Talk:1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1947-48 Palestinian civil war

I have noticed no article on the 1947-48 Palestinian civil war, though the French Wikipedia has a featured article on the subject. Anyone think they would be up to the task of beginning the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Twas Now (talk • contribs) 06:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Does this article (1948 Arab-Israeli War) cover it? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Someone did create such an article recently. See 1947-48 Palestinian civil war. It was just turned into a redirect because of its lack of development. I have just done some searches and found a few references and listed them here: Talk:1947-48 Palestinian civil war#Sources. Also Ian Pitchford rated the article as being of High importance, thus it may be something worth revisiting. --Abnn 22:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources

The article, which was just turned into a redirect, was very poor.

Not sure if there are enough sources for such an article, but there does seem to be an indication that the 1947-1948 civil war differs from the later 1948 Arab-Israeli war.

Here is a source from the Jewish Virtual Library:

"The Jewish-Palestinian civil war, December 1947 – May 1948
The outbreak of hostilities and their expansion; the Palestinians'organization for war; the intervention of the Arab League; shaping theJews' war policy; the nature of the civil war and its outcomes."[www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/isdf/syl/IsraelWars_YoavGelber.pdf]

From FindArticles:

"The `Haifa Turning Point': The British Administration and the Civil War in Palestine, December 1947-May 1948.
On 14 May 1948, the mandate which had been awarded to Britain by the League of Nations to govern Palestine expired. The run-up to the end of British rule was marked by long months of a Palestinian civil war between Jews and Arabs, which significantly affected the manner in which Britain concluded its mission in Palestine. The war, which lasted from December 1947 until May 1948, was inevitably influenced by the fact that British rule, including the civil administration, the police, and the army, continued to exist formally until the middle of May. The prevailing argument in the ..." [1]

From Zeitgerchichtische:

"For the most part, Arab territorial aspirations eyed the territory designated by the 1947 UN partition plan as part of the future Palestinian Arab state. This pursuance of limited aims was the result of the belief held by the heads of the Arab regimes and their armies at a time when they were not capable, as individual combatants or as a coalition, of defeating Israel’s mili-tary, which had demonstrated its effectiveness during the civil war of 1947/48." [2]

--Abnn 22:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Conversations copied from elsewhere

Palestine-related noticeboard

I have noticed no article on the 1947-48 Palestinian civil war, though the French Wikipedia has a featured article on the subject. Anyone think they would be up to the task of beginning the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Twas Now (talk • contribs) 06:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Does this article (1948 Arab-Israeli War) cover it? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Someone did create such an article recently. See 1947-48 Palestinian civil war. It was just turned into a redirect because of its lack of development. I have just done some searches and found a few references and listed them here: Talk:1947-48 Palestinian civil war#Sources. Also Ian Pitchford rated the article as being of High importance, thus it may be something worth revisiting. --Abnn 22:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello gentlemen,
I wrote most of the french version of this article.
The article 1948 Arab-Israeli War on the english wikipedia covers indeed that period but there is a pertinence disagreement around this.
From my understanding, the
1948 Palestine war is divided into 2 phases:
That sounds quite logical : Israel only existed after May 14, 1948 and the conflit started on Nov 30, 1947. Former israeli historiography had forgotten the period in-between and main historians specialized on the subject and (with different sensitivities) name this conflict that way today (eg. Efraim Karsh, Avi Shlaim, fr:Henry Laurens, Ilan Pappe, Eugene Rogan and most palestinian ones. Others such as Benny Morris talks about the 1948 War and Yoav Gelber who used the usual version of 1948 Arab-Israeli War even if the title of his book is Palestine 1948...
All of them nevertheless cleary cut the war into 2 periods : a civil war (sic) and a regular war
On the French wp, the current compromise is the following :
I am not confident that this solution could gather consensus here on the english wikipedia where there is some opposition to that (see talk page of 1948 Arab-Israeli war
Alithien 19:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you can try to write the article in userspace and bring it up here. Many times even legitimate articles are deleted because they are underdeveloped and in a contentious area. People tend to assume the worst. The way to counteract that bias against new articles in contentious areas is to create a relatively fully developed article that makes it blindingly obvious to all that an article on that subject is justified. It is only the short poorly referenced articles that can easily be deleted or turned into redirects. Often you don't have time to create a well developed article in mainspace thus you can start in userspace. Lots of references is key to success. --Abnn 21:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Abnn talk page

Hell Abnn,
I have just seen your message dated May 10 on Talk:1947-48 Palestinian civil war.
Efraim Karsh and Yoav Gelber in books dedicated to this war used the words "civil war" to describe the period from Nov 30 to May 14. Benny Morris, in Victims (...) uses them too.
I will report them on the talk page. I think with what you got yourself, we have enough material to source the title 1947-48 Palestinian civil war.
Regards, Alithien 06:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

NB: I fully agree with your comments about sources and the idea of expanding this article in a dedicated area before to introduce it. The French version is sourced and well developed (fr:Guerre civile en Palestine de 1947-1948) but unfortunately my English is too poor so that I can translate this.
Regards, Alithien 06:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I will be adding to this soon. I will have the entire french article translated into english soon.--James, La gloria è a dio 14:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Alithien 07:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


Requested move

1947-48 Palestinian Civil War → 1947-1948 civil war in the British Mandate of Palestine — The title should be made less confusing, especially in the light of Palestinian Civil War and other Palestinian topics. — ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support: Sure; I don't oppose it! It's a bit of a long-winded title, but I agree with the points that you make about differentiating modern Palestine with the Palestinian mandate. If we're changing it, though, one might want to make it '1947-1948 Civil War in the British Mandate of Palestine,' so that it would be in line with the other civil war articles, all of which capitalise civil war. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 07:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: We can discuss between "1947-48" or "1947-1948" or "1948" and about the capitals or not but I think this is indeed better on the accuracy point of view. Alithien 17:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments: ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I would then suggest : 1948 Civil War in the British Mandate of Palestine and we "forget" the month of december like the year 1949 is "forgotten" for the 1948 Arab-Israeli war Alithien 14:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Why not 1947-1948 Civil War in Palestine? - the same as the name in the French wiki. (Or 1947-48 Palestine Civil War?) Much less long-winded. I think forgetting the year is not as good as for the other war, because the starting year is more important and serves to distinguish the two. John Z 21:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
A remark : I have just noticed all articles about civil wars (in the list given here above by it is just a genitive) have the form "somewherean civil war"... Maybe a dysambiguitation page should be justified. I am aware of 3 civil wars in Palestine : the great arab revolt of 1936-1939; this one discussed in this article and the recent one... Alithien 06:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I just came to this page and I'm truly shocked. For once, a genuinely dispassionte, NPOV introduction to an article on the Is-Pal conflict!

Don't know who is responsible for this, but they have my congratulations :) Gatoclass 02:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Alithien is the culprit who wrote most of the French article. It's not a genitive translated it. Eventually everybody should work hard to bring it down to the usual food-fight edit war. There's nothing about how the other side hatched an evil plot in Antarctica in the 3rd millennium BCE. It's just no fun as it is, it is definitely the wrong version, and makes everybody else look bad, grrrr.  :-)John Z 07:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the acknowledgement. It was indeed Althien who put a lot of effort and research into the original French article. Mine was a comparatively minor role, of giving up a few days to translate a large document that had repelled other translators, but which I rather enjoyed! --It's-is-not-a-genitive 13:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC).
As for its being the wrong version, I'm right ahead of you. I'll misattribute claims that [one of the sides] intended to take over Liechtenstein or something to start getting it back on track. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 13:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Conflict ongoing?

The infobox says that the conflict is ongoing, while the article contradicts it by saying that the conflict ended on May 14, 1948. The latter is true, because this article talks about the war between the Jewish Yishuv and several Arab 'liberation' armies in Palestine, which merged into the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Therefore, I propose putting 'Merged into 1948 Arab-Israeli War' into the result instead. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 11:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Just realized that the infobox talked about the Arab-Israeli conflict in general. In that case, we should change the entire infobox, to focus on the conflict that this article is about, and not something entirely different. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 11:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, there! The infobox is about Arab-Israeli conflict and thus is not 'entirely different'... indeed, the French version, from which I translated this article, has a very similar infobox that covers the whole of the Arab-Israeli conflict. You're right though, that it is too general, going by the fact that other episodes of conflict on the English WP each have their own personal userbox, and was put there provisionally until someone a new one was made by someone with better userbox creation skills than I. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 12:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello !
There is an important matter I would like to underline. We cannot merge this in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. In fact, both 1947-48 Palestinian Civil War and 1948 Arab-Israeli War must be merged into 1948 Palestine War.
From my point of view, this is important for accuracy and neutrality. Alithien 13:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
About the current userbox: could one really go so far as to say that the United Kingdom were one of the combatants? Given that their main activity during the war was getting on out of there, I wouldn't say so personally. Also, it strikes me as somewhat reductive to claim that the war was between Jewish people and Arabs, and I feel that it would be better if we provided the individual organisations involved in the war. I can make such changes if you all approve. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 10:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It is a civil war that developed step by step to a regular one. I don't think British should be considered combattants. I would personnally add something like :
  • militias involved on the palestinian jewish side : Haganah, Irgun, Palmach and Lechi (from 10,000 men in december to 30,000 men in May)
  • militias involved in the palestinian arab side : Jidah al-Muqadas, arab volunteers from Arab Liberation Army (no more than 10,000 men)
  • British troops and auxillieres responsible of the order : 1st infantery division, 61st infantery brigade, 8th infantery brigade, 2 mecanised regiments, several artillery regiments, Arab Legion contingents, several RAF squadrons (around 100,000 men leaving the country).
nb: references should be needed.
Alithien 13:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Title

It seems there is a disagreement on the title.
Humus, after some discussion modified this to 1948 Civil War in the British Mandate of Palestine. Main reason was that it avoided misunderstanding with the current meaning of the word Palestine and with the current civil war.
Ian reverted to 1947-48 Civil War in Palestine, arguing that the British Mandate of Palestine is not a pertinent name for the region and that Palestine is the most pertinent one.
I don't have a final mind about that but to keep some logical, we should take a decision because I mind changing the title of all the links related to this article :-(
I think -indeed- that for many people, the use of the word Palestine here is strange because its meaning has changed. On the other hand, it was named Palestine at that time. See eg Palestine Post but on the other hand see British Mandate of Palestine.
Your mind ? Alithien 10:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems nobody minds :-(.
I sincerely don't know. From my point of view :
  • 1948 Civil War in Palestine is valuable because it is short and simple even if there could be some misunderstanding with the use of Palestine. Today most of people see behing this word the palestinian state where in this article, it is an geographic area...
  • 1948 Civil War in the British Mandate of Palestine is - I think - more accurate but long, maybe be uselessly long...
user:Ian Pitchford wrote second one is not pertinent but I - sincerely - don't understand why...
There are critics when Palestine is chosen and critics when British Mandate of Palestine is chosen, does somebody have a compromise or comments ? Alithien 18:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It could, with considerable objectivity and historical accuracy, be called Western Palestine (or perhaps, for the most scholarly, "cis-Jordan"). Thanks for your message, and ongoing efforts. Hertz1888 19:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The term British Mandate is an historical one. Obviously the region is now called Palestine. Bear in mind also that "Palestine" and "Palestinian" most often refer to the Palestinian Authority (PA) and PA citizens.

