Misplaced Pages

Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eleland (talk | contribs) at 00:35, 6 January 2008 (→CIA). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:35, 6 January 2008 by Eleland (talk | contribs) (→CIA)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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.
Article policies
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, 21

Template:FAOL

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Middle East
WikiProject iconThis 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
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
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.
WikiProject iconArab world High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis 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.
WikiProject iconSyria High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis 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.
WikiProject iconSaudi Arabia Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis 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.
WikiProject iconEgypt Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis 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.
WikiProject iconIsrael Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPalestine High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Soft redirect to:Module:WikiProject banner/doc
This page is a soft redirect.

This template has been replaced by Module:WikiProject banner
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconLebanon Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Yemeni contingent

I'm currently doing research on Yemen, and I cannot find any source which states that Yemen sent an expeditionary force. Given that the British controlled Aden at this time, and Imam Yahya has hardly concerned with matters outside of his area of influence, I find this highly unlikely. Unless someone provides a source, I think it should probably be deleted. Chris kupka 19:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A map from New York Times  A M M A R  22:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Pov flag

Until reviewed by a neutral scholar, this article will be poved.
It is better for the credibility of wp, to state there is continual controversy on this article.
The discussion here above is an example of some points to correct. Alithien 09:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi. I didn't see a POV flag on article or its history. If still a concern, maybe detail your concerns and/or only flag the smallest subunits feasible. Thanks! HG | Talk 11:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It has been removed after another editor modified the introduction. :-) Alithien 11:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. So much POV in the first paragraph.

"Fleeing or expulsion" implies that all Palestinian Arabs left due to fear or force. As stated in "Demographic outcome," it is not improper to say (although it seems unproven) that most left because their Arab neighbors asked them to. So the first paragraph already assumes one distinct and unproven POV. "Ostensibly" implies that there's a real reason in addition to the given reason. I'd say that security concerns were the reason, but less loaded language would be suitable to say that this was Israel's viewpoint, e.g., "Israel, while accepting the remaining Arabs, banned those Arabs who migrated out of Palestine from returning, citing security concerns." Also, I've heard Palestinians use "al Nakba" to describe the war itself, not just the movement of Palestinian Arabs in the war. If this is an improper use, it is still a widely used one. Indeed Nakba Day marks not the days of migration, but the first full day of the existence of the state of Israel.

Finally, I've heard documentaries claim that Jordan was a winner, not a loser, of the war. They gained the West Bank, including the Old City of Jerusalem; although technically "occupied," it was quite a gain, both in terms of land and in making the holiest site of Judaism both inaccessible to Jews for 19 years and a point of contention among Arabs and Israelis ever since. Contrast this with Egypt's gain of the tiny Gaza Strip and Syria's minor border changes. Calbaer 17:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  • "ostensibly on security grounds" could be removed. simply.
  • concerning al-Naqba, I think we lack source concerning its precise meaning.
  • Jordan was a winner. Indeed.

Alithien 06:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest whole first paragraph is removed. Alithien 18:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Alithien -- Hi. I didn't check the edit history. Facilitation style comment: Current version seems to have had improvements, at least for your concerns. Have you tried recommending or editing "exodus" instead of "flight and expulsion" in line with the Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus or Palestinian exodus? HG | Talk 11:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yishuv political objectives - npov

transfer debate

I think we should not use primary sources to support a point when there are controversies. We know that there are many pov and many quotes -particularly concerning the transfer- that contradict each others. What would you think of something such as this :

Palestine initially counts 1,200,000 Arabs for 600,000 Jews(ref). The question of the creation of a Jewish state "sets" a demographical matter(ref). The viability and even the existence of a jewish state with a majority and even a strong minority of Arabs is precarious(ref). If a possible answer comes from the jewish immigration(ref), with the jewish that wait for in the displaced people camps or from the dispora from arab countries, the possibility of the transfer of arab population outside the jewish state has been debated for numerous years among the zionist authorities(ref). The possibility that this debate lead to the establishment of a planified expulsion policy is controversed among historians. This is developed in the article dealing with the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus.

I have all the references indicated (as you have). It is just another synthesis I find more "neutral". What do you think about that ? Alithien 06:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: transfer debate

Hi Alithien,

I think in case of a controversy primary sources are the best, i.e. the most reliable, i.e. facts or comparable to facts. The given quotes can easily be supported by more quotes to the same effect.

Was the matter of 'transfer' pre-1948 debated as a matter of 'exchange', as you state above? Is it more neutral to present 'transfer' as a part of 'exchange'? Were the Jews in Arab countries pre-1948 waiting to be transferred to Israel?

I took care to limit myself to facts, preferably to undisputable facts. I think in my text the most disputable lines are (if disputable):

'However amongst the leaders of Zionism it was clear that if a suitable opportunity presented itself they would take more.'
' 'Transfer' was seen as a solution to this problem'

To the first I would say: isn't this what they did? To the second: this is acknowledged in your proposal.

Your reference to causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus is good.

