Revision as of 09:56, 10 June 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1948 Arab–Israeli War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See discretionary sanctions for details

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Middle East This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Arab world High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Syria High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Saudi Arabia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Saudi ArabiaWikipedia:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaTemplate:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Egypt Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Israel Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Lebanon Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1948 Arab–Israeli War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Tip: #section links are case-sensitive on most browsers Links from this article with broken #section links : (2x) ], (3x) ], (2x) ], (2x) ], ], ] You can remove this template after fixing the problems | FAQ | Report a problem

wiki-ize text

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

suspected errors and omissions in the article- general

This thread is almost impossible to follow because of the layout. Ykantor, it would have been preferable to raise one point at a time, not several at once. Pluto, responding point-by-point makes it difficult to see who is saying what. I think the first point made by Ykantor is that the statement that the war ended with Israel possessing 60% of the original territory is incorrect. That is in the lead, and uncited. It is OK to leave points uncited in the lead if they are summaries of referenced statements in the main body. That's not the case here. I suggest that someone simply remove that statement. An article on a war should, however, end with an explanation of territorial changes resulting from that war. So I suggest that someone write a section on that, or expand the section on the demographic aftermath of the war to cover it. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

to Itsmejudith: I accept your note, and those points are separated each one into a paragraph of itself. Hope there is no mistake in the split content. Ykantor (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

How do you explain that all the points that you found go in the same direction ? - by pluto

to pluto: "How do you explain that all the points that you found go in the same direction ?" - The notes are (to my knowledge ) correct. Please tell me if something is wrong.

Do you understand the following that WP:NPoV means that all points of view must be reported fairly and an equilibrated way. If a contributor doesn't understand and doesn't want to comply with this do you understand that he is not welcome on wikipedia. I kindly ask you to answer at length to this question here below or on my talk page. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have access to good sources. If you think that you should change the article based of this small fact, then you should right now focus on the capture of Acre, Jaffa, the conquest of the West coast of Galilee and the captures of the villages between Latrun and Jerusalem.

If not, it means that you don't care about WP:NPoV.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

to pluto: concerning "the capture of Acre, Jaffa, the conquest of the West coast of Galilee and the captures of the villages between Latrun and Jerusalem", some of those points are already written in the article, and if there is a missing one, than it should be added to the article.

In my opinion, you already realized that once you highlight an error of mine, I simply accept it. While reading the article, once I am confident (based on my knowledge) that there is a mistake / omission I write it down here in the talk page and later verify it and modify the article accordingly. I think it is fair and moreover, I try to get your (and other editors) acceptance. What could be the problem in this process? Ykantor (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The problems are the following :

• editors are assumed to comply with WP:NPoV. It means they are not expected to unbalance the article in bringing information always in the same direction. What you call errors that you identified are also information that all go to the same pro-Israeli direction. Maybe the article is biaised or maybe you don't understand the importance of WP:NPoV.

Could you please confirm without ambiguity that you read and understand WP:NPoV and that you intend to look for all information by yourself no matter whatever the picture it gives is good or bad for one side or the other ?

• a basic rule of WP:NPoV is WP:Due weight. It means that if you enter information, even true, it must not affect the global picture of what is relevant is not. Eg, stating that the ALA had armored vehicules without talking about those of Hagana is wp:undue (It is also false to shift from "antiquated" to "fighting" to talk about ALA vehicules), talking about the "artillery" of the ALA, without specifying the number of 2-inch and 3-inch mortars of the Haganah, is wp:unde, rejecting the idea that Abadallah invaded Israel because of fights is wpu:undue (it is also WP:OR - original reserch and false) if we would not say that the Yishuv invaded (same word) because of the conquest of Acre and Jaffa. (it is also WP:OR).

Do you understand what I mean ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

to pluto: un my opinion, I have already replied to your points. Abyway, I'll try again.

1. yours: "editors are assumed to comply with WP:NPoV" and the rest of those formal terms. reply: How I have compiled this list? While reading the article, once I am confident (based on my knowledge) that there is a mistake / omission I write it down here in the talk page and later verify it and modify the article accordingly. In my opinion it is complying with those wikipedia rules. It could happen that other people wouldn't agree with me, and then we might try to convince each other, or call for a mediator.
2. yours: "What you call errors that you identified are also information that all go to the same pro-Israeli direction.". reply: out of 8 points of mine, 2 are pro Israeli ( British diplomacy in support of the Arabs, The war has started as the Arab fighters has attacked) and 6 are plain errors / omissions ( Took control of almost 60% of the area allocated to the proposed Arab state, The Arabs fought the 1948 war to meet Abdullah's political goals, The Arab League blocked recruitment to al Husayni's forces, The Arab leaders reluctantly decided to invade Palestine, The Arab Legion fought only in the areas that King Abdullah wanted to secure for Jordan, the strongest Arab army agreed not to attack the Jewish state). Again, I have identified them based on my knowledge. There could be more errors, which you may find, while initially it seems OK for me.
3. yours: "stating that the ALA had armored vehicules without talking about those of Hagana is wp:undue (It is also false to shift from "antiquated" to "fighting" to talk about ALA vehicules)". reply: There is a big difference between ALA armored fighting vehicles (even if antiquated) that are used for attacks, and between Hagana comercial trucks with thin steel plates, without fighting capability, that some Hagana fighters called it death trap, which were not suitable even for defense (since the steel plates were too thin). Moreover, at the period we have been talking about- April 1948, the Hagana lost nearly all of those armored trucks, during the convoys disasters of march 1948. However, if you think it is not balanced,in my opinion you may add it to the article

"small Haganah units in lightly armed, cramped, highly inflammable,makeshift armored cars" (benni morris, 1948, p. 108) Ykantor (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

1. yours: "talking about the "artillery" of the ALA, without specifying the number of 2-inch and 3-inch mortars of the Haganah". reply: Cannons are different from mortars, since a cannon range is much longer and this is a significant advantage for cannons. However, if you think it is not balanced, in my opinion you may add it to the article. ( by the way, 2" mortars are not count as artillery because of the extremely short range).
2. yours: "rejecting the idea that Abadallah invaded Israel because of fights". reply : what do you mean?
3. yours: "if we would not say that the Yishuv invaded (same word) because of the conquest of Acre and Jaffa". reply: if you think it is important, in my opinion you may add it to the article.
4. I will appreciate it if you won't ask me again the same questions that you already asked previously. I have already replied, and it is useless to repeat the same answers again and again. Ykantor (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

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

• " took control of almost 60% of the area allocated to the proposed Arab state," - 60% seems to be wrong Ykantor (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It seems much indeed. Maybe Jerusalem which was outside the Arab state is comptabilized ?Pluto2012 (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

On the 60 per cent, that's easily calculated in order to get an idea of what to google for.

• Ruth Kark, ‘Planning, Housing, and Land Policy 1948-1942: The Formation of Concepts and Government Frameworks,’ Selwyn Ilan Troen, Noah Lucas (eds.) Israel: The First Decade of Independence, SUNY Press 1995 pp.461-494p.478 ‎ reads:

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

As we all know the UN plan allocated 56% of Palestine to the minority, and at war's end Israel had 77.2 of the land (Philip Mattar (ed) Encyclopedia of the Palestinians, Infobase Publishing, (2000) 2005 p.294), thus gaining roughly 21% more land than it was allocated. With this elementary data, the calculations seem simple enough to establish what percentage of the land allocated to the Palestinians was incorporated into the nascent state of Israel.Nishidani (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

to Nishidani: based on your figures, The Arab territory was reduced from 11.4 by 5.7 million dunam. Thus it was reduced by 5.7/11.4 = 50%. This is a crude calculation, since it ignores the international enclave. A similar calculation based on other alternative ( that the growth includes whole of the Int'l enclave) leads to a lower percentage. The correct percentage is between these 2 number. However, it is forbidden to add an original research. Thus lets hope that someone may find the correct figure based on a good source.

We are actually allowed to make arithmetical calculations; they do not count as original research. But there isn't any particular need for it, so I think we should start with Kark's figures above. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

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

• "Through his leadership, the Arabs fought the 1948 war to meet Abdullah's political goals" - that is an error Ykantor (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • That is an error indeedPluto2012 (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

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

• "The Arab League blocked recruitment to al-Husayni's forces," - Al-Husayni moved at 1947 into Palestine with hundreds of fighters. Later he looked for more Palestinian fighters, rather than volunteers from Arab states. Thus this sentence is irrelevant. Ykantor (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Why is it relevant ? I don't undestand. Pluto2012

to pluto: After moving to Palestine, al-Husayni was busy with his army, trying to receive more arms and attract palestinians fighters. I don't recall anyone saying that al-Husayni have been actively calling for volunteres from other arab states.He might have financial problems with maintaining his army, but lack of fighters from abroad was not one of his main problems. Ykantor (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I never heard either that the Arab League would have blocked recruitment of al-Husayni troops so we would check this information from other sources and remove this.

Anyway al-Husayni had Bosnian fighters in his troops. Maybe the source refers to this (?). I don't know.

I wonder anyway if this is wp:due and if this could not be removed on that base.

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

suspected omission- The war has started as the Arab fighters has attacked

• "The 1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine started on 30 November 1947, one day after the UN General Assembly vote on the UN Partition Plan." - The war has started as the Arab fighters has attacked Jewish buses and settlements. Ykantor (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Not true. Some sources make the war start with terrorist actions of IZL and LHI. Putting the responsability on Arab attacks is just a pov-pushing.

I have checked, and you are right about the attacked jewish buses, but what about the  ?

If I understand you well, you agree that the war started on 30 November but you want we precise who started the fights or who is responsible or do you want we precise it started on 1 December, 2 December, ... precisely ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

to pluto: The common date for the start of the war is set to the UN voting date. There is no way that anyone here would change it. The omission here is that the article does not say who started the war, and it should say that the Arabs started, while the Jews has tried to accommodate it in order that the partition would go ahead with no problems. Ykantor (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand but I disagree.

It is no sense to say who starts a "civil war". There was a strike and then skirmishes that escalated by mutual violence. It was not a political decision to start a war. See Gelber p.16 and following ones.

More sources diverge on this point. Some claim IZL and LHI attacks were responsible of the explosion of violence that lead to the war.