A pro-Arab Wikipedian and I (a pro-Israel Wikipedian) worked together to create Definitions of Palestine a few years back. --Uncle Ed 04:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The British Mandate of Palestine didn't terminate until May 1948 according to the wiki article on same. So to me, "1947-8 Civil War in the British Mandate of Palestine" seems technically correct. And even if NOT the precisely correct term, it does prevent any misleading implications or confusion about the modern usage of the term "Palestine"; using a historical term for it to me is like referring to a war in the Byzantine Empire - even if that wasn't the term they used for it at the time, when writing articles about it now, use of the term makes sense. Kaisershatner 13:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
That sounds very logical. I share your mind.
Scholars, when they talk about the events from nov47 to apr49, ie when they talk about the civil war and the arab-israeli war talk about the 1948 Palestine War.
But this is understandable because it covers a wider period than only the civil war period in the british mandate. I also think "the more accurate, the better".
I also found on the website of Yale University the words : Palestine Mandate : [3]
Could *1947-1948 Civil War in the Palestine Mandate* be satisfying ?
(personnaly I prefer in the British Mandate of Palestine...) but I prefer we discuss this once far all...
Alithien 08:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
UN resolutions all talk about Palestine and it sounds more like a reference to a country than to an area (see uno website).
Another issue : Is "Mandatory Palestine" English such as here ? Alithien 08:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

suggestion

Ok. I suggest this Alithien 07:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC) :

  • 1947-1948 Civil War in mandatory Palestine
 Done (nb: I will never understand the use of capitals letter in English - if someone can fix it, please don't hesitate). Alithien 08:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 Done The phrase Mandatory Palestine, like Confederate Richmond, is a proper noun.—PaulTanenbaum 04:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Rise of violence

This sections was written so that none is pictured guilty or responsible.
The reason is that historians don't agree on this matter and nobody can fin the truth about that.
Theses sentences :

Irgun and Lehi, acting indepently and starting early in December 1947, followed a strategy of placing bombs in crowded markets and bus stops.[8] The Arabs retaliated by placing bombs of their own.[9]

where they were added picture the scene as if Arab *defended themselves*, which is a controversed point of view.
If we want to keep this article neutral or even improve its neutrality (which is feasible), I suggest to add a section "controverses" where we could detail this (but not starting to pov-push the article step by step as if it where part of the Palestine).
Regards, Alithien 07:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The way it was written was: Arab action followed by Jewish reprisal, i.e. like the Jews *defended themselves*: In a counter-attack, Lehi ..., and in the preceding paragraph: In reprisals, some soldiers from the strike force, Palmach .... Morris pov on the three bombings is different and I added that. It doesn't say the Arabs defended themselves with bomb attacks. Right now both sides are pictured as taking reprisals, which seems more honest to me. --JaapBoBo 15:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand.
Look [4]
The first exemple is the famous attack were Irgoun throw a bomb inside an arab crowd; with is followed by an arab reaction and a haganah reprisal.
I don't see where you see that the Irgoun defends itself.
After that, there was an exemple where the Jihad al Muqadas throw a bomb and that is followed by a reprisal.
Two paragraphs, two exemples and the most knowns.
with your version, two times, there is an irgun attack followed by reprisals.
That is not neutral.
I revert this.
Alithien 16:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say the Irgun defended itself, and I maintain that the version as you want it blames primarily the Arabs, while the facts are that Irgun perpetrated a bomb attack on the Haifa oil refinery workers and that Morris states that the three Arab bombings were retaliations for (a strategy of) Irgun and Lehi bomb attacks on civilians that are further not specificied. Since they were not specified you want to act as if they didn't happen?
You seem to want to keep the three bomb attacks by Arabs in, but keep the Jewish 'strategy of bomb attacks' out? I think that is very pov! --JaapBoBo 07:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact Irgun started a campain of placing a bomb is correct but if you start considering who started first and who acted in retaliation of what, you start the infernal spiral of pov-push. Everybody justified his acts by retaliation of former acts.
It is impossible and unrelevant to try to state who would have started first and who would have been more responsible than the other. Read eg : Pappé, The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1947-1951. There were numerous acts of violences, and the spiral grew. The spiral is a word of Pappé ! Gelber describes the event exactly the same way.
In the article, there are currently 2 exemples, one where each side where the agressor and that lead to numerous deads.
I will check the global idea of Morris but I am quite sure he shares Pappé and Gelber's minds.
Alithien 07:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Alithien. I don't like the way you changed it now; especially putting the word [also] in. Here we have this knowledge from Morris, and you refuse to use it. Surely Morris's quote suggest that the Yishuv was at least as guilty of the rise of violence as the Palestinians. And usually Morris is right when he reports straight facts.
Be sure to read p. 75 ('The British quickly ... ') in the 'Birth ... Revisited', it gives the opinion of the British high commissioner Cunningham about the rise of violence.
Here's another quote from Cunningham:
The initial Arab outbreaks were spontaneous and unorganized and were more demonstrations of displeasure at the U.N. decision than determined attacks on Jews. The weapons initially employed were sticks and stones and had it not been for Jewish recourse to firearms, it is not impossible that the excitement would have subsided and little loss of life been caused. This is more probable since there is reliable evidence that the Arab Higher Committee as a whole, and the Mufti in particular, although pleased at the strong response to the strike call, were not in favor of serious outbreaks.
It's from an interesting page: [[5]]. --JaapBoBo 17:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi JaapBoBo,
Thank you for the Palumbo article. I don't have much about him and I had not that one.
I do not say (and it is important the article would not make readers think) that what happened between dec47 and mar48 in the mixed towns is of the responsability of the palestinians. As it is important people should not think it is the responsability of any other.
I don't write this because I would be whether pro-israeli, pro-palestinian or defender of a third way in between where I would like to state nobody is guilty.
I write this because our historians do not agree on the events of that period.
Eg, Yoav Gelber writes (Palestine 1948, p.24) that these famous 3 attacks "marked a new evolution of the [civil] war" (I must check precise wordings) to which british soldiers participated and to which IZL and LHI retaliated in organised 5 simulatenous attacks against british soliders...
Don't think it is not reliable because he would be poved. If you want to go further to understand the mess of 1948, you will understand that all these historians -without exceptions- are pov-ed and that if they all are reliable, they all introduced matters a pov-ed way.
The problem is that we cannot judge by ourselves who is and who is not because if they are pov-ed we are also and we cannot do anything BUT reporting their claims pov or not.
To come back on the matter :
  • Morris is reliable, but when Morris writes the "intention" of the arab was retaliation, do you think he got this from a document (he doesn't read arabic...) or do you think he just gives his mind (?) or, -as I think- he just has when he writes a book to link facts between themselves and use words. When he writes p.66 in his book "retaliation" it doesn't have the same meaning as when you add retaliation in the article.
  • I put two attacks in the summary of the "rise of violence". These are examples. In the first one, IZL throw a bomb - Arab retaliate - Palmach and Haganah retaliates. In the second example, Arab throw bombs - Lehi retaliates on British and later on arabs.
  • If we add concerning the 2nd attack that IZL started first, we would picture the events as if IZL started all the mess, which is blaming one side and which the gathering of all events and of all minds do not show.
  • I suggested before that you gather all the events as I did here, chronologically. You answered that unfortunately you didn't understand French, that I can -of cours- understand. If you could read French, you will see that it was a step by step process with numerous attacks from all sides. If you prefer, we could write that the first large scale attack were performed by Salameh soldiers who attacked Tel-Aviv neighbourhood... But what would it bring to the article or to a synthesis ? Nothing.
Alithien 06:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
nb: I go and see why I added the [also].
-> I removed this because I don't why the IZL would be the only one to be cited in the description of the situation.
More at the contrary of what Palombo claims, the IZL didn't answer to the "demonstration" by "throwing bombs". On 11 december, before the first IZL attack, 125 deaths were already reported (New-York Time - Dec 11/48). I don't know who to explain IZL motivations a npov-way but one thing is sure, that was not an answer to "demonstrations". They are 2 myths : the "right-wing" myth that arab attacked first and the "left-wing" myth that jewish attacked first.
They are two way to respect NPoV here. We give all the events chronologically or we just don't finger any guilty.
If you think the current version fingers a guilty, that make a suggestion here first so that we can discuss this. Alithien 06:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I do think that at least the Yishuv didn't want the violence to stop. They needed Arab violence as an excuse and cover. As for Gelbers pov, I think Gelber is not objective.
The way you write it it sounds like the Arabs were most to blame. I'll change something. --JaapBoBo 10:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
How would you know, you didn't read Gelber ?!
I neutralized your edits. Hope this verion satisfies you. Alithien 12:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Deir Yassin and Nachshon or Plan Dalet

This article is not about Plan Dalet or operation Nachshon. All historians but one Among scholars only one states that Deir Yassin was part of Plan Dalet. And more, it is recent. He didn't state this in his former book about the 1948 war. Pappe also stated theyre were 200 victims at Deir Yassin. And [in] his last recent book, he states [there were] 97 massacred people + dozens of victims during the battle while all(*) scholars still consider around 100 victims at for the full total.
(*)even Palestinian scholars
These controversies can be introduced in wikipedia in the main article about Pappe. Not in this summary.
Ceedjee (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ceedjee says: All historians but one state that Deir Yassin was part of Plan Dalet.. Is Gelber the one? --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I wrote too fast and there are other english mistakes in my paragraph.
But you understood perfectly, didn't you ?
Ceedjee (talk) 07:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Name

I can see that there's been some debate about the name of this page in the recent past, and so I apologize to stir things up again, but "Mandate Palestine" is, as far as I am aware, not an appropriate term. Mandate is a noun, not an adjective, and so it really needs to be "the British Mandate of Palestine" or "the Mandate of Palestine". "Mandatory Palestine", while it seems good, having turned Mandate into an adjective, is also no good as far as I am concerned; it raises the question of what is mandatory. You wouldn't write Obligatory Palestine or Compulsory Palestine, so I don't think we should use Mandatory either. LordAmeth (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi,
Thank you very much for your interest !
I share your mind.
The only issue I see is to use what revelant sources use, forgetting about the misguiding it could have because else there will be no solution.
Mandatory Palestine is well referenced on google books : [6].
Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Settlements were armed from the beginning.

The whole of this article is badly distorted by the impression given by statements such as: during the British mandate, the authorities always prohibited the possession of weapons, and confiscated all that they found.

Disarmament of the native population seems to have been consistent and effective since the capture of Jerusalem by the British in Dec 1918 (and they were only lightly armed before that). However, the settlements had been arming themselves since their inception over 30 years earlier - eg Ro'i, Yakov. "The Zionist Attitude to the Arabs 1908-1914." Middle Eastern Studies 4:3 (1968), p206 (cited Morris, Righteous Victims, p56): On June 24 [1891] a group of Jerusalem Arab notables sent a telegram to the grand Vizier of Constantinople asking that the government halt Russian Jewish immigration and bar Jews from purchasing land. "The Jews are taking all the lands out of the hands of the Muslims, taking all the commerce into their hands and bringing arms into the country,"

Here is what Huneidi says of the first disturbances in 1920, p.40 of "A Broken Trust": a secret telegram from General Headquarters in Egypt to the War Office on 18 April 1920 indicated that 'no doubt Jews possessed large numbers of firearms', and that inspection of casualties bore this out. ... [71.FO 371/5- 118 E 3478 20 April 1920. Secret.]

Still in 1920, Ibid., p.138 Following the disturbances, the Muslim-Christian Association of Jaffa wrote to the military governor complaining that 'the Zionist Committee [sic, Zionist Commission] was training their young on military grounds, which fact was observed on the same day when thousands of them demonstrated in a military way, carrying arms and sticks of every description.'[64. FO 371/5114 E 6982/61/44, Allenby to Lord Curzon, l0 June 1920. The letter was signed by Taher About Seoud, Aref El Rigali [sic], and Ibrahim El Schakassi [sic]. The letter also alleged that the Zionist Committee, 'composed chiefly of Russian, American and German members, accustomed to revolutions, have jointly planned this programme so that news may reach Europe of the tyranny and bloodshed caused by the Arabs to the so called innocent Jews, and thus attaining their devilish aim'. The Muslim-Christian Association also asked that a commission be appointed to investigate the killing of Jews and Arabs in the riots since the Arabs claimed that 'most of the wounded Jews had wounded themselves to increase the number of the wounded'. This letter was among copies of protests presented by four Palestinian societies to the military governor of Jaffa, which Allenby was transmitting to the Foreign Office. Allenby had received them from the Comite Central [sic] du Parti de l'Union Syrienne in Cairo, relative to the British government's policy towards Zionism. In replying, Allenby confined himself to 'a bare acknowledgement of the receipt of these protests' and that he was communicating them to HMG 'as desired'.] They pointed out that the government had collected all arms and ammunition from Christians and Muslims but 'the said law was never put in force on the Jews'.[65.The document merely mentions the 'said law' and gives no more details. It probably refers to martial law which was still in force at the time.] The letter claimed that the British authorities had recruited an army 'all composed of Jews and these have misused the confidence placed in them and used their arms against the Moslems and Christians', adding that several complaints had previously been made against Jewish soldiers at Jaffa, Ludd and Ramleh. The Muslim-Christian Association therefore called on the government, in the interest of peace and to safeguard their 'lives' and 'property', to initiate the 'immediate expulsion' of all Jewish soldiers from the country, 'retaking their arms' as well as those found in the possession of other Jews. It called for a thorough search for arms in Zionist institutions, confiscation of the same and 'severe punishment' of the Jews, who were the cause of the trouble. Should the government not wish to expel Jewish soldiers, 'an army of Arabs under the British flag should be recruited to defend the Moslems and Christians against the Jews'. [66.FO 371/5114 E 37-1/51I4 E 6982/61/44, Allenby to Lord Curzon, l0 June 1920.]

The Palin Report appears to think that (perhaps in Jerusalem only), there had even been collusion with the military government eg pp. 52,68: It seems scarcely credible that the fact that these men had been got together and were openly drilling at the back of Lemel School and on Mount Scopas [sic] should have been known as it undoubtedly was, to the population during the month of March - it was organised after the demonstration of the 8th - and yet no word of it reached either the Governorate or the Administration until after the riots.

Immediately after the 1920 disturbances, action was taken by the military forces against these armed groups, with Jabotinsky sentenced to a term of 15 years. (Husseini was simlarily convicted in absentia by a secret court, the proceedings of which have never been divulged and may be lost). The policy of the military administration on disarmament of the settlers was thrown into reverse on the arrival in June 1920 of the new Zionist High Commissioner, Hubert Samuel, who released Jabotinsky (and pardoned Husseini).

