Talk:1948 Arab-Israeli War/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Bias 2 Maps... 3 WP:MilHist Assessment 4 The article was ignorant about Wingate 5 Bias against Israel 6 Casus belli? 7 Title of the article 7.1 I permit to insist 8 Casus Belli as expressed by contemporary belligerents 9 UN 10 Bias in casus of belli 11 Other militias 12 Title 12.1 Some statistics 13 Introducction 14 Flags 15 Mossad 16 Palestinian Civil War 17 Replacement 18 Pov edits 19 Questions about civil war section 19.1 Since the Jewish population was under strict orders obliging them to hold their dominions at all costs 19.2 Due to funds gathered by Golda Meir from sympathisers in the United States 20 The Trans-Jordanian Frontier Force

Bias

Theodor Herzl's perspective on how the Jews should settle the lands of Palestine are painted in a very dovish manner. He encouraged the emigration of the indigenous population from Palestine through the encouragement of employment elsewhere, AND the refusal to employ them locally. (America And The Founding Of Israel, p. 49, Righteous Victims, p. 21-22)

He also advocated deceit in purchasing lands from the original owners. This article makes it seem as though Herzl WANTED to live in peace with the indigenous people, which is definitely not the case. He wanted a predominantly Jewish state.

slaman 25 May 2007

I am writing a study guide for our annual Harvard National Model United Nations conference, in which I will direct the Security Council's discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I took a course in Middle Eastern politics in which we used Ian Bickerton and Carla Klausner's "A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict" which I, along with the vast majority of students, happened to find very well-organized and well-balanced in views. However, upon surfing the net and finding this article, I regret to inform that it appears to be rather biased on the Israeli/Jewish side. I hope you will take this into consideration when editing. Note: I am neither Muslim nor Jewish.

213.175.169.4 18:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you like to provide any reasoning or examples?

Without claiming expertise at all here, I think the section entitled 'Demographic Outcome' is substantially irrelevant (what do Yemeni policies towards Jews have to do with the 1948 war?) and biased in its focus (the most significant immediate demographic outcome is surely the creation of a large Palestinian refugee population, but this isn't discussed in any detail, and nor are the reasons for emigration). But I'm afraid someone more expert than I will have to alter this... --Marginalistrev 17:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC) (not the original poster on this topic).

This IP address received repeated warnings for vandalism, see User_talk:213.175.169.4. -- Heptor _talk 09:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Political objectives of the protagonists" This was interesting, under this subject were about the Arabian side and etc. etc. This should be changed to something more neutral since "protagonists" most definitely means "good guys". Maybe, "Political Objectives of Arabian side" etc. etc.

The Smiter 04:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

An example of bias: The section on the partition plan claims that the Jewish population of Palestine supported the partition plan, but the Arab portion did not, and cited no reference. I deleted the material, and it was restored with a reference to a Frontline website, which itself has inadequate references. Completely omitted was the fact that Jewish militias attacked Arab villages in both Arab and Jewish sectors, in violation of the partition plan, immediately after the UN passed the plan.

Morris, in fact, notes that the period following the Resolution vote was characterized by Arab initiatives and Jewish reprisals. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If a source is needed for the fact that neither Arabs nor Israeli governments were particularly happy with the partition plan, I believe that there is a quote on the issue from David Ben-Gurion in Avi Shlaim's book "Iron Wall", in the preface. But I'm not near the library at the moment. 131.111.221.240 10:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Maps...

I wish there were some better maps than these, everything is too small and it's hard to read the labels.

I agree with whoever posted this message. The battle maps are too small and there is too little of them. Also the picture of John Glubb is very small causing the image to be unclear. I recommend these external links for the maps. Its just a suggestion,

• http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story570.html
• http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story569.html
• http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story570.html
• http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story568.html
• http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story567.html
• http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story566.html

I havent really checked if their under a copywrite so i dont really know if we can use them or not. Al Ameer son

WP:MilHist Assessment

I have not read through the whole article, but I would not be surprised if there are tons of neutrality issues lurking throughout the text. I feel extremely strongly on this issue, and I am in no mood to get into an editwar or flamewar over these things. Thus, I leave my comments on the neutrality at that.

(1) There are obviously some sections that need expansion in a major way. There are at least four or five sections labeled as such by the section stub template, but the inclusion of those sections shows potential for an even more thorough and informative article. The Aftermath section needs help, as it seems to totally ignore the elephant in the room - namely, the creation of the State of Israel.

(2) I love the inclusion of the sections for the political objectives of the main participants. However, I do not think "protagonists" is the best word for this. And there is the glaring omission of the Yishuv. Yes, it is true that Israel was not a state until after the 1948 war, and so perhaps they were omitted for that reason. But the political objectives of the British Palestinian Jews living on that land were decidedly different from that of the governments back in London, Washington, etc. This deserves at least some mention. It's like discussing the American Revolution, and mentioning the interests or goals of Britain and France and leaving out that of the colonists because they count as British subjects.

There are obviously some major issues with this article, but overall, it undoubtedly deserves at least a B-class assessment for length, details, images, charts and maps. I have seen very few articles with this amount of well-organized, relevant, and clearly written content. LordAmeth 16:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am confused by writers who allege an anti-Israel bias in this article. If anything I see a pro-Israel and pro-Jewish bias in the early history sections.. for example, the British are accused of wanting to please Arabs and using their national fervor to British advantage, at the expense of Jews.. and Arab killing of Israelis are given prominence. Come to think of it, my impression being opposite to some others' means that the article is probably neutral. [SCG, 07:31 UTC 5 August 2006. The author is a US resident and Canadian citizen born in India]

The article was ignorant about Wingate

Anita Shapira's book Land and Power is inaccurate and misleading about Orde Wingate and the Special Night Squads, and should not be used as an authoritative source about either. Consequently, the section of this article dealing with the same has been changed so as not to be misleading. Citing it while ignoring the mounds of documented information about Wingate is selective historiography and does not serve any scholarly purpose.

After communicating with Dr. Shapira, she stated that her inclusion of the rumors was not intended to be an assertation of fact, and that she did not have actual evidence of Wingate having performed any such atrocities as rumored. See the upcoming English version of her biography on Yigal Allon for clarification. As stated previously, citing her earlier book as authority on Wingate is highly inaccurate and poor scholarship.

There are plenty of other sources available in Google Books. Martin van Creveld makes the same comments about Wingate. --Ian Pitchford 11:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Those books are similarly based upon rumors, and are not factually-based. In contrast, see Akavia, Royle, Oren, et al who provide substantiated refutation. The fact that the myths are widespread doesn't bestow credibility on the,.

Bias against Israel

Bias against Israel (and so ?) and Maghreb Jews

>These entries are biased against Israel.

How is this a reason to reject them ?

>In the 1948 war, approximately 600,000 Jewish refugees were persecuted and expelled from Arab lands including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco -- leaving behind an >estimated $30 billion in assets.

This is for sure nonsense as far as Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco are concerned which were still under French control in 1948 and where Jews were often very well treated (and even granted French citizenship in Algeria, contrarily to abiding Muslims, those respecting the Sharia).

The indigenous people of the earth are the people of the earth. The indigenous life of the earth is the life on Earth. The indigenous essence of the earth is the earth itself.

We are Earth.

abe.wickham@gmail.com

---

---

About the reliability of “From Time Immemorial” see this:

“Who were the indigenous people of Palestine?

Pro-lsrael propaganda has argued that most Palestinians entered Palestine after 1917, drawn to the economic dynamism of the growing Jewish community, and thus have no rights to Palestine. This argument has been elaborated in Joan Peters's widely promoted book, From Time lmmemorial. However, the book has been shown to be fraudulent and its claim false. The indigenous population was mostly Muslim, with a Christian and a smaller Jewish minority. As Zionists arrived from Europe, the Muslims and Christians began to adopt a distinctly Palestinian national identity.”

This is a quote from an article by Stephen S. Shalom, which teaches political science at the William Paterson University. You can find the whole article here: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Israel/Background_I_P_Crisis.html MichaelTheWise 10:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

These entries are biased against Israel. The problem is, the only solid historical evidence we have for the refugee problem, is what the Arab media said at the time.

In the 1948 war, approximately 600,000 Jewish refugees were persecuted and expelled from Arab lands including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco -- leaving behind an estimated $30 billion in assets. These Jewish refugees were welcomed by Israel, and with their descendants, now comprise a majority population of the State of Israel.

In the same war, according to the UN, approximately 720,000 Palestinians refugees fled to Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, and the West Bank and Gaza. The UN estimates that they and their descendents now number about 3.7 million.

The Arab League forbade any Arab country from accepting these refugees or settling them in normal housing, preferring to leave them in squalid camps. Former UNRWA Director Ralph Galloway stated in 1958: "The Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders do not give a damn whether Arab refugees live or die."

Again, it was Arabs who resisted efforts by Israel to settle the refugees in normal housing from 1967-95, when Israel administered the lands.

