UN Charter Chpt XI protection as a non-self governing territory, determining the right of the Arab States who at the time were the representatives of what was to become the Arab State, to invade what remained of Palestine in order to protect those non-self governing territories from foreign forces ... talknic (talk) 09:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Although it's a bit confusing because there are three articles involved, I think that comes out as consensus for two articles: one on the "civil war stage" and one on the "international stage", even though we then don't follow Benny Morris's approach. At least we could proceed to that and then see afterwards if we wanted after all to end up with just one article. In the end, even if good historians call the "whole" hostilities a "1948" war, since in fact the hostilities lasted 1947-1949 we should make sure the article names reflect that so as not to confuse the reader. Remembering that Morris has a whole book to explain what he means where we are only compiling encyclopedia entries. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
We apparently don't have any consensus here, but i just need to emphasize that currently the casualty rate mentioned in conflict box of the "1948 Palestine War" and "1948 Arab-Israeli War" is exactly the same, and of course this is non-sense.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I add that this discussion already occured several times. Historians refers to this war as the 1948 War or the 1948 Palestine War. Sources are given here above and come from scholars from all "schools" such as Karsh, Pappé and Gelber (see some sections here above). In fact, if merging should be done, it would be in this article...
There cannot be any confusion for the reader. If the lead is read, at the second paragraph, everything is explained.
For what concerns numbers they refer to the victims of the whole 1948 Palestine War and globalize the one of the civil war and the ones of the Arab-Israeli War.
81.247.183.106 (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Reformulate discussion question
There are three options on the table.
1. Just one article for the whole war, 1947-1949.
2. Two articles, up to May 1948 and post May 1948.
3. Three articles, one as an overview 1947-1949, one up to May 1948 and one post May 1948.
In most cases we can see from your post above which of these you prefer, but if you would like to specify which one of these you prefer, please feel free to do so below. Many thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I think there is a possibility to keep three articles, but we need to change naming to reflect WP:COMMONAME - thus the 1947-1949 overview (the whole conflict) will be called "1948 Arab-Israeli War"/"1948 Palestine War"/"First Palestine War"/"War of Independence", being divided into two periods:
"1947-1948 Civil War in Palestine"
"1948-1949 Invasion of Palestine"/"1948-1949 Arab League military intevention in Palestine" (or something like that).Greyshark09 (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
4. (fourth option, which in my opinion is the correct one) - 2 articles, one named "1948 Arab-Israeli War" (also the 1948 Palestine War), encompassing everything 1947-1949 and another article on the civil war (Nov 1947-May 1948), which is a sub-conflict of the wider Arab-Israeli war.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
That actually could be the right solution. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
It's an odd notion to have one article, 1948 Arab-Israeli War, covering everything 1947-1949 which would include the civil war and another article on the civil war Nov 1947 - May 1948
Two articles ought be: the civil war 1947 - May 15th 1948. The other being the war between States May 15th 1948 to Armistice. Same rationale as @ 09:01, 30 September 2011 ... talknic (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Let's look how the sides of the conflict relate to this war and its stages -
The Jordanian official position relates the event as the "1948 Arab-Israeli War" [14], not mentioning the war's exact starting date (it says that after the November 1947 partition plan the war was inevitable). It describes the "Battle of Jerusalem" (part of the war) as broken into four distinct phases, the first stage of which being street skirmishes between Arabs and Jews starting in December 1947 and ending with the "commencement of war" in May 1948. So, on one hand the war "commenced" on May 1948, but its sub-conflict "Battle of Jerusalem" began on December 1947. That is a little bit inconclusive...
According to Israeli MFA, the "War of Independence" is dated 1947-1949 (even though independence was announced in May 1948)[15], [16]. Further more, the death count is encompassing both the civil war stage and the invasion stage.
I would be happy if someone brings the official Egyptian and Syrian (and general Arab League) stance on this war's timeline.Greyshark09 (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Greyshark09 - The official Egypt, Jordan and the Arab League stances for the 1948 Arab-Israeli war (May 15th 1948 - '49) can be found here [17] ... talknic (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