--JaapBoBo 20:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


  • In case of a controversy primary source is the worse because you just take one. It is not because once somebody would have said or written something that it is what he did or intended to do. We can find quotes from primary sources that will exactly claim the contrary.
when there is a controversy only NPoV is a solution : ie reporting *all* relevant pov from scholars on the matter.
  • I don't say transfer was an exchange ? Why do you say that.
  • No. What is disputable is that not everybody agrees with the transfer. So we have to give all minds and to precise who claims what.
Alithien 06:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Population Figures

There was no such demographic problem, because the part of Palestine allotted to the Jews by the partition had a Jewish majority and about 250,000 additional Jews were waiting in the wings in the DP camps, plus Jews from Arab countries etc. In all the area conquered by the Jews there were probably about 800,000 Arabs in total, and Jewish immigration would soon have redressed even that imbalance. In any case, the Arabs had started leaving of their own accord, and were leaving in massive numbers as early as March of 1948. It is a non-problem that is created deliberately and artificially in order to support a thesis that has no basis in fact. I do not understand the point about ignoring primary documents either. If you ignore the evidence, you are left with nothing but ignoramuses arguing about nothing. It makes no sense. Mewnews (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem

I think the control of Jerusalem was obviously a political objective of the Yishouv and of all protagonists. Quite strangely, scholars focus that much on the "palestinian transfer" nowadays that I think they "forget" to talk about Jerusalem. Shouldn't we talk about Jerusalem and quote Lapierre and Collins to prove this ? Alithien 06:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Weitz

I think reference to Weitz in Yichouv political objectives is irrelevant. The articles talks about a war, this is one man's wish. I think it is WP:UNDUE. Alithien 08:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Reference to Weitz

I think it's relevant. Weitz set up some transfer committees. See also ]

--JaapBoBo 20:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes but when ? And even what ?
Why don't we give Yigal Allon, Yaakov Dori, Yigal Yadin, Menachem Begin and Moshe Sharett's mind. They were far more involved that Weitz.
Alithien 06:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Alithien recommended I drop by. Here's a facilitation-style comment. You're both being civil and substantive. You might try asking for a Misplaced Pages:Third opinion on both questions. E.g., (1a) To what extent might WP Policy or Guidelines such as WP:V or WP:RS favor primary or secondary sources? (1b) How might the answer apply here? (2a) What kinds of criteria should be drawn from WP:UNDUE or elsewhere to gauge the use of Weitz? (2b) What is your opinion about how the criteria might be applied here? Thanks. Pls let me know if you find this a helpful idea. HG | Talk 11:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No worry. "Problems" are with Isarig and Zeq. Alithien 11:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Demographic objectives

I removed the material concerning who considered there was an master plan, who not and about ethnic cleaning.
The reasons are :

  • it is confusing : Pappé and Khalidi considers there was a plan even before plan Daleth. This last one is rather a proof.
  • we are talking about the "objectives" before the war started and even in the historians that agree there some action equivalent to ethnic cleaning after the 1st truce, this was not "expected" or "programmed" in the demographic objectives.

Alithien 16:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it should not be limited to the start of the war; if the objective shifted you can insert a line that it did
I also think the first part you removed is accurate (at least Morris believes in it and I donn't think he is biased in this direction) and relevant:
Zionist leaders avoided this subject in public debate for fear of alienating world public opinion and provoking an Arab reaction (Morris, 'The Birth ... Revisited, 2004, p. 54, 55'), but reacted favorably to it whenever outsiders brought the subject up, as did the Peel Commission in 1937 and the British Labour Party in 1944(Morris, 'The Birth ... Revisited, 2004, p. 47, 54'). The Zionists saw transfer not as bad for the Arabs, e.g. during a closed deliberation in May 1944 Ben-Gurion said: '... it is clear that if the Arabs are removed this will improve their condition and not the contrary.'{Masalha, 'Expulsion of the Palestinians...', 1992, p. 159)
The same for the second and third part. You told me yourself that Gelber believed there were ethnic cleansing operations bij the IDF (see the Tantura discussion)!
The Zionists' position regarding forced transfer of Arab Palestinians prior to the war is a matter of controverse. A majority of modern historians (e.g. Gelber, Morris) holds that there was no Zionist master plan for an expulsion prior to July 1948. A majority (e.g. Gelber, Morris, Pappé, Khalidi) also holds that later mass flights were the result of offensives of the Israeli army (see causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus) and that the Israeli army engaged in ethnic cleansing operations.
After the war Israel did not permit the Palestinian refugees to return to their homes.
Why shouldn't we put the piece back?
--JaapBoBo 21:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
JB : I think it should not be limited to the start of the war; if the objective shifted you can insert a line that it did
Ok. But not at the beginning of the article. The context of this war is extremely important and a major point of the context is that it evolved. So (alleged) modifications of policy must be introduced it the article chronologically when they happened.
JB : Zionist leaders avoided this subject in public debate for fear of alienating world public opinion and provoking an Arab reaction
Yes but this is controversed. A clear difference must be made between what ONE historian thinks and what is thougth globally with controversies. I want to underline that this article is about the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, not about the Palestinian refugee problem. There were many many objectives during the war other that the transfer or Palestinians.
JB : ethnic cleaning
Yes but this arose after in another context after other events arose. The word "ethnic cleaning" should not be in the yichouv objectives before the war because it happened after.
More, Gelber also considers the "ethnic cleaning" if it arose was not programmed. A difference must be made between what some soldiers did and what government ordered, whether soldiers were sued or not...
Alithien 05:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
JB : Zionist leaders avoided this subject in public debate for fear of alienating world public opinion and provoking an Arab reaction
Alithien: Yes but this is controversed. A clear difference must be made between what ONE historian thinks and what is thougth globally with controversies. I want to underline that this article is about the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, not about the Palestinian refugee problem. There were many many objectives during the war other that the transfer or Palestinians.
This is not what ONE historian thinks. It's not one, because e.g. Pappé agrees with Morris ('The ethnic cleansing of Palestine'). It's also not just what Morris thinks, but what he, as a scientist, derives from his sources. In 'The Birth ... Revisited' (p54,55) Morris bases his conclusions on a lot of archival material. E.g. he quotes Sharett and Ben-Gurion in a JAE meeting at 7 May 1944. They say that talking about transfer will subvert its implementation in advance.
Can you indicate dependable sources that controverse this?
--JaapBoBo 12:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I agree with you that "ethnic cleansing" was not an objective before the war, but I'm sure 'transfer' was an objective of the leaders of the Yishuv. I'm sure also that before the war these leaders desperately wanted a voluntary transfer (Morris agrees with this). However for most Palestinian Arabs this was out of the question. What changed during the war was the opportunity to use force and to blame the Arabs.
--JaapBoBo 12:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello JaapBoBo,
JB : Can you indicate dependable sources that controverse this?
??? About the transfer ? Of course. Shapira, Karsh, Teveth don't agree with any idea or will of transfer. Gelber doesn't directly contredict this but the reasons he gives are controdictory with this for events before july 1948. And even Morris is nuanced ! He claims the idea of transfer was in zionists thoughts (i.e. : they knew it was a solution to the problem) but he also add he doens't know at what extent this idea influenced the events of 1948 (i.e. : if the yishuv authorities organised a transfer).
See here for more details :
Alithien 13:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yishuv objectives

