Talk:1948 Palestine war/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Jordanian victory?

User:Frederico1234 claims Jordan won a marginal victory since they captured the West Bank. Since this is a rather unusual claim, it should at least be covered by appropriate sources. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Support, The reason given by User:Frederico1234 is valid, as Jordan captured 1/3rd of British mandate, which the world knows as West Bank, so it was a "marginal" Jordanian Victory too. Faizan (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It's still a very unusual claim. Could you supply sources that clearly support this view? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I have added reference for Jordanian vitory in the West Bank from the Article Battles of Latrun (1948). Faizan (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You should remember that Jordan did not capture the West Bank from Israel, and that Israel captured one third of the territory despite Jordanian efforts to prevent this. Based on this, I don't believe the term "victory" fits, as it uncorrectly hints that Jordan defeated Israel overall. Remember, there were more battles between Israel and Jordan than just Latrun. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes! Jordan did not defeat Israel overall, just defeated Israel marginally! The 1/3 rd of British Mandate of Palestine was captured by Jordan, and 2/3 rd by Israel, so it was not complete Israeli victory! Latrun is located at West Bank edge, and with victory at Latrun, Jordanian forces had captured the whole of the present day West Bank! Faizan (talk) 06:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

But who did Jordan capture it from? Not Israel, as far as I am aware. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that Jordan was not really at war with Israel. King Husseini had discussed a partition of Palestine with Isralis before the war and the British had given their support to Jordan if and only if it didn't attack Israel. It is a marginal Jordanian victory because it didn't succeed to get all of the territory it targeted to capture : the entire part attributed to the Arab State but it captured a wide part of this. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment—I think we should change it to "Jordanian territorial gains". Saying that it was a victory in the infobox implies that they defeated the other side (Israel), which didn't happen (widely or marginally), but it's true that Jordan made territorial gains in this war which it wouldn't have had it not entered the war. It is well documented that Israel didn't want to capture most of the West Bank (especially at the end of the war when Israeli military leaders estimated that they could do this in 5–6 days, but Ben-Gurion forbid it), and Jordan on its part didn't want to enter a full-scale war with Israel at all. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

But Israel was itself established after the war's victory! Isn't it? Thus Israel was not the other combatant, as the info-box indicates. SO I think both "Israeli Victory" and "Jordanian marginal victory" be reviewed! Faizan (talk) 06:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

@Faizan : Israel was established during the war and expanded her territories in the second part of this, after it was estabilished. She also expand after during armistice negociations.

Ynhockey : the Israelis didn't defeat the Jordanians either and in the Israeli-Jordanian war, Jordan reached more of its objectives than Israel : whereas Jordanians did not plan to attack Israel but just to annex the Arab State, Israeli planned to capture Samaria during operation Larlar (Ben Gurion suggested this again on 26 september but that was rejected by the cabinet) and also the whole of Jerusalem (with the Jewish Quarter) but failed to succeed.

Why then writing it was an Israeli victory ? With Jordanians, that is more likely a draw but that was complex war with many factions : it was globally an Israeli victory and a marginal Jordanian one, a British marginal defeat, an Arab defeat and a Palestinian strategic defeat.

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Pluto2012. Faizan (talk) 08:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Pluto: Israel won against the other Arab states, so it would be strange to write anything else, and Larlar/Danny was not a plan to capture Samaria at all. It was a plan to capture large parts of Judea (Jerusalem mountains and Judean lowlands—the acronym, Lod, Ramla, Latrun, Ramallah says it all) with the strategic goal of securing Jerusalem for Israel. It failed indeed, but Israel didn't follow up on the offensive (multiple sources say it could, and if it's really important to you I'll find them) for political/demographic and not military reasons. In any case, if we want to write Jordanian victory (marginal or not), I don't oppose that categorically, just without providing further context. Infobox space is limited, but we can add a few words about how Jordan only planned to hold the Arab parts. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I have corrected the information about Samaria in Battles of Latrun, 1948 with a relevant source. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Ynhockey : I have corrected your erros in using Morris (2008) who is more reliable than Oren (1982).

We could also talk about the Israeli assault on Jenin against the Iraki allies of Jordan.

With the fall of Ramallah, Samara would have felt and Judea just after.

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, Transjordan got repelled from the Negev by the Israelis, and they didn't capture the West Bank from Israel. The Jordanian war effort was closely connected to the effort of the other Arab states, and should be judged thereafter. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Transjordan was not repelled from the Negev by the Israelis. It is rather the Egyptians who were repelled unless you refer to the Jordanian units that were patrolling 10 km away from the border and that stopped this as soon as the Israelis launched operation Uvda.

The war effort of Jordan was not closely connected to the effrot the other Arab states. The Jordan/Iraqi alliance was just one of the Arab sides and if they had collaborated with Egyptians, the war in Negev would have been different. This is explained in any history book about the war that is no more than 20 years old.

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Battles of Latrun, I'm going to leave a comment there, but in short: the Morris book, which I happen to have, says on the pages you referenced exactly what I said before, and the opposite of what you said. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 03:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

No. You are wrong and I would rather say a lier. That is strange that whereas you had Morris's book you prefered to use a 1982's book which cannot be considered a wp:rs. I add that Frederico1234 has just proven here below that you was wrong regarding the Jordanian's victory. All this just illustrates that you live in the myth of the history of Israeli dating back the eighties. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment: From Benny Morris, 1948, page 419: "Perhaps it is not accidental that the only 1948 regime to enjoy longevity, that of the Hashemites of Jordan, was also the only one that emerged from the war relatively victorious." Bolding by me. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Lead

There is a problem with the statements relating to the discussion of Jewish immigrants and refugees. With reference to the war the article claims that "800,000 to 1,000,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries". One source for this claim is the Jewish Virtual Library, but the source is discussing the period between 1948 and 1972, not the 1948 Palestine war. The second citation is "Roumani, pp. 30-31" - unverifiable without further information.