In 1921 (Ibid., p.138) Immediately following the May 1921 riots, Samuel initiated a scheme for the defence of Jewish colonies. In order to 'provide for the possible contingency of attacks upon Jewish Colonies' the high commissioner deemed it necessary to 'draw up a general defence scheme' as well as special schemes for different districts, 'in conjunction with the Military Authorities'. ... In his 'Political Report' for June 1921, Samuel reported the details of this scheme to the colonial secretary Winston Churchill. He wrote that, since his speech of 3 June, the Jewish population had been 'very nervous and apprehensive' and considered the speech a 'severe set-back' to their aspirations. He maintained, however, that this feeling had been 'a good deal modified' since Jewish colonies had been 'provided with Arms (under conditions strictly limiting their use to self-defence)'.53 On 22 June, Samuel despatched a 'top secret' telegram clarifying his proposals: 'a small number of Jewish special constables, provided with police uniforms and rifles, have already been enrolled'; additional rifles and ammunition 'have been or are being placed in sealed armouries in Colonies'; 'bonds' were being taken against misuse. District governors would 'in the event of disturbances authorise opening of armouries and arming reliable colonists named in lists previously prepared', but that the head of a colony could also give 'necessary authority' in case a sudden attack took place.

Meanwhile, large numbers of guns were being smuggled by the Zionists - and it's not even clear that the government was really trying to stop it happening. eg: Ibid., p.140 In December 1921, the 'Political Report' stated that an event which had caused a 'considerable amount of adverse comment' in the press was the seizure of 300 revolvers and a quantity of ammunition at Haifa consigned to Isaac Rosenberg from an Austrian individual named G. Fleikheer. The revolvers were concealed in beehives and steel cylinders, and one of the consignees according to the report, had been arrested while the other absconded.[69. C0 733/8, Deedes to Churchill, Political Report for December 1921, Secret Despatch.]

In it's present condition, the article reads like propaganda, as if this problem blew up suddenly, or came about as a result of WWII, and that any "blame" could probably be apportioned equally. The easily ascertainable facts show that one party (only) was arming itself against the other. Obviously, we don't say that, but we must indicate that the Zionists had never been disarmed, far from it. They'd been heavily armed virtually since their arrival, and had been well-trained for at least 28 years. PRtalk 12:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi PR,
This article deals with 1948, not 1920... ??? I don't understand what you mean.
Could you please in less sentences indicate what you would like to modify or see modified ? not English
Could you please precisely show what sentence you owuld like to modify or see modified.
Thank you. Ceedjee (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The article treats both communities as being relatively defenseless, and tells us that that is the way the British had kept them. Then it implies that the "Arab side", with presumably considerable outside State assistance, went on the armed offensive first. It implies that only later did the Yishuv catch up and overtake the native Palestinians in weaponry (and perhaps tactics?). That's so misleading as to be a complete propaganda travesty, all the serious evidence I've ever seen suggests that, right from the beginning (ie 1920 and even a lot earlier again), the Zionists were specialists in warfare, and either heavily armed, or rapidly to become heavily armed. Even more damagingly, the British (immediately after the short-lived occupation to 1920, before the Mandate of 1922), far from being even-handed, was almost absurdly supportive of the immigrants. If there are sources that claim something different, then by all means include them too. But I'd be very surprised if there was anything much different except from thoroughly POV publications, depending on very much non-reliable sources. PRtalk 13:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Yishuv was not defenceless but it was not strong either.
Please remember this article deals with the situation between nov47 and may48.
What sentence is not good ? Ceedjee (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Haganah commander

Hi Nudve,
In fact, Yaakov Dori (chief of staff) was ill during the war and Yigal Yadin (chief of operations) was the commander of the Haganah. Yigal Alon was under his orders and "only" commanded the Yiftah brigade in East-Galilea.
Menachem Begin, as independent chief or Irgun could indeed be added but it is not clear if he was a military leader or a political leader.
Ceedjee (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess you could be right about Dori. However, if Haganah, Palmach and Irgun are listed as separate belligerents in the previous section, they should have separate commanders, no?
I think you are right.
In that case, I would write Yigal Yadin, Yigal Allon and Menachem Begin. I don't know who was chief of operation of LHI when Shamir was "abroad"...
Ceedjee (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that would be correct. Lehi were probably too disorganized at that time. Also, since you seem to have many sources on that subject, do you think you could add a "Casualties" section to the box? -- Nudve (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I modified the infobox. I only have casualities at 1/4. I think I read once somewhere the numbers for the civil war but I don't remember where. They are usually gathered for the whole period of the 1948 Paletine War (5,600-5,700 Jews killed; 12,000 Jews injured; certainly more Palestinians killed, 12,000 according to Amin al-Husseini, ~2,000 of Arab soldiers killed).
Ceedjee (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

al-Najada and al-Futuwa

These groups are listed as belligerents in the infobox, yet they're not mentioned in the article. If they're contribution is too insignificant to be mentioned in the text prose, I think they should be removed from the box. -- Nudve (talk) 11:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It is true they are not talked about in the article.
In fact numerous historians refer to both in the palestinian forces composition. (I have just checked fro Benny Morris, Yoav Gelber and Efraim Karsh) but there are far less references to precise actions or events.
I think this is because they were not well-organised. When yishuv forces launched an attack, it was recorded (even for the few hundred members of LHI). Palestinians were "part-time" soldiers, without central command and spread all over the country.
I assume historians know that the organisation existed, but not exactly when they participated to fights.
In the article it is talked about "irregulars" or "Palestinians (forces)"...
Ceedjee (talk) 11:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the response (and edit). Cheers -- Nudve (talk) 12:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Changing the title

First up, following is the definition of Civil War as per wiktionay: "A war fought between members of a single nation or similar political entity" (Civil war definition from wiktionary).

Now having a holistic view on this article we will come up with the following main points:

  • Jewish leaders during the conflict were:
  1. Yigael Yadin, while he was born in Palestine, his father, Eleazar Sukenik, was born in Poland. He is not of a Palestinian descendant;
  2. Yigal Allon, although he was born in Palestinhe his father was not.
  3. Menachem Begin, a Russian Jewish.
  • On the top of that, most members of the Hagana (the Jewish main troops during this conflict) are European Jewish who participated in WWII.
  • Bear in mind that none of the above countries have any relation whatsoever with Palestine in terms of nationality.
  • On the other hand, Arabs leaders during the conflict were:
  1. Fawzi al-Qawuqji, who was born in Greater Syria on 1890, during which and until 1918 and/or 1920, Palestine is part of Greater Syria.
  2. Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni, his father is Musa al-Husayni mayor of Jerusalem (1918-1920).
  3. All members of the ALA are Arabs, or let us say individual Arabs.

Taking the above points into consideration and comparing them to the defintion of the civil war make it unreasonalbe to call this conflict "Civil War in Mandaroty Palestine" how would u like it if it was called "Palestinian Self-Defence War". I am suggesting a new title: United Nations Partition Plan War. Yamanam (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The conflict is called a civil war by most major secondary sources used here. I agree with a few of the points above, but they are absolutely not a convincing argument for changing the title of this page, and some of them are completely irrelevant. You may wish to read Wikipedia policies on naming articles, for example Wikipedia:Naming conventions. The war fits the definition of civil war very well, which you can look up in a real dictionary. Moreover, even if there are certain reservations about the old name, the name 'United Nations Partition Plan War' is a complete mockery of the event, and isn't supported by a single source. I will revert the name change if there are no arguments in support of keeping this 'partition plan war'. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, those most major secondary sources that are refering to this war as "Civil war" are from one side, Jewish side that is. And they will put there part of the story, on the other hand, the Arabs secondary sources are referring to those wars as "Zionist offense on Palestiniand and Palestinian self-defence...). That is why I suggested a name that falls in between both titles or perspectives. We don't want to adopt a title that comes in favor of one of the parties, this is POV I beleive. The new suggested name is more reasonable in terms of neutrality. Yamanam (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
There is no 'Jewish' and 'Arab' secondary sources, there are reliable sources and unreliable sources. I challenge you to produce a single reliable source disputing the fact that it was a civil war. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
By the way, in the work "Before Their Diaspora", the Arab Palestinian historian Walid Khalidi writes about the civil war, calling it a civil war, including the very title of chapter 5. Of course, other well-known historians like Gelber and Morris also use this term. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Ynhockey is absolutely right. Several reliable historians called it a civil war. I've never heard the name "United Nations Partition Plan War". I don't see any neutrality problem with that title either. During that war both the Jews and the Arabs were subjects of the British Mandate of Palestine, which makes it a civil war. I also think this move should have been discussed first. -- Nudve (talk) 05:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
So do I. It's time to restore the previous title. Discussion can always continue after that if anyone wishes. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I saw this page on my watchlist, and had no idea what it was... okedem (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I moved the article to the new title after a day of adding my argument to the talk page. Back to the title issue, I agree that I might have chose the wrong title, but still, I think the previous title is not 100% neutral, I mean, Jewish troops that participated in the war were mainly from Eurpoe, Arabs who participated were mainly from other Arab countries, nevertheless, the article is named Civil War and the main both belligerents are from outside Palestine. I am not sure if any of you can suggest a more suitable title. Yamanam (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"Jewish troops that participated in the war were mainly from Eurpoe"? Excuse me? The Jews who fought in the war were people who lived in Palestine, members of the Yishuv. They were not professional soldiers, and not part of any nation's army. Many of them were born in Palestine, and some came to Palestine as children or adults. Almost no one came from Europe to fight (very few volunteers, and some who made Aliyah in 1947-8, and immidiately joined the fighting. They didn't come to fight, though. They came to live there, and that's what they did after the war. This is unlike the Arab side, were some of the fighters were local Arabs, and many (in the second stage of the war, after May 1948) were members of the Arab states' armies. okedem (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Yamanam, reliable scholars, including at least one Palestinian one, have called it a civil war. Ynhockey has challenged you "to produce a single reliable source disputing the fact that it was a civil war". Can you produce one? -- Nudve (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Guys, you are missing the point here, even if the Jewish were born in Palestine, and even if they came to Palestine to live there, this doesn't make them citizins of Palestine, and therefor any war they enroll in shouldn't be called civil war, this is my point. I am suggesting that we change the title to a title that might reflect the reality better than the current and the previous one. And it is not about producing a source that dispute the previous title, it is about a more realistic title. Yamanam (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Citizens of Palestine? Are you implying here in some way that Jewish Palestinians had less right to inhabit the mandate than Arab Palestinians? The war was fought between Jewish and Arab residents of the former British Mandate of Palestine. This is backed by countless reliable sources and the picture you're trying to paint is simply wrong. I'm also not sure how you came to the conclusion that sources are irrelevant here. Wikipedia is based on sources, and one of its core policies is verifiability, not truth. Theories about how the war wasn't a civil war, that are not backed by sources, are not given weight. I have reverted your move per clear consensus on this page. If you have policy-based arguments on the matter, please present them. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Of course, Jewish immigrants had less right to inhabit the mandate than Arab and Jewish Palesinians. And since most of those who enrolled in the war were from European origins then it was not a "civil war". Same applies on Arabs from other countries who participated in the war, ALA for instance.Yamanam (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Jewish immigrants ? The British blocked the emigration to Palestine after 1939 in the context of the war with Germany and this policy went on after 1945. Reasons why IZL and LHI (and even Haganah during some time) fought them until end of 1947 when the country was partitioned. On the ~ 30,000 fighters who were on the Yishuv side, a huge majority were Sabras. On the other side, after January and February, ALA reinforced the Palestinian Arabs. Ceedjee (talk) 08:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict due to move) The Jews and the Arabs were both members of the same political entity, the British Mandate of Palestine. I would be willing to consider an alternative title such as "1947-1948 conflict in Palestine". But saying that it wasn't a civil war, no matter what reliable sources say, and inventing an original name instead, is simply not the way Wikipedia works. -- Nudve (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I totaly agree with the title suggested by Nudve. Yamanam (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
The problem with this title is that the reader can make a mix with the 1948 Arab-Israeli War after 15 May.
All (nearly all ?) historians talk about the 1948 Palestine War that is divided in the civil war period followed by a regular war, the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Ceedjee (talk) 08:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to come after the "battle". I only find the discussion right now.
You can find in the archives there have been long and huge discussion about the title !
For what I remember, among the historians I have read (neutral, biased, pro-Israeli or Pro-Palestinian) :

  • most call the events a civil war for the reason it was a war between people living in Mandatory Palestine under the rule of the British and not a war with external ennemies.
  • 2 of them (David Tal and I think Morris (?) in one of his book) nuance these words and name rather this episode an "intercommunal war" or talk about the "so-called civil war", I assume, because it doens't fit the definition of a civil war at 100%, in the sense that the sides that fought distinguished themselves mainly due to their ethcnical difference, because the Mandate was expected to terminate soon and the country expected to disappear and each side had already theoretically received its part, because foreign forces participated (Arab Liberation Army), ...

But civil war remains the most widely used. Ceedjee (talk) 08:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
See also the discussions here and in the following sections nb: Alithien=ceedjee... Ceedjee (talk) 08:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This value has a wrong name thus missleading and not correct

Hi All

Sorry but,...

a bit about our history here

The war of independence for the state of Israel started immediately after the vote of November 29th 1947 for the partition in the UN. The war of independence has two main stages

1- During the British mandate where Arab gangs started to attack main roads in Palestine-Israel as well as attacking Jewish people by terroristic activities. During those period British authorities did all they could to fail Jewish defenders.

2- After termination of the mandate in 14 of May when Arab regular Army invaded Israel.

a. Jordanian Army Legion from the east commanded by a British general John Bagot Glubb known as Glubb Pasha

b. Egyptian Army from the south

c. Lebanese Army from the north

d. Iraqi Army from the north east

e. Syrian Army the north east

Calling the war of independence early stages civil war is incorrect historically as well as misleading. Civil war is between the civilians of the same nation. That is not the case. First stage of war of independence is by Arabs characterized attacks on the roads with the encouragement that as soon the British evacuates Palestine they will invade and destroy the Jewish entity in Israel.

See http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/1948_War.html

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/Modern+History/Israel+wars/Israels+War+of+Independence+-+1947+-+1949.htm

Dier Yassin story has two sides http://www.etzel.org.il/


I posed a stamp that this paper requires a through review and corrections.

BR

Fttxguru (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If I read well, you disagree with the title of the article.
You want "civil war" to be replaced by "independence war".
That is not what the sources states.
Ceedjee (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed

  • Sources such official sources of the state of Israel those are the correct one to be used.
  • Those sources were provided see the links.
  • Additionally Dier Yassin does not tell the whole story. Sources were provided.

With your permission I return the stamp

Issue should go to Academic vote.

I sent it for review in Haifa University too.

Fttxguru (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You can send your question to David Tal (historian).
He is Prof. at Tel-Aviv University.
He will certainly refer to his article about what he calls the "forgotten war" in a paper dedicated to the topic (see his entry) here above. He can also refers to his book about the 1948 Palestine War where he talks about an "intercommunal war".
Ceedjee (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

The page has a major error in referring to only Palestinian arabs as palastinians, technically the name of the whole land was called palastine since the roman times even so the name should apply to all inhabitants who lived there for centuries whether Arabic or Jewish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.172.121 (talk) 11:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That is right.
But that is a little bit more complex too.
You talk about Palestinian Jews and Palestinian Arabs. Why not Jewish Palestinians and Arab Palestinians ? Isn't nationality more important than religion or ethny ? And why not Muslim Arab Palestinians and Christian Arab Palestinians ?
If you nuance that there was nothing such as a State of Palestine, which is right, it can be answered than there cannot be nothing such as a Palestinian Jew but only Jews of Palestine too. More there is also the word "yishuv", which is used.
There is also the fact that most scholars talk about "Jews" and "Palestinian Arabs", I assume because everybody knows Arabs where from outside or inside Palestine.
The more neutral and accurate is to talk about the "Jewish and Arab communities of Palestine" or about the "Palestinian Arab and Jewish Zionist nationalisms".
-> Could you precisely state what sentence -in the article- should be improved ?
Ceedjee (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

GA comments

Disclaimer: This is not a GA review.

Having said that, I have just noticed that this article is up for GA. I have a few concerns which IMO need to be addressed and will be raised in the review anyway:

  1. The article's main problem right now is formatting—it is highly inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia, and does not follow WP:MOS, WP:DASH, and other guidelines. I have fixed some of the problem, but there are many more. Someone who has more time should give the article a thorough 'MOS review' and fix all the problems. Here are some specifics:
  1. Spelling: Tel-Aviv should be Tel Aviv, etc.
  2. Images should not be left-aligned right after a level-3 heading. Also avoid sandwiching images
  3. WP:DASH
  4. Bullet point formatting
  1. "Synthesis"—what? This section title is problematic, and should be part of the background anyway. The other sections should also be reviewed, which to merge and which to rename. The reason is that the structure of this article was apparently copied from the French version, which works slightly differently than EnWiki.
  2. The "intervention of foreign forces in Palestine" section should be re-thought, converted to prose, and the duplicate information found there (i.e. info that is also found in other sections) should be reorganized.

All in all, the article is a very good effort, but sometimes it seems like no one gave it a full read-through. I hope that the GA reviewer will do this, but urge the primary authors (too bad Ceedjee is gone) to re-read and re-evaluate it. —Ynhockey (Talk) 09:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Review started |08:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)|Vinay84 (talk) 08:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis section is too Verbose. 

Eg: the explosions of joy amongst the Jewish community were counterbalanced
by the expression of discontent amongst the Arab community

can be sinmplified to: say ; "Jews became happy and/though Arabs were left discontent".

Also, it can be merged with the background section

Reference in Footnote no 3 is an invalid link. IT supposedly refers to the UN resolution

Too many Duplicate statements. "...joy of the Jewish community were counterbalanced by ..." statement appears again in "Beginning of the Civil War" section in a modified form.

Vinay84 (talk) 09:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The Review is now Finished, Important points of the conflict are well covered, but there are some strong statements which need sourcing.They possibly came about during Translation from French.

Sections/topics with separate articles like the various individual operations can have smaller Summaries.

I have put the nomination on Hold for a week till 1 October 2009 0500 GMT.

Summary

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Vinay84 (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


Lot of time given for the article to be improved. Not much change seen. Failing the article Vinay84 (talk) 04:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The first Haganah operation against civilians.

The recent edit recording "the first casualties of the war" is only correct if one ignores everything that occured prior the date of the UN resolution. On August 15, 1947, in the Haganah's first major post-WWII attack against Palestinians, they blew up the house of the Abu Laban family, prosperous Palestinian orange growers, near Petah Tikva. Twelve occupants, including a woman and six children, were killed. (Walid Khalidi. "Before their Diaspora." IPS 1984. ISBN 0 88728 143 5. Page 253. Benny Morris, "The Birth of the Palestinian refugee problem, 1947-1949", 1987, ISBN 0 521 33028 9. Page 156. Morris gives no precise date or number of casualties but describes the house as "suspected of being an Arab terrorist headquarters.") Morris also states that on 20 May 1947 the Palamach blew up a coffee house in Fajja after the murder of two Jews in Petah Tikva. I have no doubt there were other events of inter-comminal violence prior to Nov 1947. This article gives the impression that Plan D was put together in response to the violence in November 1947. My understanding is that why it is called Plan D is that there was Plan A, Plan B and Plan C before it. Surely the UN resolution was only the spark which unleased an armed conflict that both side had been preparing for for months, if not years. Why I would like the Abu Laban event recorded somewhere is that I have had it deleted from the Haganah and the Petah Tikva articles. Padres Hana (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Morris calls them the first casualties of the civil war, not me. It's right in the beginning of a chapter called "The First Stage of the Civil War, November 1947-March 1948". It is my understanding that the civil war is usually dated as being between the adoption of the of the Partition Plan resolution until the Israeli deceleration of independence. If you have sources that say otherwise, I'd be happy to have a look. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
This is correct. Only I find it rather arbitary since inter-comminal violence was taking place prior to that date. Yani, just because that's the way Morris looks at it ... best wishes Padres Hana (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The start of the war was on November 29–30, 1947. This is listed as the start not just by Morris, but by any historian researching the subject, started by Netanel Lorch in his 1958 account of the war. I have never seen this disputed anywhere, by historians on both sides. Therefore, anything before that date is not relevant, and may be mentioned in the background only if notable. —Ynhockey (Talk) 22:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

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

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

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

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Golda43.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Golda43.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 23 September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits by Gilagrand

Civil war

There are numerous other exemples.

If all these 4 agree on that, that proves it is even not controversial !

I require that the recent edits from Gilabrand are reverted and that sanctions are taken against her given her inappropriate and anti-collaborative behaviour on wikipedia.

At best, she doens't know the topic and should be topic-banned.

91.180.137.10 (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is a shameful hodgepodge of original research, POV, bad English and editorializing. It lifts phrases from books such as "O Jerusalem," which is a dramatized depiction of history that borders on a novel, and uses them to create a new Wikipedia version of history. The whole article needs serious revision. It is about a 5.5 month period of violence that followed the UN Partition Plan. It is not about the entire history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and needs to be edited accordingly.--Geewhiz (talk) 07:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Larry Collins is not a very good wp:rs but that is not a bad source.
In any case, you should first come on the talk page, Gilabrand.
More, you title move proves that at best (wp:agf) you don't know the topic and should not edit this. The reference to this period as a civil war is proven by sources (cfr here above) but it is also listed in the internal mail list of the Israeli pov-pushers who decided to transform wikipedia in a battlefield of the Arab-Israeli War of propaganda.
I ask you to be topic banned once for all for the whole Arab-Israeli articles. And this article is not the only problem of your edits. 91.180.137.10 (talk) 07:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Agree with IP. The title should be changed back. --Frederico1234 (talk) 08:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Please, proceed.
Anyway, the request to Gilabrand to justify why she wrote that this was not a war is still pending. She was so sure of herself that she modified everything without even starting a discussion.
The fact that she proceeds with the same strategy (covering material deletion under the cover of style correction) on numerous other articles is an issue that should be adressed too.
91.180.110.219 (talk) 11:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Main wave of the Palestinian Arab Exodus

Gilabrand completely removed that section from the article. That is of course not acceptable. I cannot even understand who except the worst far right settlers deny this : more than half of the 1948 Palestinian exodus occured during that civil war. The only controversy is about the causes. That is one of the main event of that civi war.

Gilabrand, could you clarify your motivations to remove this. 91.180.110.219 (talk) 08:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the relevant section for the exodus in the lead up to May 1948. If you believe there are other relevant and reliably sourced facts and figures, please add them. But this article is about the violence before the declaration of Israel and should not be used as yet another receptacle for the same nakba information that appears over and over on dozens of other pages. You are welcome to add material as long as it remains within the time frame of the article.--Geewhiz (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Could you ident this discussion properly and in following the rules !
The article is not dealing with the 'violence before the declaration of Israel'. It deals with the '1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine' and one of the main event of the period is the Palestinian exodus even if it must be given no more than a reasonnable place.
That was the case but you deleted any way these 3 paragraphs that were summarizing the events (your edit). It is very little. They were not pov-ed at all. But removing this information is pov-ed.
That is even not required to argue for this so obvious it is. In the descrption of Benny Morris and Ilan Pappé, the civil war fits with first two phases of the exodus. The historians that are mentionned here above all 4 talk about the exodus when dealing with this period.
In fact, it could even be argued that this article is pov-ed in the other direction : see eg Rosemary Elber ; Under the cover of war book.
91.180.110.219 (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The idea is get this sprawling article back into focus so that those who read it can obtain an understanding of the chronology and events of the time. If you can help do this, that would be great.--Geewhiz (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Could you please ident the discussions properly.
This article was translated from French by user:it'snotagenetive who is a perfect English writer and it covered the topic to give the reader a good chronology of the events in that version. It could be reverted back to that version.
But this doesn't answer to your recent removal of material. Carefull reader can see that you use the same techniques in different articles. Under the cover of style correction, you often remove some material. 91.180.110.219 (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The section on Nakba I deleted was original research and off-topic. The English in this article is very poor. The style is repetitive. The chronology is not precise. There is much more to be done. I look forward to your help.--Geewhiz (talk) 09:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Gilabrand,
It is not because you finally decided to go back to the consensual version (the chronology of which is excellent) that your global behaviour on wikipedia is a not concern any more.
If you have impotant modifications to suggest to this article or any go to the talk page.
91.180.110.219 (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"Who am I to upset an IP ?"

Gilabrand wonders who she is to upset an IP : [7]. She'd better wonder who she is :

  • to state that this period was not a civil war (when this is no a single trace of academic controversy about this)
  • to remove the references from the '48 Palestinian exodus from this article when this is one of the major event of this civil war
  • to proceed to all these modifications (and destroying the structure of the article) without proceeding to any comment in the talk page.

Whether she doesn't know the topic (and should have refrained to edit the article) or she is a pov-pusher and should be prevented to edit in the topic. If there is another explanation in accordance with WP:AGF, it is welcome. 91.180.110.219 (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

not sure why gilabrand reverted her work (though she says it is because she didn't want to upset an IP). can we get a consensus here? please look through the extensive changes over the last 24 hours and see what you think? not a real vote, heaven forbid, but just a consensus to see if the changes are worthwhile keeping or not.
in my review, it seems that most (if not all) seem ok. there were some corrections along the way, and those should be considered as well. Soosim (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
"most (if not all)"
That means that you consider she was right :
  • to move the title of the article (despite the evidence provided here above)
  • to remove the references to the '48 Palestinian exodus (despite it was a major event of the period)
  • not to follow the chronology of the events as done in her version.
Instead of stating that her changes were good why don't you argue why they were or why don't answer to the arguments that explained that they were not.
...
91.180.110.219 (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Synopsis

Why such a synopsis ? It should be removed from the article. 81.247.206.134 (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done 91.180.121.51 (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Haganah's first operation against Palestinian Arabs

I am a little frustrated that this has been deleted. I have already had it deleted from the Haganah article and (if I remember correctly) from the Petah Tikva article. Can anyone suggest where the killing of 12 Palestinians (Arabs) would fit in Wikipedia?

The Haganah was initially involved in the post-war attacks against the British in Palestine but withdrew following the outrage caused by the 1946 Irgun bombing of the British Army Headquarters in the King David Hotel. In 1947 the Haganah began operations against Palestinian Arabs. On August 15, 1947, they blew up the house of the Abu Laban family, prosperous Palestinian orange growers, near Petah Tikva. Twelve occupants, including a woman and six children, were killed. [1] Padres Hana (talk) 12:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I have restored this section, which should not have been removed.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
This section is given an undue weight where it stands in the background
I would add that the Haganal killed numerous Palestinians before (as well weeks ago, than months ago, than years ago).
91.180.121.170 (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there any objection ? 91.180.121.51 (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Causes of the exodus

Per WP:NPoV, no thesis should be discredited or minimized in comparison with another given there is no consensus among historians. Reader who needs the nuances can go and read the main articles 1948 Palestinian exodus or even more specialized : Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus.

The summary that is given fits perfectly the situation of the debate in giving roughly main 3 thesis in chronological order and without going to deep into details.

In other words than those used in the article :

  • some historians consider Arabs leaders are responsible (and it is not Karsh only)
  • some consider that Yishuv planned and organised an ethnic cleansing (and it is not Pappe only)
  • some consider that exodus resulted from the accumulated consequences of the war (and it is not only Morris).

There are many nuances but that is not the topic of this article that talks about the civil war, not the exodus.

91.180.121.51 (talk) 07:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

to Zero0000 .why: "let's stick to serious sources, folks, no fairy stories"?

you deleted my added text, and reasoned it by: "the Arms Problem: delete poorly sourced or not sourced at all. let's stick to serious sources, folks, no fairy stories". since those sources are used here and in other wikipedia articles, there is no suspect it. Will it be possible for you to elaborate? Ykantor (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Zero0000 didn't revert your material only but the whole section that was not sourced.
Regarding your own sources :
  • Karsh doesn't say what you state that he says
  • Arab Palestinians and Jew Palestinians were subject to the same restrictions from the British
  • a 1950 books and a website are not WP:RS
  • ALA had some cannons but not "fighting armoured vehicles" but some "armoured vehicles" and certainly less than Haganah.
In any case, as Zero0000 points out, any information requires a precise and reliable source.
Pluto2012 (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
to pluto: My text is precise, although if there is a need, i'll supply more sources.
  • 1 "Karsh doesn't say what you state that he says"- karsh says that lot of arab fighter cross the border to Palestine . The numbers are close to the total number of fighters in the Hagana brigades (as opposed to static forces ). Some of those arab units moved in and out for re-roganization. The High Commissioner have complained to the neibouring countries concerning this infiltration. Thus the meaning is the same like saying "virtually free movement".
  • 2 " Arab Palestinians and Jew Palestinians were subject to the same restrictions from the British" . Although the rules were the same, they were applied nearly exclusively against Jews. While the mighty royal navy acted intensively against illegal Jewish immigrants (and later against arms shipments), the Arabs had virtually free access accross the Jordan river for people and arms. The british army looked intensively for secret Hagana arms warehouses, while there were no similar searches for Arab weapons.
  • 3 "a 1950 books and a website are not WP:RS" I amnot sure what is the meaning, but I guess they are supposed to be inferior." This 1950 book is good enough to be used as a source for other wikipedia items. Moreover, It has a photo of an ex Qauqji armored car, which is better (in my opinion) than a source that just mentions those armored car.
  • 4 "ALA had some cannons but not "fighting armoured vehicles" but some "armoured vehicles" and certainly less than Haganah." The Hagana had more self made provisionary armored commercial trucks, which were not armed, as opposed to Qauqji, who had fighting armored vehicles with built in machine guns and anti tank cannons.
  • 5 "In any case, as Zero0000 points out, any information requires a precise and reliable source." correct, but once a source isn't accepted, isn't it better to demand the author to improve it rather than erasing the paragraph? Ykantor (talk) 07:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
A 1950s book is likely to be a primary source since it lacks distance from the events discussed. Whether it is used elsewhere in WP is irrelevant. For further opinions please open a query at WP:RSN. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
@ Ykantor,
I answer and then the discussions stops.
  • 1. Karsh refers to ALA fighters. The ALA involment is already explained at other places in the article and sources are Yoav Gelber, much more reliable than Karsh (even he says the same regarding this deployment).
  • 2. Where is the source for this ? It sounds like a personal analyse from you. Having had a so-called free access to Jordan valley and rive makes what difference ? From Beit-Shean, they had the same free access. We are not on a forum and the idea of something that could have aroused is without interest. In practice and in the facts, starting 1946, despite the naval embargo that you talk about, yishuv welcomed clandestine immigrants (and weapons in small but regular quantities) and starting April 1948, they received massively light weapons by plane from Tchecoslovakia. On 15 May, several boats with heavy weapons were waiting at sea the end of the mandate. Per WP:NPOV, what you want to state is unbalanced.
  • 3. A 1950 book written by protagonists is not WP:RS. (click on the link to understand what it means). As Itsmejudiath wirtes, it is a primary source in regard of today. More deeply, any source dated before 1985 cannot be considered WP:RS either given massive new information were provided to the academic world after the opening of the British and Israeli archives of the 1948 war.
  • 4. ALA had no anti-tank canons in its vehicles. It was Arab Legion who had and it intervened with these after the 13 May. In practice, ALA was not even able to take the kibbutz of Mishmar HaEmek. With armoured fighting vehicles or with the ressources of the Arab Legion, it would have succeeded as at Kfar Etzion.
  • 5. Not when the author was already reverted 4 times by 4 diffent people and comes after to claim for constructive attitude. You should refrain from editing this article before reading books and agreed complying with WP:NPOV, it means, yourself alone being able to introduce all points of views on a topic.
Pluto2012 (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
to pluto:
  • 1. "Karsh refers to ALA fighters." It seems that you agree with my contribution i.e thousands of armed Arab people penetrated Palestine across the Jordan river (although you don't accept the term "virtually free movement")
  • 2 you say" Arab Palestinians and Jew Palestinians were subject to the same restrictions from the British" . I say "Although the rules were the same, they were applied nearly exclusively against Jews." (but I haven't written it in the article). Concerning people entering Palestine, the Arabs entered with no problems (see paragraph 1) while overwhelming majority of illegal Jewish immigrant ships were not allowed to enter Palestine ( just look at the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliyah_Bet ). The same applies for searching for Hagana warehouses while (to my knowledge) there was no similar search for Arab weapons warehouse.
arms ships: As I said, there were no arms ships during the relevant period (chapter 3 up to 1.4.48). see http://www.palyam.org/OniyotRekhesh/Arms_fleet_summary (hebrew). Yuo are right in saying that the Hagana have successfuly smuggled weapons , imported as machines.
  • 3 what is the source to the 1985 year limit? The question arises since this source is used by other Wiki articles.
  • 4 Dr Oren research ( see my next lines; hebrew) says that ALA attacked Mishmar Haemek with armored cars. Armored car were naturally equipped with weapons .The Hagana armored car were an exception, since it were improvised and self made. The ALA has failed in Mishmar Hamek although it had much better weapons (cannons, armored cars) since it was mismanaged. The ALA was inferior to the Arab Legion in terms of training, the fighters quality, and tactics. The ALA poor attack is analyzed at Dr Oren research.
  • 5 Reading your ( and zero0000) notes, my content is correct, but I have to update / add sources. It could have been done without deleting it. Ykantor (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Zero and I raed at least a dozen of books directly dedicated to the events of 1948.
It seems you are new and fresh in the topic and start googling to challenge the current version of this article.
1. this is in : "Intervention of foreign forces in Palestine".
2. this is in : "Intervention of foreign forces in Palestine" or WP:OR
3. I explained the issue of the opening of Israeli and British archives.
4. No.
5. No.
Pluto2012 (talk) 07:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
To Ykantor: Your text was your personal interpretation of the sources, drawing conclusions not in the sources in a highly biased fashion. A lot of what you write here is simply false, like "there were no similar searches for Arab weapons". Wrong. Also the international embargo was very much to the Jews' advantage as they were far more successful in bypassing it than anyone else. Why do you think the Arab Legion ran out of artillery ammunition? This is heavily documented in "The Origin of the Arab-Israeli Arms Race" by Amitzur Ilan, which is a far stronger source than any of yours. You quoted from Collins&Lapierre about ALA cannons but you didn't quote from the same book about much greater Jewish acquisitions. And of course a 1950 book is a very poor source in comparison to the next 60 years of scholarship. Zerotalk 08:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
to Zero0000 : (later I'll reply to pluto).
  • 1 "A lot of what you write here is simply false, like "there were no similar searches for Arab weapons". Wrong." I insist that these searches were only for Hagana warehouses and not for Arab warehouses. I'll appreciate it if you support your opinion with an example.
  • "Also the international embargo was very much to the Jews' advantage as they were far more successful in bypassing it than anyone else. Why do you think the Arab Legion ran out of artillery ammunition? This is heavily documented in "The Origin of the Arab-Israeli Arms Race" by Amitzur Ilan, which is a far stronger source than any of yours. You quoted from Collins&Lapierre about ALA cannons but you didn't quote from the same book about much greater Jewish acquisitions." Every word of yours here is correct, as well as my words. Before the end of British mandate, The British Naval blockade was very effective and the Hagana were not able to import the big arms quantities already purchased abroad(1). Thus, at this time frame ( before 15.5.48) the Hagana didn't have cannons and armored fighting vehicles, while Qauqji had it.

(1) The ship "nora" arrived to Tel Aviv with thousands of rifles at 1.4.48 , and this is an exception to the blockade. The Hagana situation was so bad at that date, that they decided to risk losing the whole shipment (because of the British blockade) and send it earlier. http://www.palyam.org/English/ArmsShips/Nora

  • "a 1950 book is a very poor source in comparison to the next 60 years of scholarship." AS I said, this book is the source of the ex Qauqji armored fighting car photo. Anyhow, this fact is supported by more sources , which i'll write down later. Ykantor (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
p.34 Pluto2012 (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, Collins&Lapierre do not confirm any ALA cannons, they just report what an Israeli officer told them he saw. Zerotalk 05:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
to Pluto: ALA cannons and armored fighting vehicles.
  • source1= The Encyclopedia of the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A Political, Social, and and Military History, edited by Spencer C. Tucker, Priscilla Mary Roberts, p. 129 "the ALa launced an ambitious offensive against mishmar haemek on April 4 1948...1000 ALA troops supported bu 7 syrian donated artillery pieces...the defenders...only with small arms, held off the ALA assault" and later "ALA received armored cars and artillery"
  • source 2= הדיפת צבא ההצלה , משמר העמק ,ד"ר אלחנן אורן, עמ' 84 ,http://maarachot.idf.il/PDF/FILES/5/109335.pdfצבא-ההצלה"" שבפיקודו של פאוזי אל-קאוקג'י תקף את משמר-העמק ב 4- באפריל 1948 בין הערביים בחי"ר ובסיוע שריוניות... עם ההתקפה על המשק. הרגלים הסתייעו בשתי סוללות תותחים, במרגמות 81 מ"מ ובפלוגה של כעשר שריוניות, מהן כבדות נושאות- תותח וקלות נושאות מקלעים The ALA attacked with artillery and about 10 armored fighting cars. Among the sources quoted here, is Qwauqji memories, in which Qwaqji admits he had 2(?) cannons.
  • source 3 Pillar of Fire: The Rebirth of Israel--a Visual History - Page 531, By Yigal Losin, Carol S. Halberstadt – 1983 "after repelling kaukji's forces members of Mishmar Haemek photographed alongside one of the cannons used to attack their kibbutz"
  • more later. Ykantor (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
The number of canons that they had is not clear. Lapierre and Collins gives a number of 3 + 7 but it is true that this information should be checked. There is a section in the article that deals with "The Battle of Mishmar HaEmek (4–15 April)" and the use of artilery is reported there.
Pluto2012 (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is what Ilan (cited above) says about the ALA weaponry: "Their equipment was the poorest amongst all the Arab armies in Palestine: non-standard small arms (the men were owners of their own arms), a few medium mortars and four to five 70-mm and 105-mm guns received from Syria. The amount of ammunition at the disposal of this artillery was very limited" (p56). Of the Jewish forces at the end of the Mandate he writes "six 20-mm guns, 25 odd AFVs of all sorts and approximately a dozen serviceable light aircraft" (p58). The Jewish side was very short of rifles, but only in relation to the number of soldiers, which was much greater than the number of ALA soldiers. Regarding British actions: since the UN resolution, the policy was to disengage from Arab-Jewish conflict. Of course there were more arms searches against Jews than against Arabs, but that was because Jewish forces were attacking the British forces causing a large number of casualties. Zerotalk 09:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

to zero:
  • 1 "the Jewish forces at the end of the Mandate he writes "six 20-mm guns, 25 odd AFVs of all sorts and approximately a dozen serviceable light aircraft"" That's relates to chapter 4 time frame and not to chapter 3, the issue of our discussion.
  • "there were more arms searches against Jews than against Arabs, but that was because Jewish forces were attacking the British forces causing a large number of casualties.". That's not the reason because the British looked most intensively for the Hagana weapons, although the Hagana havn't intended to cause British casualties, and succeeded in that ( i.e very few casualties and only as a by product ). It is not clear why do you say ""there were more arms searches against Jews than against Arabs", since I can't recall even one search for Arab weapon warehouse (I might be wrong, but just in case, that was a real rare phenomena). I repeat my previous wish: " I'll appreciate it if you support your opinion with an example."
  • 3 Ilan Pape is far from being an objective scientist. He has a clear agenda, and the way he writes, serve his agenda. for instance, saying ""Their equipment was the poorest amongst all the Arab armies in Palestine:" is correct but still misleading, since the ALA should have been compared to the Hagana at the beginning of 1948 since both sides were fighting each other. As for the second half of 1948 and later, the Israeli army should be compared to the Arab regular armies, and not to ALA which reverted to be a secondary phenomena during this period. He quotes "25 odd AFVs" which is suspicios and probably were mostly the self made armed commercial trucks, which were not even close to an AFV . Ykantor (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
to pluto: you say" Arab Palestinians and Jew Palestinians were subject to the same restrictions from the British" . I say "Although the rules were the same, they were applied nearly exclusively against Jews." . Concerning people entering Palestine, the Arabs entered with no problems while overwhelming majority of illegal Jewish immigrant ships were not allowed to enter Palestine.
gelber writes ( Palestine 1948: War, Escape And The Emergence Of The Palestinian Refugee Problem By Yoav Gelber, p. 50-51) that the ALA units entered Palestine illegally, crossing the Jordan river bridge . The high commissioner Cunningham protested but his colleague in the Arab Countries ignored him. Moreover, Kirkbride protested to Bevin against Cunnigham hostile tone and threat. They said that stopping ALA from entering Palestine illegally, might cause considerable damage to Britain position in the Arab world.
Gelber writes (p. 58) that Egyptian volunteers entered Southern Palestine too.
Thus the British were effectively blocking the Jews from entering Palestine, while on the same time, deliberately done nothing to stop Arab fighters from entering the country. Ykantor (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't see the point that you want to discuss.
About ALA, everything is in the section "Intervention of foreign forces in Palestine".
About the Arms problems, in more of David Tal here above, I suggest you p.14 of Gelber and his conclusions about the problem.
Pluto2012 (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
to Pluto: my contribution is in agreement with page 14 of Gelber . Some of my added content isn't mentioned clearly in this page, but it is correct ( e.g. The British rulers forced the rules on the Jews, but deliberately not on the Arabs). The Arms paragraph first lines, are written as to show ALA as an incompetent group, while in reality they had heavy weapons and were capable of organizing relatively large scale attack (e.g mishmar hamek). If there a paragraph named Arms, it should note the arms situation of the sides. Namely, that:
  • until April beginning, the Arabs used heavy weapons while the Hagana had none, and thousands armed Arab fighters could penetrate easily Palestine , while the British Navy stopped the Hagana from reinforcement of people or weapons.
  • until mid may, when the British rulers left, the Hagana went into an offensive, helped by Nora's thousands of rifles.
  • The Arab states armies invaded Israel and the Hagana situation deteriorated again ( temporarily)
would it be acceptable that if there a paragraph named Arms, it should note the arms situation of the sides? Ykantor (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

proposal to move a relevant content from the arms paragraph (3.7) to a new arms paragraph (4.1)

to Pluto and Zero0000 :some of the arms paragraph (3.7) content , isn't relevant to chapter 3 (up to 1.4.48) but to chapter 4 (after 1.4.48). isn't it better to move this content to the correct chapter?

While I wrote about the arms situation at the time frame of chapter 3, some of your notes are relevant to chapter 4 (after 1.4.48). Ykantor (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Nearly nothing... And the material refers to "operations" that started sometimes even before the Partition vote.
What notes are you talking about precisely ? Pluto2012 (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
to pluto: The later half of the armament paragraph should belong to chapter 4 , since it is relevant to the time frame of it ( after 1.4.1948).
as for Zero notes, that refers to the time frame of chapter 4:
  • "the international embargo was very much to the Jews' advantage as they were far more successful in bypassing it than anyone else. Why do you think the Arab Legion ran out of artillery ammunition? This is heavily documented in "The Origin of the Arab-Israeli Arms Race" by Amitzur Ilan, which is a far stronger source than any of yours. You quoted from Collins&Lapierre about ALA cannons but you didn't quote from the same book about much greater Jewish acquisitions"
  • "Of the Jewish forces at the end of the Mandate he writes "six 20-mm guns, 25 odd AFVs of all sorts and approximately a dozen serviceable light aircraft" (p58)" Ykantor (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
It is correct that the last 2 paragraphs contain information that are not directly linked to weaposns that Yishuv got at the time but it refers to the process of weapon acquisitions they had already started at the time.
It is not always easy to follow a time line and to put an arbitrary cut for different events that occur in parallel and the whole section could be cut. This would harm the readibility and I think it would be better to precise more clearly in that section that weapons arrived later. Anyway this is more a concern of style rather than NPoV or accuracy.
Pluto2012 (talk) 05:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
to Pluto: If we won't do that, than in my opinion it is better to split the Arms paragraph into 3 sections ( until march, until mid may, later) without any added or removed word. Would you mind it? Ykantor (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok for me. I think that what you did is better. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The arms problem - The liberation army

to pluto: you deleted a sentence concerning food supply, but this sentence refers to the previous one. Thus, if in your opinion, food supply should not be specified in this paragraph, one has to delete the previous sentence as well, or lo allow both sentences to stay.

It is right that I removed this arguing it was talking about food. First line is more general. In any case, it is not written in Gelber's book p.52. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
It is written in p. 52. Should I send you a copy of this page? Or, you can look at it , at the top of the page. http://books.google.co.il/books?id=UcSUgrDsD_sC&pg=PA45&hl=iw&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false Ykantor (talk) 08:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I had missed it when reading.
That may sound unreasonnable from me but what you read there is ambigous. It means that the League had planned to do so but it never suceeded.
I find your sources to corroborate this (and if not, this can stay for sure).
Pluto2012 (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
to pluto: What is ambiguous there? it looks rather clear to me that ALA logistics were well organized. Could you please highlight the exact ambiguous Gelber's lines?
When Gelber says that the "Arab League had arranged to arrange the troops' ration through special contractor [to avoid intimidation of the population]", he doens't say it worked but he points out an intention that was not fulfilled in the facts.
formally you are right, but in my opinion Gelber would have mention it if it had remained as intention only. Ykantor (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Eg p.50 he says that : "The ALA's diverse supply sources created a bizarre arsenal that caused serious logistic problems and rendered maintenance an impossible task".
That doesn't contradict it. All it says is that the supply was a complicated issue. Ykantor (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Another example : later, when he refers to the situation at Jaffa, he reports the fact that ALA soldiers terrorized population.
That doesn't contradict it. It says that those soldiers had behaved like criminals, not necessarily out of need.Ykantor (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
You should read the full book. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • You deleted a sentence mentioning ALA cannons and armored cars, claiming it is false, although there is a direct source. Do you have a source that deny it? Ykantor (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Your source was not wp:rs. This was discussed here above in details.
Refrain from trying to pass through by force. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
This source isn't antique. It is from 1984. what's wrong with it? Ykantor (talk) 08:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
The Arms paragraph is there to give a fair picture of the situation of both camps.
It is false to picture that ALA would have had heavy weapons are armoured cars whereas Haganah not.
If you sources states this, this is because it is not wp:rs or because it dates back before 1984 or because both.
to pluto: could you please specify what is wrong with this 1984 source? It seems OK for me. Ykantor (talk) 07:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I answered this here above. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Haganah had hundreds or self-made armoured vehicles. The fact that ALA would have had 1 military one is not enough to state one had armoured vehicles and the other not.
to Pluto: concerning yours "Haganah had hundreds or self-made armoured vehicles", [here (based on benni morris)] nearly all Hagana armored cars were destroyed at the end of march 1948. Thus during April (the period we are debating about) there were very few armored cars. Moreover, [Hagana self made armored (with thin steel plates) cars (hebrew)] cannot be compared to the proper ALA armored fighting vehicles. However, going along with your claim that ALA had only few of those , the debated sentence may be modified. i.e "while ALA had about 7 cannons and around 10 armored guns equipped cars." is that OK with you? Ykantor (talk) 07:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Of course not. The ALA armoured cars were not better. If we talk about the ones of the ALA we should talk about the ones of the Haganah and we should also talk about the 250 fortified settlements. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
ALA had artillery (what exactly is not clear). The fact it was used once at Mishmar Ha'Emek (as I learned you here above) is not enough to underline this and give a bad picture of the situation.
This picture is only given in old books and is not given in recent books, such as Gelber's one, who is reliable.
Pluto2012 (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
to pluto: ALA's artillery was used at Jerusalem region as well. As was shown, Qaukji himself have written about the cannons in both places. You yourself have written that the [[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947%E2%80%9348_Civil_War_in_Mandatory_Palestine#The_Battle_of_Mishmar_HaEmek_.284.E2.80.9315_April.29 | artiilery is mentioned in this article]] and you have not deleted it there. Another source says: "Kaukji also had about a dozen three-inch mortars, several armored cars, and, most importantly, seven pieces of artillery" (The Battles of Armageddon: Megiddo and the Jezreel Valley from the Bronze Age to the Nuclear Age; By Eric H. Cline ,2002, p. 162). Gelber p. 13 says that the ALA brought few artillery pieces and armored vehicles.Ykantor (talk) 07:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
The Battles of Armageddon is not wp:rs in comparison with Morris's book and in any way, googling to find information on a topic that you didn't study is not a good way either.
Artillery piece = mortars or canons. Gelber doesn't mention the number of each because he doens't know. But what is known is that haganah had much more mortars than Palestinians or ALA. Their use is widely reported. I will bring you the numbers from Morris.
To be more precise regarding the source and not to give the feeling that I just reject this :
  • whether it is a tertiary source that refers to reliable secondary sources, and it is reliable
  • or it is a tertiary source that does refer to reliable secondary sources and that refer to non reliable sources, and it is not reliable.
In any case, the reliable source to which it refers should be prefered and we should look for information in that direction.
Pluto2012 (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
to pluto: "on the afternoon of 4 April, al-Qawuqji’s seven 5 and 105 mm field guns—in the first use of artillery during the war—let loose; ... A handful of members were killed or wounded; dozens of cows and horses died. Most of the settlement’s buildings collapsed or were badly damaged." source: Benni Morris, 1948, p. 133 . also, p. 134 : Subsequently, one of al-Qawuqji’s company commanders tellingly criticized the ALA’s performance: “1. There was no plan behind the management of the battle . . .(p. 136) . . . . There was no cooperation between the forces. The artillery fired without discrimination and the armored cars wandered [around the battlefield] as if they were independent agents, without any connection to us [infantry].” Ykantor (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Benny Morris is the most reliable source on the topic.
p.90 he writes : They were equipped with a diverse collection of light weapons, light and medium-sized mortars, and a number of 75 mm and 105 mm guns, with a small stock of shells. In mid-may, (...) ALA withdrew. During the following weeks, the army returned to Palestine (...) now armed with additional mortars and field pieces and an number of antiquated armored cars.
As I already wrote you cannot focus on the 105 mm guns and the "armored cars" to give a wrong picture of the situation. Regarding other pieces of artillery, ALA had a dozen 3-inch mortars. Morris writes p.88 that Haganah had 16 antitanks guns, 670 two-inch mortards and 84 three-inch mortars. He also describes the "makeshift" armoured cars of the Haganah. We should quite a precise number if you want to talk about their respective forces.
Instead of focusing on the ALA, we should also give a clear situation of Palestinian forces then p.88 and p.89.
Pluto2012 (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
to pluto: Both of us thrust Benni Morris, which make it easier to advance.
The arms situation was rather bad for the Hagana ( later the Israeli army) during 2 periods:
  • During the end of march 1948 when the Arab fighters succeeded in cutting the supplies to isolated Jewish villages, and especially Jerusalem. That's includes April 1948 beginning, except of Jerusalem where Nahshon operation had temporarily relieved Jerusalem supply problem.
  • During the weeks after the Arab states invasion and before the 1st truce, when the huge weapons supply just started to arrive from abroad.
For the 1st period "No doubt, too, the Haganah switched to the offensive in early April also, simply, because it could. For four months, under continuous Arab provocation and attack, the Yishuv had largely held itself in check, initially in the hope that the disturbances would blow over and, later, in deference to international— particularly British—sensibilities. In addition, the Haganah had lacked armed manpower beyond what was needed for defense. But by the end of March, recruitment and the eorganization of the militia in battalion and brigade formations were fairly well advanced. And Czech arms at last began to arrive." (benni morris, 1948, p. 117). Thus, it is important to highlight that during this very limited period, the ALA was superior in terms of arms.
As you say, there should be a table which compare the arms of all groups. Another alternative is to modify the deleted sentence and add: "while ALA had 7 cannons and few armored fighting cars" ? Ykantor (talk) 09:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
You write that ALA was superior in terms of arms. You are wrong : when you have "a number of 75 mm and 105 mm guns, with a small stock of shells" and "a few antiquated armored cars", you don't have "armored fighting cars" and if you want to compare artillery resources, you need to give the full picture and talk about "16 antitanks guns, 670 two-inch mortards and 84 three-inch mortars" to be compared with "a number of 75 mm and 105 mm guns, with a small stock of shells" and a "dozen of" "three-inch mortars". It is a if you would claim the Haganah had an air force because of the few recon aircrafts they had whereas ALA had not any and this should be done in fact because recon information with planes impossible to intercept.
Pluto2012 (talk) 08:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

to plutu2012: If you do not restore it, I will have to open a dispute

1 according to the rules, I have to give you a notice: If you do not restore the sentence, I will have to open a dispute.

It is typical for you to give an excuse it is already in the article, although it is not there.

You have done it again: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia Ykantor (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

2 :I introduced the information in the article at the right place and in a neutral way. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

3 :: You have done it again:Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia

  • you omitted ALA armored vehicles, although it is well supported ( 3 historians !)
  • you placed it in the wrong place. Unless the ARMS section is deleted all together ( which is wrong) then arms should be specified in the ARMS section.
You are not exempt from Wikipedia rules. I have to open a dispute. Ykantor (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Ykantor,

4 :::That's the last time that I will answer to you if you don't comply with WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Next time, I will proceed to my modifications without comments in referring to this message. Enough is enough.

The information was added in The Arms Problem section but where the description of the weapons of the ALA is given. Adding it just after the fact Haganah took the offensive is pov-pushing.
I already explained you, but you refuse to hear, the these armoured cars are not relevant. As a proof, at the place where Morris gives the global description of the ALA forces, he didn't mention it. This si WP:UNDUE, they had a handful of these.
It is as if you would picture the Battle of Latrun in stating that the Israelis had planes and not the Arab Legion. It is not mentionned by historians because it is unrelevant and mentionning this would give a wrong description of the events.
Pluto2012 (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

5 :::: I am fed up with you. You do not bother to read the quotations. Ykantor (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: The guidelines of the Third Opinion project say: "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill." The foregoing, with only one objection and one response, does not constitute a thorough discussion, so the request has been removed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. I will appreciate it if you explain what is missing here, and what should i add in order to make it ripe for Third Opinion request?
The situation is simple:
  1. I added a sentence to the article.
  2. he deleted the sentence, supposedly because it is already in the article
  3. I said that it is not the article ( see #1 above )
  4. he partially restored it ( see #2 above )
  5. I said that it was not restored properly,since there is a missing important fact, and not to the right place ( see #3 above )
  6. As usual for him, he blames me instead of replying to the points. ( see #4 above )
  7. When I try to focus to the problem, he usually blast lot of words around, and avoids the net problem, which is: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. He is not exempt from Wikipedia rules. He can not delete a well supported (3! historians) sentence unless he have good support for the deletion , which he did not bother to look for. In my opinion, there is nothing more to clarify. Please help me and tell me what should I add in order to place it again in the Third Opinion request. Ykantor (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
What you have to add is thorough, but deadlocked, discussion between you and the other editor demonstrating a sincere attempt to work out a compromise or solution to this issue and reach consensus. If you believe the other editor's behavior prevents such a discussion, and that such behavior violates Wikipedia's rules, that issue must be worked out through WP:RFC/U, WP:ANI, or in this case WP:AE, not through 3O, DRN, or other content dispute resolution because those venues do not handle conduct complaints, but please be aware that complaints made about other users' conduct frequently backfire on the complainant if the complainant's own conduct leaves anything to be desired. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you but I just want to rectify this specific point. Although he does not comply with Wikipedia rules, I am not looking to punish him. The main problem is that he avoids focusing in the main point and does not respond to the asked question. What could be the suggested path to solve the narrow problem only? i.e. to restore the deleted text? thanks Ykantor (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
If you're looking for a process by which the other editor can be compelled to put the material back in, no such process exists at Wikipedia. Such a process would be tantamount to arbitration and the Wikipedia community has always rejected arbitration and similar processes whereby a board, committee, or some other group of editors have the right to force some other editor or editors to make or accept content changes (except for a very small number of areas affected by law, such as libel, copyright, and child protection). Even in content dispute resolution such as 3O, DRN, and MedCom, all that the volunteers there can do is to either try to help editors come to agreement or to offer opinions on how policy applies to particular content situations. Indeed, even when policy clearly requires content to be one way or another, editors cannot (except for those legal issues previously mentioned) be forced to do or not do anything. If they persist in violating content policies, then they may be blocked or banned but to do so requires use of those "punitive" avenues you do not care to pursue. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I understand that the volunteer will recommend only, and this is fine for me. Hopefully it might convince him. I will appreciate it if you suggest what process fits this case. thanks. Ykantor (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
As I began, above, there is no such process until thorough discussion has taken place between the two of you. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The Battle of Ramat Yohanan

The narrative in the Ramat Yohanan section needs improvement. In the first sentence of the second paragraph, which summarizes the entire episode, no citation was used to support the claim that Druze attacks were forced back "with ease." The second sentence, on the other hand, which claims that Israelis burned down two villages from which the attacks were launched got two citations.

To provide a more accurate narrative, the article would benefit from one or two additional points of views to complement Morris', Gelber's and the author's.

I suggest the following narrative as appropriate material for the article's editors to use as a means of improving the section. It comes from a book by Laila Parsons, titled, The Druze Between Palestine and Israel, 1947-49, Oxford, 2000. The section of the book dedicated to the battle of Ramat Yohanan spans from page 65 to 69. The following account of the battle is taken from page 46:


The battle that followed [Shakib Wahab's] initial attack lasted five days, and was very fierce [emphasis mine]. The Jewish forces were surprised by the tenacity and discipline with which the Druze fought. On 14 April, the two sides met in hand-to-hand combat after a unit of company size (formed from Battalion 21 of the Carmeli Brigade) attempted to attack Druze positions north of Ramat Yohanan. The Jewish forces were pushed back and 12 Jewish soldiers were killed, most of them platoon commanders. Moshe Carmel, the commander of the Carmeli Brigade wrote:

"I saw retreating units returning one after the other without their commanders...the brigade for the first time had hit upon an enemy whose ability was much superior to the Arab fighter and which had inflicted defeat upon it. The spirits of the brigade were down and its faith in its own ability had been undermined." (42)

Endnote (42): Carmel, Ma'arachot Tzafon, p. 63. For the graphic account of this battle by the sergeant of the first platoon to attempt to storm the Druze position, see Eshel, Hativat Carmeli, p. 111. According to this account Moshe Dayan's brother Zorik, commander of the first platoon, died in this initial attack while providing covering fire for his retreating platoon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raja.hass (talk • contribs) 20:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

You are right. A few days ago I have added these lines:After an initial failure, a battalion-sized Carmeli force on the night of 15–16 April overran the two villages. The Druze Battalion, on 16 April assaulted the Carmeli positions nine times, But the Carmeli troops fought back. By afternoon, the exhausted Druze troops retreated. An Haganah report praised “the well trained and very brave enemy forces.” based on Benny Morris. BTW Why narrative? You are simply correcting a mistake. Ykantor (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor, thank you for adding the sentence describing the nine attacks. However, the first sentence of the second paragraph sets the tone of your narration of the battle. I believe that the sentence and its implications are inaccurate - it even contradicts the opinion of the Haganah's commanding officer on the ground.

I am advocating for a more balanced (?) approach on your part regarding this subject. The account I cited above and the one below are specifically meant to highlight the inaccuracy of your claim that "The Kibbutznikim and the Haganah soldiers that supported them forced back [the Druze] attacks with ease."

Regarding the Druze counterattack, for example, I would like to add the following account from page 68 of the same source I used above:

"The Druze counterattacked and charged the villages several times. At one point the battle in Husha was reduced to hand-to-hand combat, and two Druze soldiers managed to penetrate the village only to be killed inside. According to Jewish accounts the 'Druze charged ferociously with large knives - glistening in the sun-light - held between their teeth.' (49)

At the same time the Jewish forces were running low on ammunition and attempts to bring in reinforcements had failed. The company commander continued to send urgent requests for more ammunition back to Ramat Yohanan, until finally, in the middle of the afternoon, he asked to be allowed to give up the fight: 'Every man has four bullets. There is no more ammunition for the machine guns. Request permission to retreat.' But the reply from command headquarters in Ramat Yohanan insisted: 'You must hold on even if the bullets run out. If you retreat you will all be wiped out. Fight with knives and anything that is at hand.' (50) At 16:30, however, an armored car arrived carrying ammunition and a machine gun. The Druze were pushed back and retreated to Shafa'amr. The Jews held both villages, Husha and Kasayr, and the battle for Ramat Yohanan was effectively over." (51)


Endnote (49): Carmel, Ma'arachot Tzafon, p. 65. The fact that the Druze charged with knives between their teeth is also mentioned in Eshel, Hativat Carmeli, p. 116

Endnote (50): Carmel, Ma'arachot Tzafon, p. 69. Moshe Carmel was the brigade comander in April and May 1948, and is recounting events from memory

Endnote (51): There are conflicting reports on the number of casualties. Approximate numbers are 25 Jewish soldiers killed, 42 wounded; 110 Druze killed, 100 wounded: 16-19 April 1948, 132/105, HA; 20 April 1948, 195/105, HA. Based on an interview conducted with 'Abd al-Latif al-Fahum (whom he describes as 'one of the leaders of the fighters in that region') 'Arif al 'Arif claims that only 30 Druze were killed: al-Nakba, p.224. Abu Salih states that 'During the battle the Druze lost 100 dead and many wounded' (Tarikh al-Muwahhidin al Duruz, p.374). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raja.hass (talk • contribs) 20:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

your sentence " the first sentence of the second paragraph sets the tone of your narration of the battle. I believe that the sentence and its implications are inaccurate" is right in my opinion. I have not written this specific sentence. May be Pluto knows who wrote it, since Pluto has contributed a lot to this article (accordinr to him). My added sentences were intended to balance this 1st sentence. Ykantor (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
It should be checked in Yoav Gelber's reference what he says about this because both him and Laila Parsons are experts for the question of the Druze in the '48 war.
If they disagree, both analysis should be reported. In any case, I don't think the question of knowing if the battle was fierce or not is important and in case of disagreement, the easiest is just to remove both claims because a controversy on this question would be wp:undue.
Pluto2012 (talk) 08:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
After checking, Yoav Gelber doesn't mention it would have been easy so we must correct this mistake. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

to Aua: Why have you deleted my edition without specifying any reason

Could you please say what is the deletion reason? Ykantor (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Replied above.
Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 03:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Who started the '48 war ?

Material

There is a controversy among historians about who started the war. That may be seen as a childish problem but as in all quarrels, it is better to blame the other side for the beginning of 'hostilities'. The events are better described as a "spiral of violence" that lead to the war, as Benny Morris, The Birth... revisited (2003), p.138 or Ellen Fleischman (2003), University of Californian Press, p.201 writes.

The problem is that Benny Morris enters that "quarrel" and he is a wp:rs source. As Ykantor reports here above, he wrote :

"the spiraling hostilities and the Arab successes had bitten deeply into international support for partition and Jewish statehood—as the Arab initiators of the violence had hoped." ( Morris, 1948, p.113)

Note this is just a quote with an annex comment... Without a "s" at Arab and without a coma, that means that [some] Arabs initiated the fighting but it doesn't mean all the Arabs did so. More, it doesn't mean there were no Jewish initiators... (And everybody knows that the terrorist campaign of IZL and LHI started much before : King David Hotel bombing, The Sergeants affair, Acre Prison break, ...)