I gather sources for this. Please, just give me a few days. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"Arab armed bands attacked Jewish settlements, and Haganah units occasionally retaliated" ( benni morris, 1948, p. 78)

"during the war’s first four months the Arabs were generally on the offensive and the Jews were usually on the defensive." (benni morris, 1948, p. 79) Ykantor (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor, regarding who started the war, Mandatory Palestine was already experiencing terror attacks due to Jewish militia alone since 1946. Think about King David Hotel bombing or the Night of the Bridges and globally here is a list

(from the article about the massacre of the '48 war :) At the beginning of the civil war, the Jewish militias organized several bombing attacks against civilians and military Arab targets. On 12 December, Irgun placed a car bomb opposite the Damascus Gate, killing 20 people. On 4 January 1948, the Lehi detonated a lorry bomb against the headquarters of the paramilitary Najjada located in Jaffa's Town Hall, killing 15 Arabs and injuring 80. During the night between 5 and 6 January, at Jerusalem, the Haganah bombed the Semiramis Hotel that had been reported to hide Arab militiamen, killing 24 people. The next day, Irgun members in a stolen police van rolled a barrel bomb into a large group of civilians who were waiting for a bus by the Jaffa Gate, killing around 16. Another Irgun bomb went off in the Ramla market on February 18, killing 7 residents and injuring 45. On 28 February, the Palmah organised a bombing attack against a garage at Haifa, killing 30 people.

In this context, Gebler (2006), p.21 describes the beginning of hostilities at Haifa where Arabs had signed a cease-fire. There are other such exemples, the most unfamous being Deir Yassin villagers who signed such an agreement too (see eg Morris and Gelber)

We can also compare the number of victims : end of december 207 Jews and 220 Arabs had been killed (Karsh, 2002, p.31). If both communities were not at war, who killed the Arabs ?

After 30 years of struggle, it is clear that both sides wanted and expected the war. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

to pluto: The 2 citations of Benni Moris shows who started the war. You have done a great job in your research, and you are right that the Arabs have not planned a full scale war, but they initiated the riots , sniper shooting etc. since they realized that if the public order is out of control, the UN may reconsider the partition. Actually they were right, since at mid March 1948 the US retreated for a while to another solution. The Hagana wanted a calm atmosphere for exactly the same rational: in order to keep the partition going. As you said, the IZL and Lehi have initiated attacks on the Arabs but they were a small minority among jews, although, as you say, they caused a lot of damage. Of course it is not a case of one good side and the other bad side. The Jews has their own share of mal doing ( Dir Yasin was really a hell of a crime), but looking at the whole picture, the Arabs initiated the war. Ykantor (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that these citations would show who started the war. Such a complex issue is not solved in taking 2 sentences out of their context.

I disagree also that the Arabs would have initiated the riots. Some Arabs (who ? under the orders of who ? and representing who) organised skirmishes (why ? According to Morris the bus attack was done by a gang). There is no material evidence that they were under the order of the AHC at the contrary of IZL and LHI who were under the direct orders of their leaders when they performed the attacks. If you agree IZL and LHI were a minority, you should agree that what some (unindentified) Arabs did is not relevant.

You assume Haganah tried to calm atmosphere. That is not clear given the Semiranis bombing attack and the Palmah attack of a garage on February 28. I add that Haganah was prepared for war (Plan Aleph and Beth was ready), Arms was gathered, the topics was discussed among leaders... Arab League was doing the same. Arab Palestinians didn't organise for this.

The global picture is that both wanted the war and started it. One side was efficient and the other totally unorganised. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

to pluto: according to Benni Morris (1948, p. 76-77)"there was also a clear, organized Palestinian Arab response to the UN resolution. Guided by Husseini from Cairo, the AHC on 1 December declared a three-day general strike in Palestine to begin the following day. On 2 December a large Arab mob, armed with clubs and knives, burst out of Jerusalem’s Old City and descended on the New Commercial Center at Mamilla Street, attacking Jewish passersby and shops. A number of people were injured, one seriously, and the district was set alight. The mob then proceeded up Queen Mary Street and into Jaffa Street. Haganah intelligence identified two AHC officials, Muhammad Ali Salah and Mahmoud Umari, as leading the crowd."

I agree with your: "One side was efficient and the other totally unorganized." but the efficiency was relative only. In reality, The Hagana was not really prepared, the commanders were bad and full of Eggo, hardly anything was organized, and nearly all the burden was carried by the Palmach- a couple of thousand youngsters, not sufficiently armed with the bad Sten sub machine guns, who were very motivated and have sacrificed themselves during the civil war. A lot of them were killed during the war. I'll write more later. Ykantor (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor, Haganah was not prepared but the Palestinian Arab even less.

And for your information, if Yishuv lost 1 % of its population (6000+ deaths), Palestinian Arabs (not Arabs) lost 12,000+, ie 1 % too.

Regarding the useless lost of young guys, did you ever hear about Qirbet Quriqur ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

to Pluto: Thank you for the "Qirbet Quriqur" link. I was not aware to this very unfortunate battle.

I considered writing down a list of Arab initiated hostilities during the 2 - 3 months after the UN partition voting. But I realized that such a list won't convince anyone. Thus, it is better to cite Benni Morris (or another good researcher):

"In late December, Husseini reportedly sent Jerusalem NC leader Hussein al-Khalidi a letter explicitly stating that the purpose of the present violence was “to harass (and only to harass)” the Yishuv, not full-scale assault. In January 1948, High Commissioner Cunningham assessed that “official Arab policy is to stand on the defensive until aggression is ordered by the national leadership. That widespread assaults on Jews continue and are indeed increasing illustrates the comparatively feeble authority of most of Committees and of the AHC. . . . The latter is anxious to curb Arab outbreaks but probably not to stop them entirely.” During the winter, perturbed by appeals from the notables of Jaffa and Haifa, Husseini appears to have agreed to non belligerency in the towns and to have ordered a shift of the focus of hostilities from the main towns to the countryside. On 22 February, the Haifa NC ordered a “cessation of shooting, and a return of each man to his regular workplace.” It is unlikely that such an order was issued without prior AHC endorsement.

Many of the Arab attacks in November 1947–January 1948 were “spontaneous” and even contrary to the mufti’s wishes. Others were “incited” or led by Husseini agents, but in unconcerted fashion. Gradually, however, and partly because of Haganah, IZL, and LHI retaliatory attacks, the whole country—or at least the areas with Jewish concentrations of population—was set alight." (by benni moris, 1948, p. 98.)

In my opinion, this is a good description of the escalation towards full war, which was started by the Arabs. Ykantor (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not written that the war was started by the "Arabs". And I must have written somewhere on this page that "Arabs" is not an appropriate word because there were many Arab protagonits. Attacks were "spontanous" and "unconcerted". And despite what Benny Morris writes, IZL and LHI attacks were not retaliatory attacks but at the contrary vicious, organised and concerted ones.

The events are better describes by a "spiral of violence" that lead to the war, as Benny Morris, The Birth... revisited (2003), p.138 or Ellen Fleischman (2003), University of Californian Press, p.201 write and as described in the article about the civil war.

Nobody starts a spiral. It is fed by all parties or stop. And Regardint a starting point, see also Nishidani's comment here below. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

to Pluto:

• you said "It is not written that the war was started by the "Arabs". If we look at this paragraph and the following pages (p. 98 to p. 107) ,although the word "started does not appear , benni morris says clearly that the Arabs were on the offensive and the Hagana was on the defensive side. e.g "Most of the violence was initiated by the Arabs" (p. 101). "armed bands attacked convoys and settlements, often recruiting local militiamen to join in. Gunmen sporadically fired into Jewish neighborhoods and planted bombs. The Haganah, busy reorganizing, and wary of the British, adopted a defensive posture while occasionally retaliating against Arab traffic, villages, and urban neighborhoods. The Haganah mobilized slowly, at first hobbled by the belief—shared by much of the Yishuv104—that it merely faced a new round of “disturbances.” Only in early January did the Yishuv’s leadership wake up to the fact that the war that they had long predicted had, in fact, begun" (p. 98)

1. the Arab snipers killed jews, and the jews erected walls for defense.
2. The Arabs "planted bombs and mines along urban and rural paths and roads" (p. 101) , and attacked jewish transportation and the jews started moving in convoys, with armed Palmach people, with a Sten disassembled and hidden in the cloths
3. "The first organized Arab urban attack was launched against the Jewish Hatikva Quarter, on the eastern edge of Tel Aviv" (p. 101) .

• you said " "Arabs" is not an appropriate word because there were many Arab protagonits". So what? All of them were Arabs. The Jews were busy defending themselves, and later had retaliatory actions.
• you said "IZL and LHI attacks were not retaliatory attacks but at the contrary vicious, organised and concerted ones" . Well , you reacted to a Benny Morris paragraph where he says clearly that the attacks were indeed retaliatory.
• you said "The events are better describes by a "spiral of violence" that lead to the war". Yes that right, but this spiral started with a lot of Arab attacks, and the Hagana has tried to calm the mood and had limited reactions. ( the IZL have not limited itself, but it was still retaliatory ). see Benni Morris p. 98 to 107.
• you said "And Regardint a starting point, see also Nishidani's comment" . I responded to Nishidani. Ykantor (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Pointless really. One could say the Balfour decision initiated the war, that Hitler's Holocaust determined the war, that the British-Palestinian war of 1936-9 (which actually should be written about with at least half the energy that goes into reconstructing the 1947-8 period) determined the outcome, since it effectively broke the back of Palestinian resistance. The 1948 war was won before it was started, by whoever, as the simplest of geopolitical and logistical calculations show, though, given the holocaust, it was experienced on one side as a do or die situation. In my view, the UN resolution started the war, but that's neither here nor there. Blame is a pretty useless device in immensely complex historical events like this. All we really should try to do is get the facts straight. etc.etc. Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

to Nishidan: If I understand you well, your view is that some really old events might have started the war. According to this view, one might find the reasons for the WW2 with Napoleon wars (which were indeed part of the reasons), but usually, historians Does not recall such an old events.

• you said: "The 1948 war was won before it was started". That was not the view at that time.