JaapBoBo, If you are not able to "write for the enemy" and to introduce all points of views (and not only theirs) don't edit articles.

  • You give all pov's or you give none.
  • You make the difference between "truth" and "mind" or you don't edit.

Alithien 06:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Casus belli

According to Misplaced Pages it means 'justification for acts of war'. Since the Arabs attacked they should provide this justification. You can find it here: ].

Let me cite some things:

  • they aim at nothing more than to put an end to the prevailing conditions in .
  • First: That the rule of Palestine should revert to its inhabitants, in accordance with the provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations and of the United Nations and that should alone have the right to determine their future.
  • Second: Security and order in Palestine have become disrupted. The Zionist aggression resulted in the exodus of more than a quarter of a million of its Arab inhabitants from their homes and in their taking refuge in the neighbouring Arab countries.

So the casus belli should be something like: 'disregard by UN of Right of Self-Determination of Palestinians and exodus of a quarter of a million Palestinians from their homes due to Zionist agression'


--JaapBoBo 20:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The casus bellum you listed, while a decent start, was a bit non-NPOV and maybe even a little bit of WP:SYNTH. It's probably a worthwhile place to start from, though. In the interest of encouraging all sides to work expeditiosly toward a common goal, I've removed the casus bellum entirely for now. Let's work toward a properly cited and mutually agreeable wording before relisting. Fair enough? --Clubjuggle /C 12:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

How about something like: End Zionist aggression resulting in flight of Arab refugees, and restore Palestinian right to self determination as guaranteed by the UN Charter. Gatoclass 12:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation? --Clubjuggle /C 12:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

JaapBobo provided it in the link above but for your benefit here it is again:

"...the Governments of the Arab States declare the following:

First: That the rule of Palestine should revert to its inhabitants, in accordance with the provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations and of the United Nations and that should alone have the right to determine their future.

Second: Security and order in Palestine have become disrupted. The Zionist aggression resulted in the exodus of more than a quarter of a million of its Arab inhabitants from their homes and in their taking refuge in the neighbouring Arab countries.

...Sixth: Therefore, as security in Palestine is a sacred trust in the hands of the Arab States, and in order to put an end to this state of affairs...the Governments of the Arab States have found themselves compelled to intervene in Palestine solely in order to help its inhabitants restore peace and security and the rule of justice and law to their country, and in order to prevent bloodshed. Gatoclass 13:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Gatoclass gives the goals of the Arabs; the casus belli should give the 'justification for acts of war' given by the Arab states. How about: alleged disregard by UN of Right of Self-Determination of Palestinians and exodus of a quarter of a million Palestinians from their homes due to alleged Zionist agression
@Clubjuggle: I don't think this is synthesis, because there is only one source, also I don't think there are problems with npov because a casus belli neccesarrily represents the view of the attacking side.
--JaapBoBo 21:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
No, that is too much of a mouthful and it would also give the appearance of bias. The "casus belli" section is not designed to reproduce grievances chapter and verse, but only to give a thumbnail sketch of the reasons cited for going to war. Gatoclass 08:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
It needs to be as simple as possible. How about "Safeguard the security and right to self determination of Arab Palestinians"? Gatoclass 08:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the goals can also be the 'justification for acts of war'; I was thinking of shooting incidents etc. that are sometimes used as justifications. I find Gatoclass's proposal okay. --JaapBoBo 15:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Alithien, what exactly is your objection to the above? We have an impeccable source for this and I think the characterization here is a very mild one. One could hardly water down the description any further. And indeed when I look at some of the chapter and verse casus belli given on other pages, I'm beginning to wonder whether I should have shortened and toned down the description here at all. Gatoclass 22:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not Alithien, but the stated casus belli, Palestinian self-determination, was belied by the fact that neither Egypt nor Jordan allowed for self-determination while they occupied the terroritories in the aftermath of the war. The real justification and trigger was the declaration of independence of the state of Israel. But, as this might be difficult to "prove," perhaps no casus should be listed. The actual and ostensible justifications, views, and triggers can be listed in the article. Calbaer 01:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you understand the meaning of casus belli. It doesn't mean actual reasons for going to war, it means stated or ostensible reasons. You may well be correct that these weren't the genuine reasons for going to war, but that's not what the casus belli records. Gatoclass 02:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Gatoclass,
I have nothing particular against this... This is the "casus belli" : ie the official motivation.
I just added "on the whole Palestine"
It could be interesting to have an additional section discussing each real motivation but that is something else.
It is funny that discussions here looks more like negociation between pov instead of neutral report of pov.
Alithien 10:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, just reversed Alithiens changes. The original 'casus belli' was negotiated here, so it shouldn't be changed just like that.
This is what Alithien made of it: "Safeguard the security and self determination of Arab Palestinians on the whole Palestine". Why should 'right to self determination' be replaced by 'self determination'? This makes it really strange. Above that its not in line with the source ]'. 'On the whole of Palestine' is also not in line with the source.
--JaapBoBo 18:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
What negociations ? Misplaced Pages is not a negociations and if any (which shouldn't) it was not ended.
The whole palestine is not reflected in the source ? Arab league didn't accept the partition of Palestine. Alithien 18:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No of course they didn't accept it. They wanted the issue decided by self-determination of all Palestinians, ie, a vote. That's the principle they were upholding (or said they were) when they invaded. Adding "on the whole of Palestine" is redundant, because self determination for Palestinians would automatically mean the extinction of the Zionist state. Gatoclass 18:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