First of all, i meant current government sources, not primary source documents from 1948, but I did read the announcements. Apparently, there is nothing there to indicate the exact timeline of war (probably because the statements were made during the war, so nothing was conclusive), and as No More Nice Guy mentioned, secondary sources needed. See my analysis below.Greyshark09 (talk) 08:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I think how historians describe it is more important than how the sides do. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Here are some citations from 1948 documents by Arab League, Egypt and Jordan (brought by Talknic):
The Arab League paper (from May 16, 1948) says the "conflict" (not specifying its name) started in 1947 - "When the general assembly made its recommendations on 30 November 1947 for the solution of the Palestine problem ... The Arab then rejected such a scheme... The apprehensions of the Arab States proved to be well founded at the disturbances of which they had warned soon swept the country, and armed conflict took place...", and intervention of the League is ongoing.
The Egyptian position says its forces make an "intervention" to stop ongoing "massacres", aiming "restoration of security and order to Palestine, particularly after the British Mandate has ended...". The "intervention" (not "war") is therefore dates to the time of the document (15 May 1948), and "massacres" (not "war") began prior to that (meaning the civil war of course).
The Jordanian document by Regent Abdullah (from May 16) says "We were compelled to enter Palestine to protect unarmed Arabs against massacres similar to these of Deir Yasin." - again no mentioning of "war", just ongoing "massacres" (meaning civil war) and "entry" of Arab forces (invasion stage from May 15 onwards).Greyshark09 (talk) 08:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Arab League Security Council document S/745 -- Egypt S/743 -- Transjordan in S/748 -- (brought to us by by zero actually  :-) ... talknic (talk) 10:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Greyshark09 - They're declarations of intent to the UNSC per UN Charter Chapt VII. (To the best of my knowledge, the last official declarations of war ever submitted to the UNSC). The civil war in Palestine ended at "at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time"[18]. Any continuing violence in Israel would have been civil war in Israel and; as a Sovereign State could have no legal intervention by the UN or any other state Art 2. 7., unless called for by Israel. Israel did not issue a statement of intent to the UNSC for Jewish forces "outside the territory of the State of Israel" (after the fact - 22nd May 1948) or call for any intervention by the UN on it's behalf.
Egypt - "in place of chaos and disorder which prevailed" (past tense) ... TransJordan - There is no "ongoing" in the statement. It says "similar to".
Given the extreme seriousness of such events, documents of this nature should be read and cited with the same precision they written ... talknic (talk) 07:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with NMMNG : "I think how historians describe it is more important than how the sides do"
And historians (coming from all sides...) refer to the events from November '47 to mid-49 to the 1948 Palestine War/War for Palestine. References were given numerous times last years.
More, Israel didn't exist before 15 May 1948 and the Arab states intervened only after too. So, the whole events that are refered to in this article can*not* be refered as the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
War of independance and al-Naqba refer to the 1948 Palestine War, not (just) the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
The current/actual solution with 3 articles fits with these points.
81.247.93.126 (talk) 10:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Question Re Merger and; post May 15th 1948 in Israel: What would one call conflicts in Israel between Israeli forces/militias, armed persons etc, against other (non-Jewish) Israelis, armed or not? Civil war in Israel? ... talknic (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Effectively nothing serious had been going on regarding internal Jewish and later Israeli fighting, exluding a single Altalena incident. In regard to this point, I must remind the First Intifada, where half of the killed Palestinians were killed in internal fighting and mutual killing of various factions, but the conflict is still regarded as a single "uprising" against Israel, not a Palestinian internal insurgency in addition to the uprising.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support the merge - For reasons already given. Its hard enough maintaining quality content in this corner of Wikipedia without massive amounts of duplicated information. Jsolinsky (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - long time since the discussion started i would like to conlcude:
    • Supporters - Judith, Marokwitz, AnonMoos, Greyshark09, GRuban, Jsolinsky
    • Opposing - Nableezy, Jaacobou, TalkNick
    • Neutral - Mr. Nice Guy, IP 81.247.183.106
Seems think there is no clear agreement, but perhaps the proposal needs to be reformulated.Greyshark09 (talk) 09:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a misunderstanding. I opposed the merge. 81.247.83.224 (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Lebanese army - caption