In the next sentence the article says that 700,000 Jews immigrated to Israel in the three years following the war. The source for this is good, but it covers the same time period as the JVL article so we are counting the same people twice. Dlv999 (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Though the expulsion of the Jewish populations continued until 1972, the war was clearly the catalyst. Therefore, the Jewish refugees should be mentioned. --1ST7 (talk) 05:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It is already covered in the article. See the demographics section. Dlv999 (talk) 06:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

If the Palestinian refugees are going to be mentioned in the lead, the Jewish ones should be also. If the issue is the timeline, just clarify: "The war also marked the beginning of the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim lands. Beginning in 1948, and continuing until 1972, an estimated 800,000 to 1,000,000 Jews were expelled." --1ST7 (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree partially with 1ST7.

The 1948 War triggered or at least catalized the Jewish Exodus from Arab lands. If it is true that in this article the numbers of both exodus should not be compared given the Jewish one took place on a 20 years period, it should be mentionned anyway.

But we should certainly not write this : "Additionally, 800,000 to 1,000,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries, and many were killed in the antisemitic violence that followed.". It is misleading the reader, partially false and wp:undue.

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the original version can be misleading. Do you consider the second version I suggested - The war also marked the beginning of the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim lands. Beginning in 1948, and continuing until 1972, an estimated 800,000 to 1,000,000 Jews were expelled - to be appropriate? --1ST7 (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

As it has been nearly a week and no one has objected to the second version, I am going to go ahead and add it to the text. --1ST7 (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Casualties in info box etc Some considerations for editors

I'll transfer this from Pluto's page.

• Syrian army 1,500
• Lebanese army 1,000
• Iraki army 1,500
• Jordanian army 4,500
• Saudi force 1,500
• Egyptian army and volunteers 10,000

Total =20,000 (Laurens, La Question de Palestine, 1947-1967, Fayard, Paris, 2002, vol.3 pp105-6)

Add some thousands of Palestinians and Arab volunteers and you get less than 30,000 Israel had 30,-35,000 troops, which included the 6,000 Palmach elite, while the highly motivated Irgun and Stern/Lehi forces amounted to 3,000. (p.106)

If you analyse the casualties, on the other hand, the strong numerical advantage of the Israeli forces vs those of the uncoordinated Arabs is reversed. Israel suffered some 6,000 deaths and double that figure in wounded, amounting to 1% of the Yishuv's population. By contrast, the casualties by the numerically inferior Arab forces are half that.

• Egypt 961 dead, plus 200 irregulars
• Jordan: 362 plus 200 irregulars
• Iraq 199 plus 200 irreguliars
• S.Arabia 68 plus 105 irregulars
• Lebanon 11 plus 150 irregulars
• Syria 307 plus 204 irregulars
• l'armée de secours 512
• Others (Yemen, Sudan, N. African) 200

Non-Arabs (Armenians, Greeks, Europeans, Hindus) 42 Totalling 3,700 (these however are based on al-Arif's 1958 calculations, and that is perhaps dated. However, it is an Arab source close to the events.)

With regard to Palestinians who fought, there the figures are particularly high, if we can trust Laurens's figures for the number who engaged in the war.

• Palestinians who died in combat 1,953
• Unknown names, but number, place and date known: 4,004
• Names and dates not known but places of death known 7,043
• =13,000 Palestinians, double the number of Jewish losses, and statistically, in terms of relative populations, far greater a percentage of the relevant population. The largest part of Palestinian loses however relates to non-combatants.(Laurens 3:194 il est clair que la plus grande partie des pertes palestiniennes concerne des non-combattants et correspond aux succés israéliens.)

He adds' If the war for the Israelis, in its totality from November 1947 to January 1949 and especially in the first months, was above all a question of survival, it came through the destruction of Palestinian Arab society in its economic, territorial, and human structures' p.194 Nishidani (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nishidani,

We can trust Laurens who may be the most reliable and neutral source on this topic and a scholar of high integrity. It is not fundamental but I don't think that the 4 in 4,004 and the 43 in 7,043 is relevant but anyway : the 12-13,000 losses fits what Morris reports in his book 1948 and sources corroborate regarding these numbers that are difficult to evaluate due to the Palestinian exodus.

Relatively to the population, it means that as well the Yishuv but also the Palestinian Arabs lost 1 % of their population (600,000 Jews and 1,200,000 Arab end of 1947 in Mandatory Palestine) during the 1948 War.

Regarding the horror of that war for the Palestinians, we can add also that 800 or 6 % (according to Morris), not far from 2,000 or 15 % (according to al-Jawad) were massacred by Israelis. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

to Frederico: The Cech supplied arms to both sides

yours: First truce ended before August. Also note that, according to the source, the "the Israeli navy intercepted the freight and seized the weapons", i.e. no weapons were actually received." In my opinion, it is important to say that both side have purchased arms from the Chechs. Some sources ( e.g. the not Historian Shleim) argue that Israel had supposedly an advantage with arms supply from the eastern block, while the Arabs could not. This is not true, since those countries (including Yugoslavia that was paid for usage of Adriatic ports) needed money and sold to both sides. If you think it should be noted but not here, It is OK but both sides should be mentioned together. Ykantor (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

If it can't be established that an event was of significant importance then it probably shouldn't be mentioned at all. This article is not a 500+ page book where "everything" could be mentioned, this a single web page. We must restrict ourself when adding information and not add insignificant details. --Frederico1234 (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

For each cycle you have a fresh "anti" reason, since your previous reasons are shown to be wrong. Will it be possible for you to expose all the reasons at once?

• yours "If it can't be established that an event was of significant importance then it probably shouldn't be mentioned at all".

1. In my opinion, it is more important then the quotation of the "a British officer stationed in Haifa".
2. who decides that those 9 words are less important than other words in this section?

• yours: " This article is not a 500+ page book where "everything" could be mentioned, this a single web page. We must restrict ourself when adding information and not add insignificant details."

1. Moreover, the Syrian arms purchase adds 9 words only, while the not so important "british officer" takes about 40 words.
2. This article size is 41000 bytes, while wikipedia suggest to split pages of more than 100000 bytes. It seems that there is no size problem. Ykantor (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor,

Once more you perform WP:OR.