And again in the late-1990s, when 97 percent of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza lived under full jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, the refugees continued to be confined to camps -- despite the millions of UNWRA and international relief dollars which poured into PA coffers specifically for this purpose.

It is important to note, as Joan Peters documents in her seminal work, "From Time Immemorial," that the vast majority of these refugees did not live for generations on the land, but rather came from Egypt, Syria and Iraq as economic opportunities increased during the first half of the 20th century, the formative years of Jewish aliyah.

The United Nations' standard definition of a "refugee" is one who was forced to leave a "permanent" or "habitual" home. In the case of Arab refugees however, the UN broadened the definition of refugee to include anyone who lived in "Palestine" for only two years prior to Israel's statehood in 1948.

The number of 3.7 million refugees is further inflated, given that the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees does not include descendents in its definition of refugees, nor does it apply to a person who "has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality." Under this definition, the number of Palestinians qualifying for refugee status would be well below half a million. Yet the UN has created a new set of rules for Palestinian refugees.

• * *

A key question is the issue of responsibility: Since five Arab armies launched the 1948 war, logic dictates that they are responsible for the outcome. Yet it is still instructive to know: Did Israel forcibly evict these Arabs in 1948, or did they leave voluntarily?

Though historical sources vary, many statements from Arab leaders and the media support the contention that Arabs created the refugee problem:

The Beirut Daily Telegraph (September 6, 1948) quoted Emil Ghory, secretary of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee:

The fact that there are those refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously...

The London Economist (October 2, 1948) reported an eyewitness account of the flight of Haifa's Arabs:

There is little doubt that the most potent of the factors [in the flight] were the announcements made over the air by the Arab Higher Executive urging all Arabs in Haifa to quit... And it was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades.

Habib Issa, secretary-general of the Arab League, wrote in the New York Lebanese daily "al-Hoda" (June 8, 1951):

[Azzam Pasha, Arab League secretary,] assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and of Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade... Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property, and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states.

Former Prime Minister of Syria, Khaled al-Azem, wrote in his memoirs, published in 1973 in Beirut:

We brought destruction upon a million Arab refugees by calling on them and pleading with them to leave their land.

The PA's current prime minister, Mahmud Abbas ("Abu Mazen") wrote in the PLO journal "Palestine a-Thaura" (March 1976):

The Arab armies, who invaded the country in '48, forced the Palestinians to emigrate and leave their homeland and forced a political and ideological siege on them.

—The idea of Arab responsibility for the Palestinian flight has been pretty definitively refuted by Israeli historians such as Benny Morris who have extensively documented the attrocities and forced evictions committed against Arab villages, especially by radical Zionists such as the Stern Gang. In particular, it is impossible to underestimate the importance of the massacre at Deir Yassin, an Arab village within the territory the UN had partitioned for Palestinians, and which happened before the declaration of independence and before the intervention of other Arab forces. This event inflamed Arab public opinion and had a major influence on the subesequent decision to intervene by the Arab governments.--Karma432 12:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• * *

There is a common misconception regarding UN General Assembly Resolution 194 of December 1948. The resolution does not recognize any "right" of return for refugees, but recommends that they "should" be "permitted" to return, subject to two conditions: that the refugee wishes to return, and that he wishes to live at peace with his neighbors.

Even though the Arab states originally rejected Resolution 194, they now misquote it to back the demand of an unlimited right of return to within the borders of the State of Israel. In Yasser Arafat's January 1, 2001, letter to President Clinton, he declared:

"Recognizing the Right of Return and allowing the refugees' freedom of choice are a prerequisite for ending the conflict."

In the summer of 2000, Palestinian negotiators submitted an official document at Camp David, demanding that the refugees automatically be granted Israeli citizenship, and that the right of return should have no time limit. Additionally, the PA demanded that Israel provide compensation amounting to $500 billion dollars. Abu Mazen said that compensation payments should be made by Israel alone, and not from any international funds.

Israel maintains that settling refugees in Israel is a crude political move to destroy the Jewish state through demographics. If the whole point of a Palestinian state is to provide an independent home for their people, why do they insist on going to Israel?

While the political outcome remains uncertain, one thing is tragically clear: Thousands of Palestinians remain in squalid camps, used as political pawns in the ongoing war against Israel.

As Jordan's King Hussein stated in 1960:

Since 1948, Arab leaders have approached the Palestine problem in an irresponsible manner. They have used the Palestine people for selfish political purposes. This is ridiculous and I could say even criminal (Sources: MEMRI, Ha'Aretz, Joan Peters, Moshe Kohn, Prof. Shlomo Slonim, Prof. Ruth Lapidoth) .

The right of refugees to return to their homes is a common sense right, no matter what legal nicities are brought to bear. The only other examples of refugees being refused the right to return to their homes involve Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, not admirable examples.

It is clear from the writings of Isreal's founders that the denial of the right of return stemmed from the opportunity it afforded to have a majority Jewish state. In short, it was an example of what would today be called ethnic clensing. For this reason, israeli historian Benni Morris has said that Israel was born in a state of original sin. --Karma432 22:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Discussion for the redaction of a new background Alithien 11:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, the background section should begin after the end of World War II, and should deal with postwar plans for Palestine starting with the Anglo-American Committee and the various factors that led to the end of the Mandate and the partition plan. UNSCOP, the formation of the Arab League and the closeness of the vote in the UN should definitely be mentioned. Brian Tvedt 14:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not what I had in mind but that deserves to be thought about. It would start in 1922 to remind British were there. I would add violence of 1929 and 1936 to illustrate communities didn't like each other. I would remind massive immgration to explain where come jews in Palestine. I would remind Shoah because it is one of the key point why Israel were created. I agree

UNSCOP should be mentionned.

Alithien 13:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Christopher, but I would advocate including a brief description of the life under Ottoman rule, and an even briefer sentence or two summing up the most important events of the last two thousand years. This might sound like a lot but I'm only talking about an extra paragraph at most.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why everything that deals with Israel/Arab conflict has to be written from the ultraorthodox/zionist point of view?

Karma432 states "Since five Arab armies launched the 1948 war ..." as a matter of fact. The problem is, that's a very subjective opinion/assessment. Are Britain and France generally seen as having launched WWII because they declared war on Germany at Poland's defence? The conflict was effectively started through the unilateral declaration of the state of Israel. Yes, Israelis "accepted" the 1947 UN partition plan - only to significantly expand its borders later. The Arabs rejected the plan because, well, why should they have accepted Jews taking 55% of a territory in which the latter comprised but 10% of the population at the time of the 1917 Balfour Delcation?

pretzelberg

Casus belli?

The casus belli of this conflict is specified as "Arab rejection of the existence of the State of Israel". This issue is obviously subject to debate, but the above phrase is surely a very one-sided summary. Many would argue that the casus belli was the creation of Israel in itself. Is it not possible to have a more neutral explanation, e.g. "dispute over the territory of Palestine"? (I deliberately chose not to write "Palestinan territory")

A dispute is not a casus belli of war. The rejection of the state and the aim of destroying it were the casus belli. —Aiden 23:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"Casus belli" is a legal phrase that refers to an action. I don't think that rejections or aims can be examples. --Zero^talk 01:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well the war certainly didn't spawn out of thin air. Rejection of the UN partion plan on the part of the Arab states was the casus belli. —Aiden 04:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

A casus belli is an act which legally justifies war. An act that causes a war is not necessarily a casus belli. If your neighbors violently attack you, that makes it legal to wage war on them so it is a casus belli. Refusing to recognise you might lead to a war but it is not a casus belli. I think we should only use the phrase in its strict legal meaning. --Zero^talk 13:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What would you propose? —Aiden 14:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any possibility of getting an accurate and npov item into the panel. As it stands "casus belli" is incorrect usage and "Arab rejection of the existence of the State of Israel" is the Israeli point of view only. The Arab point of view would be that the creation of Israel was the cause. We aren't supposed to choose one. --Zero^talk 16:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

this argument is irrelevant... obviously the Casus belli in the Arab states' eyes was the creation of Israel. Israel didn't have any Casus belli because it was on the defense - Israel had no aspiration for a war whatsoever which is why they accepted the UN Partition and planned to start establishing their state according to the UN resolution. The Arab states' Casus belli was illegal, since they had no justficiation starting a war according to the International Law rules of justified Casus belli. Therefore the correct definition is that the unjustified and illegal Casus belli of the war was Israel's creation , because the Arab states denied Israel's right to exist. Amoruso 17:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

in other words, there's simply no casus belli to this war. the war is an example to when starting the war itself, not concerning the rules of the conflict after the war started, is completely illegal and can't be justifed in any way. These are two different doctrines in Internatioal Law. Amoruso 17:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Title of the article

Hello. I noticed recently that few historians used "1948 arab-israeli war" to title the subject but refers much to : the "Palestine War", the first of the arab-israeli conflicts. Here are some recently published :

• Y. Gelber, Palestine 1948 : etc, Sussex University Press, 2006
• A. Shlaim, The War for Palestine : etc, Cambridge University Press, 2001
• Milner, Ending the war of 1948 : etc, 2005
• T. Reinhart, Israel/Palestine: How to End the War of 1948, 2004
• E. Karsh, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: The Palestine War 1948 , 2002
• D. Tal, War in Palestine, 1948 (Israeli History, Politics, and Society), 2003
• I. Pappe, The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948, Cambridge University Press, 2001.