A discussion has taken place on the talk page of the article 1948 Arab-Israeli war about the invading Arab armies and about the flag to use to characterize Mickey Marcus, Glubb Pacha and foreign volunteers as a rule. The conclusion can take place there about this commun issue given the 1948 Arab-Israeli war is just the second part of the 1948 Palestine war. 91.180.64.65 (talk) 11:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Background sections

These should be kept to a minimum. If we give the whole back-story to the conflict on every single I-P history page, then we will never be done. I have summarised a bit more here. We also have a background section in 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. Does it need one? Does this article need one? Assuming we are going to maintain three articles on this civil-to-international conflict. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Each article must be understandable by itself.
Therefore background and summaries (not full development) are required.
Pluto2012 (talk) 11:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Vague 'former British Mandate for Palestine'

"former British Mandate for Palestine" could be taken to include Transjordan. See Parallel discussion @ Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War
Readers should be informed that Jordan/Transjordan, was not a part of the Mandate post 1946.

Suggestion 01: //The 1948 Palestine war refers to the war that occurred in British-controlled Palestine[19] between the United Nations vote on the partition plan on November 30, 1947,[1]

Suggestion 02: Simply "Palestine", as Britain did not control Palestine post May 15, a time period also covered by this article. "Former Mandatory Palestine" is not correct as the mandate was still in effect pre May 15, and the article covers that time period as well. --Frederico1234 (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

NOTE NMMNGs Reversion: This issue was initiated @ 14:21, 6 July 2012.
Frederico1234 posted a suggestion 14:45, 6 July 2012.
NMMNG's Revision of an issue under discussion was @ 15:03, 6 July 2012. (against his own criteria).
Undone by myself @ 15:21, 6 July 2012 talknic (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Frederico1234 --- The article covers both a mandate period and post mandate period. The issue as I see it is:
A) informing the reader Transjordan was not a part of Palestine or any Mandate post 1946.
B) "Palestine" would suffice post May 15th 1948. The May 22nd 1948 statements by the Provisional Israeli Government delineates between the State of Israel and "Palestine".
UNSC Res 42 of March 5, 1948 says "Palestine"
After Israel became a UN Member the UNSC refers to both Israel and "Palestine".
No Armistice agreement contains the word 'mandate', they do tell us where the war was fought and hostilities ceased. They all say "Palestine". talknic (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Regarding A): Why should the reader be informed about the status of Transjordan? To me that seems like a tangential issue. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Frederico1234 -- If "Palestine will suffice" we can drop the tangential reference. While the article says "former British Mandate for Palestine" could be taken to include Transjordan talknic (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Mandatory Palestine solved the ostensible problem with someone thinking it includes Transjordan, and is a concise and accurate description of where the war took place. "Palestine" standing alone is ambiguous. We've had several discussions with talknic about this between his topic bans. Check the archives. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG -- None of the Armistice Agreements, Cease Fire Agreements or UNSC resolutions cited in secondary sources use the phrase. The documents they cite DO say "Palestine" talknic (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Is David Tal WP RS on specific point POST Mandate period?

Reason for NMMNG's Reversion (please explain in talk exactly what the problem with a book by historian david tal published by routledge is.)
NMMNG -- The [better source needed] tag gave the reason: "Reason=There was no Mandatory Palestine post May 14th 1948. Source should say 'post Mandatory Palestine' or 'former territory of Mandatory Palestine' to be RS", Please read the reasons given, it's why there is a facility for giving a reason in a tag.
The source is not WP:RS on a specific point dealing with the POST Mandate period. talknic (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you even laid eyes on a single page of this book? Do you question Tal's credentials or those of the publishing house which published the book? Because if you're repeatedly tagging just because you don't like the text (as if your opinion trumps that of David Tal (historian), I'm going to take your tendentious editing to AE. I will not warn you again.
Also, you complained that "British Mandate of Palestine" is vague. I replaced it with a link to Mandate Palestine which solves the problem with the ostensible vagueness. You reverted. You don't really think it's vague, that was just an excuse. That's also tendentious. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG -- The source is not WP:RS on a specific point dealing with the POST Mandate period. There was no Mandatory Palestine post May 14th 1948. When addressing the post May 14th 1948 period, the source should say 'post Mandatory Palestine' or 'former territory of Mandatory Palestine' or prior or something to that effect to be WP:RS for the specific point in the article statement and; "British Mandate of Palestine" between 1946 and 1948 did not include Transjordan. I am attempting to clarify on behalf of readers, an already vague statement which is NOT supported by the source talknic (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
We've been over this like 15 times already. What you think a source should say is irrelevant. Your opinion does not trump that of a professor of history. What you're doing here is tendentious, as any experienced editor will tell you. You have an opportunity to remove the tag, or I will remove it tomorrow. If you put it back I will report you and you will most likely be topic banned for good. For the last time, I suggest you find an experienced editor whom you trust and consult with them. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG -- We have never been over the issue of this source and the discrepancy it presents. Furthermore it is not a matter of my opinion.
The Mandate ended May 14th 1948. Tal is talking about a period POST may 14th 1948. Post May 14th 1948 it was the 'previous' or 'prior' or 'former' or some such 'Mandate'. He uses no word to delineate between pre May 14th 1948 and post May 14th 1948
The tag is appropriate for such an issue especially when the Lede is in question at Talk. talknic (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
What we've been over many MANY times is the fact that you personally thinking a source got something wrong does not make it unreliable for wikipedia purposes. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG -- A) It has nothing to do with my opinion. B) The source mentions Mandatory Palestine twice in reference only to the post May 14th 1948 period, Page 390 & Page 436 & 1 ref page 493. C) The author has not used 'previous' or 'prior' or 'former'. In fact no word to delineate between pre May 14th 1948 and post May 14th 1948. D) Policy dictates a source must be accurate on each particular point, regardless the author's qualifications or of how RS the source might be on other issues or what you like. E) It is quite simple, there was no Mandate post May 14th 1948! talknic (talk) 07:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not following. The sentence using the reference states the following: "The 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine (sometimes called an "intercommunal war")". I presume the source is used to back up the claim that the civil war is "sometimes called an "intercommunal war"". In what way does this relate to the post mandate period? The mandate was still in effect at this time. --Frederico1234 (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Frederico1234 -- Then there should be two sources one for each part of the statement. Tal is writing about the period POST May 14/15th 1948 talknic (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I looked at the book using google books and there was a chapter called "Intercommunal War". It did seem to cover the pre May 15 period. --Frederico1234 (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Frederico1234 -- A) fine for "Intercommunal War" however; B) Where he uses Mandate Palestine it is in reference only to post May 14th 1948. There was no mandate post 14th May 1948! talknic (talk) 07:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
But he isn't being used to say anything about Mandate Palestine, only for the epithet "intercommunal". I don't get what point you're making but since it's about sourcing you should take it to RSN. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Itsmejudith -- The Article statement says Mandatory Palestine, the only source is Tal. Page 48 -- "the Arab governments forbade the ALA to join the fighting in Palestine before 15th May) ..... So although the ALA forces took part in fighting here during the intercommunal war". Page 146 -- "The waves of refugees who fled or were expelled from Palestine during the intercommunal war" Page 124 "intercommunal" "in Palestine". Page 11 "In late 1947 to early 1948 Syria's ability to take an active part in the fighting in Palestine". Page 146 "The events of April 1948 in Palestine". Page 148 "It was the British who frustrated Abdullah's plans to involve the Arab Legion in fighting in Palestine before the end of the Mandate."
Either change the source or change the statement. Because the only times he mentions "Mandatory Palestine" is on: Page 390 -- in reference to events AFTER May 14th 1948, and; on Page 436 - A reference to when there was a Government (there was no Israeli Government pre May 15th 1948). Mandatory Palestine in 1947-1948 did not include Transjordan, we can inform readers of that situation with one simple secondary source as I have suggested talknic (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Discrepancies