By a vote ??? Do you have a source ? Alithien 18:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Self determination means the people as a whole get to choose what sort of government they want. In other words, what the majority wants is what the majority gets. It usually implies a plebiscite or a vote of some kind.
That is the principle the Arab League upheld in its negotiations with the UN prior to the adoption of the two-State solution. The Arabs wanted a one-state solution because that would mean that Arab Palestinians, with a two thirds majority of the population, would basically get to control the state through the ballot box. Gatoclass 19:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is "on whole Palestine" perturbing ?
Alithien 19:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Well for one thing, it is bad English. For another, it can only obfuscate the issue. By May 15, Israel has come into existence. So what does "on whole Palestine" mean? As far as the Israelis are concerned, half of the former Palestine is now Israel. Likewise for the UN, which has rapidly recognized the new state. So what does "on whole Palestine" convey to the reader? Nothing but confusion. Apart from which, as I've already said, it's completely redundant in any case. Gatoclass 19:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Whole Palestine means that they wanted the "self determination" of Arab Palestinians on the whole country.
Do you mean that in their casus belli they didn't intend to attack or invade Israel but only enter and protect the Arab state ?
Alithien 19:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
see point 9 of the "source" :
When the General Assembly of the United Nations issued, on 29 November 1947, its recommendation concerning the solution of the Palestine problem, on the basis of the establishment of an Arab State and of another Jewish in together with placing the City of Jerusalem under the trusteeship of the United Nations, the Arab States drew attention to the injustice implied in this solution the right Of the people of Palestine to immediate independence, as well as democratic principles and the provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations and of the United Nations. declared the Arabs' rejection of and that it would not be possible to carry it out by peaceful means, and that its forcible imposition would constitute a threat to peace and security in this area
Instead of "whole Palestine", maybe rejection of UN resolution 181 could solve the matter ? Alithien 19:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean that in their casus belli they didn't intend to attack or invade Israel but only enter and protect the Arab state?

They didn't recognize Israel. So as far as they were concerned, they weren't "invading" anything. They were simply entering Palestine to safeguard the rights and security of all Palestinians. Or so they claimed.

You claim the current version is "pro-Palestinian." How could it be other than that when it's the rationalization of the Arab states for their invasion? Of course it's going to sound pro-Palestinian. Go and have a read of the casus belli for the Six Day War, and ask yourself if it doesn't sound pro-Israeli.

But it seems you're not content with that. You're not content with the fact that wars started by Israel have casus belli which not unexpectedly make the initiator of hostilities sound like the innocent victim. Instead, you want to make the Arab casus belli for a war started by the Arab League, also sound pro-Israeli. You want to tack on a phrase of your own invention about the Arab League wanting "the whole of Palestine". Subtext: the Arabs were greedy. They wanted it all.

Sorry, but I don't find anything remotely NPOV about your proposed insertion. Gatoclass 19:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

For your information :
if you prefer the one I deleted there, no problem with me.
You seem to have forgotten your congratulations to me for 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and its "neutrality".
What is funny is that I reverted Isarig (see discussions here above Pov edits) because I wanted to write "entered Palestine" when he wanted "invaded Israel".
You know, I will not die because you don't behind the words casus belli in a wikipedia article the facts that Arab League rejected res. 181 and invaded Palestine is hidden.
lol lol lol Alithien 21:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Nb: and I know what a casus belli is. Just read Rogan and Shlaim, war of Palestine 1948. You will learn what was the arab motivations and learn they didn't want it at all... Maybe just Abdallah and jsut a part of this but this is not what they declared. Alithien 21:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Alithien, you can argue what you want of what you think the Arabs really wanted, but the casus belli is about the justification they gave. The rejection of UN-res. 181 is a specification of the protection of the rights of the Palestinians. It is already in there.--JaapBoBo 06:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Answer in next section about this topic : . Alithien 10:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

New 'Yishuv Objectives'

I've added a neutralised version of an important pov on the Yishuv objectives. I am a bit familiar with other pov's but I don't know the right references. To achieve NPOV I invite others to add other pov's, including references.