1. I have cited the British headquarters who at early 1948 didn't expect the Jews to win.
2. It was not the view Of Hagana headquarters, just before the Arab states invasion. Actually they said that the chance to win is equal to chance of loosing it.
3. "the CIA report of August 1947, which predicted that if war broke out between a newborn Jewish state and the Arab states, the Arabs would win." (benni morris, 1948, p. 175) Ykantor (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• you said "All we really should try to do is get the facts straight." That is right. Lets cite again the facts as Benni Morris said: "Most of the violence was initiated by the Arabs...The Haganah, busy reorganizing, and wary of the British, adopted a defensive posture while occasionally retaliating against Arab" Ykantor (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

"For four months, under continuous Arab provocation and attack, the Yishuv had largely held itself in check, initially in the hope that the disturbances would blow over and, later, in deference to international— particularly British—sensibilities. In addition, the Haganah had lacked armed manpower beyond what was needed for defense" benni morris, 1948, p. 117 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ykantor (talk • contribs) 21:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

suspected omission- The Arab leaders reluctantly decided to invade Palestine

• "In April with the Palestinian defeat, the refugees coming from Palestine and the pressure of their public opinion, the Arab leaders reluctantly decided to invade Palestine" - King Abdulla wasn't reluctant, but rather enthusiast to take over the Arab territory and especially Jerusalem. Ykantor (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes. And another omission is that Ben Gurion didn't fix the bordars of Israel in the Independence proclamation. We need to explain how Palestinian Arabs were betrayed by everybody.- by pluto

You are right about Ben Gurion.

I understand the feeling of betrayal, but looking at retrospective (which is easy!) The Arab states were not sufficiently strong to defeat the Hagana , and should have told the Palestinians that a war is even worse than accepting the partition plan. But the Arab states didn't care about the Palestinians, and because of their own interests, lied to the Arab people and told them the opposite.

However, at real time,the Arab leaders had to take a major decision, based on assumption like: "At the start of the civil war, Whitehall believed that the Arabs would prevail. “In the long run the Jews would not be able to cope . . . and would be thrown out of Palestine unless they came to terms with ,” was the considered judgment of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff". (benni morris, 1948, p. 81 ) Thus , it is difficult to assess what they should have done. Ykantor (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

"Only for Jordan’s Abdullah was the invasion—viewed as a means to expand his kingdom—an immediate political priority" (benni morris, 1948, p. 186 ) Ykantor (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok. But do you mean we should remove the sentence "In April with the Palestinian defeat, the refugees coming from Palestine and the pressure of their public opinion, the Arab leaders reluctantly decided to invade Palestine" ? Pluto2012 (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

to pluto: this sentence is Ok , except the "reluctantly" issue. One should add that Abdula was eager anex the planned arab state territories. Ykantor (talk) 09:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand.

I think the "reluctantly" comes directly from Gelber.

(...)

I checked : it is at the end of p.11 of his book Palestine 1948 (2006).

He also gives a summary for Egypt, Lebanon and Transjordan. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

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

• "The Arab Legion joined the war in May 1948, but fought only in the areas that King Abdullah wanted to secure for Jordan: the West Bank and East Jerusalem." The legion has attacked Jewish convoy at Ben Shemen, during early 1948, and Kibuts Gezer at mid 1948. Ykantor (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • That is not enough to claim that it would be wrong. The attack of the convoy was done under British rule and the Kibbutz of Gezer attack was a counter-attack during the offensives of Latrun. That cannot be counted that way. Again the global pictures counts.
  • Anyway, if you want we can go to that direction.
  • We should add that Haganah invaded territories of the future States in April. Haganah took Acre and Jaffa. It also conquered the West Coast above Acre and took a number of villages between Latrun and Jerusalem which were located in the Arab State. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

to pluto:you are right, that the Hagana took over those place, although it were in the planned Arab partition. "Plan D called for securing the areas earmarked by the United Nations for Jewish statehood and several concentrations of Jewish population outside those areas (West Jerusalem and Western Galilee). The roads between the core Jewish areas and the border areas where the invading Arab armies were expected to attack were to be secured" ( benni morris, 1948, p. 119)

to pluto: The attack of the Arab Legion on Gezer, is not a Counterattack as defined: "The general objective is to negate or thwart the advantage gained by the enemy during attack, whilst the specific objectives typically seek to regain lost ground or destroy the attacking enemy". Ykantor (talk) 01:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The Arab Legion has attacked Jewish targets as early as starting of 1948" - quotation: "On 14 December, a second convoy, headed for Ben Shemen, near Lydda, was shot up near the Beit Nabala military camp: fourteen Jews were killed and ten injured—shot by Arab Legionnaires serving with the British army in Palestine." The full date is 14 Dec 1947. source: Benni Morris, 1948 A History of the First Arab-Israeli War, p.105. Ykantor (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I answered here above. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

What is your proposal to keep fairly the global idea and to make the sentence totally right ? Pluto2012 (talk) 08:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

to pluto: it would be more accurate to write: "The Arab Legion re-joined the war in May 1948, and fought mainly in the areas that King Abdullah wanted to secure for Jordan: the West Bank and East Jerusalem". If you add info concerning Acre and Jaffa and so on, it is OK as well. Ykantor (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal (and I don't think more information regarding Jaffa and Acre are required given your proposal). In fact : only -> mainly.

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

suspected omission-the strongest Arab army agreed not to attack the Jewish state

• "the strongest Arab army agreed not to attack the Jewish state" King Abdulla said whatever was convenient for him at the moment. As a pragmatist ruler, he would attack whenever there was a good chance of wining. The Arab Legion has attacked Jewish targets as early as starting of 1948. "No doubt, the unopposed occupation of the bulk of the West Bank whetted the king’s appetite for bigger and better conquests; for a few days, he even talked about conquering West Jerusalem and Tel Aviv". source: benni morris, 1948, p. 212 . Ykantor (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It is Benny Morris. I already explained you that you cannot just pick a sentence and make a whole story out of it. Ben Gurion also talked about conquering Syrian and Transjordan in october 1948. That would be nosense to say these are his intentions. Read the full p.212 and report fairly all this. The topic of the intentions of Abdallah is covered in entire books.

What is your source for this : "As a pragmatist ruler, he would attack whenever there was a good chance of wining. The Arab Legion has attacked Jewish targets as early as starting of 1948." ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• ""As a pragmatist ruler, he would attack whenever there was a good chance of wining". As an example, at the beginning, Abdulla has told the Jews that he won't attack them. Later, He told them that he can't avoid joining the co-Arab invasion.

And ? Pluto2012 (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

this text "the strongest Arab army agreed not to attack the Jewish state" is a misleading text by a Avi Shleim, who has an agenda and writes accordingly. Looking at Benni moris: "Golda Meir, disguised in an Arab robe, arrived on the night of 10–11 May in Amman for her second secret meeting with Abdullah, the previous months’ understanding about a peaceful Jewish- Hashemite partition was not reaffirmed. On the contrary. Abdullah, cordial as always but “tired and depressed,” now asked Meir to reconsider his original proposal, of an autonomous Jewish canton within a Hashemite kingdom. Why this rush toward statehood? he asked. Meir countered that back in November, they had agreed on a partition with Jewish statehood. Why not abide by the agreement? Abdullah replied that the situation had changed. There had been Deir Yassin, and he was now only one of a coalition of five war-bound Arab rulers, no longer a free agent." ( p. 193) Ykantor (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You are confusing two issues. Abdullah wanted an agreement that involved no fighting and just involved dividing up the country according to the UN plan. But by the time Israel declared independence it was occupying a large part of the Arab portion as well. The non-belligerency agreement was a non-starter, but it remains a fact of history that the Arab Legion did not enter the Jewish part of the UN partition and had no plans to. Shlaim's claim that there was an active agreement is disputed, but it is a strong consensus of historians that he did not plan to attack the Jewish state. For example Yoav Gelber (review of Morris' 1948 in Azure 2008, p119): "The objective of Transjordan’s Arab Legion was the hilly, Arab-populated part of the country—Judea and Samaria—and its outposts at Lydda and Ramle (now Lod and Ramla). This strategy was not, as Morris implies, a last-minute caprice on the part of Abdullah. It had been the king’s objective since the outbreak of the war." Or David Tal (Journal of Israeli History, v24, 2005, 183–202): "The one point of friction was the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem’s Old City, but even that could not be counted as a reason for fighting. All that Abdullah wanted was to occupy the area to the west of his kingdom that had been allocated by the United Nations to be part of the Arab-Palestinian state, an area that the Jews had no intention of acquiring, while the Jews wanted to make the Jewish part of Jerusalem part of their state, even though the United Nations had decided that that area would be internationalized. It seems that the two sides fought so fiercely, with intervals, from May to July 1948 simply because each side had no idea what the other side’s intentions were and consequently acted to frustrate what it assumed was the other side’s plan." And more examples could be given. Zero 03:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

to zero: you are correct. However in my opinion Avi Shlaim sentence ( "the strongest Arab army agreed not to attack the Jewish state" ) is misleading and leads the reader to an understanding which is quite the opposite to your words:

• The reader won't pay attention to the difference between attacking the jews and attacking within the planned jewish territory.
• The term "the strongest army" is doubtful. It was a good army, but it missed tanks and aircraft, and was a small army.
• the term "agreed" is associated with a formal signing, e.g. Molotov- Ribbentrop agreement, while Abdullah just promised that in order to receive a Jewish acceptance to annex the planned Arab territory to his kingdom. Abdullah managed out of his promise once he realized he has a better option. In fact, Abdullah is the winner of the war, even more than Israel who suffered destruction and huge number of casualties. Ykantor (talk) 06:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

We mix information from reliable sources and personal analysis. We cannot move forward that way.

• 1a. Abdallah's army didn't attack the Jews but the Isralis; 1b. He didn't try to invade areas allocated to the Jewish State by the Partition plan, as we discussed : Gezer was a tactical operation during the Latrun battles. This is explained in Morris.
• I agree with you it is discussable that the Arab Legion was the "strongest" in comparison eg with the Egyptian army. Nevertheless, this is what is reported by historians. The reasons are the Arab Legion had numerous advantages : nearly all regiments were mechanized comprised armored fighting vehicles; the Arab Legion had served in the area and new the territory ; it was commanded by British officers.
• In more of having common interest with the Israelis, Abadallah had received the British support to annex the Arab State at the condition that he didn't attack Israel and didn't enter the Jerusalem area. He had to comply with the "advices" of the British given he entirely relied on them military speaking. Despite this, he intervened in Jerusalem. As far as I know historians didn't find when the British gave their agreement to this but on the other side, they had no choice because the full city was falling to Israeli hands.