Anyway, it is not the only place where he does so. In his conclusions, Benny Morris blames the Arabs to have started the war and conclude that as a consequence their bear the responsibility of the results. In 1948 (2008), p.396 of his conclusions, he writes :

The immediate trigger of the 1948 War was the November 194 UN partition resolution. The Zionist movement, except for its fringes, accepted the proposal (...).
The Palestinian Arabs, along with the rest of the Arab world, saida flat "no" (...). The Arabs refused to accept the estblishment of a Jewish state in any part of Palestine. And, consistently with that "no", the Palestinian Arabs, in November-December 1947, and the Arab States in May 1948, launched hostilities to scupper the resolution's implementation. Many Palestinians may have been unenthusiastic about going to war -but to war they went. They may have been badly led andpoorly organised; the was may have been haphazardly unleashed; and many able-bodies males may have avoided service. But Palestinian Arab society went to war, and no Palestinian leader publicly raised his voice in protest or dissent.

Reading the detailled account of Gelber (who dedicated a chapter on the Outbreak and extensions of the hostilities) we can conclude he doesn't "blame" anybody to have started the war. On the contrary, regarding the facts, we can read p.20 :

"On 4 January 1948, precisely when Jaffa seems to calm down, LHI planted a bomb car near Najjada's headquarters. (...) This was the first of many similar acts in the civil war perpetrated by both sides. He continues former paragraph with "isolated skirmishes continue". Then he refers to the "ALA contigent" that arrived, one of next steps of the spiral.

I am far away from my books but we (maybe not Ykantor) know that Walid Khalidi and Nur Masalha, Palestinian historians, claim that the war (and the expulsion) was inherent to Zionism and planned for long. (See the article of the former about Plan Daleth and the book of the latter about the "expulsions of the Palestinians".) Whether we think their thesis true or not, the war was expected for long by everybody (Haganah was created in 1920 after the Jerusalem riots because nobody believed all this would not end by a war)...

(edit) now that I am closer of these, here is the description of the events of December and January in Expulsion of the Palestinians, 1992, p.176 :

Within weeks of the UN partition resolution, the country was plunged in what soon became a full-scale civil war. By mid-December, "spontaneous and unorganised" Palestinian outbreaks of violence were being met by the full weight of the yishuv's armed forces, the Hagahah, in what the British high commissioner called "indiscriminate action against the Arabs"[3] coupled with measures aimed at economic strangulation. Ben-Gurion adviced on 19 december that "we adopt the system of agressive defense; with every Arab attack we must respond with a decisie blow: the destruction of the place or the expulsion of the residents along with the seizure of the place"[4]. On 30 December, a British intelligence observer reported taht the Haganah was moving fast to exploit Palestinian weaknesses and disorganization, especially in Haifia and Jaffa, and to render them "completely powerless" so as to force them into flight.[5]
The Palesitnians were completely unprepared for war, their leadership still in disarray and largely unarmed as a result of the 1936-39 rebellion. The Yishuv's defense force, the Haganah, (to say nothing of the dissident Irgun Tzvai Leumi and Lehi groups), was fully army and on the offensive. As early as February 1945, before World War II had even ended, the first of a series of master military plans adopted by the Haganah (...) was in place in anticipation of the war for statehood. (...) Already in December the Haganah National Command was pushing for the adoption of "an agressive defense stra[t]egy".

-> The conclusion for wikipedia is that Palestinian historians think that Zionism started the war and even more that it was planned.

Note that Rosemarie Esber goes a step farther : in Under the cover of war (2008), she defends the idea (as others did before her) that the war (initiated by the Yishuv) was used to expell Palestinians from their land. (This is not just a "quote". That's the thesis of the full book...). Regarding the events of December, p.148 she writes :

Zionist violence grew mainstream and systematic over the course of December 1947, escalating the civil conflict from spontaneous acts of violence to premeditated, sustained fighting. According to MacMillan, "the Haganah began the first of a series of Jewish attacks on Arab villages" when [they attacked] Khisas village (...)
The yishuv's two leading Arabists, Ezra Danin (from Jaffa) and Elias (Eliahu) Sasson (a Syrian native), "criticized various Haganah and Palmach operations, such as the one at Khisas[,] (...) which had unnecessarily 'spread the fire' to hitherto quiet areas of Palestine".(...)
By mid-December, as the security situation worsened, Cunningham obserservedthat the situationhad deterioratedinto a "series of reprisals and counter-reprisals between Jews and Arabs in which many innocent lives are being lost". The tempo of violence, he feared, would accelerate: "I must state that the provocativeaction of the Jews and their admission that the Haganah is authorized to take what they call counter-action but what is in effect indiscriminate action against any Arabs, is hardly calculated to have a calming effects".

P.151-5, she describes the events from mid-December to mi-January and [some] bombings of IZL and LHI in a chapter that she calls the "reign of terror in Palestine" and she writes to conclude :

The zionist offensives had the intended effect on the Palestinian Arab civilian population. Terrorized by deliberate Zionist attacks, Palestinian Arabs did not respond actively but migrated passively in serach of safety, a behavior that increased with the fighting and intimidation.

Palestitian historian Saleh Abdel Jawad, in Zionist Massacres: the Creation of the Palestinian Refugee Problem in the 1948 War (published in a Benvenisti book) addresses Morris (and others) thesis about the "they brought it on themselves" arguments. He writes :

"While I do not seek to address the polemics surrounding the discussion of the 1498 War, I recently published a study in which I contest the idea that Palesitinian initiated the war".

This is so not just a quote picked from a book, this is a full article about this topic... And in this article, he of course talks about the LHI and IZL terror campaign. He does so too at the beginning for the article about the massacres. (I don't have access by googlebook to it).

Regarding some facts (primary sources), they can be found here :

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

I suggest that the topic of "who shot first" is not developed in the article because :

  • this article is purely factual and avoided the traps of the controversies ;
  • there is a political agenda behind blamind one side or the other for the initiation of the war ;
  • historians of both sides (when they are sided) rejected this responsibility on each other for years due to the Palestinian exodus that come from the war.
  • that is a complex topic because the war has its own context. It is not as if everything was calm and that it started on 29 November. Terrorism was raging from 1946 and the hostilities started in 1920.
  • the very fair summary of Yoav Gelber doesn't enter that polemic ;

In wikipedian vocabulary :

-> wp:npov compliance requires so much details and material to present this controversy properly that it should not be mentionned per wp:undue.

My proposal (in the synopsis) :

In the immediate aftermath of the General Assembly's vote on the Partition plan, the explosions of joy among the Jewish community were counterbalanced by the expression of discontent among the Arab community. Soon after, violence broke out from both sides and became more and more prevalent. Murders, reprisals, and counter-reprisals came fast on each other's heels, resulting in dozens of victims killed on both sides in the process. The impasse persisted as British forces didn't intervene to put a stop to the escalating cycles of violence generated by Arab skirmishes and IZL and LHI terrorism.

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Under continuous Arab provocation and attack, the Yishuv was usually on the defensive

You have to obey the Wikipedia rules. There is no reason to delete such an important, well supported and concise (just 19 words in line). Please obey the rules and return this sentence. Ykantor (talk) 02:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

We have all to comply with wikipedia principles.
Your edit didn't comply with :
  • wp:due weight in adding useless details at the place where you added these ;
  • wp:npov without providing other points of views on the topic (even if this is not really controversed)
  • wp:synthax in even not putting "capital letters" to the name of the author : Benny Morris
  • It was also explained to you that quotes are not required in references and I explained you how to write references but you reject this. You consider wikipedia as a wp:battlefield.
Pluto2012 (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Your marginal deletion reasons are not acceptable. At least you indirectly admit that you could not found any serious reason for this deletion. Well, I still believe that eventually you will have to obey Wikipedia rules. i.e. One can not delete text without proper reasons. Ykantor (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


to Pluto: You deleted again this content: "For four months, under continuous Arab provocation and attack, the Yishuv was usually on the defensive while occasionally retaliating".

Your reason is: "undue weight is not a question of number of words but the information itself regarding all other information".

In my opinion it is important to add it to the article header.

Please re-install it, otherwise I'll have to open a dispute. Ykantor (talk) 11:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You deleted it again, this time without reason. previously you claimed "undue weight". Why do you think it is undue weight?. You are expected to discuss the deletion reasons. Ykantor (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
That wasn't Pluto the last time; it was me. I saw the topic here and it's better to reach a consensus on the talkpage before moving it to the mainspace. As it is, it is in violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. Moreover, WP:LEAD has a good discussion of what to include, and your edits don't conform.
Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 21:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
It was not you, it was Pluto. note the date was 23 July. Anyway, You are right about consensus and the talk page, and I used to conform to this suggestion, but then Pluto , as a vandal, deleted a whole section (The British Diplomacy in support of the Arabs) without a consensus, and without any error there.
Could you please elaborate the Undue, Pov and Lead. I do not agree with these tags. Ykantor (talk) 03:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Ykantor,
It's really important to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Pluto is just trying to help. I don't see anything indicative of vandalism on their part. Also remember that this editing process is not adversarial; we are not trying to push our own opinions on, and in spite of, others.
Pluto gave a good explanation for reverting you and I agree with that assessment, namely: the lead is not the appropriate place to discuss your points. In fact, in the grand scheme of things, you are giving undue weight to those statements in the intro.
As an aside, once you are reverted once on those kinds of topics, you are expected to sort things out on the talkpage before reverting the reversion.
Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 20:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request:
I'm providing some 3O input even though this discussion is fairly old. (Indeed, the WP:DRN link related to this dispute does not have a relevant listing.) Also, other edits may have (not necessarily do) overcome the particular section you are concerned about. Even so, I looked at the edits which concern you. User Aua's is the better version and Aua's comments are the more persuasive in this discussion. You also have User:Pluto barking up a few pertinent comments, which I endorse. Please keep in mind we are all pushing on a WP:POLE, and the ultimate objective will be a good article. – S. Rich (talk) 06:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your involvement. I understand that in your opinion I am wrong. I will appreciate it if you tell me what is wrong.
  • I will try to present the my added content as concise as possible. A quote of Morris, 1948,p. 117 " For four months, under continuous Arab provocation and attack, the Yishuv had largely held itself in check, initially in the hope that the disturbances would blow over and, later, in deference to international— particularly British—sensibilities".
  1. My edit is even more concise then this quote.
  2. Even according to Pluto, Morris is a good source. (and there are more sources)
  3. The issue (who started the war) is very important.
  4. The article is somehow misleading at the moment.
    1. Pluto eventually "agreed" recently to insert a few words "was initiated by the Arabs" in the Synopsis. The words appears as a annex to "much of the fighting in the first months of the war took place in and on the edges of the main towns", in order to give the impression that the Arabs initiated this kind of fighting only. (not true)
    2. the words "was initiated by the Arabs" are misleading. It might be understood as the Arabs has attacked once or twice, and the war started rolling. In reality, the Arabs kept attacking and the Jews were on the defense (usually, not always). for the rational behind it- see later.
    3. Although it is very important, it is not mentioned in the lead or elsewhere.
    4. Behind both sides behavior (Arabs attack, Jews try to minimize response) there is a rational. The Arabs wanted to De-stabilize the country , in order to cause the U.N to retreat from the partition, and they were nearly successful (The U.S.A shifted from partition toward trusteeship). Because of the same rational, the Jews wanted to calm the situation, in order to enable the partition ( i.e. a Jewish state). As Pluto does not "allow" it, the article will stay as is - misleading.
  • I understand that in your opinion I am wrong. I will appreciate it if you tell me what is wrong? thanks Ykantor (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
BTW No wonder that you mentioned it as an old issue, since user:pluto2012 have not bothered to respond to the DRN. Thus, the DRN was closed as: Futile, no participation by one editor. Ykantor (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
This page and your talk page are full of detailled and patient answers to your questions. The question of who initiated the war is adressed here below in a very long section. Each time you don't receive the answer that you expect, you just ask the same question somewhere else to start the discussion again. You don't follow the advices that you are givne. Don't wonder why you don't receive answers any more. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
It is a sort of absurd theater. You recycle again the same false claims, although you have been patiently explained (do you like this ?) why it is an error. Your are methodically flooding wikipedia with this recycled and false material. just few examples:
  • you repeat telling me against quotes in the footnote, although you have been patiently explained that wikipedia allow it.
  • You avoid responding to a DRN, which is supposed to be an objective place, since you do not want your claims to be really checked.
  • whenever I try to focus the arguement to specific details (e.g. British diplomacy in support of the Arabs), you reply with general comments e.g. POV,UNDUE , since those are sufficiently vague and hide that you could not find any error.
As for your incorrect claim that the Arabs have not intiated the war and continuously provocated the Jews (the civil war), we have to believe that eventually justice wins. Ykantor (talk) 10:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ Walid Khalidi. "Before their Diaspora." IPS 1984. ISBN 0 88728 143 5. Page 253. Benny Morris, "The Birth of the Palestinian refugee problem, 1947-1949", 1987, ISBN 0 521 33028 9. Page 156. Morris gives no precise date or number of casualties but describes the house as "suspected of being an Arab terrorist headquarters." He also states that on 20 May 1947 the Palamach blew up a coffee house in Fajja after the murder of two Jews in Petah Tikva.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1947–1948_civil_war_in_Mandatory_Palestine/Archive_1&oldid=1142748315"