P.S. Alithien: please don't delete this but try to discuss it first in the true Misplaced Pages spirit; remember: Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it. ]

--JaapBoBo 21:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have always worked in that spirit. Alithien 10:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Shelling photo

The photograph being discussed is Image:1948-Jordanian artillery shelling Jerusalem.jpg.

Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not an expert), but what is pictured appears to be a long-exposure photograph of parachute flares being used to illuminate part of the city (fired up on the image right, then drifting with the wind towards the left). There may well have been shelling or fighting going on at the time, but I don't see evidence of that in this photo.

I was unable to load the photo's cited source page, and the site appears to be gone, but archive.org has a copy. Does anyone know of a history book or other source which captions this photo? It would be good to find a more specific citation, which credits the photographer or dates the photo. —Michael Z. 2007-09-25 22:55 Z

I have no info about this but what you say sounds logical. Alithien 10:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This edit

This edit is not NPOV and even the calims made by the source ( a biased source the countries that started the war try to justify going into war) do not confirm what the editor has wrote. so the editor is even misquoting a highly biased source.....Zeq 16:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Casus

The cause for the war (invasion started on the day the state of Israel declared independence) has clearly been (in this article and in real life): "Arab rejection of the existence of the State of Israel". Now suddeny it is changing....to a quote from the invading party manifesto. Since when wikipedia became so one sided ???? Zeq 21:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

btw, this is how NPOV looks like: Zeq 10:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, no, that is your own pov. Tarc 12:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
it is a bit repetative to hear this from tarc again and again: "your POV"... Of course - Everything I write in a talk page is my view. The issue here is not what I write in a talk page - rather it is to make sure that both POV will be respresnted in Misplaced Pages articles. Zeq 12:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, when you claim that your own pov is neutral, you don't see that as problematic? Tarc 12:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
No. My POV is not Neutral. So is your POV. read WP:NPOV. The article has to inlclude all POVs - not just your POV (which you call "fact") and not just my POV (which you call "opinion") . Zeq 13:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting.

  • fact : "Zionism wanted a jewish state. This implies Arab population must be displaced"
  • translation 1 : "Zionism aimed at expelling Palestinians"
  • translation 2 : "As all nations in the world has a state , zionism demand is legitime"
  • fact : "Arab declared war and entered Palestine to control it. This implies the rejection of the existence of a jewish state"
  • translation 1 : "Arabs defended the secury and self determination of Arab Palestinians"
  • translation 2 : "Arabs aimed at destroying Israel".

Is the aim theory finally a pov practice ? Alithien 09:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Alithien,

  1. The 1947 UN decision created two states: One Jewish one Arab. Thus a "jewih state" does not mean aiming at explaing arabs and an Arab state does not mean expelling jews.
  2. Jews accepted the division in two states.
  3. Arab rejected the division.
  4. Arab countries invaded in an effort to control the whole area thus to eliminate the Jewish state. The only reason we are having this discussion is that they failed to do so but the aim is clear. Zeq 09:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Zeq,
Thank you for your answer. I perfectly understand your point.
In fact, I was answering to Gatoclass and JaapBoBo with whom I started the same discussion here above. Maybe we could "merge" both sections. Alithien 09:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


"The partition resolution was never suspended or rescinded. Thus, Israel, the Jewish State in Palestine, was born on May 14, as the British finally left the country. Five Arab armies (Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq) immediately invaded Israel. Their intentions were declared by Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League: 'This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades. '" - this is from the same source JaapBoBo used - so if we are to use this source we should use everything they have not just pick and chosse a POV edit. Zeq 12:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
All parties, please review the above sections Talk:1948 Arab-Israeli War#Casus Belli as expressed by contemporary belligerents and Talk:1948 Arab-Israeli War#Bias in casus of belli. It is amusing that "a quote from the invading party manifesto" is being objected to. Casus belli is defined precisely as such a quote from the invading party. A casus belli is the proclaimed case for the war, declared by the initiating party. Mind you, it is not precisely correct to use the "to safeguard..." language, since this is a general statement of intent rather than a specific point (casus means "case", "incident", or "rupture"). The correct casus based on the linked statement is rejection of the "forcible imposition" of a Jewish State in Palestine. The last time around, it was decided just to cut the casus section altogether, because people who don't know what the words mean and can't be bothered to find out kept deleting the "forcible imposition" language and inserting something else, often something nonsensical. <eleland/talkedits> 19:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
"Safeguarding" is used in the source. Alithien 11:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit

- the fact that Pappe is Jewish has nothing to do with this article. Also: katz is anti-zionist. Branding the exodus "ethnic cleansing" is POV and border on propeganda. Zeq 22:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish exodus in the reverse direction

Certain editors are insisting that no mention be made of it. In their log comments they imply that it didn't even happen, and they are more than wellcome to argue that stance over in the article on the Jewish exodus from Arab lands, and sidle up to the neo-Nazis editting articles on the Holocaust.

But it happened. It happened because of state-sponsored violence that was incited in perfect harmony with the anti-jewish (yes, anti-Jewish) stance taken by the Arab states during the conflict. And it happened "thanks" to incitement from Haj Amin's Arab Higher Comittee.