In practice, the arab-israeli war start on 15 May, 1948. (It could not start before the existence of Israel) but the War (for - of - in) Palestine (ie, the Palestine War ?) started sooner.
What do you think about changing the title ? Alithien 08:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Palestine war could be very confusing, as there were infinite wars on palestine throughout history. 1948 Palestine war could be a good title but people might see it as the local battle taken before the invasion of the arab armies and there's the problem of defining palestine. In my opinion, best title is Israel's "War of Independence" - it's one side definition but so is yom kippur war title. Amoruso 10:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, you are too much :-) Alithien 18:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well my friend I don't think this title is biased. Independence War is the most common name for the country and like mentioned to me by User Gabi S. it's also the name for other countries' independence wars - it also involved more sides - see croatian, irish, scottish, mexican, romanian, greek, turkish, chilean wars of indepedence, and so on. The title should be Israeli War of independence, and taken into account Israel too was invaded, the only other option will be The holy war to obliterate Israel ... ? Amoruso 04:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Have a look here :

War of Independence is generally used to describe a war occurring over a territory that has declared independence. Once the state that previously held the territory sends in military forces to assert its sovereignty or the native population clashes with the former occupier, a separatist rebellion has begun. If a new state is successfully established, the conflict is subsequently known as a war of independence. War of Independence .

New title for page therefore should be ---> Israeli War of Independence. Amoruso 04:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Shalom Amoruso. I think that this little doesn't take into account the arab point of view concerning the events of 1947-1949.

I don't see any other option than using historians title to this article. That was my motivation to change the title.

Let's keep it like today. Alithien 07:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

But historians do treat it as Israeli war of indepedence. No other country was created in the war. The American Independence/revoultionary war also doesn't take into account the British perspective and so on. Amoruso 07:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep the title as it is. It has faults, but everyone knows what it means and it doesn't represent the point of view of any of the parties to the conflict. --Zero^talk 10:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. It clearly negates the palestinian point of view and nationalism revendication. Between 11/1947 and 4/1948 they fought for their independance but lost because the other two adversaries : Yishouv and Abdallah/UK coalition were far stronger.

Arab israeli war officialy started only on May 15th.

But never mind, everobody knows what the arab-israli war of 1948 means : Israel was invaded by 5 armies and they won. Good for me. Alithien 12:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This idea that the palestinians fought for their indepedence is.. let's say... highly disputed... Amoruso 12:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... If they are right it would mean that all the 113 british who were killed in Palestine between november and march 1948 were killed by Zionist Jews... But never mind. Let's keep the article the way it is. Alithien 17:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I permit to insist

Maybe you thought about this during these last 3 months. Maybe you didn't change your mind...
The events that are described in this article talked about the "Palestine war of 1948" and not only about the "1948 arab-israeli war". This latter started on May 15. Check the sources. There is few confusion about this in scholars' writings. Only in encyclopedias or on the internet. Alithien 11:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am amazed......saying the cassus belli was the rejection of the state is like saying the indian wars in the US were started by the indians because they wanted to stay on their land or that they saw what happened to other tribes and wanted to prevent it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.219.196 (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Casus Belli as expressed by contemporary belligerents

A Casus belli need not be correct or accurate. Websters defines it as "an event or action that justifies or allegedly justifies a war or conflict" and the 'pedia article Casus belli notes that "Informal usage varies beyond its technical definition to refer to any "just cause" a nation may claim for entering into a conflict."

Therefore we need make no judgements about the validity of the casus belli. We need only to report what the belligerents claimed.

The "claimed just causes" were expressed on 15 May 1948 by the Arab League in their declaration of war [1]. The major greivance was "the aggressive intentions and the imperialistic designs of the Zionists, including the atrocities committed by them against the peace-loving Arab inhabitants, especially in Dayr Yasin, Tiberias and others". The League further argued that "This state of affairs is threatening to spread to the neighbouring Arab countries", and therefore "the Arab League, a regional organisation [under] Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations" was legally justified to intervene in collective self-defense.

The Declaration re-iterated the Arab rejection of any Jewish state; however this was NOT the "claimed just cause" for war. The Arabs said that "it would not be possible to carry [Partition] out by peaceful means, and that its forcible imposition would constitute a threat to peace and security in this area". In other words the foundation of a Jewish state was not the casus belli; it was the "forcible imposition" of a Jewish state.

The argument here is certainly tenuous, but it was made and should be reported so that wikipedia readers can judge for themselves. I will make appropriate changes.

Eleland 11:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

UN

"parts of the resolution were never implemented, resulting in the Palestinian refugee problem."

This is one POV. The other POV is that since the resolution included the provision that "those who wish to live in peace" can come back there was never a way to see if this is implemented or not.

Until the desire to get rid of Israel all tougeter no one would know what could have been. Clearly hundreds f thousands of palestinians remain refugees so that they can claim the "right" to return to israel (and destroy it by their majority) 89.1.173.64 15:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the argument that generations of Palestinians have chosen to live in squalor simply out of a desire to "destroy" Israel is sweepingly paranoid and horribly racist. It is unworthy of serious comment. I should also point out that the right to enter, leave, or remain in one's country is a central plank of international law and does not belong in sarcastic "scare quotes".

Even if one accepts the rest of your argument, the line you quoted remains factual and NPOV. The quoted line doesn't say why the resolution was never implemented, simply that it was not. It ought to stand.

Eleland 18:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Bias in casus of belli

The existting casus of belli: "Arab rejection of "forcible imposition" of a Jewish state in Palestine" is inaccurate and completely ignores basic historical facts. It does not address numerous factors involved in the Partition plan. It also ignores the fact that there was no imposition as the Ottoman Empire lost the war with Britain and France gaining control of the Middle East (particularly in the western part). It also ignores agreements as well as the fact that the partition plan was devised so that there would be no refugees of either Jews or former Ottomans. However, Arab refusal to accept a tiny country for Jews led to war and Israel would have been far smaller than it is today. The Arab countries in essence violated UN Resolution 181.

If my information is in doubt please take the time to study from a history textbook and please read the ACTUAL TEXT OF THE PARTITION PLAN (UN Resolution 181): http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm

In the future, please prove and document with CREDIBLE ACADEMIC SOURCES: not opinions or articles or websites, but actual documents - that is the only way to minimize bias.

Moreover, there was no Palestine as a country. Palestine was a region under the Ottoman Empire. After World War One, the British took over. Then later the United Nations Mandate took into effect.

68.1.182.215 01:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comment indicates that you think "casus belli" means "the cause of the war". It doesn't. Eleland's description above is correct. Amusingly, to put Israel's position in as the casus belli is an imputation that the war was started by Israel! This whole argument is actually pretty silly, and I have solved it by taking that item out of the "war box" altogether. I hope it stays out. --Zero^talk 12:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have some questions :

• Where is it written in that text it is a "declaration of war" ?
• Where do they use the words "casus belli". I would have expected a sentence such as "bla bla bla is considered by us as a casus belli.
• Who are the scholars who claim the casus belli of that war was UN Partition's vote ?

I think this is the only way to analyse this following NPov (in citing secondary sources and not on performing personnal analysis on (partial) primary sources)

If you claim we can perform personal "fair" analysis, I would claim that they decided to "intervene" only mid of April for some or even later for others after Nachshon, Deir Yassin, the mass palestinian exodus and the defeat of palestinian (and arab volunteers) forces.

Alithien 07:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I underline too that the article start describing events on 1 December 1947 and that the arab forces entered Palestine on 15 May 1948... So, what is the casus belli of the fights that started before ?

This makes me think (once more), there should be 2 articles. One talking about the civil war in Palestine under British Mandate (phase 1 and phase 2) and one about the 1st arab-israeli war (phase 3 to 5 with truces). [as explained above based on scholars' books titles).

The Palestine War of 1948 was divided into two main phase : a civil war (between jewish and arab Palestinians under British rule) and a conventional war (between Israeli and Arabs). Alithien 07:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The text does not say it is a declaration of war, because the Arabs did not want to call it a war -- rather an "intervention". As far as the League was concerned, there was no state to declare war on.

The text does not use the term casus belli, because it is a descriptive term invented by historians. As far as I know, no declaration of war has ever contained 'a sentence such as bla bla bla is our casus belli. The text does clearly argue a justification for the "intervention", which I posted on the page, and which has been constantly altered and reverted, with no justification or citations offered. Blaming this on my "personal analysis on partial primary sources" is a joke, and in any case the alternative versions have had NO citations of ANY kind backing them up.