We should focus on a single a precise topic. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

to pluto: Do you have a source for "Abadallah had received the British support to annex the Arab State at the condition that he didn't attack Israel"? it is really strange, since Bevin hated Israel personally. I'll write more later. Ykantor (talk) 09:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It is already in the article here and sourced by French historian Henry Laurens reporting a February 1948's meeting at London. I look for this in English sources.

Ok. It refers to the visit of Transjordan Prime Minister al-Huda on february 1948. Bevin supported Abdallah's plan to annex the Arab State of Palestine but warned : "do not go and invade areas allocated to the Jews." (Rogan and Shlaim, “The” War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948, Cambridge University Press, 2001 p110.

By the way, at the same page, it is reported that Arab Legion was the strongest Arab army. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

to pluto: In my opinion Avi Shleim has an agenda, and writes accordingly. While googling for this note, I found a somehow different version. According to The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews, By Benny Morris, p. 114, Political Science,2003 , The Jordanian prime minister told Bevin that they won't enter a Jewish area, unless the Jews invaded Arab areas. Ykantor (talk) 03:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Morris and Shlaim are both WP:RS sources and Laurens too being an excellent source to give a good summary of all historians work.

In any case, see Morris p.112 - last paragraph of the 1st testimony - : It is essential that the Secretary of State should take this opportunity to give a confidential warning that if Transjordan became involved in hostilities against a Jewish State or blatantly contrary to the UN, we should be under strong pressure to suspend the subsidy and to consider the position of British officers seconded to the Arab Legion.

This is confirmed in the last sentence of the 1st paragraph of next testimony, by the whole section (C) and (D) opens the only "compromise" to this obligation, "compromise" that came to life with Bernadotte.

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

to Pluto: As said in this Benni Morris article, Bevin was happy to hear that the Arab Legion won't attack civilian population (i.e the Jewish and international territories) because he didn't want problems with the U.S and UN. That clarify the mystery why Bevin, the extremely anti Israeli, didn't want Abdulla to attack Israel.

By the way, your quoted lines were an update only to Bevin before the meeting. What has been really said during the meeting ? (top of page 114) Bevin asked if the Jordanian planned to occupy the Arab territories only or attacking Jewish areas too (presumably including Jerusalem ). The Jordanian prime minister replied that they won't attack Jewish areas unless the Jews invaded Arab areas. This is of course a saying that there will be always an excuse to attack the Jews. Ykantor (talk) 05:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The initial question was to know if the Transjordan (the country with the strongest army) had agreed not to attack Israel and the answer is that it had and was also contraint to this because their main ally was against this. More several diplomatic talks had occured with Yishuv officials to try to find a compromise or a 'modus vivendi'. In practice, they didn't attack Israel (Gezer is not such an attack) and it is in fact the Israelis that attacked them at Latrun, al-Ramla and Lydda. Anyway, as you point out, but we enter here in the "blurred area", nobody knows what they would have done if they would have other opportunities because they attacked Kfar Etzion (in Arab territories) and their promise was not 100 % clear. But these are speculations.

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

to Pluto: You are right concerning Ramla and Lyda, but Latrun is a different story. as Abdula told the Yishuv he won't attack the Jews, there were secret and direct contacts at 2 May 1948 between Arab Legion senior officers and Hagana commanders, in which they discussed how to ensure that there won't be any battle between them, including Jerusalem. As a response to a Legion commander question, an Hagana Representative said that if Jerusalem won't be attacked and the way to Jerusalem would be safe, then the Hagana will avoid battles with the Legion. However, about a week later, Abdula told the Jews that he have to join the war together with other Arab states (i.e. he can't fulfill his promise to avoid fighting with them).

Latrun , held by the Legion, has stopped the Jewish transportation to Jerusalem, and the Legion bombed there the water pumps of the only water line to Jerusalem. Thus the Hagana had to attack Latrun, in order to avoid suffocating of Jerusalem.

Thus, it is shown that Abdula was a pragmatist who always looked for his benefits, and his word or signature wasn't worth anything. Ykantor (talk) 08:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It is the Hagana that launched the offensive at Jerusalem with Operation Shfifon and Operation Kilshon. Arab Legion blokaged the road to Jerusalem after and even after intervened in the city. "Thus, it is shown that was a pragmatist who always looked for his benefits, and his word or signature wasn't worth anything".

Anyway, all this translate intentions. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

suspected omission- British diplomacy in support of the Arabs

• "British diplomacy in support of the Arabs...This section relies largely or entirely upon a single source" - One more source is "Palestine 1948: War, Escape And The Emergence Of The Palestinian Refugee Problem By Yoav Gelber, p. 50-51, saying that the ALA units entered Palestine illegally, crossing the Jordan river bridge . The high commissioner Cunningham protested but his colleague in the Arab Countries ignored him. Moreover, Kirkbride protested to Bevin against Cunnigham hostile tone and threat. They said that stopping ALA from entering Palestine illegally, might cause considerable damage to Britain position in the Arab world. Gelber writes (p. 58) that Egyptian volunteers entered Southern Palestine too. Thus the Royal Navy was effectively blocking the Jews from entering Palestine, while on the same time, the British rulers deliberately done nothing to stop armed Arab fighters from entering the country. Ykantor (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • So what ? Pluto2012 (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I would not call it a suspected omission but thank you for raising it. At the moment the section relies nearly exclusively on Karsh and is tagged accordingly. Gelber is a good source for this article, and it would be an improvement to add from him. I would like to see the section retitled simply Britain and moved higher. I would also like to see reference to a general history of British foreign policy in the Attlee administration. Without straying from the topic, we may need to refer to the wider post-war conjuncture and decolonisation. The partition of British India had occurred only months before. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

one more source: "The First Yarmuk Battalion crossed from Transjordan a few days later and pushed inland, bivouacking in Tubas, near Nablus. The six-hundred-man battalion was commanded by Captain Muhammad Safa.153 The British quickly learned of these illegal crossings and were much embarrassed (Cunningham was furious). But they did nothing" (benni moris, 1948, p. 105) Ykantor (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you want to prove by this. This material is already in the article. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

to pluto: since there is a warning that "This section relies largely or entirely upon a single source", here there are 2 more sources (gelber, benni morris), this section can rely on. Ykantor (talk) 09:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"Moreover, Whitehall’s fears that the circumstances of the withdrawal from Palestine might subvert Britain’s standing in the Middle East occasioned a number of major, organized British interventions against the Jewish militias, or noninterventions in face of Arab attack" (benni morris, 1948, p.81) Ykantor (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok but I wonder what material you want to add.

I think we can easily source that :

• British supported particularly Abdallah but was opposed to Husseini and didn't care the Palestinians Arabs
• British were not opposed to the Jews

Pluto2012 (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

to pluto: Generally speaking, governments don't care about the people of other nations (e.g. the people in Syria nowadays), and only consider their own interests. Looking at The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews, By Benny Morris, p. 114, Political Science,2003 the British interests for - Palestine -Israel at the time were:

• to extend indirect British influence in the Arab regions of Palestine by supporting Abdulla planned Annexation
• Hiding this support for the sake of keeping good relationship with the Saudis who opposed Abdulla
• Trying to hide their pro Arab and anti Jewish attitude, in order not to anger the USA that had subsidized Britain and potentially could stop the embargo on supplying weapons to the Mid East if they realized this Britain support Ykantor (talk) 06:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed but also (see former section here above), as proven by the material in Morris's book and reminded by Shlaim and Laurens, they supported Abdullah plan at the condition that he didn't prevent the implementation of a Jewish State and that he didn't attack it because else he could lose the logistical support of British (which he lost with the embargo) and his British officers. A corridor in the Negev or an exchange between Negev and Galilee being an acceptable compromise...

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem with this section in the article is not the presence of the "single source" tag. One could easily add a source from some similarly biased source and then remove the "single source" tag. The problem with the section is what's covered by the other tag, namely the utter lack of neutrality. The section presents Karsh's view of the subject and no other view. That is not being neutral. The section reads like pro-Israeli propaganda, which is to be expected from Karsh. --Frederico1234 (talk) 10:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

to frederico:the issue is not somone view on the subject (your words) but facts that solidly support this view, and the facts cannot be denied.

1. the ALA units entered Palestine illegally, crossing the Jordan river bridge . The high commissioner Cunningham protested but his colleague in the Arab Countries ignored him. Moreover, Kirkbride protested to Bevin against Cunnigham hostile tone and threat. They said that stopping ALA from entering Palestine illegally, might cause considerable damage to Britain position in the Arab world. ( from gelber, see before). thus there is one fact that the british havn't opposed the illegal entry af the ALA army (while the british mighty navy effectively stopped jews from entering Palestine). The second fact is the british telegrams of the period, which expose clearly that it was not a negligence but pro Arab motivation for that.
2. The British were actively looking for illegal Hagana weapons warehouse, while there was no similar searches for Arab warehouses.

If you still don't believe in the british rulers being pro Arab, will it be possible for you to highlight facts (and not views) that support your opinion. Ykantor (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the civil war period preceding this war, Benny Morris writes "But in fact, British policy - as emanating both from Whitehall and from Jerusalem, the seat of the high commissioner - was one of strict impartiality ". See "1948: The First Arab-Israeli War", p. 78. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

to Frederico: This is a view ( although a view of very respected history researcher) and not a fact, as mentioned previously. However, reading carefully, One might assume that Benni Morris wrote about a neutral British interventions in battles between Jews and Arabs. Anyway, Benni morris had a different view : "Moreover, Whitehall’s fears that the circumstances of the withdrawal from Palestine might subvert Britain’s standing in the Middle East occasioned a number of major, organized British interventions against the Jewish militias, or noninterventions in face of Arab attack" (benni morris, 1948, p.81)

one more case of British supporting the Arabs: when Egypt invaded Israel at 15 May 1948, the British didn't care. But when during Dec 1948 (in order to circulate and trap the Egyptian army, and not in order to conquere ) The British gave Israel an ultimatum. Ykantor (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

One more fact (taken from a british official document) is the british plans to support Abdulla in a taking over a portion of Israel , so called a "corridor" to egypt. The british official must had a sense of humor since he saw a benefit : " This would have immense strategic advantage to us, both in cutting the jewish state, and therefore communist influence... " . The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews, By Benny Morris, p. 113, Political Science,2003

will it be possible for you to present facts that support your view ? Ykantor (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe the Morris quote presented is sufficient to establish that the article section in question, as currently written, violates Wikipedias mandatory policy of Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV), which requires us to represent "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Morris' view is not represented, and he qualifies as a reliable source. Unless Morris' view could be considered a fringe view, the section thus violates WP:NPOV. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

to Frederico: Morris view should be definitely mentioned in the paragraph, although one may wonder what is his view: The p. 78 view (British policy -... was one of strict impartiality) or the p. 81 view ( "Whitehall’s fears ... might subvert Britain’s standing in the Middle East occasioned a number of major, organized British interventions against the Jewish militias").

Since facts are more important than views, I am repeating: will it be possible for you to highlight facts (and not views) that support your opinion? Ykantor (talk) 06:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The only view I've expressed here is that the specific section violates WP:NPOV. I've also provided a fact that support this view (the Morris quote itself). --Frederico1234 (talk) 06:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

@Ykantor :

• there was no anti-Yishuv bias by the British. On the contrary the work for the establishment of a Jewish State in providing the support to Abdallah to annex the Arab State at the condition he didn't try to annex the Jewish State. I provided the sources to you.
• More, I don't remember who wrote this but it should be Segev (or Morris) : in 1936-1939, British reacted against the Arabs with the highest violence (even taking hostages). Despite the attacks of the IZL and the LHI, despite the numbers of "boys" that were killed and despite the will of the soldiers on the field, they always refused to us similar methods against the Yishuv. That is a pro-Yishuv bias proving the were more anti-Arab than anti-semite.
• As you underline yourself, the highest authority of Palestine, the British Cunningham complained to the diplomat Kirkbride that nothing was done to prevent ALA troops to enter its territory. This means he was against this. If they didn't try more, it is because Brisith considered that had lost enough men in Palestine (easy to source).
• The British left Haganah conquer Haïfa and didn't try to prevent the exodus of the population. They also leave the IZL (no less) besiege (no less) Jaffa. Only after a complain did they stop the offensive. They didn't intervene at Deir Yassin but the lost one man during the Hadassah massacre.

-> there was no anti-Yishvu or anti-Israeli bias. They were just fed-up. That can easily be sourced too. I am sure I read this in Gelber. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

to Pluto:

• you said "there was no anti-Yishuv bias by the British". I have shown here some major aspects in which the British were discriminating the Jews relative to the Arabs.

1. Blocking Jewish immigration Vs letting Arabs entering Palestine (as opposed to verbal opposition). e.g. ALA units.
2. The British were actively looking for illegal Hagana weapons warehouse, while there was no similar searches for Arab warehouses.
3. When Egypt invaded Israel at 15 May 1948, the British didn't care. But when during Dec 1948 (in order to circulate and trap the Egyptian army, and not in order to conquer ) The British gave Israel an ultimatum
4. British plans to support Abdulla in a taking over a portion of Israel , so called a "corridor" to Egypt.
5. Benni morris, 1948 : The p. 78 view (British policy -... was one of strict impartiality) . The p. 81 view ( "Whitehall’s fears ... might subvert Britain’s standing in the Middle East occasioned a number of major, organized British interventions against the Jewish militias").

• you said "On the contrary the work for the establishment of a Jewish State in providing the support to Abdallah to annex the Arab State at the condition he didn't try to annex the Jewish State". Bevin saw it as a British interest (keeping the US calm) and the side benefit for the Jews was the Jordanians said they won't attack Jewish areas, unless.. , and then went forward and attacked Jewish Jerusalem, ignoring their promise, and Bevin didn't care.
• you said "in 1936-1939, British reacted against the Arabs with the highest violence ..., they always refused to us similar methods against the Yishuv". It is difficult for me to compare those 2 different periods, since my knowledge of the 1936 to 1939 Arab rebellion is limited. Thus I can't reply here.
• you said "the highest authority of Palestine, the British Cunningham complained to the diplomat Kirkbride that nothing was done to prevent ALA troops to enter its territory. This means he was against this. If they didn't try more, it is because Brisith considered that had lost enough men in Palestine ". Cunningham has indeed opposed it (as I cited previously) , but nothing was done to stop it, because of British reluctance to be seen as anti Arab (and not because of lack of soldiers) as I have cited before.
• you said "The British left Haganah conquer Haïfa and didn't try to prevent the exodus of the population. They also leave the IZL (no less) besiege (no less) Jaffa. Only after a complain did they stop the offensive. They didn't intervene at Deir Yassin but the lost one man during the Hadassah massacre." The British used to offer the weaker side to leave with there protection. In Tiberias the Arabs accepted this offer and left. In Sefad the Jews refused to this offer, and later won over the battle.

1. Haifa: see . About 3 weeks before the end of the British mandate, The British commander General stock well decided to pull out of the buffer zone between the Jews and the Arabs, because off lack of soldiers, and told both sides . As the Arab commander heard the news, he immediately drove to Damascus for "reporting". This caused an Arab demoralization. The Jews won over the following battle and General Stockwell has verified that the jewish -arab agreement is fair. The Arabs decided to leave, although the Jewish Mayor have asked them to remain.
2. Jaffa. I have to learn more at this point. I'll return to this point.
3. Deir Yassin. . "Gelber writes that the British were not keen to take on the Irgun and Lehi, who would have fought back if attacked, unlike the Haganah. High Commissioner Sir Alan Cunningham urged that troops be sent to Deir Yassin, but General Sir Gordon MacMillan, commander of the Palestine Forces, said he would risk British lives only in British interests. The RAF commanding officer offered to fire rockets on the Jewish forces in the village, but the light bombers had been sent to Egypt and the rockets to Iraq. Cunningham later said the RAF had brought a squadron of Tempest aircraft from Iraq to bomb the village, but he cancelled the operation when he learned the Haganah had arrived there and had garrisoned it."
4. Hadassah convoy massacre, As I recall, the British didn't want to help the jews. I have to check it.

• you said "there was no anti-Yishvu or anti-Israeli bias" . The British policy had many aspects, and not in all of them they were against the Jews. But in major aspects, they acted against the Jews (see the first lines of this posting). That was not an incident or a local policy, but a British interest as Bevin saw it. Ykantor (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

1. "assuring the safety of the withdrawing forces had become Whitehall’s chief concern—though, to be sure, a second major interest was maintaining good relations with the Arabs so that Britain’s position in the Middle East would remain robust after the withdrawal from Palestine." (benni morris, 1948, p. 109) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ykantor (talk • contribs) 20:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
2. "The Mandatory Power shall use its best endeavors to ensure that an area situated in the territory of the Jewish State, including a seaport and hinterland adequate to provide facilities for a substantial immigration, shall be evacuated at the earliest possible date and in any event not later than 1 February 1948.". Britain have not obeyed this UN decision and Jews were not allowed in Palestine, while Arab armed Fighters were easily entering Palestine, and Britain didn't stop it. Ykantor (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
3. "The termination of the mandate was only part of the story; the paramount aim was to remain on good terms with the Arabs as well as the Americans. The British could not do so as long as Palestine continued to poison the atmosphere. Arab nationalism, frustrated in Palestine, could not be appeased. In British eyes the American failure to curb militant Zionism was at the heart of the trouble. But British perceptions and misperceptions about the motives of the other powers, the nature of Zionism, and the responsibility of the United States all played a part in the outcome. Before the historic UN vote on 29 November 1947 in favour of partition, Ernest Bevin wrote one of his rare personal letters, in which he discussed Soviet motives. Among other things, it reveals that he shared the belief, not uncommon in British official circles, that the Jewish state would eventually become communist:" source: Ends of British Imperialism: The Scramble for Empire, Suez, and Decolonization, 2006, By William Roger Louis ,p.443
4. "On another occasion, Bevin used the phrase ‘international Jewry’, with its connotation of conspiracy, as an explanation of what had gone wrong. If he did not implicitly subscribe to the equivalent of a conspiracy theory, at least he believed that the Jews might he fitting into (53) " source: Ends of British Imperialism: The Scramble for Empire, Suez, and Decolonization, 2006, By William Roger Louis ,p.443
5. "Sir John Troutbeck, the head of the British Middle East Office in Cairo, wrote that ‘Deir Yassein is a warning of what a jew will do to gain his purpose. On the eve of the Arab-Israeli war the British were apprehensive about its outcome, hut virtually no one anticipated the extent of the Arab collapse and the Israeli victory. The British associated themselves with the Arab cause as one that was ultimately compatible with their own sense of mission in the Middle East, and during the course of the war they became convinced that a grave injustice was being perpetrated because of American support of the Israelis. The resentment towards the United States still smoulders in the files at the Public Record Office. It existed as the main sentiment underlying official policy, and it was perhaps most indignantly expressed by Troutbeck, who held that the Americans were responsible for the creation of a gangster state headed by ‘an utterly unscrupulous set of leaders. Even if one disregards such intemperate and indeed unbalanced comments, the anti-Israeli and anti-American tone of the telegrams, dispatches, and minutes cannot be ignored. This sense of moral outrage reached a climax in late 1948 with the collapse of the ‘Bernadotte plan’" source: Ends of British Imperialism: The Scramble for Empire, Suez, and Decolonization, 2006, By William Roger Louis ,p.446. Ykantor (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a good source. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Obviously biased wording

"Important demographic changes occurred in the country. Between 600,000 and 760,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from the area that became Israel and they became Palestinian refugees. The war and the creation of Israel also triggered the Jewish exodus from Arab lands. In the three years following the war, about 700,000 Jews immigrated to Israel, residing mainly along the borders of the State."