I.e. the violence that drove "Arab Jews" into France, the UK, the US, and yes, Israel, was a part of this conflict and merits mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.127.67 (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Part and parcel, as the saying goes; closely associated with the war. Agree that it belongs in this article, and not just as a counterpoint to mention of the May 15 protests. Absurd to imply it didn't happen, but then, there are always those, on wiki and otherwise, who are only too willing to rewrite history. The May 15 events came later, and I have shifted the sequence of text to reflect this. Not sure May 15 belongs in a section on demographic outcome at all. Hertz1888 05:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Zeq 05:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course there was a Jewish exodus in the opposite direction, but it mainly occured later (1948-1967), and it is not directly linked to the war. E.g.: which acts, in the 1948 war, caused the Jewish exodus? --JaapBoBo 09:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a primary source that show the link between the war of 1948 and the jewish exodus :
Precises facts have been developed in the main articles.
Alithien 09:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't want the Jewish exodus in this article. Reasons:
  • It mainly happened after the war. I don't know who wrote: 'concurrently, in the three years after the war ...' in the article, but it's an obvious 'contradictio in terminis'.
An IP: The violence that caused the exodus started before the war, and intensified, especially its state sponsored incitement, during the war. The resulting flight was in large part a matter of logistics, some of which indeed had to wait until afterwards.
JaapBoBo: so if it started already before the war it didn't have to do so much with the war. Almost all of the exodus happened after the war.
An IP: and the tit for violence in Mandatory Palestine also started before the war. Did that also have nothing to do with the war? And again you evade the issue. The Arab nations conducting the war also sponsored horrific violence against their Jewish citizens as part and parcel of their policy vis-a-vis the ZIonists. It was a part of their war effort, and thus a part of the war. That the migration it caused took longer is irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.187.0.78 (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The changing attitude of Arab populations towards the Jews certainly added to the exodus, but Israel invited the Arab Jews in, was also very happy to welcome them and in some instances organised their emigration.
An IP: And your point is, uh, what exactly? This does nothing to negate the relevance of the exodus to this article. It just shows your own resentment that Israel would have the audacity to commit the "crime" of helping Jews escape the violence.
JaapBoBo: Speaking of Israeli crimes, what about the bombings in Iraq!? My point is that the Jewish exodus was not so much caused by the war as by the result of the war: an Israel that wanted Arab Jews to immigrate.
  • If we allow this we might include a whole range of other topics, like, Israels blocking the return of the Palestinian refugees, Israels dispossession laws, Israels' discrimination of Arabs (and discrimination of Arab Jews in Israel), Israels attacks in 1956 and 1967, the Arab attack in 1973, Israels expulsion of 200.000 Palestinians in 1967-68, etc., etc.. Mentioning the Jewish exodus from Arab countries here is undue weight.
--JaapBoBo 13:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
NB: I am not IP.18 who just added some comments in JaapBoBo's text.
In 1947, Yishuv authorities argued that Palestine had to be shared also to welcome the Jews that were in DP camps. UNSCOP visited these and interviewed them. Their existence was one of the arguments that convinced UNSCOP to recommand the Partition. I think what they became is relevant.
In May 1948, the world feared (rightly or not) for these Jews living in Arab countries. (as proven by the NY Times first page of May 16).
You added yourself that the demography issue was an "aim" of the Yishuv. To guarantee the demographical equilibrium of Israel, Jewish Agency excepected these to settle in Palestine once no more limititation would be impose to immigration.
Alithien 18:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Israel blocking of Palestinian refugee should be added in the article. This happened during the war and the war was the big argument used by Ben Gurion to prevent this.
Absentee properties laws were voted in 1950. The link is less direct but they were already discussed during the war with Weitz. The remaining (I am sure you agree) is not relevent.
Alithien: of course there was a demographic aim, getting rid of Palestinians, but do you think the Yishuv leaders wanted to use the war to get Arab Jews to emigrate to Israel? --JaapBoBo 18:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Some comments on this text I deleted: Concurrently, in the three years following the war, 700,000 Jews settled in Israel, mainly along the borders and in former Arab lands. Around 136,000 came from the 250,000 displaced Jews of the Second World War. The majority, around 600,000, was part of the 758,000 to 900,000 Jews who emigrated from Arab countries.

  • 'Concurrently, in the three years following the war' is a contradictio in terminus. The source should be checked.
  • '700,000 Jews settled in Israel, mainly along the borders and in former Arab lands. Around 136,000 came from the 250,000 displaced Jews of the Second World War' is certainly not relevant.
  • 600,000 in three years is a bit high, considering the table in ] which says the number of Jews in Arab countries went from 856000 to 475000 between 1948 and 1958.