The only really relevant objection is that the article describes events prior to the Arab invasion, which obviously wouldn't be covered in the casus. On the other hand, the article is called 1948 Arab-Israeli War, which as I understand it refers to the events starting 15 May. If the article is understood to include earlier violence, then there should be no "casus belli" line at all since it's too complex to sum up in a sentence.

Eleland 19:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Eleland. I agree with your final conclusion.

Note that the article doesn't describe "earlier violence". It describes 2 war that are tightly linked. A civil one and a regular one. The first one clearly started due to UN181's vote.

The second one started for many other reasons.

If the question was asked if the casus belli of the second one could be UN181. I would answer :

bellum (-i when genetive) is latine and means war.

You underline they claim for an intervention. So war -> no bellum ; no bellum -> no casus belli.

That is why I really don't think cassu belli is a good thing here.

Alithien 11:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's put this one to bed -- I'm deleting the line.

Eleland 15:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The casus belli would be the first act of war. That would be Egypt/Syria/Lebanon/Iraq/Transjordan's invasion. We cannot not have a casus belli. Nearly all war articles have them. It essentially has to be stated who started the war.--Shamir1 07:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what every history book ever written lists as the casus belli. --GHcool 01:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Again: "casus" does not mean "cause", it means "case". If it is correct that the Arab states started the war, then the casus belli is the action they claimed as justification of it (regardless of whether their claim was correct). Since there is no possibility of ever getting agreement on what to write in that box, the correct solution is to write nothing. --Zero^talk 02:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Excuse my ignorance of Latin, but Websters confirms that you are correct. The Arab states certainly started the war according to every history book ever written. I fear that if we were to list a casus belli, it would have to be Ben-Gurion's Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel and US President Truman's immediate recognition of Israel as an independent state. Phrasing it in this way is a knife that cuts both ways. If one knows the history of the region, it puts the Arabs in a terrible light. If one doesn't know the history, it puts Israel in a terrible light. --GHcool 07:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Once for all, if somebody thinks there is a casus belli for that war, he just has to find an scholar that has written "the casus belli is xxx". That's all.

Alithien 09:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There has to be a casus belli. So how is there a war in the first place? I mean, there has to be a starting point or at least several starting points. Wars don't just happen...there is an agenda and reason behind them and that is the case and cause of war.

Also, the casus of belli would have to be Arab rejection and violation of UN Resolution 181. If the resolution were accepted by both former Ottomans and Jews, then there would have been two states created and thus no refugees. That's right no refugees...the outcome of the 1948 war, which was started by Arab countries by rejecting UN Resolution 181 (among other factors), led to refugees as Israel won the war unexpectedly. The 2 states under the Partition plan would have located the 2 states where the major population centers were. And if the Arab countries had not rejected Resolution 181, there would have been two states and most likely peace and no refugees today in the immediate region. 138.16.27.200 05:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Would it be ok with everyone here if we phrase it something like this: casus belli: Arab states' frustration toward the continuing Jewish presence in the region." --GHcool 20:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No, that would be Original Research. There is nothing that can be put there without being an endless source of edit wars. --Zero^talk 04:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No, as per Zero. I add this is only one (among many) points of view that this is the reason of the arab intervention after 15 mai. So, please, find a scholar quote that states "the casus belli is (...)" Alithien 09:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this passage from Avraham Sela's Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East (copyright 2002) could help: "The failure of the British and American efforts to mediate a truce in Palestine left the Arab leaders with no alternatrive but to take a collective decision to intervene militarily" (pg. 71). --GHcool 19:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If nobody responds by tomorrow, I'll add this to the article as the casus belli. --GHcool 17:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm doing it. --GHcool 18:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That was not a sentence such as "the casus belli is..." so that was not acceptable. I will remove this within a few days if nobody else does it before... Sorry... Alithien 21:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What part of the statement do you disagree with? Perhaps we can use this as a starting point. Don't just delete it because the word "casus belli" isn't in the original quotation. --GHcool 06:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You can summarize this that way. Sorry for that. All the arguments are explained here above... Alithien 14:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is a blatant manifestation of Zionist propaganda. The Zionists never actually supported the partition in practice manifested by their seizure of lands designated to the Arab state between November 1947 to 15 May 1948 -- BEFORE Arab troops intervened into parts of Palestine designated to the Arab state.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.126.3.32 (talk • contribs).

The problem you are having is with facts, not with WP. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Other militias

A user added other militias to Israel's side. "Jewish militias: Haganah, Irgun, Lehi" and "Druze militias." The Jewish militias, at least the Haganah, was de facto Israel's army. As far as I know, the Druze did not form separate militias but were a subsect of the IDF. They had their own flag.[2], and you can find that flag pic (and upload it from) here. The Druze sided with Israel and actively fought on their side. I was surprised to see that this was not mentioned. It certainly should be as should the fact that some Bedouin Arabs also joined Israeli forces. --Shamir1 22:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Title

Given this :

• Y. Gelber, Palestine 1948 : etc, Sussex University Press, 2006
• A. Shlaim, The War for Palestine : etc, Cambridge University Press, 2001
• Milner, Ending the war of 1948 : etc, 2005 [3]
• T. Reinhart, Israel/Palestine: How to End the War of 1948, 2004
• E. Karsh, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: The Palestine War 1948 , 2002
• D. Tal, War in Palestine, 1948 (Israeli History, Politics, and Society), 2003

I want to change the title of the article to "Palestine War of 1948". Does someone mind this ? Alithien 21:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I permit also to refer to this article : 1947-48 Palestinian civil war If this is the first phase of this war, how is named the second phase ?
That is why I suggest to write that
The "1948 Palestine war is divided into 2 phases :

• 1947-48 Palestinian civil war
• 1948-49 Arab-Israeli war

"1948 Arab-Israeli war" gets 57,200 Google hits.

"Israeli War of Independence" gets 22,400 Google hits.

"Palestine War of 1948" gets 1,460 Google hits, and many of those are actually "Palestine War of 1948-49".

The article title is the majority use, and we mention significant minority uses. Extreme minority uses aren't mentioned. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg,

I know but google is not a reference.

Historians are the reference.

And historians who wrote about this period call it "the Palestine War" (see from Karsh to Pappé passing by Gelber...)

I agree to proceed to a "google fight" if it is restricted to books writen on the subject by historians...

I think the "heart of the matter" is due to the fact that "in the past" people considered the war started on May 15 but nowadays, the realized the war started in Dec, 47.

As a consequence there are 2 stages to this war : a civil war in the British Mandate and -after- the arab-israeli war of 1947-1948.

In an article named "arab-israeli" war, events that happened before May 15 should be in the context, not in the main article bec. Israel simply didn't exist yet.

What is your mind about that ? Alithien 06:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The war formally began with the declaration of war on the newly created state of Israel by its Arab neighbours. So "1948 Arab-Israeli war" seems appropriate to me. Gatoclass 11:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for you reply but did you read what I wrote or this article ? :-(

This article doesn't start in May, 1948 but in Dec, 1947 !

In fact, you fully agree with what I say.

You perfectly agree with what I say :

The "1948 Palestine war is divided into 2 phases :

• 1947-48 Palestinian civil war
• 1948-49 Arab-Israeli war

and you talk about the second phase !

Alithien 15:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

References by historians for the period Dec 47 - Dec 49 or later

Palestine War

• Y. Gelber, Palestine 1948 : (...), Sussex University Press, 2006
• A. Shlaim, E. Rogan, The War for Palestine : (...), Cambridge University Press, 2001
• E. Karsh, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: The Palestine War 1948 , 2002
• D. Tal, War in Palestine, 1948 (...), 2003
• I. Pappé, The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948, Cambridge Middle East Studies.

Other

• U. Milstein, History of Israel's War of Independence, University Press of America, 1999

Actually, now I've taken a look at the article itself, I must concede you have a point. About half of the article deals with events leading up to the 1948 war, not the war itself. So the name of the article doesn't really reflect its contents all that well, does it? Gatoclass 16:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(to Alithien) : The sources you have provided use several different names, and in any event are book titles, not names of the events themselves. Wikipedia uses the most common English names for articles. Per WP:NAME "article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" and "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." Jayjg ^(talk) 16:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gatoclass,

Yes. The first part of the article should be sent to 1947-48 Palestinian civil war.

Hi Jayjg,

You are right and I agree with that. But what is described by the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, as is illustrated by Gatoclass's comments just above, are the events following 15 May 1948.

If I ask the people you refer to when the 1948 Arab-Israeli started, what will they answer ?

They will answer on May 15, 48 as everybody thinks and not on Nov 30, 47 as stated in this article.

On the Israel's point of view, War of independance started on May 15 !

This article here mixed two different things.

Another solution is to correct this article in moving events between Dec 47 and May 48 in 1947-48 Palestinian civil war...