So Arabs "fled or were expelled" but there was a "Jewish exodus". The latter term is vague and could be construed by the reader simply as Jews deciding to relocate to Israel or US. The fact is that a higher proportion of Jews were expelled or fled unwillingly than was the case for Arabs.Colbyhawkins (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, mirror the grievances, cancel out historical nuance, even make out that the nakba was nothing compared to the expulsion of Mizrahi communities. Both the Yishuv in the 1940s and Israel actively encouraged diaspora communities in the Middle East to abandon their homelands to perform aliyah. The wider Arab community did not encourage the Palestinians to 'flee or be expelled' from their homeland. The involuntary Palestinian 'exodus' occurred over several months. The Jewish exodus, voluntary or involuntary, occurred over more than two decades. The point of collapsing this into two mirror-tragedies is wholly political, to cancel out a wrong done, by the analogy with a right and wrong that received the full encouragement of the state of Israel. Nishidani (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

"Immigrated" is incorrect. Should be "migrated". By the way, I have arranged for the full protection to be lifted, so everyone, unless topic-banned, can make changes. Discussion in advance of changes is still very welcome, but if people want to follow the WP:BRD method, that would also be appropriate. I have some bugbears you may want to consider in order to avoid edit-wars. 1) If you don't have English to native or near-native level, please propose edits here first, and 2) Whatever your level of English, please don't forget the initial capital for ethnic/national/religious groups, and for languages. Using lower case is disrespectful to the point of racism IMHO. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Two comments on the present article

• In one place it says that Israel captured 50% of the area allotted to the Arab state, and in another place it says 60%. This should be made consistent using the best available source. Note that Jerusalem was not allotted to either state; some poor sources obfuscate that issue in their calculations. Also, some use the areas given in the UNSCOP report, even though those were adjusted by the UN later. Zero 03:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• The use of Karsh's popular (i.e. non-scholarly) 2002 book for many key points is the weakest aspect of this article. Even if Karsh's opinion must be given, one should at least choose those writings of his where he provides evidence for his claims. This 2002 book is junk, anyone can see that at a glance. Zero 03:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

to Zero: If it is a junk , why don't you show what is wrong or biased there? I have repeatedly asked you and other participating editors for that, to no avail. Ykantor (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Ǎ== British policy in support of the Arabs ==

This section is a blatant NPOV violation and should be deleted. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is a good idea to include British policy. I would expect that to come from a general work on Britain's post-war role and decolonisation. At the moment the section is virtually all from Karsh, with the addition of some primary sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

to Frederico: Reading carefully this section, it seems that the content is correct. Will it be possible for you to highlight any specific wrong or biased points? Ykantor (talk) 03:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It is completely one-sided. It says that "Britain, which at the time was one of the major powers in the Middle East, supported the Arabs". There is no trace of other views, such as Morris' ("But in fact, British policy - as emanating both from Whitehall and from Jerusalem, the seat of the high commissioner - was one of strict impartiality"). --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

to frederico: you are right, and this Morris citation should be added. However, 3 pages later, Morris write a somehow contradicting opinion:"Moreover, Whitehall’s fears that the circumstances of the withdrawal from Palestine might subvert Britain’s standing in the Middle East occasioned a number of major, organized British interventions against the Jewish militias, or noninterventions in face of Arab attack" (benni morris, 1948, p.81). In my opinion, both citations should be added.

I still wonder, if there is any aspect in which Britain was for the Jews and against the Arabs.(during the relevant period) Ykantor (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is enough of bias to state that "Britain supported the Arabs" as a doubtless fact, while Israel would have never existed without the British mandatory --aad_Dira (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC).

to aad_Dira: you are about right but concerning the earlier Mandate years. During this period, Britain had a declared policy against the partition, which means against the Jews.

Anyway, your sentence " Israel would have never existed without the British mandatory" is correct for earlier years, but it was an indirect assistance only. The British rulers have maintained a well managed country, in which the Jews could develop new farms and factories, like any other advanced state. Even during those years, Britain has limited the Jewish immigration. Lot of Jews could have been saved if they were allowed in Palestine, before the Holocaust. My Grandparents could not raise the money needed to be allowed in, so they remained in antisemitic Poland and were killed in the Holocaust , together with the whole family. Ykantor (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The point isn't in discussing who did and who didn't, the problem here is that we have a "fact" statement in the article which is actually one-sided, so it should be treated as only a point of view and we should add other points of view about the subject as well. Further, that's actually a pretty long section about secondary matter in an important article like this --aad_Dira (talk) 05:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC).

to aad_Dira: If you think it is one sided, why won't you add the other side? It will be beneficial if you at first may write it here.

• Britain was a major power in the middle east at the time, thus the subject is important and not a secondary matter.
• please note, that you have not highlighted yet, even one issue that support your claim for a one sided presentation. Ykantor (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor, this section is blatant pov-pushin and I removed this. You should read WP:OR and in any case, make short proposals on the talk page given you don't have any support for your proposals of modifications. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

to pluto: your deletion is not fair and not just. If there are errors or biased view, it can be modified accordingly and not erased. This is not a constructive behavior. As you are writing so much about Misplaced Pages rules, you should have known that in Misplaced Pages the majority is not always right.

• concerning the facts in this removed section, I have not found any mistake yet. Moreover, I have asked you and other participating editors ,and none of you have returned with an error.
• There was a proposal to add Benni Morris somehow opposite 2 views (p. 78 & p. 81), which I accepted.
• Unfortunately, we have to call for senior editors to decide. Ykantor (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Pluto was correct to remove that section. It was terrible. You just collected some stuff to support your point of view and stuck it in the article. No attempt at balance. You even took a large fraction of it from the very weak tertiary source Karsh (2002) that in my opinion should not be in this article at all. The Arab perspective is missing entirely. To get a broader view of the spectrum of opinion, try this article and this article for a start. Zero 16:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

to zero: It is a pity that you do not check what you are writing. you blame me of writing this section, although I have not written even 1 word here (except adding sources). Why do you justify a deletion of correct data? (although I have asked you few times, you do not highlight any error here). If you think that something is missing, why don't you add it? It is constructive to add data, but it is a vandalism to delete correct contents. Ykantor (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

to zero: I have started to read Shleim (your suggested reading) but stopped after 7 pages. In my opinion, Shlein is not an Historian but a plain Anti Israeli guy, that his personal agenda have a priority over the facts.

• Shleim p. 1: "the way in which the mandate was establish left a terrible blot on Britain entire record". This is a personal interpretations, which depends on which side one takes. Shleim is of course anti Israeli and that suits him.
• Shleim p.3 : "Bevin was opposed to partition" This is accurate, but Shleim does not say anything about the consequences, which is definitely Anti Jewish. e.g. Britain has not followed the UN decision to let the side having a port in February, and the mighty british navy blocked entrance of Jews. While at the same time, the ALA entered freely in the country.
• Shleim p.4 : "partition was only accepted by Bevin reluctantly" . Not true. Bevin never accepted it.
• Shleim p. 6 : "Britain preferred to incorporate in Trans Jordan the area that have not been allotted to the Jewish state." Not true. It was limited to the Arab areas rather than the international enclave.
• Shleim p. 6 : Bevin did not want the Jordanians to enter Jewish areas. That is correct but there is no explanation that although Bevin did not care about the Jews ( or the Arab Palestinians) his priority was to keep good relationship with the U.S.
• According to Shleim (p.6) Bevin did not want to reduce the Jewish state to a "rump state". Wrong. Bevin wanted to give the Jewish state southern part ( so called "corridor") to Jordan.
• Shleim p. 8 : An Arab Legion officer was sent to a "dangerous mission" to meet Hagana representative. It was not dangerous at all, since the meeting happened on a Jordanian soil.
• Shleim said that the Czechs sold weapons to the Hagana, and give the impression of a wrong doing. But he doesn't mentioned that the Czechs sold weapons to Syria at the same time, since they needed the money.

In my opinion, Shleim is a man with agenda, which is more important for him than the truth. Ykantor (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Analysis of Britain's interests and policies should mainly come from sources that tell the history of Britain during that period, not from histories of the Middle East. I'll see if I can find some standard works. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

a notification of a vandalism

According to the rules, I have to notify you before claiming in the incident board, that your deletion of the section "British diplomacy in support of the Arabs" in "1948 Arab–Israeli War" at 30 May 2013, is a vandalism in my opinion.

I have asked you few times to show evidence to your claim that this section is biased, but your responses have not indicated any error or biased point there. (except Benni Morris sentences , that could have been amended to the section instead of deleting it.) Ykantor (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

"Vandalism" is a defined concept on Misplaced Pages, see Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. It does not include genuine content disputes, even disruptive ones. Zero 15:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

to zero: the definition is "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages". The deletion fits it exacly. This is a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages, by deleting correct facts (although asked you few times, you have not shown anything wrong here). If you fill it is biased, why won't you add it? Ykantor (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read that page past the first sentence, it answers your question perfectly well. Removing text on the grounds that it doesn't belong in the article is not vandalism, even if it is done disruptively. It says so on that page very clearly. This is also how the community defines vandalism in practice. You should stop using the word where it doesn't apply. Zero 02:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

One of the core pillars of wikipedia is WP:NPOV, and additions which, in the face of serious objections, compromise the integrity and neutrality of the project can be removed. With a highly controversial and partisan indeed minority thesis, you should work out the balance before committing it to the article. You appear to be plunking that material in, POV and all, and saying, 'Sure it's defective. You guys and galls, help me improve it.Nishidani (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

to nishidani: It is a pity that you do not check what you are writing. you blame me of writing this section, although I have not written even 1 word here (except adding sources). If I would have written it, it would include sources like Morris and Gelber that you accept, rather than Karsh who is hated here. This is the 1st time I encounter Karsh, and it seems that every one of his words here is correct. It is funny that you blame me saying "Sure it's defective. You guys and galls, help me improve it". It is funny because in my opinion it is correct and not biased, and you have not mentioned even one error there. If YOU think it is biased, IT IS YOUR DUTY to add facts that supposedly balance it. Ykantor (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

to pluto: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. .... Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. " You have not obeyed this Misplaced Pages policy, and instead, you have vandalized by deleting the whole section. Ykantor (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The mode of operating that we use in contentious articles is described in the essay WP:BRD. Now we are at the "D" stage. It's true that you didn't originate that section (some editors here are confused about that), but the section has been tagged as unsatisfactory since 2011 and something needs to be done about it. My opinion is that the best result will be achieved by a complete replacement, since adding enough material to balance the Karsh view would make it far too long. Zero 03:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor,

It was explained to you that the idea the British were anti-Israeli or anti-Yishuv was wrong and that your method of work in gathering some facts to prove this was a WP:OR (Original Research). More, having so long a section about this fringe idea is WP:Undue. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

to pluto: Your writing is simply not true. It is not true that I gather facts to prove something. The section that you vandalized, had a call for more sources, which I supplied (not fully, yet). At least one editor (itsmejudith) had positive view about adding sources. What about your vandalism which contradicts Misplaced Pages policy of Achieving_neutrality ?( as I have just shown). Ykantor (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

As it was explained to you I didn't vandalize anything. If this was true, 3 contributors would not have supported this action.

On the other side contributors informed you that your work didn't comply with reality. It is because they are WP:Undue and what you did is WP:OR because gathering information from here and there is not the right way to move forward. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I asked for the page to be unprotected on the basis that there was productive discussion here on the talk page, so that needs to continue, and I hope without accusations of vandalism or bias. I have stated my own position, that we should include the UK's objectives, but preferably from a source that discusses UK foreign policy, not one that is mainly about the history of this war. The section as it was relied far too much on Karsh 2002. The reliability of that source has been questioned, with someone arguing that it is not a scholarly history but a popular work. That question needs to be resolved before any material is restored. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

to Itsmejudith:

• you write: "The section as it was relied far too much on Karsh 2002. The reliability of that source has been questioned, with someone arguing that it is not a scholarly history but a popular work."

1. This is the 1st time I have encountered Karsh, therefore I have checked carefully those citations, and everything seems to be accurate. Moreover, the people who complain against Karsh , have not highlighted any mistakes here too. So, maybe Karsh is not that bad?
2. Anyway, I have researched and added 6 more parallel sources, on top of Karsh initial 15 sources. I could have entered more citations, but the section was deleted while offending Misplaced Pages rules.

• you said: "That question needs to be resolved before any material is restored" . Why should the offender given a prize? Especially since he have not indicated anything wrong there and only said it is biased. He did not even said what is biased. Ykantor (talk) 10:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

If it is the first time that you meet Karsh, this proves you lack knowledge on the topic.

Most of the contributors that you met on this talk page read entirely the books that were quoted.

It seems you just google inside them. You don't have the full picture and therefore you cannot comply with WP:NPoV due to the fact you don't know the topic enough.

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

to pluto: It is rather funny that you ,the offender, try to show other editors what to write. It seems that it is much easier for you to personally attack people who doesn't agree with you, rather than come up with sources. Whoever reads the talk page, can clearly see that you always blame in general, but do not say what is specifically wrong. You prefer general blames since it is like a smoke screen for your lack of specifics. Unless you provide specifics to base your claims, I do not see why one should waste his time and refer to you anymore. Ykantor (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I have a long history of writing and sourcing articles. 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine was written by me nealy alone in French and then translated in English. Same for Battles of Latrun (1948). Nearly the same for Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine War that was 1st written in English.

To be able to do so, I took the time to buy and read a little dozen of books on the topic so that I can have a global view of the different points of view and to evaluate properly the wp:due weight of each information. I don't say that waht I did is perfect. At the contrary there are some problems. But at least I followed the right process.

You work in selecting a fact by a google-search in a book and want to introduce it. I answered you in providing sources stating why it was wrong. Zero0000 provided us articles that prove this idea that "British would have been anti-Yishuv" is not supported by historians.

Next step for you is to read books entirely to have a global view and then to agree complying with WP:NPoV ie to agree reporting -you alone- at once, all points of view on any topic that you work on.

This discussion is not dealing any more with the content and is not dedicated to this page any more. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

British diplomacy in support of the Arabs - more sources

• Ends of British Imperialism: The Scramble for Empire, Suez, and Decolonization, by William Roger Louis

1. p. 434, "the persistent british effort, especially by Ernest Bevin, to support the Arabs and thereby to sustain British power in the middle east" (period= dec 1946)
2. p 420 - in order for Britain to remain the dominant regional power, both Arab cooperation and the support of the U.S were vital...
3. p. 427 -for bevin "The Jews, in his eyes, threatened to poison his relations for both the Arabs and the Americans"
4. p. 419 "paradoxically, there is truth in the view that his pro Arab disposition helped bring about the creation od the state of Israel.

• http://books.google.co.il/books?id=cFrYqEEMkEAC&pg=PA140&dq=bevin+%22pro+arab%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=aDiuUd-8KYjBswaTy4HYDA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=bevin%20%22pro%20arab%22&f=false Britain and America After World War II: Bilateral Relations and the ... By Richard Wevill 2012 p. 140 the foreign office was pro Arab and worked on Bevin as soon as he arrived. According to Kenneth Harris,' within a few days of being in the Foreign Office, Bevin went to Attlee and said :Clem, about Palestine, according to my lads in the office we have got it wrong. We have got to think again"
• Herbert Vere Evatt and the establishment of Israel: The Undercover Zionist, by Daniel Mandel 2004, p. 11 "Bevin embarkedresolutely on pro Arab policy on Palestine to which he obdurately clung even when it had been revealed as a stark failure"
• books.google.com/books?isbn=1935503804 Harry S. Truman, the State of Israel, and the Quest for Peace in the Middle East, Michael J. Devine - 2009 - Page 48 "Above all, it represented Bevin's failure to recruit the United States to a pro-Arab solution of the Palestine conflict"
• books.google.com/books?isbn=1597811319 Partners Together in This Great Enterprise -David W. Schmidt - 2011 -

1. Page 307 In the House of Commons, Bevin kept the House informed of the situation in Palestine. He was openly pro-Arab in his sentiments, declaring, “We must remember that the British sergeants were not hanged from the tree by Arabs". On the same day, Bevin told the Commons, “I do not despair. Britain will be withdrawing on 15th May and when everyone has faced that fact, much may happen. Christopher Mayhew, Bevin’s Parliamentary Under Secretary, noted in his diary Bevin’s low view of the Jews, There is no doubt in my mind that Ernest detests Jews. He makes the odd wisecrack about the ‘Chosen People,’ explains Shinwell away as a Jew; declares the Old Testament is the most immoral book ever written...He says they taught Hitler the technique of terror-and were even now paralleling the Nazis in Palestine. They were preachers of violence and war-’What could you expect when people are brought up from the cradle on the Old Testament?”
2. p. 263 Attlee's views on the Jews were as harsh as Bevin's , but he refrained from crudely proclaiming them to the public.

• books.google.com/books?isbn=186064449X britain and Empire: Adjusting to a Post-Imperial World - Lawrence J. Butler - 2002, Page 78 In London's estimation, Arab goodwill was simply more desirable than the friendship of a future Jewish state
• books.google.com/books?isbn=0300116098 Churchill's promised land: Zionism and statecraft - Michael Makovsky - 2007 -Page 227 the new prime minister, Clement Attlee, was anti-Zionist, while Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin was outright hostile ... and they, like Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax in the 1930s, saw British interests served by a pro-Arab policy Ykantor (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote on your talk page, you have to gather all points of view on the topic and not to look for in google some sentences or isolated facts that may prove that your feeling would be right. Zero0000 provided you a full article on the topic : an article will have more weight than gathering quotes.

Pluto2012 (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually I provided two full articles, giving different points of view. Ykantor, you are wasting your time with your quotation hunt. There is so much written on the subject that you can take any point of view you like and find an infinite number of quotations supporting it. That is not the path to a balanced article. Zero 23:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

to zero: Looking at those 2 sources, there are no such citations. Moreover, in my opinion, there is no other view (Arab or elsewhere) since the section describes accurately and objectively the reality of this period.

However, since you are sure that your 2 sources are balancing this supposedly pro Israeli section, why won't you provide citations from those sources? Ykantor (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The section begins with saying that "Britain, which at the time was one of the major powers in the Middle East, supported the Arabs.". The rest of the section is just a collection of facts and quotes to support this view. There is no hint to the reader that there are different views. That is not being neutral, regardless of how many references are added. The section simply can't be made neutral without major surgery, which in practice means raplacing it with a new, neutral version. Until such a neutral version can be worked out on this talk page, the section should stay out. WP:NPOV is not a guideline, it is a mandatory policy which must be followed. --Frederico1234 (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

to frederico: It is amazing, that you are not providing any proof , that there is other view. You have been asked few times for specifics, but you ignore it. By avoiding any hint concerning what is wrong, YOU are offending the WP:NPOV. As an offender, you should be blamed formally, unless you provide a PROVEN alternative view. Ykantor (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I provided proof that there is another view when we discussed it earlier. See this diff. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The quote is : "But in fact, British policy - as emanating both from Whitehall and from Jerusalem, the seat of the high commissioner - was one of strict impartiality" from Benny Morris, 1948 (2008), p.78. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

to frederico: you said "There is no trace of other views, such as Morris' ("But in fact, British policy - as emanating both from Whitehall and from Jerusalem, the seat of the high commissioner - was one of strict impartiality")".

• As said before, this sentence could have added to the section , instead of deleting it.
• This sentence is taken from a Morris book (1948) paragraph, which starts at mid page 78 to page 81. Reading these pages, it is clear that it relates to the British rule within Palestine, as opposed to British diplomacy, which is the subject of the removed section. (of course, there is some overlapping between those 2 issues). Further within those 4 pages, morris notes this difference, and says : "The further contradiction, between strict impartiality and a desire to maintain Britain’s standing in the Middle East, which required a pro-Arab tilt, led to inconsistent behavior, causing confusion among British officials and officers and among many Arabs and Jews." (p. 79)
• Concerning the British policy inside Palestine ( which is not the subject of this section) , Morris mentions: "British troops did not always abide by the guideline of impartiality. Occasionally they indulged in overt anti-Jewish behavior", but does not mention any similar anti Arab policy.(p. 80). Morris's paragraph end lines are: "Moreover, Whitehall’s fears that the circumstances of the withdrawal from Palestine might subvert Britain’s standing in the Middle East occasioned a number of major, organized British interventions against the Jewish militias, or non interventions in face of Arab attack". (p. 81) Again, there are no such an anti Arab events.
• In my opinion, you may add another section ( or a sub section) which deals with the British policy inside Palestine. However, it is a separated issue from "the British diplomacy supports the Arabs", for which there are no reasons to delete it. Ykantor (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Great but as has been said to you, you gather facts by yourself to make them conclude something.

Other facts have been given to you in the other direction (eg, the ammunition embargo).

And the solution to all this : gathering all points of view by yourself and providing them at once as been explained to you per WP:NPoV.

Addtionnaly, you have to take care about WP:Undue Weight.

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If as Morris writes and you support by citing it, British policy was inconsistent, why entitle a section 'British policy in support of the Arabs?' Britain's policy was to secure what it could of its empire, stave off the Soviet threat, secure logistical bases and cheap petroleum in the Middle East, and get out of Palestine because it was strapped financially and, with troubles in Greece and Turkey from a Soviet thrust south, the rebellion in Malaya, the troubles in the India/Pakistan partition, with the los of the Raj, and the bigger emergency of reorganizing its forces also before the growing issue of Soviet ambitions in Berlin, of course its policy, here and elsewhere had inconsistencies, just as it had before in establishing a Jewish enclave in Palestine after the Balfour declaration, and in enlisting Haganah elements in their 3 year war against the guerilla insurgency in Palestine in 1936-9, which destroyed the roots for a future efficient Palestinian resistance. The British hummed and hawed for 25 years, caught on the classic horns of a dilemma, as dozens of books recount. They had strong pro-Zionists in the establishment, a foreign office which has a notable Arab tilt, something reinforced by the numerous attempts on the lives of British ground forces, of Bernadotte, Lord Moyne and other lesser ranks. Any selective citations can make out a case for 'a pro-Arb British bias' at this period, but any section of this type should be generic and cover all of the foreign powers which exercised a political, military amd economic impact on the ground as the war began. Unless one does this, the result is caricature by selective use of sources to drive home a thesis, that of the Stern Gang-Irgun-Likud tradition.Nishidani (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

to Nishidani:

• there is a big difference between the header of the removed section: "British diplomacy in support of the Arabs" , and between your version of British policy in support of the Arabs. You have not provided even one case in which the British diplomacy was not supporting the Arabs. My conclusion is that the view of the deleted section is fully correct and objective.

How many times do we have to remind you the ammunition embargo on Arab armies, the fact that British conditionned their support to the Arab Legion to the fact they would not attack Israel ? Both these facts are reported by Morris. More, the British diplomacy didn't firmly oppose to the Partition Plan either whereas the Arab were totally opposed to this.

• yours: "a foreign office which has a notable Arab tilt, something reinforced by the numerous attempts on the lives of British ground forces, of Bernadotte, Lord Moyne and other lesser ranks". How would you explain Whitehall anti jewish policy, even before those assassinations?

It was already explained to you that the British lost many boys due to Yishuv insurrection after '45. Stop talking about anti-Jewish policy.

• the British POLICY inside Palestine is a different issue (with some overlapping). According to Morris it was generally balanced except where the British DIPLOMACY caused some pro Arab steps ( There is no mentioning of pro Jewish acts).

As already have been explained to you, Tom Segev in One Palestine Complete gives the degree of repression against Jews that was much less agressive than the one against ARabs in 1936-39 as an example of favorising Jews despite the fact the officiers on the field asked for such a harder repression. Once more, British didn't oppose to the Partition Plan. That is more pro-Zionist than pro-Arab and this is also anti-Palestinian.

• yours: "the guerilla insurgency in Palestine in 1936-9, which destroyed the roots for a future efficient Palestinian resistance". I have seen this view previously, but it seems strange. Whatever the British has done until 1939, there were about 9 years in which the Arabs could recover. It might be a leadership problem, since Al-Husseini's tactics, his abuse of power to punish other clans, and the killing of political adversaries he considered 'traitors', alienated many Palestinian Arabs. Is this lack of proper leadership the main reason ?

This is explained in Gelber. You have been asked several times to read books on the topics fully before performing your ananalysis.

• yours: "any section of this type should be generic and cover all of the foreign powers which exercised a political, military and economic impact on the ground as the war began." Why won't you add it? I do not see the need for that addition, but once you write a well supported text (without deleting the DIPLOMACY section), no one will erase it. Ykantor (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Per NPoV. What is added must be neutral and consistent by itself. Your behaviour also refrains other from collaborating. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

to Pluto: I have opened a note in Dispute_resolution_noticeboard . You can write there your view. Ykantor (talk) 11:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't need to give my view there. There is no dispute with me and this is not "my view". Zero0000, Frederico, Nishidani and Itsmejudith explained you with great details the problems of your view too. Nableezy did so too on another place. And all content issues were answered on this talk page.

More, you wrote on your own talk page : "I do not see why one should waste his time and refer to you anymore."

Pluto2012 (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments by A.S Brown

As the author of the content that has been the subject of this dispute, I can not claim a position of neutrality, but I will try my best to be fair. The title British diplomacy in support of the Arabs was perhaps not the best one, probably British diplomacy in support of Jordan would have been more accurate, but that a poor choice of a section does not seem to be a sufficient reason to remove an entire section, which was properly cited. A great deal of the objections seem to center around my use of Major Efraim Karsh as a source. I will not deny that Karsh's work has been the subject of considerable controversy, but the same can be said about the work of the New Historians, several of which have been cited here in objection to Karsh. Anyhow, even some of the articles that have submitted in opposition to Karsh say that Britain did lean towards Jordan and did not wish to see the Negev in Israeli hands, which is the same thing that Karsh was saying. To the best of my knowledge, there is no consensus that Karsh is a not a RS, and until such a consensus has been reached, I see no reason why Karsh cannot be used as a source. If I understand the rules of Misplaced Pages correctly, Misplaced Pages is supposed to present the consensus view of the majority of the relevant savants in the field. Thus, the article on plant Earth should say that the Earth is round because that is what the overwhelming majority of experts believe and the flat Earth theory is regarded as a fringe viewpoint. That presents some problems with history about often is common for historians to be in dispute. This is not that there are no such things as a consensus viewpoint in history, just such a consensus is not as common as many people seem to think. Misplaced Pages discourages historiography, which is rather unfortunate as such summaries of what different schools of historians think about particular issues can be helpful, and such section would do a great deal to reduce the edit wars that plague Misplaced Pages. Anyone who has ever done any serious reading about the 1948 war and its origins and consequences will know that this is one of the most fought battlefields of modern history. There are broadly speaking two viewpoints, which cannot be reconciled. The first is that the war was a case of Zionist aggression with Israelis both starting the war and then ethnic cleansing Palestine while the other holds that Israel was the victim of Arab aggression and that the majority of the Palestinians were not expelled, but fled. Karsh definitely is a member of the latter school. My understanding of this historiography about 1948 is there is no historical consensus, and thus one side should not be favored over another. I will admit that basing an entire section using Karsh might had made things a little slanted towards one side in the history wars, but the same can be said about countless other articles around here, often in various sinister ways. I'm of course biased in favor of my own work, but I believe that the section that I wrote back in June 2011 explored a significant aspect of the 1948 war, which the article did not cover. Since some other editors have voiced concern about possible neutrality problems, might I suggest that the best compromise would be to restore the deleted section, and then the cite the viewpoints of some other historians, and explain how their views differ about British diplomacy in 1948. It is a bit cumbersome to do things like that, but it does seem like the best way to address the concerns of the other editors who vehemently objected to the content. Indeed, one might want to do that a step further, and rewrite the entire article in that spirit. At very least, that would let the reader know that historians who write about the 1948 war seem to spent most of their time debating with one another over what actually happened and why. --A.S. Brown (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi A.S. Brown, The problem is not just that the material comes from Karsh. The points that were raised are :

• the fact that it comes from Karsh's book of 2002, which cannot be considered as a scholarly work in regard of other publications on the topic. At least, it is "Palestine Betrayed" that should be used to give Karsh's point of view. -> There is already no reason to keep this material per WP:RS. (Nb: The same situaiton is true eg for Ilan Pappe whose 1992's book can be considered a WP:RS whereas his Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine cannot and should be avoided.)
• the section was not neutral. It only gives what has become a fringe point of view. By the way, I also disagree with the dichotomy that you give between the different points of view on the topic of the 1948 War. There are numerous analysis. Eg Israeli historians, even among those who disagree with New Historians or Palestinian historias, stop presenting the British position as the one of an antisemite Bevin (that is what you wrote on YKantor's talk page).
• the length of this section was too long. Per WP:Undue, the British position is certainly relevant and important but it doesn't deserve to give each little fact or detail on the topic but only the main ones with a global view. Before being controversed, we know that this topic is also very complex.

I add that if there are numerous points of view regarding a lot of issues on the 1948 war, the British position is not among these :

• 1. British didn't support or harash particularly either the Palestinian Arabs or the Yishuv and wanted first to stop losing boys in Palestine. That's also why they abandonned the Mandate where they had 100,000 men ;
• 2. they supported their best ally : Abdallah and his annexation plan of the Arab State at the condition he didn't attack Israel (and intervene at Jerusalem, which he did anyway). They also targeted to get Negev back for strategic reasons ;
• 3. they respected the weapons embargo wanted by the UN which indirectly affected more the Arabs than the Israelis.

I may have forgotten other relevant point but certainly not many. Do you see others ? Before introducing anything in the article, it should be decided what is to be written inside. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

1. ^ Karsh (2002), p.32
2. Yoav Gelber, 'Palestine 1948', p.20; The Scotsman newspaper, 6th January 1948; Walid Khalidi states that 25 civilians were killed, in addition to the military targets. 'Before Their Diaspora', 1984. p. 316, picture p. 325; Benny Morris, 'The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949', Cambridge University Press, p.46.
3. Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, p. 123.
4. Larry Collins/Dominique Lapierre, 'O Jerusalem'.History Book Club/ Weidenfeld and Nicolson. London. 1972. p.135: 'two fifty-gallon oil drums packed tight with old nails, bits of scrap iron, hinges, rusty metal filings. At their center was a core of TNT...'
5. Collins/Lapierre. Page 138: 17 killed. Dov Joseph, 'The Faithful City - The Siege of Jerusalem, 1948'. Simon and Schuster, New York, 1960. Library of Congree Number: 60-10976. page 56: 14 killed and 40 wounded.The Scotsman, 8 January 1948: 16 killed, 41 injured.
6. Embassy of Israel, London, website. 2002. Quoting Zeev Vilnai - 'Ramla past and present'.
7. Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem revisited, p.221.

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• B-Class Arab world articles
• High-importance Arab world articles
• WikiProject Arab world articles
• B-Class Syria articles
• High-importance Syria articles
• WikiProject Syria articles
• B-Class Saudi Arabia articles
• Mid-importance Saudi Arabia articles
• WikiProject Saudi Arabia articles
• B-Class Egypt articles
• Mid-importance Egypt articles
• WikiProject Egypt articles
• B-Class Israel-related articles
• Top-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• B-Class Palestine-related articles
• High-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• B-Class Lebanon articles
• Mid-importance Lebanon articles
• WikiProject Lebanon articles