--JaapBoBo 19:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

An additional quote from an Iraqi Jew who thinks the Jewish exodus was not so much related to the 1948 war: Certainly it has been easier for the world to accept the Zionist lie that Jews were evicted from Muslim lands because of anti-Semitism, ] --JaapBoBo 19:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Not much of an objective source, a disillusioned immigrant to Israel who speaks of Zionist lies. The eviction of Jews from the Arab world is established fact.
I fail to see that you have gained a consensus here to delete reference to the reverse direction exodus as you have done. If the criterion is concurrency with the war, then it is time to remove the reference to May 15 protests, which began considerably later. Pending further discussion, I am restoring the deleted content for now, without the word "concurrently". I believe some copyediting can bring this paragraph into line, rather than wholesale deletion. Hertz1888 20:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. this must be discussed further. surly an important outcome of the war Zeq 20:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo, 1 controversed scholar claims that "the expulsion" of the palestinian was an aim of the war and to argue his thesis, he gives a context to the war that is quite away from the reality of that time.
At the level reached by current analysis from each side, it is strange indeed nobody ever claimed that the Zionists purposedly made Sepharads expelled from Arab lands... And in fact, it has been claimed :-)
Could you please read precisely what you contest and read the quote you put forward for that purpose :
1. settled <-> expulsion : who talks about expulsions ?
2. no reason given <-> arab antisemism : who talks about antisemitism ?
Concerning the 600,000, you are right. I just took the former text trusting the source given and there is a contradiction.
Alithien 07:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

With what I have in hand, I cannot do better than writing than "most others are from arab lands". With the different numbers given we can guess there are min 165,000 jews who didn't came neither from Arab lands nor from DP camps.
There remain the others who came from Muslims but not Arab lands such as Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistans, Jews from Sweden, Ireland, Switzerland, Spain and Portugal, USA and South America.
Those who were "jailed" in Chypres were not counted yet. All this should give the 165,000 if everybody is reliable. Alithien 09:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

independent state

In the declaration of war, the arab league states : 'The Governments of the Arab States participated in and asked for the preservation of the Arab character of Palestine and the proclamation of its independence'
Alithien 09:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

NB: I didn't find in the source where it was talked about "arab palestinians". Alithien 10:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Alithien, I have two reasons not to include 'in an independent state':
  • A fuller quote of your quote says: The Round Table Conference was held in London in 1939 in order to discuss the Palestine question and to arrive at the just solution thereof. The Governments of the Arab States participated in and asked for the preservation of the Arab character of Palestine and the proclamation of its independence. So the Arab states said that in 1939. Maybe they wanted it also in 1948, but you should give another quote for that.
  • Even if the Arab states had this objective, its better to keep the casus belli short, and not include things that don't add much anyway.
--JaapBoBo 10:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
JaapBoBo, the document refers to Arab and Palestine independences more than to any other concept. I counted 36 occurence of the words.
Safeguard appears three, and once concerns the safeguard of the independence. Security 8.
All this is summarized here : "The Arab States recognize that the independence and sovereignty of Palestine which was so far subject to the British Mandate has now, with the termination of the Mandate, become established in fact".
This is the casus belli. If this is too long, we can remove what concerns security and self determination.
Alithien 11:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I agree. --JaapBoBo 12:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

undue weight

I removed this from the "demography outcome section" :

History would produce different accounts as to the reasons behind Palestinian flight from Israel. Historian and former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami argues that during the war " Arab community in a state of terror facing a ruthless Israeli army whose path to victory was paved not only by its exploits against the regular Arab armies, but also by the intimidation and at times atrocities and massacres it perpetrated against the civilian Arab community. A panic-stricken Arab community was uprooted under the impact of massacres that would be carved into the Arabs' monument of grief and hatred". Jewish historian Ilan Pappé calls the exodus an ethnic cleansing.
On the other hand, Shmuel Katz claims in his book "Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine" that "the Arab refugees were not driven from Palestine by anyone. The vast majority left, whether of their own free will or at the orders or exhortations of their leaders, always with the same reassurance-that their departure would help in the war against Israel.". That claim, however, has been criticized by many scholars for lack of credible evidence. The book, originally written in 1973, was even described as one-sided by The New York Times.

This is material for the article about the causes of the 1948 exodus and there is a linked at the beginning of this section concerning this. 1 line here is more than enough. Alithien 06:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


Term: Palestinian Arabs

During this period of time, Pan-Arab nationalism was the dominant way that the Arabs of the Middle East identified themselves. Further, the term "Palestinian" as a reference to Islamic Arab refugees who live in contested areas of the former British Mandate, is a modern invention. "Palestine" was the term used to describe the land by Jews before declaring the state of Israel. A Palestinian at the time (though the term was not often used in this way) was any person who lived in the British Mandate. Palestinians (as refered to today) have no relationship whatsoever to the ancient Philistines (from which the term is derived). As a result, I fail to see why this article calls the Arab inhabitants of the British Mandate "Palestinian Arabs" when they would have simply refered to themselves as Arabs at the time. There were certainly Islamic Arabs who inhabited the British Mandate and who could trace back their history in the land for many generations. There was also a consistent (albeit much smaller) Jewish presence in the land since Biblical times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.45.143.226 (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Simply put, the term 'Palestinean Arabs' is used to clarify the situation. Using the term Arab could refer to any person of the Arab World. To say that someone can not be defined as Palestinean, because they are not related to the original inhabitants is ridiculous. That would be like saying that I am not American, because my family immigrated here in the 1800's. Canutethegreat 22:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian nationalism has existed since 1920.
Some "Palestinian Arabs" distinguished themselves from the other Arabs and wanted an independant state in Mandatory Palestine. Alithien 12:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Article lacks focus

Just read through it and it provides a pretty chaotic view of events. Where is the overview of operations? Where is the discussion of grand strategy? It comes across as nothing more than an account of different battles, presented in no particular order. There's room for a great deal of improvement here IMO. Gatoclass 16:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You are perfectly right.
But such a work is not possible on wikipedia.
Alithien 12:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's possible! All we need to do is find an account of overall strategy from a reliable source. And they most certainly exist, I've read a number of them myself. Gatoclass 13:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

labour zionism

I removed:

Other Zionists believed in Labor Zionism, and had strong socialist leanings. They organized the labor movement in Palestine, and joined with the Arab masses in campaigns for improved wages and working conditions.

because it's not sourced and it is contradicted by a reliable source, Zeev Sternhell's 'The Founding Myths of Israel'. I replaced it with:

Other Zionists believed in Labor Zionism, an ideology that wanted to conquer the land, first by Jewish presence and Jewish labour, later, according to Sternhell, if necesarry by force. They organized the labor movement in Palestine.