Alithien 18:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The entire events are described as the 1948 Arab-Israeli war; the events leading up to Israel's Declaration of Independence, the events immediately following it, and even the events of 1949. It was all one war, and the most common name is "1948 Arab-Israeli war". The War of 1812 took place from 1812-1815, but it's still called the War of 1812. Wikipedia isn't the place to invent names for these things, it just reflects common usage. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No the entire events are described with another name as proven by the references I gave.

The common usage talks about 1948 arab israeli war for events after May 15.

Just ask around you when this war started and you will conclude by yourself.

Nb: I don't "invent" names. I use the ones of the experts who know what they talk about.

What would be references for "common usage" ? Alithien 21:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

None of the sources you brought actually refer to it that way, and Google is a good measure of common usage. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Good moorning Jay,

I don't understand what you mean when you write : None of the sources you brought actually refer to it that way. Could you precise your mind ?

My point is that the title of these books refer to the events as The War of Palestine but I don't see your point. Would you expect more from them to be convinced ? ...

Alithien 05:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Those are all book titles, and none of the sources refer to the war as "The 1948 Palestine War", which is the title you are advocating for this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg,

Do you mean that if you agree that in the title of these books we find "war", "Palestine" and a date referring to the period (1947 or 1948), the precise locution "1948 Palestine War" is never used and that is a problem from your point of view ? Alithien 06:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"1948 Palestine War" is a name for a war, just as "Six Day War", or "War of 1812", or "American Civil War". There are alternative names for all of these wars, but Wikipedia uses the most commonly used English names for them. Although a small number of sources do refer to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War as the "1948 Palestine War", none of the book titles you mentioned do so, and by far the most common English name for the war is the "1948 Arab-Israeli War". You can't bring a proof about what "academic" names are for a war from sources that don't actually use that name. 23:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC) [not signed statement by Jayjg]

Hi Jayjg,
Why don't you answer my questions on your talk page ?
I have the feeling you are not of good faith. Unfortunately.
I will provide academic sources (I have them) that use the precise wordings and will proceed to the modifications unless somebody else than you disagrees.
I read many many things about your recent attitude and I didn't believe this but it seems real in practice. I am sorry for that and hope you will come back to a better atttitude. Alithien 08:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have answered your questions. Wikipeda articles go by the common English names, and I have shown here rather conclusively that the common English name is "1948 Arab-Israeli War". Please do not violate WP:CIVIL any further; comment on article content, not other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are the answers of my questions you refused to give :

- 1948 arab-israeli war started on May 15, 1948.

- This is indeed the absence of the precise wordings "1948 Palestine War" that you use as argument to reject the most used (only one ?) expression used by historians and scholars to talk about the events of that period

- Of course you see my point but I have to understand that the arab-israeli war title, if not neutral and not accurate refers more to a way of seeing matter that you prefer.

I have answered my questions for you and I have also in mind your "fair" objections :

- even if Palestine War is more accurate, it is not known like that by a wide public but only by historians and scholars

- the titles you showed as references all use different expressions.

I don't see where I don't have been civil (???) but I can see where you are of bad faith. Once more in fact. This is particularly disappointing to see that now on wikipedia some people prefers to use rules rather to make articles evolve. I didn't realize that but even on the french wiki you are told about (and not by me). So let's stop losing time.

I gather more precise "quotes" to answer the little "good faith" part of your comments.

Alithien 14:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, the article itself lists two phases of the war before May 15, 1948. As far as I can tell, "most historians and scholars" do not use the phrase "1948 Palestine War" to describe the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and even if they did, it wouldn't be relevant, because Wikipedia goes by the common English name, not the extremely uncommon "1948 Palestine War". I fail to see in what way the name "1948 Arab-Israeli" war could possibly be either non-neutral or innacurate. Your comments about my "attitude" are uncivil; in the future please only comment on article content, not about me - this is policy. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The 1948 arab-israeli war started on May 15, 1948 and is uncommon to talk about the events before.

The events between Nov 1947 and the end of 1948 are known as the Palestine War.

Argumentum ad google is not accurate for an encyclopedia. So if you think I am not right, please provide proofs from scholars quote that would describe the full period as the 1948 arab-israeli war and not the Palestine War.

Here are mine simply found simply in some of the books I cite above. Note Efraim Karsh is a pro-Zionist scholar and as well as all the other one, they are the references on the topic of this war.

• Eugene Rogan & Avi Shlaim, The War for Palestine - Rewriting the history of 1948 :

p.1 ! : The introduction of the books starts by The Palestine War lasted less than twenty months, from the United Nations resolution recommending the partition of Palestine in novembre 1947 to the final armistice agreement signed between Israel and Syria in July 1949. The words "Palestine War" is used 8 times in the 4 pages of the introduction.

p.25, Rashid Khalidi writes One of the most recent historian of the Palestine War (...)

p.60, Laila Parsons writes This chapter adresses two questions related to (...) the 1947-49 Arab-Israeli War. (...) The first question is historical : how (...) during the Palestine War ? After she uses only the words Palestine War at least 4 times.

p.228, in the index, the words Arab-Israeli war doesn't not appear. Palestine War appears at least 15 times in different contexts.

• Efraim Karsh, The Arab-Israeli conflit : the Palestine War of 1948 :

p.8 : On novembre 29, 1947 [-description of the events of that period-] (...). Thus begun Palestine War. He then explains it was divided into 2 phases.

p.8 : Within 2 years after of the end of the Palestine War, King Abdallah (...) was assassinated

p.10 : In the timeline of the events. : 8-17 decembre. Arab League summit in Cairo (...) decides to contribute (...) Palestine war effort.

p.22 : The author starts the chapter : Strenghts and Weaknesses of Arabs and Jews by the words : The 1948 Palestine War was no "ordinary" confrontation between two combattants.

p.69 : The author starts the chapter : Trapped on the battlefield by the words There was no more serious defeat for the IDF during the Palestine War than the failure to (...)

Nowhere in his book he uses the words Arab-Israeli War to refer to the period from Dec. 47 to end of 1948 or any other date.

The question is NOW to provide references accepted by wikipedia.

Alithien 08:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're missing Jayjg's point. "1948 Arab-Israeli war" is the common English name for this conflict. You may find more cites to support "1948 Palestine War", but it doesn't matter if the vast majority name it something else. <<-armon->> 10:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't miss it.

Where are sources -from historians- that used "1948 Arab-Israeli war" to describe the events from nov 30, 1947 to the end of that conflict ?

My point in answer to Jayjg's is that "1948 Arab-Israeli war" refers to what happened after May 15 and therefore there are 2 conclusions :

• whether we change the name of the article
• or we move the information concerning what happened before May 15 in 1947-48 Palestinian civil war... Alithien 10:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) I think I understand your concerns but the terminology has changed, whether we agree with it or not. Why would we want to confuse our readers with outdated terms in the title? The Palestinian civil war is what is taking place today between Hamas and Fatah. The current title is adequate. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Humus,

I don't want to confuse reader and I perfectly understand this problem of confusion.

This is rather the only real argument here againt the change of name.

I think 1948 Palestine civil war is not confusing, is it ?

And the 1947-48 Palestinian civil war happened in 1947-48, ... isn't it ?

The question here is how to deal the divergence between "accuracy" and "habits"... Alithien 10:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The current title stayed here since December 2001. The title you offer would be confusing. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

To what article do you refer to when you talk about 2001 ? I don't understand.

And I still don't see how 1948 could make people think we talk about 2001 ??? The dates are different. Alithien 08:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have just understood what you meant.

Yes, the current title stayed here since 2001 and ?

It is not possible to have made mistakes since then ?

So you mean it will be confusing for "contributors" but what about readers, NPoV and accuracy ?

I still claim the "1948 Arab-Israeli War" title could only refer to events that arose after 15 May. The events before have never focused the attention of western world for "good" reasons. It has not been the case any more in scholar's work for 10 years.

So people here have added the events before May 15 in this article.

In fact, whether these events should be moved to 1947-48 Palestinian civil war and that article and this one should be summarized in an article named 1948 Palestine war or this article should be renamed.

With the first solution, the article 1948 Arab-Israeli War doesn't disappear (of course it can't) but it will deal with what it has to.

Alithien 06:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Some statistics

I'm still unsure about the naming. Here is a survey of scholarship, literature, and news-media. Tewfik^Talk 15:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Search term	Scholarship	Literature	News-media
"1948 Arab-Israeli war"	337	344	33
"1948 Palestine War"	101	139	0
"1947-48 Palestinian Civil War"	0	0	0

Hi Tewfit,

a google search isn't accurate here.

Indeed, when you looked for : "1948 arab-israeli war" : did it talk about what happens after May 15 of after Nov 30 ? (the answer is in the link you give...)

In practice, most historiens talk about the "(1948) Palestine War" that had 2 phases : a "civil war" and the "first arab-israeli war".

These are 3 different things.

How do you want to name and article talking about the phase of the civil war ?

Alithien 17:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the most proper terms would be :

• 1948 Palestine War

• 1948 Civil War in the British Mandate of Palestine
• 1948 Arab-Israeli War

Alithien 18:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understood your point. Regardless, while this isn't definitive proof, it isn't a Google search either, but rather a search of scholarly works, literature, and news media, respectively. Tewfik^Talk 18:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tewfik,

You have found, with google.scholar 337 times the words "1948 Arab-Israeli War" and 101 times the words "1948 Palestine War" in many referenced books.

Ok. But these are 2 different things as you would notice it if you read these books (not just looking for words in them)... :-(

The "1948 Arab-Israeli War" is (most of time) the war that started 15 May 1948 and the "1948 Palestine War" is the war that started on 30 November 1947. The first one is a part of the second one. And the difference is a civil war between jewish and arabs inhabitants of Palestine during the last 6 months of the British Mandate between 30 Nov and 15 May.

That's all.

Alithien 21:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

To be convinced :

1. Think about what would mean "Israel" before May 14, 1948...

2. You can find this explained with other words also here : : see the text in black. This is the "back-cover" of a book about the 1948 Palestine War written By Yoav Gelber (who is far from being a new historian). Alithien 21:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Introducction

Seen this warring for a while. The most important and substantial controversy, looked like the introduction. Of course, by the time I had finished writing my version, the other version had reappeared! Both versions have accuracy, citation and neutrality problems. First, Lebanese forces are given undeserved prominence; according to Morris, the Lebanese army never actually entered Palestine! The numbers aren't cited. I replaced them with Morris's, whose prose is quite neutral. The only Arab force that penetrated the borders of the proposed Jewish state to any depth was one of the Egyptian forces crossing the Negev to Beersheba. Complexities like this should not be fought over in an introduction, unless one can find a way to state them very briefly and neutrally.Cowardly 23:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This is simply incorrect. The Syrian army conducted ALL its military operation in the war in the territory allocated to the Jewish state. Lebanese forces took part in the battle to capture Malkiya. Isarig 01:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you about the Syrians. It is just that they never got very far, which is what I meant above "to any depth" in talk. My edit didn't say one thing or another on these points. If you draw a completely accurate picture that incorporates the facts and arguments in the other side's version too, you get something too long for an intro; that kind of productive edit-warring should be done in the body of the article. That's what the body of the article is for. Remember, this article isn't supposed to be read only by experts. According to Morris, the Lebanese army never crossed the border. Lebanese, Palestinian and Syrian irregulars were the ones who fought at Malkiya. They "were backed logistically and with mortars, by regular troops" but "...at the last minute, Gen. Fuad Shihab, and Col. Adel Shihab, the commander of the unit desginated to cross the border, resisted the politicians blandishments and refused to march." (Morris, 2001 pp 233-234). I wrote something that is short and avoids all this. As far as I can tell, the earlier numbers aren't cited anywhere in the article. Do you have any problem with what I actually wrote? - which I tried to make acceptable to the other side too. I was just trying to explain above why I cut out the particular things I did.Cowardly 04:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

yes, i have several problems with what you wrote, which is why I reverted it - as I think your version is worse than the previous ones. Specifically, you introduce POV by saying the Arab armies invaded 'Palestine' - an entity which did not exist - rather than invaded Israel, which is what they did. The Lebanese troops, while smaller in size than some of the other invading Arab forces armies, constituted nearly 1/3 of the full size of the Lebanese army of the time, so describing them as a 'handful' is misleading. Your version further glosses over an important distinction between the actions of the Arab Legion - which fought only in the Corpus Seperatum and the areas alloted to the Arab states, and those of the other Arab armies, which invaded the parts alloted to the Jewish state. Isarig 04:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Labeling previous edits is not the way to resolve issues, please discuss prior to reverting.Traveller75 06:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Traveller75

Isarig, Palestine, on any definition had existed the day before the invasion. It still existed geographically, if not politically. Conceivably it could have had further existence politically. Not using the word leads to circumlocutions. Would "the former Mandate" be better?. I intentionally omitted over the Jordan vs others distinction in order to avoid POV and excessive length. The distinction should be made in the article, not here. If you make that important point, one should supply caveats, as I sketched, or the other POV will try to say something like their version. Do you really find my version more objectionable than the other one you reverted? I am quoting Morris when I say"Palestine" or "handful", and following him closely in general. 1,000 Lebanese troops is simply false, the proper figure being zero, or disputed and so inappropriate for an intro, in any case very unimportant, . Morris is the one who says no Lebanese troops (which anyone would take to mean regular army units) ever entered Palestine/Israel, and only a "handful" of Lebanese irregulars did. Again, where do the other numbers come from? If you need something about that point how about "The Jordanians fought only in the areas alloted to the Arab state and Jerusalem. Of the other armies, only one Egyptian army managed to penetrate more than a short distance into the Jewish state." Since Traveller75 reverted to my version, I'll try to adopt your criticisms as far as I understand them; since both sides before me wanted to say something about where the troops were in relation to the UN plan, I'll use my proposal too, although I think it is too much for an intro.Cowardly 08:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No, what existed until May 15 was a British mandate, not 'Palestine' - which was a geographic designation with no precise boundries, and as such , does not make sense in the context of an invasion, as those imprecise boundries of teh geographic desigantionincluded part of the terrirotreis of teh countries inavding. The article itself says 1000 Lebanese troops, so calling that false and introducing that into teh intor is not only flase , it is POV. I see tha tyou are quoting Morris, and that's part of the problem. Morris is a controversial revisionist historian, so it is by definition POV to use his words in the intro. Isarig 21:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

As everybody knows, the POV is to write "the Arab armies".
Why does nobody try to read a little bit on the subject instead of defending POV he heard ?
We don't have to decide if "Palestine" existed or not. If someone wants to prove it existed, he just has to bring proofs citing primary sources (eg from uno using the word) or secondary sources from historians.
I wonder if it will be hard to find reference about a "Partition plan of Palestine..." :-)
Poor wikipedia. Alithien 08:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The introduction contains significant omissions and misleading claims. First, fighting did not start on 15 May 1948. Before 'Israel' was declared, there was substantial fighting between the Zionists and Palestinian Arabs which resulted in the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians as Simha Flapan shows. Case in point, Zionist extremists attacked attacked Jaffa in April 1948, expelling tens of thousands. The Zionists proceeded to seize territory which they were not assigned by the recommendation of the UN General Assembly. That the version I penned is being systematically reverte is vandalism given how well sourced it is. Collier's Year Book encyclopedia from 1948 writes:

The Arab armies took over the Arab parts of Palestine: Egyptians in the south and in the Jerusalem sector; Transjordanians in the southwest and in Jerusalem; the Legion, Iraqis, and Syrians on the long western front; and Lebanese in the north. But only a very few Jewish settlements fell to the Arabs, and a number of them were later recaptured by the Israelis.

Nemda 23:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is true that there was fighting between Israeli and Arab militias before the official establishment of the state of Israel. To say that Jewish militias were the only ones attacking is simply untrue. For example, the worst massacre against civilians of the entire war was perpetrated by Arab militias. It was the attack against the Hadassa convoy on April 13, 1948. Moreover, to say that Jewish militias expelled Arabs is making a very strong assertion. The question of whether they were expelled, or encouraged by their own leaders to leave, or left of their own will or whatever else may have happened is a matter of quite some contention (see Palestinian Exodus). I respect your desire to make the intro more comprehensive and descriptive, but intros are intended to be vague, and by their nature cannot include details such as what I have just discussed. Farther down in the article, this might be appropriate, if carefully worded and well sourced. Screen stalker 00:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The only Arab force that penetrated the borders of the proposed Jewish state to any depth was one of the Egyptian forces crossing the Negev to Beersheba.

Even though Egypt may have crossed what was considered "Israel" in 1948, this is still presented in a misleading way. The Negev desert is a wasteland with extremely low population density: Beershaba and Hebron in 1946 each contained a 99% Arab population in 1946, exceeding even Gaza which at the time was 98% Arab. The only effective way for Egypt to have reached the core of Palestine would have been to cross the Negev.
Nemda 18:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Please.

It is not because an army is not well organised enough to fulfil the targets of his politicians that it doesn't attack a country.

Leban and Syrian armies tried to enter Galilee panhandle, Iraki army attacked Gesher, Arab Legion attacked Gush Etzion on May 13 and entered Jerusalem area on May 19. Egyptians attacked Ramat Rachel on May 21 and will control whole Negev up to the end of the year.

Any one of these events is a casus belli but Israel has her own ones too. Alithien 18:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Flags

Does anyone have an objection for me placing the Palestinian flag or the British Mandate of Palestine flag besides the Holy War Army (its membership and leadership is made up of Palestinians)

And the Arab League Flag besides the Arab Liberation Army because it was founded by the Arab League to counter the Holy War Army. - Al Ameer son

For ALA, ok.

For Jihad al-Muqadas, if you place the British Mandate Flag, you should do this for Haganah, Palmach, Irgoun and Lehi too :-)

Note that it was also composed of foreign volunteers from Bosnia but most of them were Arab Palestinians.

Did they have a flag ? I quite sure not.

Note your question is interesting because Jihad al-Muqadas didn't take part of the 1948 Arab-Israeli part but only of the civil war during the 6 last months of the British Mandate of Palestine... Alithien 17:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok in that case I will just do that for the ALA, Thanks --Al Ameer son

Mossad

"The SHAI, the intelligence and counter-espionage arm of the Haganah, was the forebear of Mossad.[15]" The SHAI evolved into AMAN (IDF's Military Intelligence) during the war and the SHAI commander Isser Be'eri became the first head of AMAN. The Mossad was only created at December 1949, after the war had ended. I think that changing the line to "was the forebear of Israel's Intelligence Services" is far better. 88.154.135.216 17:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian Civil War

Currently the article Palestinian Civil War redirects to the Fatah-Hamas conflict, and there's no doubt that this is currently the most common association. However, the first phase of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War was also referred to as the Palestinian Civil War, especially at that time. Therefore, for the sake of timelessness, I suggest making Palestinian Civil War a disambiguation page. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 05:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea.

And there was a third "Palestinian civil war" in 1936-1939, which is usually referred as the Great Arab Revolt Alithien 06:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

nb: just wait for a few days because there is a "survey" to change the title 1947-48 Palestinian Civil War in 1948 civil war in the British Mandate of Palestine for the same reasons as you suggest but I think we could do both. Alithien 06:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't even know that there was an article about the 1947-48 war (thought it was part of the 1948 war article). Thanks for the notice. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Replacement

I suggest to replace this section : [4] by this one : [5]
Alithien 14:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I proceed given the lack of reaction... Alithien 07:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Pov edits

Isarig, why would my modifications be pov edits ? Alithien 06:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sevral reasons: (1) when one country's military forces "enter" the territory of another, uninvited, that is called an invasion. That's what the article used to say, and you bizzarly changed that into "entered", with an edit suammry that syas they did not invade. (20 You removed a well known photgraph documenting the end of the war with the spurios claim that the photo is "POV" (3) you removed well known and undisputed facts about the course of the war, for no apparent reason. Isarig 17:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

(1) It is more complex. For most of them, they didn't penetrate on the Israeli territory but only on the arab territory. And if some intended to attack Israel, others didn't.

Another problem is the step-by-step process of mutual invasion.

During the civil war (before may 48 and what you called invasion), Yichouv took Jaffa (which was in Arab territory and which is an invasion) but on the other side palestinians blocked traffic on israeli territories and arab volunteers armed by arab league entered (not invaded) palestine (if they had invaded, it wuld have been an act of war against British...)

To go on in the complexity : on May 13 (2 days before 15), Hagannah took Acre and entered all west of Galilea up to Lebanon during operation BenAmi. This is too an invasion, before "arab one" BUT in the context we know.

Let's not forget Kfar Etzion (Arab Legion who attack a jewish kibboutz on arab territory when still under british rule) and Deir Yassin (Jewish milices who attack an arab village on international territory still under british rule).

And finally to end with the picture : Arab legion troops were already everywhere on the territory far before may 15 because they were parts of mandatory police forces (how to interpretate this concerning in the context of Kfar Etzion ?)

Note this is not personal research : I took care to see what scholar write about that. And except Morris (yes, funny), they don't talk about invasion of Israel...

So what ? Do you think "Arab invaded Israel on May 15" is NPoV ? How should we write this ?

(2) This photo is not neutral because it has (unfortunately) been widely used by israeli historiography for propaganda purposes. Note I didn't delete it but put back a former one : a map showing the arab armies movement (invasion, entry, ...).

Do you agree the more neutral the better ?

Do you agree the map is more neutral than the photo ?

If not, why ?

(3) what "well known" fact ? If this is the fact that the officeers were purposedly retired (for this war) I want a source because I never read that and I read many books on the topic . Unfortunately, the one who introduced this material didn't give the source.

Alithien 07:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(1)This is simply false. The Egyptian army invaded the territory of the Jewish state. The Syrian Army conducted every single one of its battles in the territory of the Jewish state. The Lebanese army invaded the territory of the Jewish state. The only army that did not was the Arab Legion, and even it did not limit itself to the "arab state" - but invaded the corpus seperatum. All of this is spelled out in the version you deleted.

(2)Even if true that the photo was used by some for propaganda (where?) It does not make the photo itself 'POV'. Similar photos (of victorious armies) are in just about every WP war article.

(3) I was not referring to that issue, but rather to your removal of " tens of thousands of Palestinian Arab irregulars fought under the command of Haj Amin el-Husseini , a former Colonel in the [[Waffen SS]". Isarig 15:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(1) You forgot the Iraki army who tried to enter Israel's territory but didn't succeed. The main column of the Egyptian army entered by Gaza and was stopped at Ashdod in Arab territory; the other column crossed (and invaded) Israel's territory but fixed in Arab territory and in the area of Jerusalem (corpus separatum). We know fot the Arab Legion. The Lebanese didn't participate to the war. Some lebanese troops occupied 2 villages in the north of the country.

But what about the other points I explained you. You didn't comment ?

I ask my question again : what words to use to explain this situation ?

(2) Why this propaganda photo is better than the map ? I explained you why I thought it was worse.

(3a) After May 15, he had no more troops to command. He has been defeated by Hagannah in April and his men where disarmed by Arab Legion or forced enroled by Egyptians. He has far less than 10,000 men.

(3b) Why is the fact he was colonel in the SS is relevant here ? Alithien 07:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(1) The Syrian forces invaded Israel. The Egyptian forced invaded Israel (the fact that some of their forces were stopped in Arab territory before achieving their stated goal of reaching Tel Aviv does not change that fact). The Lebanese forces invaded and captured two villages. That theirs was a "small scale" invasion does not change the fact that they invaded. Please don't white wash this invasion with the incorrect term "entered". Your other points are irrelevant to the fact that the invasion occurred, as described in the article.

(2)Maps and photos serve different purposes, and are not a replacement for one another. The map is good, and should be included in the article, perhaps in the section describing the 1st phase of the war. But there is no reason to use it instead of an appropriate photo.

(3)There is an entire section in the article about him and his forces, and their (disputed) size is irrelevant. His being a colonel in the SS seems important as there is a claim (made later in the article) that Arab forces, and irregulars in particular, were ill-trained and poorly equipped, so it seems important to note that they were led by a high ranking officer. Isarig 15:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(1) I agree entered is not better than invaded. But how would you neutralize the current wording that give to readers an image of the situation which is not real" ? Do you want we write just before that Haganah invaded the Arab state in May 13 (BenAmi operation) when they took Acre and Western Galilea ? The picture there is ONE invader and ONE defender is not accurate. There real picture is that there is was mess, a crazy civil war (100 deaths/month on a population of 2,000,000 - just compare with Iraq today) and that Israel had defeated Palestinians (Barouk HaChem).

(2) The map is neutral ; the photo is not (you agreed that)

Both are important : I agree that.

So, maybe the map should be use as the picture #1 in the article and the ohter should be place in the section dealing with Uvda operation... What do you think ?

(3) Do you mean Husseini was a good stratege and this should be pointed out to balance the image the Palestinians were "weak" ? Please ! He was a poor politician and he had given the command of his "troops" to his nephew, abd-al kader al-Huseyni (sorry for the spelling).

Alithien 08:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

(1)I disagree that using the word "invasion" is non-neutral or gives an image of a situation that's not real. 3 of the 5 armies invaded Israel, 1 more invaded the Corpus separtaum, and the 5th tried, but was foiled, in his attempt to invade. "Invasion" is the correct terms,and is used in most texts that describe that war. On May 13th, the territory was part of the British Mandate, there was no "arab state" that the Haganah invaded . Even on the 15th there was no such state - The Arabs rejected the plan, and did not declare a state.

(2)I did no agree that the photo is POV. Many such photos appear al lover WP war articles. See for example Battle of Iwo Jima. The map describes only the first phase of the war, and was placed in the appropriate section. Isarig 14:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

(3) I don't know if Husseini was a good commander, and it's not my place (or yours) to evaluate him. I do know he was a colonel, and that's what the article says. Isarig 14:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

(1) So I can add Haganah attacked first with BenAmi. Ok.

Could you supply a references from scholars where it is written "Arab states invaded Israel" ? Thank you. Alithien 22:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

(2) Why yours rather than mine ? I suggest a vote.

(3) You said it was relevant to say he was rank officeer because Palestinian was described as badly trained. Now you say we don't have to evaluate his ability as commander. Why is it relevant that he was colonel ? Alithien 22:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

(1)No, you may not add that , as it's incorrect. A civil war had been raging form months (since at least Nov 29, 47), and it was the Arabs who fired the first shots in that war. It is a bit disingenuous of you to ask for a scholarly source using the word invasion, having already conceded 3/5 of the Arab armies did indeed invade, bus as such references are trivial to find, I'll humor you:

"from late March until the invasion of the Arab armies in mid-MaY" - Palestine, 1948: War, Escape and the Emergence of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, Gelber, Yoav, p. 85

(2) WP is not a democracy, and not run by votes. If you can't make a case for the removal of the photo, it stays.

(3) Colonels are high ranking army officers, and presumed competent. If there are reliable sources (not you or me) that discuss his competence - feel free to add that discussion in the relevant section. Isarig 22:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

(1) I appreciate that humor. Right.

If I gather several -reliable- sources on that topic, do you agree we respect NPoV and write something in accordance with the different mind ? I would appreciate a "clear" answer.

(2) Funny : ...If I can't make a case... My argument is that is not NPoV and where use for propaganda (which you agree with).

Wikipedia is not a democracy but it is not either a dictature...

Could you summarize your arguments for this image and we ask somebody to mediate this case ?

(3) You don't answer my question, Isarig. Why is this information relevant ? Is it because he is assumed to be "competent" and balance the picture that palestinian forces would have been weak ? Do you think we should work in the introduction to balance the image of the relative forces engaged in the war ?

Alithien 07:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(1)There is no humor there. You made an incorrect statement, which I corrected, and you asked for a scholarly refernce that describes the Arb armies' action as an "invasion", which I provided.

(2)My case is simple, and has been made here before: This photo is well known and symbolic of the end of the war, and simialr such photos are used all over WP. There is nothign POV about it.

(3)I answered your question. It is factual that he was a colonel, and it is factual that he commanded the irregualrs. What part o fthis so upsets you that you feel it must be excised from the article?Isarig 21:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(1) your wrote : "I'll humor you" ; you don't answer for source. You don't answer for Ben'Ami. I conclude you agree. I proceed. - (2) you admitted it was used for propaganda. You don't answer about mediator. - (3) you don't answer about why you consider it is relevant. You just say it is true, which I don't contest. Do you see the difference ?

Alithien 08:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is getting bizzare, and I suspect that this is partly due to the fact that you don't understand English very well. (1) "I'll humor you" does not mean I'm going to tell a joke or a funny story. is an English idiom which means "I will entertain a request which really shouldn't be made". You had already conceded at that point that 3 of the 5 Arab armies had invaded, but still required me to provide you with a scholarly source that used the word "invasion. That I promptly did, using a source (Gelber) that you are obviously familiar with,[since you used it extensively in your edits on this article and others related to the 1948 war (see below for some examples)] and so already knew he calls it an invasion. With regards to Ben Ami - I have no problem with you documenting that operation, but you may not call it an invasion, as no country was invaded, and you may not describe it as the Haganah starting a war, becuase a civil war had been raging for months at that point, a war started by the Arabs. (2) I have not admitted the image was used for propaganda, I said that even if it had, this would still not be grounds for its removal. If you want to take this to mediation, go ahead, you don't need my approval for it. I suggest you put up an RfC, as a starting point. (3)I've told why I consider it relevant. You have not answered why you think this factual information should be removed. Isarig 16:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Isarig,

Yes, I didn't know the verb "humor". This is my mistake.

I agree more or less about what you write concerning BenAmi too.

Nevertheless, I come back on Gelber. I knew I could not have been wrong about the "invasion of Israel". Gelber is talking about the invasion of Palestine ! See for exemple the ch.8 titled : "The Arab Regular armies invasion of Palestine". So does Benny Morris in Victims (eg on the map p.241 in French version).

You note that scholar do not agree with your argument that "Palestine" could not have been invaded and so, BenAmi and the fall of Jaffa could be considered as in invasion (even if I will not write such things not to make a WP:POINT).

No you didn't answer Isarig... On my side I already answer : this should be removed because this is not relevant. I assume that if you don't answer, mediator will consider you are of bad faith, what you would not like to make think, isn't it ?

Alithien 17:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

How is the name and rank of the commander of the irregular arb forces not relevant? Isarig 17:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Isarig,

Ask a question to a Jew... :-)

In a pilpoul, not answering a question means "you are right", right ? ;-)

Just look at the table below the picture we discussed about : [[6]], you will see Haj amin was not the commander. It was his nephew... Abd al Kader al-Husseini.

And even. To respect NPoV, that would also mean we should give the rank of all Haganah officeers. We can write an article only with that...

Now we know that Gelber didn't talk about the invasion of Israel but about the invasion of Palestine, I add that in Morris, Victims, he writes that Acre and West Galilea were conquered(!) by Haganah.

I would suggest we don't enter these details and we write something like the arab armies intervened on 15 may in invading Palestine and attacking Israel. What do you think about that ? Alithien 09:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I find your recent personal comments inappropriate. To answer all your questions: there is no shortage of scholarly sources describeing an invasion of Israel . A simple Googel Scolar search will bring up "invasion of Israel by surrounding Arab countries" [S Carmi, H Rosenfeld - International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 1989]; "1948 Arab state invasion of Israel " [J Slater - Political Science Quarterly, 2001]; "the invasion of Israel in May that year" [Arab Armies of the Middle East Wars 1948-73, J Laffin], "the armed invasion of Israel by her Arab neighbours on 15 May 1948" [S Teveth - Middle Eastern Studies, 1990] these are just the first few that come up on the first page of the search. There are hundreds more. So I do not see a goodreason to change this well docuemnted schoalrly term with some whitewashed one. Isarig 17:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Gelber is not a whitewasher historian. You even used him as reference a few lines above.

It is just a question of pov.

There are also hundreds of references with "invasion of Palestine" for 1948 events : [7].

NPoV means all poved must be expressed.

So what ? Do we write "invaded Palestine and Israel" ?

Alithien 19:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

We can write 'Invaded Israel, the Corpus Seperatum and territories alloted to the futire Arab state". Isarig 19:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. What would you think about something like this :

By the end of May, the arab armies had invaded the territory of the former British mandate. The Transjordanians fought only in the areas alloted to the Arab state and in the corpus seperatum of Jerusalem, while the Syrians, Egyptians, Iraqis and Lebanese invaded Israel

Alithien 20:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions about civil war section

Since the Jewish population was under strict orders obliging them to hold their dominions at all costs

Orders from Whom? I don't have access to the citation given. If there was some supreme authority giving orders to Jews during this period it would certainly be notable. "Jewish Notables" perhaps? 24.64.165.176 05:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, this is more detailed in the main article (this is a synthesis). It is written :

The possibility of evacuating these difficult to defend zones was considered, but the policy of Haganah was set by David Ben-Gurion. He stated that 'what the Jewish people have has to be conserved. No Jewish person should abandon his or her house, farm, kibbutz or job without authorisation. Every outpost, every colony, whether it is isolated or not, must be occupied as though it were Tel Aviv itself' ^[1].

The source is the French version of Lapierre and Collins. The precise quote states :

"« Ce que tiennent les Juifs doit être conservé. Aucun Juif ne doit abandonner son domicile, sa ferme, son kibboutz ou son travail sans autorisation. Chaque avant-poste, chaque colonie, chaque village, quel qu’en soit l’isolement, doit être occupé comme s’il s’agissait de Tel-Aviv même. »

The traduction here is -I think- completely fair.

I think (am quite sure) that Gelber talks also about that policy when he comments the fall of Kfar Etzion (in Palestine 1948). He explains this policy was valuable against militias but not when fighting regular armies.

Unfortunately, I think neither L&C nor Gelber give the "document" on which they base to say that. This could be verified and is certainly interesting but is maybe not needed at our level.

Hope this helps, Alithien 07:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Due to funds gathered by Golda Meir from sympathisers in the United States

Hi IP24,
The source is in the main article.

• Lapierre and Collins have a full chapter about the 25,000,000 of US$ gathered by Golda Meir in the US (in December 47).
• Benny Morris states that among the 129 000 000 $ gathered between october 1947 et march 1949, more than 78 000 000 will be used to buy weapons. (Victims, p.240 in the French version).
• Here is a primary source about Golda speech named The Speech that made possible a Jewish State. L&C refers to it in their book and a summary can be found there.

More information have been gathered here : fr:Problématique du matériel lors de la guerre de Palestine de 1948 but it is still incomplete and in French. Alithien 07:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The Trans-Jordanian Frontier Force

A little known unit that was disbanded in April of 1948 was involved in some initial fighting. This very interesting unit was composed of local Palestinian Arabs who were trained to do border patrol work during the Mandate, it was modelled on the Arab legion, but was not composed of Bedouin. Michel Issa, a leader in the ALA during the war, led a company of these soldiers in the battle at Jaffa and Walid Khalidi has documented his important role in this battle.

I added a small bit of info about this unit and a link, but it turns out nothing has been written on it, I suggest that someone write a page on it, or when I get aorund to it I will.Seth J. Frantzman 21:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)