There are some huge discrepancies between the Course of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War section and the 1948 Arab–Israeli War article. In coverage and weight given to various topics.--Mor2 (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

What are the main ones that you noticed ? Pluto2012 (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I missed you post(I didn't know how to track the various edits). The issue was with the section selective coverage of events. The war started, we jump to the casefire, we jump to consequences of Israli attacks we jump to the end. Since then I have tried to add summary of the course of war. --Mor2 (talk) 10:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

New Historians

Regarding the Historiography section, I think that the second paragraph i.e.

In 1980, with the opening of the Israeli and British archives, Israeli historians started giving new insights on the history of this time period. In particular, the roles played by Abdullah I of Jordan and the British government, the goals of the different Arab nations, the balance of force, and the events related to the Palestinian exodus have been expressed in more complexity or given new interpretations.[60] Some of the issues continue to be hotly debated among historians and commentators of the conflict today.[61]

Does an excellent job at providing information on the role of the "New Historians", noting the complexity of the situation, mentioning the balance of force and arab political intrigues. While the first and uncensored paragraph is blunt contrast hat transfers the complexity of the situation into a simple POV statement:

After the war, Israeli and Arab historiographies differed on the interpretation of the events of 1948. In the West, the majority view favored the Israelis, in part because of the events of the Holocaust that had destroyed six million Jews in Europe during World War II. Supporters thought that a tiny group of vastly outnumbered and ill-equipped Jews had fought off the massed strength of the invading Arab armies. It was widely thought that the Palestinian Arabs had left their homes on the instruction of their leaders, rather than being forced out by the Israelis.

Please deal with this.--Mor2 (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you deal with it, please. Seriously, this is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit Itsmejudith (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for you constructive addition. FYI directing attention to the problem(as well as adding cn tags) is part of dealing with it, which includes giving the people who added it or those who think it worth noting a chance to improve and source.--Mor2 (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Second paragraph is unsourced but what is written could have been written eg by Morris.
It is just a too direct style but that is simple the facts.
A source should be found but I would not remove this information. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Non-free file problems with File:Palmach.jpg

File:Palmach.jpg is currently tagged as non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:Palmach.jpg. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 17:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Non-free file problems with File:Pantani.jpg

File:Pantani.jpg is currently tagged as non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:Pantani.jpg. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine A/RES/181(II)(A+B) 29 November 1947
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1948_Palestine_war/Archive_1&oldid=1112339865"