No, the East Bloc supported Israel much more than the Arabs because the Arabs were British allies and because they wanted to destabilize them. The Czech had informed the Haganah of the sales to Syria and about all the logistic.

This is explained in all the books that deal with the topic of Staline's views regarding Palestine and this is even not controversial.

Pluto2012 (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry , but you are wrong and / or irrelevant.

• "The Czech had informed the Haganah of the sales to Syria " -What is your sources for this mistake?
• The issue is the Czechs sold arms to Syria too. Yours "the East Bloc supported Israel much more than the Arabs" is irrelevant to the issue of the arms.
• note that you admit that the Czechs has indeed sold arms to Syria. Ykantor (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The section is about the first truce. It is misleading to include events which did not happened within this timeframe. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

so, is it OK with you to mention it elsewhere? Ykantor (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be notable enough to include in this article. It might fit into an article with a more narrow scope. --Frederico1234 (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The time frame is problematic. There was no real problem to purchase arms for both sides, and both sides took advantage of it. The main problem was bringing the arms, because of the royal navy blockade, up to the last minute of the mandate. The 1st ship that succeeded to smuggle arms ( 5000 ! rifles and more) arrived at the 1.4.48. That ship ( and the second one , about 3 weeks later) has marked the big difference. If you wish, I may elaborate.

Thus, in my opinion, the arms issue should be separated from the "truce" section. Ykantor (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

As soon as you agree to comply with npov and gather all points of views of historians (and only these) and not make from one of these the main one, you are welcome. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I try to be as reliable as possible. If I miss another view, you are welcome to add it. Note that usually I do not delete other opinions (even if it is a mistake) but rather add the other view. Ykantor (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time to teach you the history of Mandatory Palestine and the '48 war. If you don't want to study by yourself or comply with NPoV (as proven by this discussion), I will revert you and explain you the problem on the talk page but you make everybody waste his time.

It is up to you whether to study all points of views and report them or to highlight some propaganda and be reverted.

By the way, both Shlaim and Karsh are reliable and relevant sources. But Pappé (as unfortunately as Karsh), Rashidi and Khalidi too. If you refuse to report all the analysis because you don't like these, your collaboration is not welcome. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I wondered what happened to you when you started writing in a cooperative way, but now you return to your traditional aggressive and biased writing.

• reliability: I do not think I had a mistake in any arguments with you. However, you had mistakes. e.g. your false claim "the Czech had informed the Haganah of the sales to Syria"
• You write in a vague (and sometimes irrelevant) and generalized way, rather than focusing at the debated point. e.g. Yours "the East Bloc supported Israel much more than the Arabs" is irrelevant to the issue of the arms.
• You are deleting a section against Wikipedia rules. e.g. deletion of "British diplomacy in support of the Arabs".

Due to those characteristics of yours, it is not for you to teach how to write in Wikipedia. Ykantor (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Any material that doesn't comply with NPoV and not based on sources from all sides will be reverted with an explanation on the talk page. Don't talk about agressivity : you accused me of vandalism and of not respecting wp:npov and you complained on 3 different pages without any result. 5 editors marked their opposition to your edits.

Pluto2012 (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Doctored image

Removed File:Qawuqjis armored vehicle.jpg. It has been suggested by Graphics Lab editors that the dagger and star emblem in the photo was added at some point after the photo was taken. It is likely doctored image. – JBarta (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This was already discussed in detail in 2011 [1] with the same conclusions. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. If it is supposedly a fake, it should not be in the article. However, It is rather strange, why should someone fake an emblem, while the real one was about the same. e.g. book "1948: The First Arab-Israeli War" by Benny Morris, chapter "Operations Yoav and Hiram", page 340, "Qawuqji’s troops fled in the direction of the Jermak...We captured two...armored vehicles taken from us in the Yehiam Convoy and now decorated with the symbol of the ALA, a bent dagger dripping blood, stuck in the heart of a Shield of David" Ykantor (talk) 11:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

A possible explanation is that it was not the real one at all and that all this is the result of exageration, manipulation and/or progaganda. Instead of reporting this part of the long disucssion that took place on Commons, you could have decided to report the other strange stuff that the writing in Arab on the motorcycle call the "Salvation Army" the "Savage Army" which makes thinks it was written by people who didn't "like" them.

Morris just reports a testimony. He gave credit to this, nothing more. We don't know what was the symbol of the ALA but if it had been that one, we would have found hundreds of exemples of this... Not just one from one truck and a motor cycle captured during one battle. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

To Pluto: why have you deleted

Why have you deleted without reason

The Diff page

Why have you deleted my contribution without reason? Ykantor (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You have not been followed on the idea that Arabs would have initiated violence.

Kfar Etzion is not in Jerusalem and as a consequence Kfar Etzion convoys do not belong to the battle for Jerusalem story

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yours:You have not been followed on the idea that Arabs would have initiated violence.". What is the meaning of that?
• Yours:Kfar Etzion is not in Jerusalem and as a consequence Kfar Etzion convoys do not belong to the battle for Jerusalem story. irrelevant. The section header is "Plan Dalet and second stage" , so it is not limited to the battle for Jerusalem. Kfar Etzion convoy is mentioned as an example of failures that has shaken the Yishuv leaders confidence. Ykantor (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I was not clear.

• It is controversial to state that Arabs initiated the violence. This doesn't comply with WP:NPOV. You disagree but a discussion took place on 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and all comments there were against your point of view. You should accept this consensus.
• I removed a reference of Kfar Etzion convoy in a paragraph talking about the siege of Jerusalem.

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• The phrase "as the Arab initiators of the violence had hoped" might be deleted.
• Your reply concerning "Kfar Etzion convoys" is not clear. This deletion of yours: "The Arab attacks on communications and roads has intensified. The failure of the convoys (e.g. Kfar Etzion convoy) and the loss of Jewish armoured vehicles has shaken the Yishuv leaders confidence" does not include anything concerning the siege of Jerusalem. Ykantor (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Your behaviour is childish. I claim that you should be banned from wikipedia :

"In the last week of March, 136 supply trucks had tried to reach Jerusalem; only 41 had made it. The Arab attacks on communications and roads has intensified. The failure of the convoys (e.g. Kfar Etzion convoy) and the loss of Jewish armoured vehicles has shaken the Yishuv leaders confidence."

There may be a way to find a solution.

I have no time to play games and wikipedia is not a battleground. As proven here below, you don't deny you are here to work for one side.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks. How can we advance if you do not reply to my proposal? BTW my purpose are correct articles, whoever is the involved side. Ykantor (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I answered you. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Your reply is cryptic and not clear. Will you accept adding these lines again:

"The international support for the partition and Jewish statehood has decreased together with the spiraling hostilities and the Arab successes.

... Cunningham noted the Zionists’ desperation: "The balance of the fighting seems to have turned much in favour of the Arabs...the Yishuv and its leaders are deeply worried about the future".

The blocked and starved Jerusalem was on the verge of collapse. Ben Gurion demanded a large scale operation in order to lift the blockade on Jerusalem. During Operation Nachshon ...

Operation Nachshon marked the Haganah shift from restraint and defensive to the offensive and the implementation of Plan Dalet without the Haganah ever taking a decision to embark on its implementation. Ykantor (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Under continuous Arab provocation and attack

You deleted this sentence: The [under continuous Arab provocation and attack, the Yishuv was usually on the defensive while occasionally retaliating Diff page].

Your reason:this is poved as Ykantor knows. This was discussed on the talk page of the main aritcle".

I propose that this sentence and your version will be presented in parallel, and the reader will decide for himself. e.g. "During this period the Jewish and Arab communities of British Mandate clashed. However, some historians claim that under continuous Arab provocation and attack, the Yishuv was usually on the defensive while occasionally retaliating."

Will you accept it? Ykantor (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't accept re-opening a discussion that took place in the article 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and I don't accept this proposal that doesn't even try to take into account a part of the comments that were made there. Why to report the mind of "some historians" and not the mind of "the other ones". Where would be the compliance with WP:NPOV ? Pluto2012 (talk) 10:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The idea is of course an equality between both sides. i.e You decide how to write your side Ykantor (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

As wikipedian contributors we are not sided. We have to comply to WP:NPoV. We don't defend a side or a country. We write an encyclopaedia. Pluto2012 (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

What is your reply to my proposal? Ykantor (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

What is your reply to my proposal? Ykantor (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor, it was answered you here above that : "I don't accept this proposal that doesn't even try to take into account a part of the comments that were made [On the talk page of the article about the Civil War period]. Why to report the mind of "some historians" and not the mind of "the other ones". Where would be the compliance with WP:NPOV ?"

Pluto2012 (talk) 05:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems that you have not read my previous comment: "The idea is of course an equality between both sides. i.e You decide how to write your side". What is your proposal? Ykantor (talk) 08:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor, anybody can read what is here above... I answered you that : "As wikipedian contributors we are not sided. We have to comply to WP:NPoV. We don't defend a side or a country. We write an encyclopaedia."

Pluto2012 (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Your reply is cryptic. Again,my proposal is to write 2 sentences. My sentence will be:" under continuous Arab provocation and attack, the Yishuv was usually on the defensive while occasionally retaliating." Your may add another sentence, which describe your view. Both sentences will be well supported. Ykantor (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor, we are not playing a game.

If you want to add a setence in an article, do you work and give all points of view so that it respects WP:NPOV. You know where the data giving other points of view can be found. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Will you be able to reply in the DRN ? ~~

I will un delete my RS supported contribution, and of course accept any other view (provided it is well supported), as said in the village pump. Ykantor (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding the advice given to you. Reverting would be a mistake. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

why have you deleted maps and images

The Diff page.

Tour reasons: Not neutral ; not in English"

I guess that the maps title "war of independence" is the "Not neutral" item. If you find a similar map with neutral headline or edit this map and remove the headline, it might be an excellent replacement. The same goes for "not in English". It is a map where the names difference is not really important. However, the maps are important to the article, and the non neutral headline is a petit crime only. Will you accept adding the maps again in the meantime?

You deleted an image too. I have added an image of Husayni and his fighters too. Images improve the article attractiveness. Will you accept adding the image again? Ykantor (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Une carte non neutre et une carte en Français sont au contraire des crimes de lèse-majestés inacceptables pour WP:NPOV.

I may have made a mistake for the image. I check.

Shana Tova, Pluto2012 (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

You deleted again the French language maps (The Diff page) with the same wrong reason "This map is in French and not in English", Although I wrote " Do not delete. see WP:NOENG. A french language map is permitted. if there will be an English language map, it will be replaced" (The Diff page). Why? Ykantor (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

This article is a POV fork and should be deleted or merged

I was surprized to see this article. This edit [2] alerted me to it's existense. If there ever was a POV fork this is it. Zeq (talk) 05:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is not a pov-forked.

(And there is absolutely no pov in here given it just takes back summaries of others)

The reason is that the 1948 Palestine war gathers 6 months of civil war followed by the 1948 Arab-Israeli War that started on May15, 1948 (with the birth and declaration of independence of ISrael).

Here are numerous sources about this name : [3].

I add that the "name" is used by scholars from all opinions : Efraim Karsh, Yoav Gelber, David Tal, Avi Shlaim and/or Ilan Pappé. It was used at least in the '50s.

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Knowledged and sciences are the motors. If people doesn't know something, it doesn't prevent from discussing this.

Ceedjee (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We have 3 articles for the same war - at least one of them is POV fork and this seems to be the one. Zeq (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I also think this article should be deleted. in particular because it assumes the position that the arab-israeli war was bound to the palestinian matter, which is the subject of hot debate. two articles, one for each seperate war, should suffice in covering the matter of encyclopedic interest in this, at least imho. MiS-Saath (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello MiS-Saath,

When you write the article "assumes" something, I think you are wrong.

There are numerous historians, from the most pro-Israeli to the most pro-Palestinian who refer to these events as the Palestine War.

Ceedjee (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is POV. The fact that the name is used by some for the war of 1948 doesn't mean that a separate article about it is motivated. Various names of the war may be mentioned in the article, if Wikipedians agree that it is needed. --Jonund (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this article, and its two 'sub-articles' (1947 civil war and 1948 Arab-Israeli War) is that they all encompass similar things - in fact, the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article has exactly the same scope as this one. If its scope was reduced to just May 15 and later, I'd support keeping this article, but in its current form, I completely agree with you. If no one opposes on this talk page, you should consider AfD. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times and at different places but you never brought the answers to the comments.

There are numerous sources from numerous scholars from different sensitivities who talked about 1948 Palestine Wars.

• [4]

Ceedjee (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You missed my point. The point is that, in fact, the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article is supposed to deal with the post-May 15 war, but it actually deals with the 1948 Palestine War, therefore the two articles have an identical scope and one of them is redundant. Because 1948 Arab-Israeli War is clearly a more recognizable name, it should be kept, and this article should be merged. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't miss any point.

The article about the 1948 Arab-Israeli war don't refer to the events before 15 May except in the context.

And this has only be done to keep the article (1948 Arab-Israeli War) because the big majority of scholars refer to this war as the 1948 [Palestine] War.

If you don't like it find good references to balance the ones given in the link here above.

Ceedjee (talk) 07:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The above comment is further proof that you missed my point. I wasn't arguing about references or the validity of the term '1948 Palestine War', which I'm sure is valid for the event in question. I was arguing about the current situation on Wikipedia, which has two articles covering the same topic. In the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article, the 1947 civil war is indeed covered only in the background section, but it is extremely in-depth for a section which has a main article. Indeed it is more in-depth than the information we have at the 1948 Palestine War article.

Again, I am not opposing the existence of the 1948 Palestine War article in principle - I am opposing based on the current balance of information between the two articles. I will support your view 100% if the 1948 Palestine War article is written sufficiently well, and the in-depth 1947-May 48 info is taken out of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wiki has sliced the single event into 2 using 15 May 1948 as a convenient point of reference........Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 07:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not just Wiki. The differentiation between the pre-15 May and the post-15 May period are made in made reputable textbooks on the subject. I think it's a good thing, because the nature of the fighting before this date, and after it, was completely different. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

They most certainly do, however they normally do so as a page break within the totality of the Palestine conflict....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This article does not belong in WP. There's already an article about the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, plus, this article is filled with grammatical and spelling errors.

The article covers a broader topic area than the article on 1948 Arab-Israeli war; The latter article covers events from May 15 1948 while this article includes the civil war period that preceded it. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is superficial in some areas such as military equipment and covers the same broad area as 1948 Arab–Israeli War. It looks stupid to have two competing articles on the same topic. They should be merged by neutral experts. There must be some around. Rcbutcher (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

(Trans)Jordan

Jordan's name was chosen in 1949/50 after Abdallah took control of West Bank and decided to include this to his Kingdom. This can be sourced eg (one among hundreds examples) Howard Sachar, A History of Zionism at 3 different places in the book (eg p. 451). NB: it would retro-actively have claimed to use this name (Jordan) since 1946 and the independance of the Kingdom.

Anyway, during the Palestine War (this article) scholars refer to it as : "Transjordan".

Proofs :

• Yoav Gelber, 1948 Palestine War, 2006
• Benny Morris, The Road to Jerusalem where (if needed) he quotes primary sources.
• Game over.

Could somebody revet the Ykantor ? Thx. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Benny Morris, 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War. Morris mention both Jordan and Trans-jordan. It seems that the more popular name is Jordan, without the Trans
• If the Jordanian prime minister declare that the name is Jordan, starting at 1946, it should be accepted. The same logic applies for the Palestinian authority that claim Jerusalem to be their capital, or for Israel declaring Jerusalem to be its capital.
• However, this edit warring is a waste of time . so let the mistaken name Transjordan be used.

"The war also marked the beginning of the exodus"

Hi User:Ykantor, I removed this statement because:

• The exodus actually began in the late 19th / early 20th century (see e.g. the case of Yemen)
• The acceleration in the exodus that took place from 1948 was because of the declaration of the State of Israel, at which point the British immigration restrictions were immediately lifted and the gates were opened
• The statement is not actually in the sources given (and two of them are not RS anyway)

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

1. You are an experienced user, so you know that your first claim is wp:or unless you provide a source.
2. As for your second claim, there were "push" reasons and "pull" reasons like the one you mentioned. Both should be mentioned.
3. As for your 3rd claim, I added 2 more sources. Ykantor (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

1. The sources are in the link I provided - e.g. Tudor Parfitt describes this very clearly. Syria is another example, see the sources supporting this statement in the lead to the Jewish exodus article.

2. Yes but it wasn't this war specifically. Indirect impact is not enough to justify its inclusion in the lead.

3. Please provide exact quotes - I have read your sources and do not believe they support the sentence.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Ykantor, FYI we are discussing the same at Talk:Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries#The_war_and_its_consequences. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

1. The link does not say it. If you are interested, you may ADD the link content to the article.
2. Yours "it wasn't this war specifically". Where is the source for this claim?
3. Yours: "do not believe they support the sentence". I added a text based on Morris ( 1948 p. 412) "The war indirectly created a second, major refugee problem. Partly because of the clash of Jewish and Arab arms in Palestine, some five to six hundred thousand Jews who lived in the Arab world emigrated, were intimidated into flight, or were expelled from their native countries, most of them reaching Israel, with a minority resettling in France, Britain, and the other Western countries. The immediate propellants to flight were the popular Arab hostility, including pogroms, triggered by the war in Palestine and specific governmental measures, amounting to institutionalized discrimination against and oppression of the Jewish minority communities. " Ykantor (talk) 07:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ykantor, thanks for finding this. On (1) OK, I am happy to do, although your language no longer says it began in 1948, so I think we are ok here; and on (2) it looks like Morris agrees with me with his use of the word "partly" so i think we're ok here too.

On the Morris quote, does he discuss this topic in the main body of his book (since that quote is from his "Some Conclusions" chapter)? If not, what sources does he refer to on p.412? His quote is a surprisingly poor representation of the established scholarly picture on this topic. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Oncenawhile,

Ykantor refers to the same text as I do.

This topic is not covered in the core of the book but in the conclusions. That's quite often the case with Morris. His conclusions are not just a synthesis but he often adds analysis in these.

I am not an expert of the Jewish exodus but I don't really agree with your statement that "[h]is quote is a surprisingly poor representation of the established scholarly picture on this topic." It's quite "obvious" that the '48 events (the partition vote included), the Arab humiliation and the "catastrophe" for the Palestinians triggered or fueled at the extreme the hostility towards Jews in the whole Arab world. The creation of Israel and the propaganda of the Jewish Agency are not enough. All these "Jewish Arabs" could have left their land long before 1948 if the hostility was older. The fact many left in the next 3 years is significant even if this lasted several years. Like the Palestian exodus (a topic that I know better), there are many causes but it is not false to state that the war and the Haganah offensives are the main cause. Pluto2012 (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pluto2012 and Ykantor, I've spent some time trying to work out the easiest way to reach a conclusion on this (very interesting) question; it is not easy since the question is hard to define. Morris is a respected scholar, although to my knowledge had never published his own research on this subject, so it is surprising and unhelpful that he did not source the paragraph quoted above. Perhaps he felt that the use of the word "partly" made the statement so vague he could never be proven wrong.

I have read a lot on this topic over the last eight months - primarily the country/region-specific works in Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries#Country_or_region_specific_works. These are generally much better researched and much more detailed in their analysis than the works which try to analyse the whole region and make generalisations. I have looked through them again and I can't see any support for Morris' description unless the word "partly" is used in a very indirect manner. And the Morris quote includes a couple of mischaracterisations: (1) he describes the routes as "emigrated, were intimidated into flight, or were expelled from their native countries" despite the fact that the region's only expellees were a small number in Egypt along with its wider foreign community; and (2) when noting the immediate propellants he notes only "push factors" without noting for example the well documented Zionist movement and Zionist emigration arrangements made in the region, the impact of economic factors and the lifting of the immigration ban.

Anyway, if Morris is correct we should be able to see it at a local level in those more detailed WP:RS on the topic. Since the initial exodus was primarily to Israel, I looked at this data to try to focus the question of which WP:RS might include support for Morris. It shows that there was no significant Iraqi exodus until Operation Ezra and Nehemiah and no significant Yemeni exodus until Operation Magic Carpet, after which the exodus from Asia to Israel tailed off quickly. In North Africa there was a modest initial exodus focused out of Tunisia (which had the region's largest Zionist community according to Stillman) and Libya (where the Jewish Brigade had been stationed), but again these tailed off quickly. Each of these events has their own context and were driven mostly by very country-specific factors. I simply don't see a clear and direct connection to the war, and certainly not enough to justify the large paragraph we have in the lead. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

to Oncenawhile :

- Concerning the word "partly": Please have a look at this Morris text (1948, p 410-411) "the refugee problem was created by the war—which the Arabs had launched (though the Arabs would argue, then and subsequently, that the Zionist influx was, since its beginning, an act of aggression and that the Arab launch of the 1947–1948 war was merely an act of self-defense). And it was that war that propelled most of those displaced out of their houses and into refugeedom. Most fled when their villages and towns came under Jewish attack or out of fear of future attack. They wished to move out of harm’s way. At first, during December 1947–March 1948, it was the middle- and upper-class families who fled, abandoning the towns; later, from April on, after the Yishuv shifted to the offensive, it was the urban and rural masses who fled, in a sense emulating their betters. Most of the displaced likely expected to return to their homes within weeks or months, on the coattails of victorious Arab armies or on the back of a UN decision or Great Power intervention. Few expected that their refugeedom would last a lifetime. " However, in my opinion, the Palestinians refugees major disaster should not be underestimated by trying to divide between the people who were frightened and run away and between those who were expelled. Both suffered this major tragedy. The Jewish exodus is different because the Jews were welcomed into Israel, while no one was interested in the poor Palestinian refugees (may be, except of king Abdullah). But the decision of a frightened group of people to leave their homes is shared by both groups.

- yours "there was no significant Iraqi exodus until Operation Ezra and Nehemiah": The Iraqi government banned immigration to Palestine and opened the gates at early 1950. Hence people who might have been emigrated on 1948 could not do it legally until 1950. I am not familiar with the reasons for Jewish emigration from the other mentioned countries, but the their Jews were frightened :

---List of massacres in Libya

---[[5]] : see the Aden pogrom, and the "orphans decree".

--- I agree with you that some of the Jews were Zionist and would have immigrate to Israel anyway. Presumably, other Jew were mild Zionist but would not have immigrate to Israel if they were not frightened, similarly to Zionist who nowadays live elsewhere and does not consider emigration to Israel. At those years Israel was not an attractive place: High unemployment, no proper housing, food rations, and a constant fear that the neighboring Arab countries would start the much discussed second round of war. Ykantor (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC) Onceanwhile, I have checked in Henry Laurens (scholar), La Question de Palestine, tome III 1947-1967, Fayard, 2005, pp.263-270 how he deals the question. Laurens has worked the way you suggest and has taken each Jewish community one by one. The fact that a section "Le sort des Juifs orientaux" ("The fate of Sefarad Jews") is added in the chapter dealing with the consequences of the 1948 war already proves that he considers the link as established. Anyway, it is also reminded in each case :

• for Irakis, he describes what happens during the war to the Jews and a speech from an Iraki leader where the fate of Jews is clearly linked to the fate of the Palestinian Arabs even if the situation becomes more an more complex ;
• for Syrians, he reports the slow exodus but boosted by terrorist attacks performed by former Palestinian Arabs who became refugees ;
• for Yemen, no link is made between both refugees but the link is made with the creation of Israel (main consequence of the '48 war) that enable the Operation Magic Carpet
• for Egyptians, he explains the problem started sooner and is mainly due to the antisemitism of the Muslim Brothers and that it increased after '45 with Arab nationalism but he also points out the '48 war as another step in the repression.
• ...

Of course, he also reports the action of the Jewish Agency and Mossad in the events and the Ashkenaze discremination but the link with the '48 war is stated at different places. Pluto2012 (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Merge articles?

I'm not sure why we have both this article and 1948 Arab-Israeli War. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

"I don't see the point exactly. This article seems more unbalanced. Why not merge them?

"I agree, and also there are several badly worded sentences: e.g.

" Jewish state was the arid Negev desert. That area, which included a large tract in the Negev desert" This makes no sense, or is redundant, not sure what they were trying to say.

" the Yishuv authorities tried to supply the city with" There is a link, but the name is not previously referenced or explained in the earlier text.

"Almost all of Haganah's armoured vehicles" Again, there is a link, but the name is not previously referenced or explained in the earlier text. It might similarly be desirable, though less essential, to identify Transjordan later in the next paragraph.

"Ben-Gurion ordered Yigal Yadin" Where not referenced earlier, the name should be identified in some way.

" irregular troops from Irgun and Lehi formations " Again, no explanation of what these mean, and no prior reference.

I believe this is a standard protocol, so the average reader can go through an article and understand it without having to leave the page. That does not mean there has to be a large amount of explanation, just a minimal identification of the person or group of some kind. These are some examples, but the article has many more such problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.173.78 (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

These articles are different.

The 1948 Palestine war covers both periods and both other articles are detailled articles.

This is explained in the lead.

Historians divide the war into two phases:[10][11]

The 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine (sometimes called an "intercommunal war")[12] in which the Jewish and Arab communities of Palestine, supported by the Arab Liberation Army, clashed, while the region was still fully under British rule.

The 1948 Arab–Israeli War after 15 May 1948, marking the end of the British Mandate and the birth of Israel, in which Transjordan, Egypt, Syria and Iraq intervened and sent expeditionary forces that fought the Israeli army.

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Negev: corrected.

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

This entire article is nothing more then propoganda, we have the 1947-48 british mandate civil war article, this is just propaganda and it makes it sound as if their was a war in something called Palestine or against it, if you want to keep the article change it to palestine civil war to reinforce the fact the jews were citizens in the mandate and also palestenians before the refounding of israel2601:D:9580:AA1:3412:240F:A8A0:1BA (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for title change to Israeli War of Independence

This is how it is called in Israel, as well as in American history textbooks. I've never known the war by any other name. --Daviddwd (talk) 06:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

If you check in all History textbooks, you will see that, it is named:

• "Israeli War of Independence" in the Israeli people culture
• "Nakba" in the Palestinian people culture
• "1948 Palestine War" by Israeli, Palestinian and other historians.

There are a few exceptions and some historians according to their sensitivity make sometimes reference to the "people culture" name.

The references are in the articles. You can check this. Note that Gelber and Tal are Israeli historians (and even not New Historians). Karsh is also Israeli and quite controversial for his pro-Israeli bias. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Nakba, not Naqba

An editor recently went through the article, changing the transliteration of Nakba to Naqba. I have reverted this. Not only is Nakba the much more common term (eg 578,000 Google hits, compared to 91,000 for Naqba), and already the term used in other Wikipedia articles; it is also the correct transliteration of the Arabic نكبة, while Naqba is incorrect.This solecism has been noted by several writers and articles.[6][7][8][9] Naqba is the transliteration of a different word, نقبة , meaning a woman who wears a veil (niqab). RolandR (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Reversion of Jewish exodus edit

My edit concerning the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries was reverted by Zero0000, with the stated reason being that "This article is about the 1948 war, not the years afterwards." However, these numbers started growing after the Partion Plan, not incidentally but as a matter of a causal relationship. This is a very important event in this context, partly because it nearly doubled the population of the new state. The lead section says, "Around 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from the area;" did all of them flee or were expelled in the year 1948? EIN (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Most left in 1948, most of the rest in 1949. With few exceptions, it was during the war that this article is about or during the Arab-Israel war (some editors like making this distinction). Almost all of the Jews who left Arab countries did so in the years following the end of the Arab-Israeli war (eg. Iraqi jews in 1951). All these events have historical connections, but it is wrong to make it sound like a simultaneous population exchange. It wasn't simultaneous and it wasn't even particularly similar. Zero^talk 01:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Fully agree with Zero. The only singular "direct causality" for the Jewish exodus was Ben-Gurion's One Million Plan. The other direct factors were region specific - Suez in Egypt, civil war and economic hardship in Yemen, decolonisation of the Maghreb and the exodus of the Pieds Noir, etc etc. I apologise if this is hard, but the suggestion of a direct connection between the 1948 war and the Jewish exodus is borne either from ignorance or naivety to propaganda. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2015

Please change the statement that "700,000 Jews 'immigrated' to Israel" to "700 thousand Jews immigrated or fled to Israel..." in the introduction to this article. 2605:6000:9D83:D800:3837:E307:5BE2:8967 (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Changed to "relocated" because that is the language used in the Israel article. -- haminoon (talk) 01:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Bedouin

Proof to back up my just-added source: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6TkfErLri11cEoxeWlmZnR2cVE/view?usp=sharing See here also: http://web.nli.org.il/sites/JPress/English/Pages/Palestine-Post.aspx MosheEmes (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

That's an interesting source. But I wonder if you can find any other mention of this in the huge literature on the war. I couldn't find anything at all in a quick search. You also erred in writing "tribes", plural, when the source only mentions one tribe which it says is small. So far you aren't past the WP:UNDUE hurdle. Zero^talk 02:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I actually didn't write it. I simply provided a citation for a statement that was marked as "citation needed" since 2012. I do believe it was more than one small tribe in fact so I won't be changing the wording, although I might try to dig up some other reliable source at some point. If others want to change the text until a supporting source is found, I won't interfere for now. MosheEmes (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Now I found a bit more. The tribe was more commonly called "al-Hib" or "al-Heib". The best source I found was Hillel Cohen's Army of Shadows. Zero^talk 13:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a beautiful source! Far from being an Israel "advocacy site," it's Al-Arabiya, "the leading 24-hour news station in the Arab world." Here is a salient quote: "Cooperation between the Jewish people and Bedouin tribes began before Israel became a state in 1948, when the northern tribes sided with the Jews, whom they believed would win the war against the Arabs. In the south, some Bedouin took part in the fighting against the Jews in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war while others fought with them. Still others fled the Negev to the Hebron hills in the southern West Bank."

Read the article, it's fascinating. I think I'll add this to the sources cited on the article page. http://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspective/profiles/2013/04/24/Bedouin-army-trackers-scale-Israel-social-ladder-.html MosheEmes (talk) 13:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2015

Please mention that as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, over 700,000 Jews fled or were expelled from almost every Arab country. 2605:6000:9D83:D800:29A3:A27F:D5FE:92AC (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)  Not done This has been debated before. The "as a result" implies direct and primary causality, which is a gross (and propagandistic) oversimplification. I suggest you read One Million Plan which puts your claim in its proper context. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't make much sense. These 700,000 Jews that are being referred to were expelled, in many times by force. It wasn't a choice. If anything, your position is extremely propagandist and oversimplified, not the original request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.204.185 (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The name

Where did the name "the 1948 Palestine war" originate from? And, being fully honest to ourselves, isn't it better to choose a more neutral name (unless, of course, this is THE agreed on name of this war) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.15.88 (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1948 Palestine 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110617232624/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org:80/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/038/88/IMG/NR003888.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/038/88/IMG/NR003888.pdf?OpenElement
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/paper/hughesMatthew.html

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) 20:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 1948 Palestine 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120524094913/http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/7f0af2bd897689b785256c330061d253 to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/7f0af2bd897689b785256c330061d253
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/paper/hughesMatthew.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120213230126/http://www.hsje.org/forcedmigration.htm to http://www.hsje.org/forcedmigration.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930033403/http://www1.cbs.gov.il/reader/shnaton/templ_shnaton_e.html?num_tab=st02_01&CYear=2006 to http://www1.cbs.gov.il/reader/shnaton/templ_shnaton_e.html?num_tab=st02_01&CYear=2006
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002103014/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/4ECBF3578B6149C50525657100507FAB to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/4ECBF3578B6149C50525657100507FAB

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1948 Palestine 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120321213130/http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%2BProcess/Guide%2Bto%2Bthe%2BPeace%2BProcess/Declaration%2Bof%2BEstablishment%2Bof%2BState%2Bof%2BIsrael.htm to http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%2BProcess/Guide%2Bto%2Bthe%2BPeace%2BProcess/Declaration%2Bof%2BEstablishment%2Bof%2BState%2Bof%2BIsrael.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110526013534/http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/d442111e70e417e3802564740045a309?OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/d442111e70e417e3802564740045a309?OpenDocument

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) 01:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Article Naming Preamble

• "Israeli War of Independence" is not merely the most prevalent Hebrew name for this , but also the most prevalent English name. "Israeli War of Independence" should be offered as one of the English name options.

• The name "Catastrophe", like the Hebrew term "war of liberation", is polemical. There should be a more neutral Arabic option offered. For example the equivalent Arabic wikipedia page https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AD%D8%B1%D8%A8_%D9%81%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%B7%D9%8A%D9%86_1948 is titled "1948 Palestine war" in arabic.

• Of course, the name of the article, "1948 Palestine War" is not accurate, as the conflict ran from 1947-1949. More correct terms would be "1947-1949 Palestine War" or "1947 Palestine War" using the convention that a conflict is named after its start date.

• Whatever variant on "1948 Palestine War" one chooses, this term is not neutral, as it subtly deprecate Israel's status as an independent state. The neutral term is "Israeli War of Independence". As is evident from the numerous entries at War of independence, "X War of Independence" is a standard and neutral English naming convention. A more standard article preamble is found at, e.g. Irish War of Independence:

>The Irish War of Independence (Irish: Cogadh na Saoirse)[4] or Anglo-Irish War was a guerrilla war fought from 1919 to 1921 ...

The most convincing reason not to use the term "Israeli War of Independence" in English is to subtly acknowledge Israel's status as an independent state as disputed. However, Israel is an an independent state, both de facto and de jure (in the sense of the UN Security Council). It is not for wikipedia to get into parsing the fine distinctions between types of de jure independence in its title preambles. As this very article is correct to summarize in the info box, one of the outcomes of this war was "Establishment of the State of Israel".

• Furthermore "1948 Palestine War" is apparently a neologism with little currency outside Wikipedia. It is thus not prima facie a suitable alternative to "Israeli War of Independence". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zekelayla (talk • contribs) 12:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for these points. I think we can't avoid the need to change the name of this article. I like the "war of independence" option but I doubt our fellow Wikipedians will accept it as the most neutral for a couple of obvious reasons. The main reason I can think of is that it was technically also the Palestinian war of independence, only that they didn't gain any independence in the process.

I think a better title will be either "First Arab-Israeli War" which is common among many sources, or simply take the name of the already existing article 1948 Arab–Israeli War and find a different name for that article, such as "Second Phase of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War", and change 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine to "First Phase of the 1948 Arab—Israeli War".

The problem with the war lasting from 1947 to 1949 is not too serious, because the war lasted only one month in 1947 and at that time it was merely an insurgency which escalated to an actual war in 1 April 1948, and the same is for 1949, when there weren't much fighting. The war was mostly fought in 1948.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

1947 Palestine War and 1947-1949 Palestine War are unappealing for the reasons you cite. 1948 Palestine War is inaccurate, and I don't know it to be a term that is really in use. First Arab-Israeli War is pretty good. Zekelayla (talk) 13:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree the article title needs fixing here, as the archives attest – this issue has been raised many many times. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the archives, no evidence was presented that "1948 Palestine War" is in use outside of wikipedia. What was provided were instances of "1948 War" and obsolete uses of "Palestine War". Zekelayla (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. This needs fixing. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I suggest to read the first 3 pages of introduction of this book and in particular what follows Perhaps the most famous case of differences over the naming of an event is the 1948 war (...).

That's very precisely the matter of this discussion.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)