--JaapBoBo (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's say that both pov's exist. Even if one of them is minoritar.
I removed all comments and material related to this. This is useless in this article. Ceedjee (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The original text was certainly wrong. --JaapBoBo (talk) 12:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Not per my understanding :
Tom Segev, One Palestine, Complete, p.412 :
(...). There were cases in which Jewish and Arab workers even went on strike together. A Jew and an Arab were joint leaders of a transport strike. The Histradrut also publiqhed a newspaper in Arabic, which included, among other thingks, translations of (...) .
There are other exemples. Ceedjee (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Those were actions of Left Labour I think. Not mainstream. --JaapBoBo (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Assesment edits

Marshall

I removed: Despite Morris's assertion, Secretary of State George Marshall had told Jewish agency Foreign Minister Moshe Sharret in early May or late April 1948, "Believe me, I am talking about things about which I know. You are sitting there in the coastal plains of Palestine, while the Arabs hold the mountain ridges. I know you have some arms and your Haganah, but the Arabs have regular armies. They are well trained and they have heavy arms. How can you hope hope to hold out?". Morris is a historian who investigated the case and had access to a lot of information. Marshall was a contemporary, and could very well have been wrong. Which historian says Marshall was right? --JaapBoBo (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

it doesn't matter which historian says he's right or wrong, "Secretary of State" is a high profile figure with a number of intelligence agencies from which he receives his information. There's no justification to remove high profile accounts of the events... morris is only human. Jaakobou 16:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

CIA

Removed: Earlier, a CIA report had predicted that it was unlikely that the Jews could hold out against the Arabs of Palestine without extensive outside help, because a war would disrupt the economy for too long. The CIA did not believe that Arab states would intervene. This is not from a reliable source. --JaapBoBo (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

i disagree, you have any example of this source being unreliable? Jaakobou 16:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
new comment per diff: Eleland, this page is also for you... please interact on it rather than make a rhetorical edit summary+revert. Jaakobou 19:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
First, "zionism-israel.com" is an unreliable source par excellence. You've asked for "any example of this source being unreliable," which shows that you either don't know or don't care how WP:V actually works. Do you realize how frustrating it is to try and edit with you when you simply don't pay attention to polices and community standard practices?
Second, the other information at issue is a long and tendentious quote from George C. Marshall, which is of a certain historical interest, but has essentially no relevance to the 1947–1948 Civil War in mandatory Palestine, which is what the section is about. It's WP:OR#SYNthetically presented as a contrast to Benny Morris's conclusion that the Palestinians were "far too weak", when it is actually a statement about the regular Arab armies. <eleland/talkedits> 21:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Eleland,
  1. i've asked a serious question on the reasons to which you claim zionism-israel.com to be unreliable. the website having some POV that it's ok to live in israel is not an immediate reason to reject facts that are presented by them... do you have an example of a mistake? an example of extremely partisan and improper presentation by them?
  2. the "long and tendentious quote from George C. Marshall" represents the US view at the time which is "tendentiously" in contrast to benny morris (so what?!). Benny Morris stated in his book his belief based on the sources he's read, and Marshall does the same only at a different time period. your assertion that palestinians != arabs back in 1948 (WP:OR#SYN) is (a) contested and (b) also introduced in the CIA related text per "Arabs of Palestine".
-- Jaakobou 22:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Your (1) is of no relevance. The site is unreliable because it has no established reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, and is run by a web programmer, two activists, and a retired news correspondent. Even if every single thing ever said on their site was strictly accurate, it's the reputation for accuracy that matters, not the accuracy itself. Verifiability, not truth.
Your (2) is of no relevance. Marshall said "I know you have some arms and your Haganah, but the Arabs have regular armies. They are well trained and they have heavy arms. How can you hope hope to hold out?" Was he talking about the ragtag ALA? No, he was talking about the regular armies of the Arab states, and the section is about the Civil War in Mandatory Palestine, which happened prior to the Arab intervention. His statement is in no way a contrast to Morris's, who was talking about the Palestinians, not about their Arab "allies". <eleland/talkedits> 00:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, chap.VI.
  2. Displaced Persons] retrieved on 29 october 2007 from the US Holocaust Museum.
  3. "Jewish Refugees of the Israeli Palestinian Conflict". Mideast Web. Retrieved March 16, 2007.
  4. Stearns, 2001, p. 966.
  5. Ben-Ami, 2006, p. 42.
  6. I. Pappé, 'The ethnic cleansing of Palestine', 2006
  7. Katz, Shmuel, Battleground, Shapolsky Pub ISBN 0-9646886-3-8 , p. 13
  8. Z. Sternhell, 1998, 'The Founding Myths of Israel', ISBN 0-691-01694-1, p.3
  9. Collins and LaPierre, 1973 p.315
  10. THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE PARTITION OF PALESTINE, CIA, November 28, 1947
Categories: