Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War/Archive 20

to Ykantor : giving undue weight to details
You stigmatized again information before discussing this and despite numerous warnings. I restored the former version. Putting these details in a separate section is giving them undue weight :. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Most of the section Last minute efforts to avoid the war deals with an American truce offer, based on Bayliss Thomas book. The relevant Bayliss phrase is not cited at all, except of few words in the last sentence. Moreover, it ignores important facts and considerations.


 * By late April, the U.S. State department, concerned to avoid a foreseeable conflagration after the British withdrawal, proposed a truce, managing to get the Arab states, that wished to avoid war, to accept  . This is based on Shlaim, quoting General Marshall. It does not show other State Department considerations. e.g. Marshall may have had in mind the CIA report of August 1947, which predicted that if war broke out between a newborn Jewish state and the Arab states, the Arabs would win. The prognosis had been “coordinated” with the intelligence arms of the departments of State, the army and navy, and the US Air Force. At most, the Jews could hold out for “two years,” the report concluded. (The report added that the eruption of such a war would unleash a wave of anti-Zionist, and perhaps anti-Western, jihadist “religious fanaticism.”) (morris, 1948, p.175)
 * 1) The American promise of Arab postponement of the invasion,was an hollow promise, since the Americans were unwilling to commit troops to enforce a truce. (Morris).
 * 2) This was a State Department proposal, rather than an American proposal. The Yishuv knew that President Truman will recognize Israel as an independent state (Morris). Thus the Yishuv had no reason to delay the independence declaration.
 * informally proposals by Ben-Gurion they had previously rejected, including a Jewish immigration rate of 48,000 per annum. This the author opinion, and it is not supported. It is contradicting Morris (1948,p. 174 )During April and early May, the Americans drafted and redrafted comprehensive truce proposals, which included a military and political standstill that required the Jews to curb immigration severely .
 * Likewise they promised the Jews assistance were Arab armies to invade subsequent to the truce. As said above, this was an hollow promise. (and not supported).
 * 'Aware that arm shipments from both Czechoslovakia and France were flowing in, and that local Palestinian forces were demoralized, the Jewish authorities turned down the proposal'' . It is supported by a Shlaim quote, but the quote does not state these reasons.
 * Will it be possible to adapt this wrong description to some RS (and not with a POV problem)? Ykantor (talk) 12:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of this is WP:OR and selective use of one source Morris. Morris is not the bible. There are several interpretations of the facts and all must be given due weight. Whatever our personal beliefs, we are obliged simply to present all points of view and not, as you characteristically do, push some interpretation as the only one. I told you, your history is theological, and there is no such thing as the 'truth' where several interests clash, as here.Nishidani (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Pluto: You are offending wikipedia rules
The diff file Ykantor (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You offended this rule: The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. As you claim to be a knowledgeable editor, you are probably aware of this rule. Please restore immediately my contribution to the original state.
 * you delete with no explanation.
 * As said above, you attack me personally. Ykantor (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If you wish to complain, provide a diff. This comment here and on Pluto's page is incomprehensible to other editors, and you have a bad habit of creating endless new sections -this one is pointless -Nishidani (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You should have a reason if you wish to accuse me: "a bad habit of creating endless new sections". This is not true. Every new section is reasonably based. Please stop with personal attacks. Ykantor (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Where's the diff for the behaviour you opened this section on to protest about?Nishidani (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. There is no offense there. Your way of framing a discussion, by opening up an arbitrary break and giving it a wrong title (Last minute efforts to avoid the war - POV and Fringe views ) which cogs the dice, was inappropriate. This talk page is not for your exclusive use, nor have you the right to dictate the terms. These weren't last minute efforts (Americans and Brits had tried to avert the war in 1946 with a common plan. Ben-Gurion's response was to order the immediate establishment of 24 settlements outside of its confines, for example.); there is no proof the section deals with POV (a word you refuse to understand) and finally there is no argument made to prove we are dealing with fringe views. By plunking that title there you tried to prejudge a discussion. I'll put it down to inexperience. But refusing to understand what POV means in the face of being informed several times, is just WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Nishidani (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * to Pluto: You have not responded yet. If you do not recover the deleted details, I will have to open a dispute. I have left a note in your talkpage as well. Ykantor (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you asking Pluto to restore the title of the thread? Just do it yourself dude. This is too much for crying out loud, and your edits on this talkpage alone are very disruptive.
 * Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 01:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 September 2013
At end of paragraph 3, after "Palestinians." add a new sentence:

"It is an indictment of the United Nations that it did not force the Jews to withdraw to the borders it specified in its 1947 Partition Plan."

Rrheyn (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌ Please see WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. We don't make sweeping historical judgments. GabrielF (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

precision in the description to take away a biased description
please, change "a wide strip along the Tel-Aviv-Jerusalem road" into "a approximately 15 to 25 Km wide strip along the Tel-Aviv-Jerusalem road"

Alvarommf (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Stfg (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Last minute truce - incorrect, and based on a non wp:rs
These sentences: "By late April, the U.S. State department, concerned to avoid a foreseeable conflagration after the British withdrawal, proposed a truce, managing to get the Arab states, that wished to avoid war, to accept informally proposals by Ben-Gurion they had previously rejected, including a Jewish immigration rate of 48,000 per annum. Likewise they promised the Jews assistance were Arab armies to invade subsequent to the truce. Aware that arm shipments from both Czechoslovakia and France were flowing in, and that local Palestinian forces were demoralized, the Jewish authorities turned down the proposal." are incorrect, and based on a non wp:Rs (a psycholgist, Baylis Thomas).

According to Morris 2008, p. 74-75 : "that required the Jews to curb immigration severely .334 Article 6 of the proposals of 29 April read: “During the period of the truce, no steps shall be taken by Arab or Jewish authorities to proclaim a sovereign state in a part or all of Palestine.”335 Israel consistently rejected the linkage and the deferment of statehood,336 but the proposals— against the backdrop of intense fighting in Palestine and Arab threats to invade— triggered a painful debate in the Zionist leadership about whether to postpone statehood"
 * Morris is not the bible, and in any case what he writes is not incompatible with what Thomas wrote. Nishidani (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * To be fair, that does not address the reliability of the source, Nish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.174.192 (talk) 09:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Dubious. incorrect. The Arabs in Haifa were asked to remain
The section: Haganah on the offensive. The article falsely claims that the Haifa Arabs fled because Haifa fell. But the Arabs in Haifa were asked to remain, by the Jewish mayor and by the British.(Morris 2008 p. 146). Concerning Acre: "The locals wanted a ceasefire but the AHC refused to permit it" (Morris 2008 p. 166).
 * This is nosense. They fled the city after it fell. It is not because it is claimed that they would have been asked to stay (other talks about intimidation by Haganah soldiers) that the reason of their flight is not the fall of the city. Pluto2012 (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Did the Arab citizens, choosing not to stay around and see if a Deir Yassin happened, not start fleeing when hostilities started?      ←   ZScarpia  14:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And as Morris points out, there were many causes to the exodus of the Palestinian Arab population. The fear of what could happen was one of them if they fell in the hands of the Yishuv militia and some started to flight when the attack started but the general view that the fall of the mixed cities led to the exodus of 250,000 Arabs is still true and sourced. Pluto2012 (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

neutrality is disputed- were the Arab Armies prepared for the invasion
The article sentence: "The situation pushed the leaders of the neighbouring Arab states to intervene, but their preparation was not finalized, and they did not assemble sufficient forces to turn the tide of the war". But according to Morris 2008 p. 174, the American consensus was that the Arabs would win, lthought it might take 2 years.

"A parade without any risks” and Tel Aviv “in two weeks,” was how the Egyptian army chiefs in May presented the coming adventure to their political bosses" (Morris 2008 p. 185) Ykantor (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC) Ykantor (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Once more, you are failing to read for sense. Preparing for war is one thing, making loud declarations of intentions all knew were merely sops to the Arab street was another. Laurens says that after the UN vote, Israel stayed silent but prepared for war, while leaders in Arab countries made huge threats and did nothing in terms of preparation for war. All of your edits emphasize the Arab rhetoric, and the Israeli fears ostensibly based on hearing those threats: wars are won by cool thinking, logistics and planning, not by shooting off one's mouth, and describing the realities rather than the rhetoric is how these sorts of articles should be done. Nishidani (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * On second thought, I should have use as a headline "they did not assemble sufficient forces to turn the tide of the war",and not the current one. The sentence claims that the Arabs armies invasion was a pre-known failure. But as quoted, the Americans expected to win eventually, although they have hardly prepared the invading armies. Ykantor (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * If you're trying to suggest there is a contradiction here you would be wrong. So what is it you are trying to suggest in this section? Sepsis II (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Undue: the Higher Committee had at its disposal some £750,000 as opposed to the $28 million
The sentence:"the Higher Committee had at its disposal some £750,000 as opposed to the $28 million for the purchase of foreign armaments at the disposal of the Jewish Agency" is misleading. The article is about the Arabs Armies Vs the Israeli army. This comparison belongs to the 1948 civil war article. Ykantor (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The foreign arms purchases were secured in agreements in January/February and arrived on the eve of the 1948 war, or shortly after its outbreak.Nishidani (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Dubious: al-Husayni's forces, which collapsed?? following the death of his commander, Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni, on 8 April
The sentence: " al-Husayni's forces, which collapsed following the death of his most charismatic commander, his cousin Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni, on 8 April".

Ibrahim Abu Diya, one of his deputies, continued and commanded the battle of Saint Simeon Monastery in Jerusalem, on 29 April 1948, which probably was the toughest battle in the city. (Morris, 2008 p. 131)
 * You are questioning one of the most widely remarked interpretations of the consequences of his death, that any reader of the literature would immediately recognize.
 * Instead of actually reading up sources, you are now posting provocative 'dubious' notes all over the talk page, which question the obvious as often as not. Do you wish everyone to do your work for you? Will you act on the information given? Here's what 2 minutes of checking revealed, which, had you done it, would have saved me a half an hour of my time.
 * Avi Shlaim When Palmon mentioned 'Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni, the mufti's cousin, and Hasan Salama, Qawuqji interjected that they could not count on any help from him and, indeed, he hoped that the Jews would teach them a good lesson. Palmon then suggested that the Haganah and the ALA should refrain from attacking each other and plan instead to negotiate, following the departure of the British. Qawuqji agreeed but explained frankly that he needed to score one military victory to establish his credentials. Palmon could not promie to hand him a victory on a silver plate. . .The extent of Palmon's success in neutralizing the ALA became clear only as events unfolded. On 4 April the Haganah launched Operation Nahshon to open the Tel-Aviv-Jerusalem road which had been blocked by the Palestinian irregulalrs. First, Hasan Salama's headquarters in Ramla was blown up. Although an ALA contingent with heavy guns was present in the neighborhood, it did not go to the rescue. Qawuqji was as good (or as bad) as his word to Palmon. Next was the battle for the Qastal, a strategic point overlooking the road to Jerusalem, which changed hands several times amid fierce fighting. 'Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni telephoned Qawuqji to ask for an urgent supply of arms and ammunition to beat off the Jewish offensive. Thanks to the Arab League, Qawuqji had large stocks of war material but, according to the Haganah listening post which monitored the call, he replied that he had none. 'Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni himself was killed in the battle for Qastal on 9 April. he was by far the ablest and most charismatic of the mufti's military commanders and his death marked the collapse of the Hyusayni forces in Palestine.' in Avi Shlaim, 'Israel and the Arab coalition in 1948,' Eugene Rogan, Avi Shlaim,The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948, 2001 pp.79-102 p.86


 * Eugene Rogan 'The Palestinians never fully recovered from the loss of Abd alo-Qadir al-Husayni. No other local leader rose to command the national resistajnce to the Jewish forces in Palestine, and his death was a tremendous blow to public morale. . .The demoralized Arab defenders left only forty men to hold al-Qastal. Within forty-eight hours, Jewish forces retook the town- this time for good'. The Arabs: A History, Basic Books, 2012 p.326
 * Hillel Frisch'The Mufti kept pressing the Arab states to speed up efforts to bolster Palestinian Arab capabilities, to which the Arab states, partially out of deference to the Hashemite block, responded with delaying tactics. Instead of a united stand, the relationship between the Mufti and the forces he controlled under 'Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni and Qawuqji faltered. . (Qaquqji actually coordinated with the Haganah to tell them he would remain neutral if they attacked the Mufti's forces) . . Even within the Lufti's camp, rifts and tensions abounded. Relations between the Mufti and Hasan Salamah and 'Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni were tense, and the relationship between their forces and national committees within the Mufti's fold fared little better. Salamah and Husayni frequently complained about a lack of support from the Mufti, necesitating them to go directly to the military committees for financial and military support. Nevertheless, 'Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni's deathj proved to be a major political blow for the Mufti and ultimately to efforts to develop an indigenous political center that could centralize military efforts as well.'  The Palestinian Military: Between Militias and Armies, ‎Routledge 2008 pp.32-33


 * The Mufti's ragtag army was a logistics and military shambles, and it is useless trying to argue that he had anything like an effective coordinated military arm. In addition, you made a huge fuss over the ALA emblem, as though it was proof of some murderously racist intent, but don't appear to know how their leaders collaborated with the forces of the Magen of David at times, against other Arabs and Palestinians. We need a full section developing all of the material on the inter-Arab conflict, the hostility between allies etc., and I hope you use the above information to that end. Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Your quotations are of course correct. There is no dispute that "The Palestinians never fully recovered from the loss of Abd alo-Qadir al-Husayni". However, his army did not collapsed (as the article states) but continued with Al Diya. I do not know how many fighters has continued, but they constituted a significance force at the San Simeon fierce battle. I try to fix article inaccuracies, but if I am wrong, please tell me. Ykantor (talk) 12:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Undue: to form the Government of All-Palestine in Gaza
The sentences:''"Following rumours that King Abdullah was re-opening ....his ambition to federate the Arab regions with Jordan".

Too long for a secondary important event, relatively to other article events.


 * ✅ Pluto2012 (talk) 12:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

POV: his Minister of Defence ordered all armed bodies...be disbanded
The sentence:"''his Minister of Defence ordered all armed bodies operating in the areas controlled by the Arab Legion to be disbanded".

It was Glubb's initiative, according to Morris: ""The disarming operation was apparently initiated at Glubb's insistence"".

-Since you keep posting here things you dislike, and lack the courtesy either to use the proffered materials in your edits or reply, I personally will not be helping you. What you are doing with this nonsense about 'POV' (= in your understanding: 'I dislike' or 'disagree' or 'one source (morris) denies or ignores this) is pointless, and does not in my view merit reply.Nishidani (talk) 08:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Why should I have any personal liking for Glubb or Abdalla? the purpose is improving the article accuracy. Ykantor (talk) 12:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ Pluto2012 (talk) 12:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Genocide threat
The war of momentous massacre quote has been confirmed:

http://www.meforum.org/3082/azzam-genocide-threat

Therefore, it ought to be re-included in the article, as its original source has now been confirmed. 174.44.174.192 (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Abdul Rahman Azzam is quoted as saying: "I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Tartar massacre[10] or the Crusader wars. ..." He predicts that a "war of extermination" may happen; he doesn't threaten, we're going to exterminate the Jews "if the vote goes the wrong way." Note that the interview took place at a pan-Arab summit, the article doesn't say that the statement was n't made to the UNSCOP committee or any other UN body considering Palestine. Also note that Morris is quoted as writing that he no longer uses the story about Azzam because he considers it dubious.     ←   ZScarpia  01:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right.
 * Personally I forgot this nuance due to the deep brainwashing around this sentence.
 * A perfect exemple that "quotes" should be used with the highest care.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

undue: The threats are minimized
The article sentence:"Some unofficial statements before the war had been more aggressive. Arab League Secretary Azzam Pasha, according to an interview in an 11 October 1947 article of Akhbar al-Yom, said: "I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades"

The threats are minimized by saying "unofficial" and by using one quote only, while there are plenty of closer date threats. e.g. (written by user:Ykantor)
 * Benny Morris (2008).
 * p. 50,"The Arab reaction was just as predictable: “The blood will flow like rivers in the Middle East,” promised Jamal Husseini.
 * p. 187 ." Azzam told Kirkbride:...we will sweep them[the Jews] into the sea" . Al Quwwatli [ the Syrian president] told his people:"…we shall eradicate Zionism" ;
 * p. 409 "Al Husseini…In March 1948 he told an interviewer in a Jaffa daily Al Sarih that the Arabs did not intend merely to prevent partition but "would continue fighting until the Zionist were Annihilated"
 * p. 412 "Already before the war, Iraq’s prime minister had warned British diplomats that if the United Nations decided on a solution to the Palestine problem that was not “satisfactory” to the Arabs, “severe measures should [would?] be taken against all Jews in Arab countries.”38 A few weeks later, the head of the Egyptian delegation to the United Nations, Muhammad Hussein Heykal, announced that “the lives of 1,000,000 Jews in Moslem countries would be jeopardized by the establishment of a Jewish State.” "
 * Nimr el Hawari, the Commander of the Palestine Arab Youth Organization, in his book Sir Am Nakbah (The Secret Behind the Disaster, published in Nazareth in 1955), quoted the Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said (http://www.cfoic.com/learn-more/articles-of-interest/the-arab-refugees/)... Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said, who declared: “We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down.” (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/refugees.html)
 * U.N Ad Hoc comitee on palestine ,press release GS/PAL/83, 24 November 1947,debate on alternative plan for partition of Palestine, p. 3, "if the U.N decide to amputate a part of Palestine in order to establish a Jewish state, no force on earth could prevent blood from flowing there…Moreover…no force on earth can confine it to the borders of Palestine itself…Jewish blood will necessarily be shed elsewhere in the Arab world… to place in certain and serious danger a million jews…Mahmud Bey Fawzi (Egypt) …imposed partition was sure to result in bloodshed in Palestine and in the rest of the Arab world".


 * I see no objection to remove the word "unofficial" but what do others think about this ?
 * Regarding the threats, the one that is mentioned is the most famous one and known one. It can be found in nearly all books (despite it was falsely attributed to Azzam on 15 May '48 whereas it was said 6 months earlier.). On the other side, I disagree with the idea to add other quotes. What should be added, if something is to add, is how this rhetoric was perceived at the time and how do historians comment it.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no dispute here, but several sources will note that none of the governments acted even in the slightest way on these threats. It was inflammatory rhetoric, but as one sees with the case of Azzam's quote, it only served to convince the street something was being done or would be done. The Arab Higher Committee disposed of a budget for arms purchases of $2,250,000, which was equal to the yearly expenses of the Haganah alone in normal conditions. By the end of 1947, the Jewish Agency could dispose of $28,000,000 dollars solely for purchasing arms abroad (Laurens 3:33). Iraq, to cite one example, went to war because of internal political problems, as a sop to popular demonstrations, but its three regiment were unprepared and suffered severe shortages in ammunition and supplies (Esther Meir-Glitzenstein,Zionism in an Arab Country: Jews in Iraq in the 1940s, Routledge 2004 p.16.) In a certain sense, the scare quotes substituted for policy, just as the 5 Arab armies invaded 'Israel' meme is, in analytically terms, nonsense. Six armies, including the Yishuv's army wrestled over Palestine, with the only competent army, Jordan's, more or less sticking to the West Bank, which was allotted to the Arabs. The problem is to get these statements in, but as Pluto says, duly weighed by the scholars who cite them (some give them huge weight, others dismiss them as empty rhetoric. But bloodthirsty rhetoric, if your enemy hears it, boomerangs and in that sense this stuff was a great 'assist' to Zionism.
 * A good historian will weigh carefully statements against realities, without stacking a quote-farm to prove some threat of a second holocaust existed. When Curtis LeMay said he'd bomb the North Vietnamese back into the stone age, he pressed for that in operational planning; when Rafael Eitan said, 'when we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged roaches in a bottle,' it wasn't long before Dov Weissglass was thinking about it operationally. Nishidani (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Two comments about claims here.
 * Neither of the two sources given for Nimr el Hawari are usable. Find a scholarly source.
 * The claim about Heykal is severely distorted. The source is a press release (GA/PAL/83, not GS/PAL/83) that summarizes a debate in the Ad-Hoc Committee.  The press release is here.  Compare what is offered to what is there:
 * Offered: "Jewish blood will necessarily be shed elsewhere in the Arab world"
 * Original: "If Arab blood is shed in Palestine, Jewish blood will necessarily be shed elsewhere in the Arab world despite all the sincere efforts of the Governments concerned to prevent such reprisals".
 * While one can debate about what he really meant, the actual words are quite different from the version which is manufactured by deleting parts of it. (My opinion: in these debates diplomats say whatever they think will be most likely to persuade their listeners, regardless of whether they mean it.) In the official record, rather than the press release, it is longer and starts like this: "Mr. HEYKAL Pasha (Egypt) said that if the question were considered from the point of view not of a lawyer but of a statesman, it was clear that the proposed partition might lead to bloodshed. There was no animosity against the Jews or racial discrimination of any kind in Egypt any more than in the other Moslem States. A million Jews lived in peace in Egypt and enjoyed all rights of citizenship. They had no desire to emigrate to Palestine. However, if a Jewish State were established, nobody could prevent disorders. Riots would break out in Palestine, would spread through all the Arab States and might lead to a war between two races. Even certain pro-Zionist newspapers, such as the New York Post, feared that the partition of Palestine might imperil the Jews resident in Moslem countries, and create hatreds which might last for centuries." (A/AC14/SR30, page 183) Zerotalk 05:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

More Arab threats:

from Morris 2008:
 * 1) p. 187 Azzam Pasha told Alec Kirkbride: "We will sweep them [the Jews] into the sea".
 * 2) p. 187 Shukri al-Quwatli [ the Syrian president] told his people:"We shall eradicate Zionism".
 * 3) p. 409 Haj Amin al-Husseini said in March 1948 to an interviewer in a Jaffa daily "Al Sarih" that the Arabs did not intend merely to prevent partition but "would continue fighting until the Zionists were Annihilated"
 * 4) p. 70, '"On 24 November the head of the Egyptian delegation to the General # Assembly, Muhammad Hussein Heykal, said that “the lives of 1,000,000 Jews in Moslem countries would be jeopardized by the establishment of a Jewish state"
 * 5) p. 61,"mid-August 1947, Fawzi al-Qawuqji—soon to be named the head of the Arab League’s volunteer army in Palestine, the Arab Liberation Army (ALA)—threatened that, should the vote go the wrong way, “we will have to initiate total war. We will murder, wreck and ruin everything standing in our way, be it English, American or Jewish.”
 * 6) p. 50 Jamal Husseini promised, “The blood will flow like rivers in the Middle East”.
 * 7) p. 412 Iraq’s prime minister Nuri al-Said told British diplomats that if the United Nations solution was not “satisfactory”, “severe measures should [would?] be taken against all Jews in Arab countries".


 * Iraq’s Foreign Minister, Fadel Jamali, : Not only the uprising of the Arabs of Palestine is to be expected, but the masses in the Arab world cannot be restrained... There are more Jews in the Arab world outside Palestine than there are in Palestine. …any injustice imposed upon the Arabs of Palestine will disturb the harmony among Jews and non-Jews in Iraq: It will breed Interreliglous prejudice and hatred." ( source: url = http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/93DCDF1CBC3F2C6685256CF3005723F2| accessdate = 2013-10-15|title=U.N General Assembly ,A/PV.126,28 November 1947,discussion on the Palestinian question) Ykantor (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Good work, Ykantor.
 * That would be great if you could gather quotes stating how the scholars analyse these threats. That's the most important.
 * I agree with what you wrote somewhere that we have to make the difference between how they were perceived at the time (as Morris points out in the conclusions of his book on the '48 war I think) and how scholars analyse them today but the primary material is useless. What is important is the secondary material about this.
 * That would be even better if you could keep information pro- and contra- your own beliefs.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 06:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As requested (how the scholars analyse these threats) :
 * Morris 2008
 * p. 116: But the Haganah had had little choice. With the Arab world loudly threatening and seemingly mobilizing for invasion, the Yishuv’s political and military leaders understood that they would first have to crush the Palestinian militias in the main towns and along the main roads and the country’s borders if they were to stand a chance of beating off the invading armies.
 * p. 198 : during the civil war, the Jews felt that the Arabs aimed to reenact the Holocaust and that they faced certain personal and collective slaughter should they lose. Most Haganah troops had lost relatives in the Holocaust, a loss fresh in their minds, and they were imbued with boundless motivation and a measure of fury (“once more we are under attack and threat of annihilation”). …This gap in motivation was to tell on the battlefield, especially in May and June, when small Jewish units with rifles and Molotov cocktails staved off far larger Arab forces backed by armor and artillery (as in Kibbutz Nirim and Kibbutz Degania Aleph ) Ykantor (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thx.
 * On my side, I found in Gelber (2006), p.137 :
 * "Despite the wild rhetoric that had preceded and accompanied the invation, the invasion's goal was not and could not be "pushing the Jews to the Mediterranean". The purpose of this propagandist slogan was mobilizind domestic support from lame politicians who had undertaken a crucial decision and feared its consequences". Drawn into the war by the collapse of the Palestinians and the ALA, the Arab governments' primary goal was preventing the Palestinians' [sic] total ruin and the flooding of their own countries by more refugees. (...)"
 * We should now try to gather all pov's on the question so that we can comply with WP:NPoV. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Yishuv forces
mistake: "The reservists trained three or four days a month". what is the source? Ykantor (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't check but I think this information comes from Benny Morris, the Birth... Revisited. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * p16: "Haganah members usually trained for 3–4 days a month, for the rest being fulltime civilians", referring to late 1947. Zerotalk 08:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

a possible mistake:"Other combatant forces lacked the ability to make strategic decisions and tactical maneuvers"
The sentence: "Other combatant forces lacked the ability to make strategic decisions and tactical maneuvers,[111] as evidenced by positioning the fourth regiment at Latrun, which was abandoned by other combatants before the arrival of the Jordanian forces. something is fishy here. Does it says that the Haganah ( that abandoned this fortress for no real reason) lacked the ability to make strategic decisions? Ykantor (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It should refer to this. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

a possible mistake:"Iraq's army...These forces were to operate under Jordanian guidance"
The sentence:"Iraq's army...These forces were to operate under Jordanian guidance". The source is Pappe. However, Morris 2008 p. 189 :"Each country was bent on going or not going, its own way" Ykantor (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Misleading:The Yishuv had a numerical superiority, with 35,000 troops of the Haganah
This sentence is misleading, as only Half of them were fighters. The home guard members could hardly guard their villages. see Morris 2008, p. 204 : "About half the Haganah’s manpower served in service, headquarters, and Home Guard units. On 15 May only 60 percent of Haganah troops had arms.108 But large shipments soon arrived, and by the start of June, according to Ben-Gurion, the IDF had “reached a saturation” in small arms,… The Haganah’s main problem during the first weeks of the invasion was a lack of heavy weapons."
 * According to Morris they were all fighters and according to Gelber's too. He just makes the difference between mobile units and fixed units. Note that Gelber clearly talks about "numerical superiority".
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read the quoted sentence again:"About half the Haganah’s manpower served in service, headquarters, and Home Guard units. On 15 May only 60 percent of Haganah troops had arms.108 But large shipments soon arrived, and by the start of June, according to Ben-Gurion, the IDF had “reached a saturation” in small arms,… The Haganah’s main problem during the first weeks of the invasion was a lack of heavy weapons.". Concerning your Gelber quote, what is the page number? Ykantor (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Gelber, p.73.
 * I don't understand what you want to say. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Misleading: The Yishuv bought from Czechoslovakia modern armaments
This sentence is misleading, as on the Arab states invasion, the Haganah situation was really bad. "only 60 percent of Haganah troops had arms", and lacked heavy weapons. Few weeks later, at the first truce, the arms situation has improved dramatically.
 * The sentence doesn't state the contrary.
 * It is not written "had bought". It is even less written "had bought and was equipped with". It is written "bought", which means they it happened at that moment. Eventually, "was receiving" could be more accurate but my grammar is not good enough to state with 100 % it is correct English.
 * Note the 35,000 had weapons. Those who had not weapons yet joined later. They were 60,000 fully equiped end of June. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Please read the quoted sentence again: "only 60 percent of Haganah troops had arms" on 15 May. The article misleads and does not mention it. it should say: only 60 percent of Haganah troops had arms, and lacked heavy weapons. Few weeks later, at the first truce, the arms situation has improved dramatically. Ykantor (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It was corrected by Reenem but I still doesn't understand was you say. Do you understand the different between "bought", "had bought" and "was buying" ? Pluto2012 (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

headlines - should be clear, concise and informative
The section headers, should be clear for the unfamiliar reader, that might not know what is negev or galilee.
 * 1) Latrun, the way to Jerusalem
 * 2) Battles of Latrun
 * The first version is clearer, it shows the importance of Latrun i.e the way to Jerusalem.
 * it is more informative (and still concise) to add which army fought there. i.e Latrun, the way to Jerusalem- The Jordanians

The first version is clear to the unfamiliar reader and it is more accurate since the Iraqis started by attacking  Gesher in the north.
 * 1) The Iraqi army – the northern and central region
 * 2) Northern Samaria

I propose to return to the previous headlines, or equivalent headlines. Ykantor (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope. We have links for that. Note that your suggestions invariably subvert NPOV. Which army fought at Latrun is the Jordanian army; which army fought in the northern and central region, why, the Iraqis, etc. I guess the yishuv forces and later the IDF didn't constitute an army, and only one army on each front was fighting, namely the 'invader'.Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't mind having something else than what I put but I cannot understand that Ykantor doesn't undertand that each time indicatings Egyptians, Jordanians, ALA, etc is pov-ed. What about Israelis, they were not there ? Should we add Latrun (Arab territory), Negev (Israeli), Samaria (Arab territory), Jerusalem (International Corpus Separatum)... Enough now... Pluto2012 (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Reverted. That's no more better. Ykantor is in a "fighting mode" and should try to get a solution on the talk page first. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You complained about mentioned Arab army only, and I added both Israeli and Arab sides. So why have you reverted? Ykantor (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The addition of "Southern front" and "Northern front" clarified everything. There is no need to add anything more in the title.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 08:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

POV and not accurate- the strongest Arab army agreed not to attack the Jewish state?
The article sentence: "In one stunning diplomatic coup, the strongest Arab army agreed not to attack the Jewish state". The source is Shlaim who push his collusion theory. However, the sides had general discussion with no real agreement. According to Morris 2008 p. 193, 194:"[Golda]… returned from the meeting depressed. Her aides were impressed that a clash between the Yishuv and Jordan was unavoidable. Or at least, … Abdullah would choose a middle course: “[He] will not remain faithful to the 29 November [UN Partition] borders, but [he] will not attempt to conquer all of our state [either].”… Goldie had stressed the Legion’s desire to avoid conflict with the Haganah as it deployed in the West Bank. At the Meir-Abdullah meeting a week later, the king, while making no promises, had likewise affirmed his wish to avoid an all-out clash and implied that the Legion would not invade Jewish territory.". Nothing was for sure. Abdullah was rather vague and a Golda aid concluded that "but [he] will not attempt to conquer all of our state ". Later Abdulla considered taking over Beer Sheva and Gaza. Morris describe the changing Yishuv attitude. Initially they sticked with the partition borders, and were afraid of a repeating of the Holocaust. But with the military successes they extended gradually their territorial ambitions and eventually Ben Gurion blamed his ministers that failed to agree to occupy most of Judea ("Bechia ledorot"). So both sides war aims were shifting continuously, and it could have evolved to heavy battles between the sides deep inside Israel or deep inside the west bank.. Ykantor (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Is Morris relying on Golda Meir's account? I've seen quotes from a Jewish Agency official who was at the relevant meetings also. If I remember correctly, he said that Meir was disingenuous later about agreements reached and about what Abdullah had said. According to him, Abdullah did make promises, promises which he stuck to.
 * Also, the Arab Legion Officer entrusted by Abdullah to take missives to the Jewish Agency is supposed to have made copies, which were later published in Egypt, giving hard evidence of collusion.
 *    ←   ZScarpia  00:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Morris, in 1948, A History of the First Arab-Israeli War (2008), writes of the 17 Novemeber 1947 meeting between Gold Meir and Abdullah: "The Jews would accept a Jordanian takeover of the West Bank as a fait accompli and would not oppose it — though, formally, the Jewish Agency remained bound by the prospective UN decision to establish two states. Abdullah said that he, too, wanted a compromise, not war. In effect, Abdullah agreed to the establishment of a Jewish state in part of Palestine and Meir agreed to a Jordanian takeover of the West Bank (albeit while formally adhering to whatever partition resolution the General Assembly would adopt). Both sides agreed not to attack each other. The subject of Jerusalem was not discussed or resolved."     ←   ZScarpia  19:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Undue: Through his leadership, the Arabs fought the 1948 war to meet Abdullah's political goals
Abdullah's leadership was just a title. He did not lead the other Arabs Armies.
 * Consider rewriting the passage using the following source which contradicts that statement.

"'Seen from Cairo, Riyadh, or Damascus, the danger was not so much “the Jews” as the expansionist intentions of King Abdallah, which not only disturbed the Arab balance of power, it endangered their own position as well. Every attempt at coordinate action failed as a result of inter-Arab rivalry.'Seen from Cairo, Riyadh, or Damascus, the danger was not so much “the Jews” as the expansionist intentions of King Abdallah, which not only disturbed the Arab balance of power, it endangered their own position as well. Every attempt at coordinate action failed as a result of inter-Arab rivalry.' Gudrun Krämer A History of Palestine: From the Ottoman Conquest to the Founding of the State of Israel, Univerity of Princeton Press,2011 p.317 Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)"


 * Yes, the sentence should be removed for the reason stated by Ykantor. --Frederico1234 (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, removed, and replaced with a paraphrase of the above passage, I would think. Go ahead, Ykantor. You have consensus.Nishidani (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

"and immediately attacked Jewish settlements"
Trahelliven,

You added a tag requiring a quote for this text. The fact that Arab contingents immediately attacked Jewish settlements located at the border or on their way is described in the text. See Battles of the Kinarot Valley; Battle of Yad Mordechai. There was also the Battle of Gesher. What is the problem with this ? Pluto2012 (talk) 09:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Anglo-Israeli air battles
Twice, I added in the section that there have been allegations that some RAF pilots took their revenge by shooting down any Israeli aircraft they encountered, including a few transports, and that this was subsequently covered up. I noticed that it was eventually removed in both cases. Can anyone tell me why? It seems like it would be appropriate to put in there.--RM (Be my friend) 16:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of this event but that is not enough for it to be deleted. If it is not well-known, it may justify anyway to remove this per WP:Undue
 * In any case, what is the source for this information ?
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The Spyflight article, which is the main source for that section. I'm not sure if it would fall under the realm of "not well-known", as the article itself states that there were "persistent rumors".--RM (Be my friend) 02:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Reenem,
 * I am rather very open on the question of sources. From my point of view, a source is good until a better source is found. Anyway, for most contributors, a website cannot be considered as a reliable source, even if it is of quality...
 * By "well-known", I meant that I have the latest books about the 1948 war, I have read them, some several times but I have never heard about this. But of course, I don't know everything.
 * It seems it is in the RAF mythology (rumors). Mythology is a dangerous source. Don't you know if there are official historical records of the events by British historians who could give some weight to this information ?
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 05:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't have to use it as a 100% confirmed source. I just want to mention that there have been rumors that the RAF pilots attacked IAF planes in revenge. I'm sure a lot of Wikipedia articles say that there were rumors of this or that happening and that it has never been confirmed. I would think that the possibility that RAF pilots attacked IAF planes would be significant enough to mention.--RM (Be my friend) 17:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Very sincerely, I don't think so. On the contrary.
 * Even if a reliable source would say there were such rumors, I would prefer not adding this information in an article per WP:DUE WEIGHT.
 * At least, we need a reliable source stating such events occured.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Design flaw
This is cast as a face-off between established armies, between Israel and other neighbouring nation's armies. We have an Egyptian, Iraqi, Jordanian etc. section, and the development of set battles under Israeli operational names. The problem is, that a large part of the fighting took place without set battles between Israel and elements of those armies: in the several hundred Palestinian villages that were beseiged and attacked, there were, if you will, clashes between units of the Israeli army and local villagers, and one occasional explains that there were 'Arab irregulars' here and there. But this is almost ignored in our view of the fighting which, editors should be reminded, is written mostly from Israeli books, which blur these boundaries. For that reason, I think, in order for NPOV to be maintained, that some corrective attention be given to the ground assaults which concern Israeli forces and Palestinian villages. The latter were, after all, the major casualties of the conflict. I have edited in David Tal and Neumann's memories of the southern front for July as one example of what is required. If you deal with the south in a subsection that preempts neutrality by designating the clash as one between Israeli and Egyptian forces, you automatically cancel what was going in irrespective of the Egyptian army, i.e. the Palestinian narrative.Nishidani (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you.
 * In that case, focus should be given to Al-Dawayima massacre.
 * Note I think that Neumann is a primary source quoted by a journalist (Gideon Levy), who is well-known and reliable but who is not notorious enough on the topic to be used as a wp:rs source in this article...
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * (Gideon Levy), who is ... reliable ??? A reporter who claims that Israel is always wrong?? can he be reliable? Ykantor (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Nishidani: you inserted a POV sentence: Israeli forces had already been engaged in attacking and expelling
Nishidani: you inserted a POV sentence: At the same time Israeli forces had already been engaged in attacking and expelling residents from Arab villages, . In fact, it was a by product only, of Haganah preparation for the Arab states invasion, and it was limited to important military territories only (both within and outside of the U.N. partition boundaries).Ykantor (talk) 10:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As usual, you don't know what you are talking about with regard to wiki policy. The sentence I introduced is directly taken from a noted Israeli historian of that period, who makes it quite clear that several of the Arab Palestinian villages taken by assault at that time were outside of the area designated as the territorial boundaries of the Partition Plan for Israel. Your second remark is incomprehensible, if the introductory 'in fact' is being used in the controvertive sense.Nishidani (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Nishidani, please stop personal attacks e.g. As usual, you don't know what you are talking about....
 * It is not the first time that you respond to whatever you wish and irrelenat points (e.g. out of the area, direct quote), but not to the wp:npov mentioned points:
 * it was a by product only, of Haganah preparation for the Arab states invasion
 * it was limited to important military territories only (both within and outside of the U.N. partition boundaries).
 * Will you please respond to the POV mentioned points? Ykantor (talk) 13:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a fact that you have only the vaguest understanding of wikipedia policy. To state that is not to engage in a personal attack
 * Go and read WP:NPOV.
 * Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
 * You are so unfamiliar with policy that you called my use of a balancing source POV ('Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them' (b) 'As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process.'), when you edited in a point of view, and then implied above that the point of view you hold is a fact. Indeed it is only comprehensible if one remembers that you edit 'to the truth' which, in many cases, happens to coincide with more or less the old Zionist narrativ. You will either have to read policy correctly, or learn to understand English with more sophistication than you have shown so far. Nishidani (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * So many words, but no reply to those 2 mentioned wp:pov points.
 * yours:"learn to understand English with more sophistication". you are right but toward yourself. You have not inserted a balancing text, and there is no connection between the Arab invasion and between Haganah attacking Arabs. You added a new (and a POV) point (Haganah attacking Arabs).
 * The Arab invasion is indeed a fact, unless you come with an wp:rs who says it is not an invasion, and then (and then only), it will balance my writing.
 * I suggest you ask other people if your added text is a balancing text or a new point.
 * Please reply to to those 2 POV problems. Ykantor (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Where did I say that the Arab Invasion on the 15 May was not a fact?
 * Why is there no connection between 'the Arab invasion and because Haganah attacking Arabs'(that's ungrammatical, by the way).
 * p.s. You don't 'write the text'. We write the text.Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Latest revision as of 09:18, 23 October 2013 (edit) (undo)

I do not know what the reference has, but I think it should be "proposed Jewish state"" rather than" future state of Israel". Trahelliven (talk) 09:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite correct. By all means feel free to change that.
 * Has Ykantor broken the 1r rule today?
 * (1)the text is concised (Actually disembowelled)
 * (2)also here? I'm no expert on this area, but that is two consecutive removals of disputed material, the one removing David Tal particularly serious since it is a specialist RS authority, and the edit summary has nothing to do with the removal.Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Two consecutive reverts count as one revert. I don't have time to go through the second diff right now. The justification for the first diff makes no sense at all. Our neutrality policy says that we accurately represent sources. Yankor deletes a high quality academic source citing his own opinion about the topic and then claims "POV". From a Wikipedia perspective it is totally incoherent - Our neutrality policy tells us to represent reliable sources not our own views on topics. Dlv999 (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

With regard to Zionist forces attacking and clearing villages and towns in the Arab-projected part of Palestine prior to the end of the mandate, the activities of the Irgun seem to have been forgotten (see the Arab-Israeli War section of the Irgun article). The Lead currently says, "An alliance of Arab states invaded Israel and the zone proposed for the Arab state, on behalf of the Palestinian Arab side," which is interesting because, of course, neither now or when it was created, Israel doesn't and didn't have specified borders, which begs the question of what the article means when it says Israel was invaded. By the time the war started, Zionist forces were in control of the territory of the Jewish-projected part of Palestine and only a fraction of the fighting took place there.    ←   ZScarpia  03:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * the activities of the Irgun. Yes, you are right. Dier Yassin Massacre is extremely important and should be mentioned (perhaps together with Kfar Etzion massacre)
 *  Israel doesn't and didn't have specified borders. There should be a date from which we should use "israel" instead of Palestine. What should be this date? I thought that the 15.5.48 was an appropriate date (the end of the Mandate and the Israeli declaration of independance.) Would you suggest another date?
 * By the time the war started, Zionist forces were in control of the territory of the Jewish-projected part. The borders question is complicated. The Arabs did not recognized any partition borders. U.K did not recognize Israel, nor its borders. ( I read that The U.K mailed to "The jewish authorities, Tel Aviv", which was returned to the sender).  At the invasion date, the Negev was not yet under Israeli control.
 * only a fraction of the fighting took place there..
 * At the invasion first day, the Egyptians attacked Kibutz Nirim (within the partition border) and bombarded Tel Aviv.
 * At the invasion first day, the Iraqi's attacked Kibutz Gesher (within the partition border) BTW The Arab Legion attacked Gesher too, but 3 weeks earlier.
 * At the invasion second day, just after midnight of the first day, the syrian bombarded Kibutz Ein-Gev (within the partition border).
 * It seems that the Arab states has attacked Israel from the invasion begining. Ykantor (talk) 11:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I realize that the term "Invasion" is not accepted well here. In my opinion it is a definition only. e.g. During the ww2, the Allies invaded  Normandy and the locals welcomed the invasion. Ykantor (talk)


 * The main part of the article describes what happened on 15 May 1948 in these terms - neighboring Arab states Egypt, Jordan (Transjordan) and Syria, invaded the territory of the former British Mandate on the night of 14–15 May 1948. For consistency, the lead should be in the same terms.
 * Even if Ytantor were justified in making the edit of 20:46, 23 October 2013, it would have been helpful to have given reasons in the edit summary on such an important detail. Of course an explanation in the Talk page would have been even better. Trahelliven (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We must accept that the majority of RS (esp. from distinguished Israeli historians like Gelber and Morris, but the problem is broader than that) espouse the idea that in writing of the outbreak of hostilities, the form 'Israel was invaded (by 5 Arab countries)' thesis/meme. And we are obliged to respect those authorities. It is however self-evident that this is a systemic bias POV leg-in to one side, and indeed Laurens offers a clearly different version, which ought to be taken as a balance to the Morris/Gelber version.
 * The simplest way to phrase this neutrality is: 'With the declaration of the State of Israel with Mandatory Palestine, concurrently, the Arab states undertook a military intervention. Ben-Gurion opposed any mention of frontiers in the Declaration on two grounds: no precedent existed for this in the Declaration of Independence by the United States and secondly, depending of the outcome of the conflict, it was possible for Israel to extend its territorial reach into the Galilee and the Jerusalem corridor.' This is how Laurens puts it, adding:-
 * 'The entry of the Arab countries into the war posed a complex legal problem.Crossing (affranchissement) the borders can amount to an act of aggression or a threat to peace which would justify both a condemnation and an intervention by ther United Nations; but if the armed forces penetrate only in the Arab part of the Partition Plan, they can be considered as (having been) elicited by the population and at this stage would their intervention would not be by itself a threat to peace. This (then) would only begin with an attack (loaunched) by the Jewish side. But, at certain points, the Arab armies directly threaten Jewish territory and in others the Jews have already established themselves broadly in Arab territory' (Laurens vol.2 p.104) 'The military operations (at that date) are launched simultaneously' p.105
 * As to the 5 armies. On the Lebanese border, Laurens says that 800 soldiers only made a slight penetration into Palestinian territory to strengthen its defensive position. p-107. a poorly prepared small Syrian force entered the Galilee and was repulse; Iraq's army after two brief sallies to the north, entered the Arab section via the Allenby bridge along with Glubb's forces, which aspired to annex the greatest part of ''Arab Palestine' without engaging in a confrontation with the Israelis' p.109 and was under specific instructions not to overstep the Partition Plan lines.
 * So, Laurens has a very nuanced, POV-sensitive analysis of the outbreak of the war. He nowhere in these pages speaks of 'invasion'.
 * His description of the battle for Jerusalem shows similar care, though his perspective balances the dramatic account we have of a beseiged Jewish community with a version where the Arab irregularls desperately and valiantly defend themselves against a Jewish attempt to conquer the city.pp.111ff.Nishidani (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * a poorly prepared small Syrian force entered the Galilee. This poorly prepared small Syrian force invaded with artillery, tanks, armed armored cars, and air force with Harvard armed aircraft, while Israel had none. While the royal navy successfully blocked Jewish arms shipping (and new immigrants as well) up to the Mandate last day, Arab armed forces (Arab Liberation Army, Army of the Holy War, Egyptian irregulars) easily entered Palestine. Those 4 weeks (between 15.5 invasion and the first truce) were the most horrible period to the Jews, who were defending themselves with light arms, against relatively well equipped armies with heavy arms.
 * If Laurens writes "a poorly prepared small Syrian force entered the Galilee", then he is biased against the Jewish side. Ykantor (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The Syrian army committed 1,500 men. They were wholly unprepared for the war, having received notice that they were to fight just a few days before the 15th of May. Their logistics were poor - they had handed over a part of their munition reserves to the Arab Salvation Army, and given its scarcity of war matériel had to husband what was left. Its knowledge of the theatre of war where it was to conduct operations was minimal. It took then almost a week to get their tanks over the Jordan. Their first advance was roundly defeated, with heavy losses. On the 18th under Husni Zaim they attacked and took Samakh, south of Tiberias, only to lose it in three days after an Israeli-kibbutznik counter attack. This massive army 'with artillary, tanks, (armed?)armoured cars and airforce stocked with Harvards, (not Harvard-armed aircraft!!, which is a brilliantly comical image)' took 4 days, involving almost all that the Syrian army could muster, to capture a little moshava like Mishmar HaYarden, with its 20 local guards (Tal p.261) which had to fight on its own, without IDF assistance.
 * Secondly, you really should stop this nonsense about RS bias. Morris is biased against the Palestinian/Arab side, anyone can see that, but he is eminently good on the facts. Laurens is perhaps the most neutral of all, but he gives the Arab version a much more intelligent coverage than others. Morris, Tal, Gelber, Laurens are all RS, and that's all that counts. One cannot challenge one of them, as if the others were somehow engaged in 'neutral' coverage.Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I repeat: if Laurence wrote that (a poorly prepared small Syrian force entered the Galilee), he is biased against Israel. The Syrians attacked Israel, having a big advantage of both weapons and the amount of soldiers in the region. With all their drawbacks, they were much superior relative to Israel. The Israelis defended themselves with some success, because of their motivation: they realized that if they loose, they will be slaughtered by the Syrians. Ykantor (talk) 07:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

an armored car, used for transport: an armed armored car, with a built in weapon, might be used for fighting ( see Otter Light Reconnaissance Car) Ykantor (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect links
Hello helpers, I'm brand new to editing Wikipedia officially so I may not be using correct protocol, but I have found a problem. Under section 6.2, "Casualties", when referencing Henry James, it directs you to an American Revolutionary Statesman, not the French Historian which the work is attributed to. I am unable to edit as I only just created an account (for this reason) so could somebody do that please? The correct link should be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Laurens_(scholar) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bschippers (talk • contribs) 14:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Question
Should this article be called "Israel's war of Independence" or may be have a page which redirects to this page.-sarvajna (talk) 03:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * On the second point, you can see the many redirects that point to this article here, including several war of Independence variants.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Got it, Thanks. A redirect would be enough I guess.-sarvajna (talk) 06:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact, the "[1948] [Israeli] War of Independence" is the 1948 Palestine War. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

the article has POV and "dubious" problems
There are references to Morris 2003 but it is not unique. There are 2 possible books:
 * 1) Victimes, histoire revisitée du conflit arabo-sioniste
 * 2) The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews

Could the editor of these references clarify to which book the references belong? Ykantor (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The Lede
The lede says: "There had been tension and conflict between the Arabs and the Jews, and between each of them and the British forces ". However:
 * The Arabs opposed the growing Jewish immigration, which resulted in riots, while the Yishuv have tried to mitigate the tensions.
 * The Yishuv conflict with the British rulers started with the 1939 white paper only, that restricted the Jewish immigration while contradicting the League of Nations mandate rules. Ykantor (talk) 08:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Both points are correct - The Brits supported Zionism until the WWII preparations, and the Arabs opposed both Brits and Zionists. Some say they did it for very good reasons, since the League of Nations mandate rules was clearly a colonialist document, not considering the Palestinians point of view, and I agree somewhat to this. You can read about it in "The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood", by Rashid Khalidi. Beacon Press. 2006. ISBN 0-8070-0308-5. יוסאריאן (talk) 09:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * According to Tom Segev - One Palestine. Complete, the Jewish Agency (at the time named Zionist Executive if I am right) entered in conflict with the British administration as soon as it was established by endless claims and most Brits working in Palestine became pro-Arab, anti-Zionist and antisemite due to this situation. The British administration became also mitigated in its support of Zionism when it realized the strong opposition of the Palestinian Arabs.
 * I don't think that the Yishuv tried to calm the tensions with the Arabs. If it is true that it collaborated much more with the Brits than the Arabs, except Mapam, they didn't really try to compromise with Arabs but were just pragmatic.
 * It is true that Yishuv didn't consider the resort to force before the Great Arab Revolt.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The Arabs started the war
The sentences:"Soon after, violence broke out and became more and more prevalent. During the first days, the Arabs attacked Jewish zones.[28] Murders, reprisals, and counter-reprisals came fast on each other's heels, resulting in dozens of victims killed on both sides in the process". This is not true, as the Arabs started the war and continuously attacked the Jews, While the Yishuv was interested to calm the situation, in order to maximize the chance of the partition. sources:
 * 1) " Despite the fact that skirmishes and battles have begun, the Jews at this stage are still trying to contain the fighting to as narrow a sphere as possible in the hope that partition will be implemented and a Jewish government formed; they hope that if the fighting remains limited, the Arabs will acquiesce in the fait accompli. This can be seen from the fact that the Jews have not so fat attacked Arab villages unless the inhabitants of those villages attacked them or provoked them first."
 * 2) " Their fear of the intervention of British forces prevents them from using large forces or heavy arms on a wide scale." source: General Ismail Safwat report, 23 March 1948, cited from  Journal of Palestine studies, 1998, no. 3, p. 70
 * "Jamal Husseini, of the higher Arab committee of Palestine, informed the united nations:"The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight""
 * "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"


 * The Jews accepted the partition plan; all the Arab states and the Palestinians rejected it vehemently. The Palestinians launched a campaign of violence to frustrate partition and Palestine was engulfed by a civil war in which the Jews eventually gained the upper hand
 * The Palestinian attack on the Jews provoked the civil war while the Arab invasion in May 1948 provoked the official war.


 * complicated point - the Jews clearly had been aiming for getting Arab-free territories and had a motivation to fight in the areas they wanted (as happened eventually). For example - the event that was, by Ma'ariv( a Hebrew newspaper) the "beginning of the war" - the attack on Kfar Szold, has happened several days after a controversial ruthless Hagana attack on Al-Khisas. יוסאריאן (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Citation needed- probably incorrect sentences
The following sentences does not seem correct. I have put a template - Citation needed
 * "This situation caused the US to withdraw their support for the Partition plan, thus encouraging the Arab League to believe that the Palestinian Arabs, reinforced by the Arab Liberation Army, could put an end to the plan for partition." . It does not seem correct. I have put a template - Citation needed
 * ''"Although a certain level of doubt took hold among Yishuv supporters, their apparent defeats were due more to their wait-and-see policy than to weakness.

Last minute truce - incorrect, and based on a non wp:rs
Last minute truce - incorrect, and based on a non wp:rs

Dubious. incorrect. The Arabs in Haifa were asked to remain
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War/Archive_20#Dubious._incorrect._The_Arabs_in_Haifa_were_asked_to_remain Dubious. incorrect. The Arabs in Haifa were asked to remain]

neutrality is disputed- were the Arab Armies prepared for the invasion
neutrality is disputed- were the Arab Armies prepared for the invasion

The Haganah offensive was not a part of Plan Dalet
The article incorrectly say:"The result of his analysis was Plan Dalet, which was put in place from the start of April onwards[dubious – discuss]. The adoption of Plan Dalet marked the second stage of the civil war[dubious – discuss], in which Haganah passed from the defensive to the offensive.". The Haganah offensive was not a part of Plan Dalet. see Morris 2008, p. 116-119. Ykantor (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "'Plan Dalet (Plan D) practically realized the Zionist idea of transfer. Plan D was finalized by the Haganah on 10 March 1948 and implemented in the same month, though it only officially went into effect on 14 May 1948 the day Israel declared independence.' Sean F. McMahon (ed) The Discourse of Palestinian-Israeli Relations: Persistent Analytics and Practices,Routledge/Taylor & Francis ‎2010 p.27"
 * "'Plan Dalet was issued in March, but it was only carried out during the second part of April.'David Tal, War in Palestine, 1948: Israeli and Arab Strategy and Diplomacy, Routledge 2004 p.89.":Your chronic confusion stems from the use of one or two sources, ignoring the fact that these are historians' points of view, in this case by literalists. That Plan D, an offensive, was to take place after the British withdrawal in May is one thing. That elements of Plan D were changed operationally after the Palestinian successes of March, leading other historians to regard operations that were technically not foreseen in the plan, as 'offensive' and therefore retrospectively heirs to the Plan D analysis and its battle aims, is something you ignore. As Laurens remarks, Nachshon in cleansing the route to Jerusalem according to the principles of Plan D, absorbed and anticipated the strategies of that Plan (vol.2 p.73)Nishidani (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems that Laurens is rather close to Morris. Both say that in retrospect Nachshon seems to follow plan D. Both does not claim that the high command triggered the plan. Ykantor (talk) 08:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What you say is nosense. I don't know for which futile reason you want to remove Nachshon from Plan D but whatever : Plan D were directives that were provided to all battalion commanders and Nachshon operation was triggered by the High Command. So, when this operations and the others ones were triggered, the Plan was triggered as well.
 * If you or some of your advisers think Nachshon was not part of Plan D, just find a quote stating this precisely because the sources stating that Hagannah took the offensive in April and that the Plan D was a plan of directives to follow in preparation of the Arab invasion to come do not lack.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * to Pluto: Please stop personal attacks. Ykantor (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Stating that what you write is nosense is not a personnal attack.
 * And regarding all that you wrote about me, I would not give lessons to anybody if I were you.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Military assessment
The section, or elsewhere in the article, does not present the comparative balance of forces. The following data refers to tanks of both sides only, as an example for other heavy weapons. The quotes are sourced from Morris, 2008.

- "The Haganah’s main problem during the first weeks of the invasion was a lack of heavy weapons. It had managed to steal or  buy from the departing British units two or three tanks" (p. 204). No wonder that "Jewish fears of defeat and possible annihilation were very real," (p. 204). - Those tanks were one Sherman tank on 16.5.48 stolen ( Ben Gurion  memoirs), and 2 Cromwell tanks, added on 30.6.48, stolen from the British army.- "By the end of May, ten additional tanks" (p. 204). [H-35 light tanks] - Egyptian ground forces ... in May 1948. ... one undersized tank battalion (some thirty tanks in all, but without guns), p. 233- crossed into Palestine on 15–16 May...During the following three  weeks, the Egyptians reinforced ... and the battalion of light  tanks p. 233- By 22 May...Yad Mordechai. They added ...and a tank p. 238- On 1–2 June the Egyptian ... attacked [Kibbutz Negba] ..., a company of light tanks- The Syrians, a company of light Renault 35 and Renault 39 tanks (mounting 37 mm cannon), p. 251- on 18 May, ... attack on Samakh. ...including light Renault 35 tanks p. 254- 20 May..The Syrians attacked [Degania]...eight to twelve Renault  35 tanks (p. 255 to 256)
 * From the Arab states invasion up to the 1st truce

<P>- the Egyptians, on 12 July...struck at Kibbutz Negba...Egyptians retired, leaving behind ... a disabled tank p. 277<P>- The Egyptians, ... attacked ...half a dozen tanks, on 18 July  against ....Karatiya. p. 277<P>- on the night of 9–10 July, ...the following morning. Syrian tanks repeatedly attacked Carmel troops on Tel Magabara p. 285<P>- The IDF advances of 9–13 July ... Most of Israel’s tanks and  much of its other armor was in disrepair p. 293<P>- i.d.f ...15–16 July ...led by two Cromwell tanks ... to take the  Latrun (p. 293)
 * before the 2nd truce

the Second Truce benefited the Israelis more than the Arabs...boost in light weaponry...In heavy weapons, such as  tanks, ..., the IDF remained abysmally deficient (p. 298) On the eve of Yoav...The main Egyptian formations along the coast were supported by a battalion of sixteen light Mark VI tanks p. 321-322<P>- "increase in Israeli strength, which by September and October  1948 resulted in clear Israeli superiority" p. 206 [operation Horev] the push into Sinai...with a company of tanks p. 362-363<P>- Rafah, ... was defended by ... and twenty Locust tanks. The Israelis struck on the night of 3–4 January p. 368<P>- near Sheikh Zuweid, at last cutting the El Arish–Rafah road on  the evening of 6 January. The [I.D.F] position, reinforced on 7 January by ... and two tanks f... Desperate Egyptian counterattacks were repulsed, the attackers losing eight tanks p. 369<P>- General Sadiq, OC of the expeditionary force, feeling that the trap was closing, had pressed his government to agree to a cease-fire. On 5 January Cairo informed the United Nations, United States, and Britain that they were ready to begin armistice negotiations if Israel ceased hostilities (p. 369) Ykantor (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The second truce
 * operation Yoav
 * operation Horev
 * A table gathering military forces -of all side- -along time- would constitute very interesting information. I am ready to collaborate to the establishment of this table but I think we whould first discuss its structure (I mean, the titles of the lines and the columns). Pluto2012 (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

the amount of wounded and killed people
Quotes:
 * Between 30 November 1947 and 7 April 1948, 959 Palestinian Arab civilians died, and 1,941 were wounded, while Jewish civilian deaths were 840, with 1,785 wounded.[40]
 * By the end of March, 2,000 had been killed and 4,000 injured.[46] These figures correspond to an average of over 100 deaths and 200 injuries per week, all of this in a country with 2,000,000 inhabitants.

Those sentence are duplicates with somehow contradicting numbers. It is suggested to delete one of the 2 sentences. Ykantor (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for the background section
That was used as a synthesis of the article about the Civil War period and could be used in the article as a background:

<i>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 IZL and LHI terrorism and Arab skirmishes.

From January onwards, operations became increasingly militarized, with the intervention of a number of Arab Liberation Army regiments inside Palestine, each active in a variety of distinct sectors around the different coastal towns. They consolidated their presence in Galilee and Samaria. Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni came from Egypt with several hundred men of the Army of the Holy War. Having recruited a few thousand volunteers, al-Husayni organized the blockade of the 100,000 Jewish residents of Jerusalem. To counter this, the Yishuv authorities tried to supply the city with convoys of up to 100 armoured vehicles, but the operation became more and more impractical as the number of casualties in the relief convoys surged. By March, Al-Hussayni's tactic had paid off. Almost all of Haganah's armoured vehicles had been destroyed, the blockade was in full operation, and hundreds of Haganah members who had tried to bring supplies into the city were killed. The situation for those who dwelt in the Jewish settlements in the highly isolated Negev and North of Galilee was even more critical.

While the Jewish population had received strict orders requiring them to hold their ground everywhere at all costs, the Arab population was more affected by the general conditions of insecurity to which the country was exposed. Up to 100,000 Arabs, from the urban upper and middle classes in Haifa, Jaffa and Jerusalem, or Jewish-dominated areas, evacuated abroad or to Arab centres eastwards.

This situation caused the US to withdraw their support for the Partition plan, thus encouraging the Arab League to believe that the Palestinian Arabs, reinforced by the Arab Liberation Army, could put an end to the plan for partition. The British, on the other hand, decided on 7 February 1948, to support the annexation of the Arab part of Palestine by Transjordan.

Although a certain level of doubt took hold among Yishuv supporters, their apparent defeats were due more to their wait-and-see policy than to weakness. David Ben-Gurion reorganized Haganah and made conscription obligatory. Every Jewish man and woman in the country had to receive military training. Thanks to funds raised by Golda Meir from sympathisers in the United States, and Stalin's decision to support the Zionist cause, the Jewish representatives of Palestine were able to sign very important armament contracts in the East. Other Haganah agents recuperated stockpiles from the Second World War, which helped improve the army's equipment and logistics. Operation Balak allowed arms and other equipment to be transported for the first time by the end of March.

Ben-Gurion invested Yigael Yadin with the responsibility to come up with a plan of offense whose timing was related to the foreseeable evacuation of British forces. This strategy, called Plan Dalet, was readied by March and implemented towards the end of April. A separate plan, Operation Nachshon, was devised to lift the siege of Jerusalem. 1500 men from Haganah's Givati brigade and Palmach's Harel brigade conducted sorties to free up the route to the city between 5 and 20 April. Both sides acted offensively in defiance of the Partition Plan, which foresaw Jerusalem as a corpus separatum, under neither Jewish nor Arab jurisdiction. The Arabs did not accept the Plan, while the Jews were determined to oppose the internationalization of the city, and secure it as part of the Jewish state. The operation was successful, and enough foodstuffs to last 2 months were trucked into to Jerusalem for distribution to the Jewish population. The success of the operation was assisted by the death of al-Hasayni in combat. During this time, and independently of Haganah or the framework of Plan Dalet, irregular troops from Irgun and Lehi formations massacred a substantial number of Arabs at Deir Yassin, an event that, though publicly deplored and criticized by the principal Jewish authorities, had a deep impact on the morale of the Arab population and contributed to generate the exode of the Arab population.

At the same time, the first large-scale operation of the Arab Liberation Army ended in a "débâcle", having been roundly defeated at Mishmar HaEmek, coinciding with the loss of their Druze allies through defection.

Within the framework of the establishment of Jewish territorial continuity foreseen by Plan Dalet, the forces of Haganah, Palmach and Irgun intended to conquer mixed zones. Palestinian Arab society was shaken. Tiberias, Haifa, Safed, Beisan, Jaffa and Acre fell, resulting in the flight of more than 250,000 Palestinian Arabs.

The British had, at that time, essentially withdrawn their troops. The situation pushed the leaders of the neighbouring Arab states to intervene, but their preparation was not finalized, and they could not assemble sufficient forces to turn the tide of the war. The majority of Palestinian Arab hopes lay with the Arab Legion of Transjordan's monarch, King Abdullah I, but he had no intention of creating a Palestinian Arab-run state, since he hoped to annexe as much of the territory of the British Mandate for Palestine as he could. He was playing a double-game, being just as much in contact with the Jewish authorities as with the Arab League.

In preparation for the offensive, Haganah successfully launched Operations Yiftah and Ben-'Ami to secure the Jewish settlements of Galilee, and Operation Kilshon, which created a united front around Jerusalem. The inconclusive meeting between Golda Meir and Abdullah I, followed by the Kfar Etzion massacre on 13 May by the Arab Legion led to predictions that the battle for Jerusalem would be merciless.

On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the establishment of the State of Israel and the 1948 Palestine war entered its second phase with the intervention of the Arab state armies and the beginning of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. </i> Pluto2012 (talk) 02:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to go through this slowly, suggesting stylistic changes, and trying to use summary third party sources. Para 1
 * The General Assembly decision on Partition was greeted with overwhelming joy in Jewish communities and widespread outrage in the Arab world. In Palestine, violence erupted almost immediately, feeding into a spiral of reprisals and counter-reprisals. The British refrained from intervening as tensions boiled over into a low-level conflict that quickly escalated into a full-scale civil-war. .Nishidani (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Yishuv had created an integrated underground army over the preceding decades, and after 1946 had engaged in a large scale covert operation to buy abroad and produce locally large quantities of arms. Palestinian efforts to secure weapons in late 1947 were hampered by factional disagreements between the Nashashibi and Husseini clans, poverty, outdated weapons, ammunication shortages and and a lack of political awareness and national commitment. The Palestinians expected to lose, a judgement shared by British Military Intelligence (July 1947) and the Arab League Military Committee (October 1947). By January, militarization escalated: both the Irgun and Stern gang stepped up their attacks on Arab institutions and civilians, and contingents of volunteers of the Arab Liberation Army, organized in late December, and poorly equipped and with little military experience, intervened in Palestine, improving their rudimentary military skills and trying to convince Palestinians reluctant to take up arms to do so. while consolidating their presence in Galilee and Samaria. Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni came from Egypt with several hundred men of the Army of the Holy War. Forces allied with al-Husayni managed a blockade of the 100,000 Jewish residents of Jerusalem, and the Yishuv's armoured relief columns were badly mangled in endeavouring to breaks it, and by March, most of the Haganah's armoured vehicles had been destroyed. The situation for those who dwelt in the Jewish settlements in the highly isolated Negev and North of Galilee was even more critical. From 30 November 1947 to 3 April 1948, 959 Arabs died, and 2,018 were wounded, while the Yishuv suffered 875 deaths, and 1,858 wounded. Nishidani (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, this proposal should be shortened to a half or third of the initial proposal. The  1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine article is available for those who are interested in more information. <P>- If it stays as is, then there are unbalanced issues here. e.g. the arms import. It fails to mention that the Communist countries sold arms to the Syrians too. It does not mention that the U.K. (and others) supplied arms to the Arab states until the last days of the Mandate, while forcibly blocking the Arms supply to the Yishuv (while offending the U.N. resolution), who was starved for arms. <P>- There are more phrases that should be moved from the later sections to the correct timeline location, which is the "background" section . I hope that this time people will take a notice that no text is added/ modified/ deleted. <P>- The U.N and the powers involvement before the 15 May 1948, should be mentioned as well. Ykantor (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That somehow makes it sound as though the British were arming the Arabs to fight the Israelis. Bear in mind:
 * The UK was obliged by treaties to supply arms to states such as Jordan and Iraq which it had been the mandatory for.
 * The British tried to prevent the flow of arms to both Arabs and Jews in Palestine while the Mandate was still in operation, not just the Yishuv.
 * Elements of the Yishuv were shooting at and bombing British troops and civilians up to the end of the Mandate.
 * For the British, political and military penetration of the Middle East by the Soviet Union and its satellites were the main concern in that area.
 * <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  00:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The civil war prelude deals with arrangements by Palestinian forces, the Yishuv and the Palestinians, and whatever forces or arms actually entered Palestine from Nov 30 to mid May. Nishidani (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Removal of the Unbalance flag ?
Can we remove the unbalance flag ? Pluto2012 (talk) 07:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the unbalanced tag should stay, because the article is biased against Israel. Ykantor (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What you point to, is mostly about the period leading up to Arab–Israeli War, ie, pre-medio May 1948. And I thought there was a general agreement that we should try to keep that period mostly out of this article, as it is covered elsewhere. What remains to discuss is Talk:1948_Arab–Israeli_War  and  Talk:1948_Arab–Israeli_War, if I am correct? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that since the Civil war period (until 15 May) description was shortened, some of the problematic text disappeared. However, in my opinion, the main biased point is still here. <P>- The article does not mention that the Arabs started the civil war and continued to attack during the 1st 4 months. e.g Blocking Jerusalem, the Negev settlements, the north western Galilee settlements, and other isolated village like Ben Shemen, near Lydda. Perhaps this bias can be solved by presenting it as a controversy, similarly to the Plan D description. I.e Some RS say that the Arab started and continued to attack, while others claim that XXX ?<P>- In my opinion Plan D was not an expulsion plan, but I realize that according to Wikipedia rules it is OK to show it as a controversy.<P>- the remaining points are of secondary importance. I'll try to split the "initial line up of forces" chapters according to the timeline . e.g until  the 1st truce, until the 2nd truce and later. The current text order create a false impression of Israeli plenty of heavy arms although those arms arrived much later. Ykantor (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The articles does not mention that the Arabs started the civil war because it is not a consensus among historians who see a spiral of violences most of the time (despite your quote of Morris)
 * It is written no where that Plan D was an expulsion plan. If written, that should be removed. What is the exact sentence that says that ?
 * The Israeli had not plenty of heavy arms indeed. What is the exact sentence that says that ?
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 06:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There are wp:rs who claims that the Arabs started the war: Morris, Gelber, Shlaim, Tal, Bogdanor etc. Moreover, one can learn from the quotes of Arab leaders and non Zionist persons. Even if there is a controversy, those respectable sources opinion should be mentioned in the article too. Ykantor (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, there are also wp:rs who say the opposite, which I suspect you know? Like Pluto say: there is no consensus.
 * And in any case, the discussion about this belongs in 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine, not here. In short: you are trying to get introduced here as "uncontroversial" something which is very disputed, and the discussion of which does not belong here in any case.... Seriously, this is a non-starter.
 * And finally: the pictures are horribly unbalanced...it virtually only show Israeli soldiers/Individuals: that are as unbalanced in a pro-Israeli direction as can be. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As it is agreed that the "the Arabs started the civil war" is disputed, according to Wiki rules this well supported opinion should be mentioned too, in parallel with the the other view, in both articles.<P>- it is agreed that the pictures are unbalanced, and there should be more pictures with an Arab motive. You are welcome to add as many pictures as possible. BTW I am the only one that added images during the last year, including the Arab side. More images contribute to the article attractiveness, and as a by product, the pictures educate people that the ordinary people of both sides are suffering in a war. As for the ordinary people there is no winning side. Ykantor (talk) 05:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I will not start this discussion again.
 * You start again the same process. Regarding this argument, it was answered to you that this polemic was undue:weight. And it was in the main article. Here it is even worse given we talk about the context. More, you are wrong. Gelber doesn't state in his 2006 book that they started the war. I add that at the time you even went on different forum to get your case. You was rebuffed at each time. Enough is enough. You behave like a troll.
 * It is out of question of adding your images of old guys carrying water of children carrying out in armoured cars. This was explained to you too.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Pluto warns?
Pluto have just left a warning in my talk page: "You keep pushing your points of view in the articles without taking care one second of the other contributors and despite all warnings. It is really up to you but for your information, all the pov pushing that you are currently adding will be removed tomorrow. If you don't get a consensus on the talk page you should refrain yourself."

I am familiar with Pluto most pleasant activity (for him): to delete other people contributions, and I am stopping adding facts concerning Israeli arms and forces, which is a pity. I will appreciate if someone will explain Pluto's warning to me.
 * We have been more than ten to explain you and here is a new one in the list: DeCausa
 * I think it's time to gather everybody and make Ykantor topic ban.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Undue:weight
Our "one-eyed" friend (metaphorically speaking), Ykantor, have proceeded to put into the article every preparation for hostilities from the Palestinian side, but none from the Yishuv side. This makes for a profoundly unbalanced article. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a pity that you don't read before you write. I repeat: You do not read before you write. I have to highlight:I have not added or modified anything. I simply moved a text to the correct time line location. The text is identical, with not even one word added or deleted.<P>- BTW in my opinion, the moved text is too long and should be shortened, but imagine what could have happen if I would have cut it short- I would be accused in every imaginable crime. Ykantor (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)  Ykantor (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Not that I can see, give specific examples instead of tagging the entire article. ( Hohum  @ ) 21:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Whaw. If you had bothered reading the article, or seeing the development of it. you would have noticed these additions at  the start of this month, which  focus solely under 3 head-lines: "Local Palestinians Forces" "Arab Higher Committee of Amin al-Husayni"  "British forces in Palestine".  As I said: nothing whatsoever about the preparations and terrorist attacks from Jewish (irgun, Stern) forces at the very same time.  Not also his extensive use of Karsh 2000,  where "the authors emphasize those episodes they feel support their interpretations."   see Efraim Karsh. If this is not unbalanced, I´m not sure what is? Huldra (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Huldra.
 * That's obvious that the current "background" is unbalanced. It talks about the Palestinian forces (anod no other ones) and then the political objectives of the Arab Hihger Comittee (and no other ones) and then of the Haganah offensive (as if it would have been an answer).
 * This is the recurrent issue with Ykantor 1 year old about his wish to answer unilateral to the question "who started the 1948 war" with as an answer: "The Arabs".
 * More, the civil war is here a background and should not be developed that much. We should go back to a former version for this part of the article.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As said, I have never used Karsh interpretation (and hardly his factual text), simply because he is not popular here.<P> - You are right concerning the unbalanced tag, because this article is heavily biased against Israel. Note that your complains are about missing information, which is easy to solve-You can just add it. (BTW You could have done it previously, since the text was already there in the article.) The anti Israeli bias is different. It is not a missing text problem, but rather repetitive deletions of a correct and well sourced text, while offending Wikipedia rules. For instance, please have a look at the issue of who have started the war. The view that the Arabs stated the war is well supported, but some editors here are repeatedly deleting it, while offending the Wikipedia rule. If those editors claim otherwise, they should have tolerate a cohabitance of both views in the article. But they are using a  brute force and does not tolerate it, simply because they do not like it. Ykantor (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I apologize if the term "one-eyed" friend (metaphorically speaking) was found insulting: it was not meant that way. I tried (and failed, it appears) to note that it is not acceptable to see/note down in Wikipedia every attack from A on B, while totally ignoring/being blind to attacks the other way around. I noted it before here, and that is still not addressed.
 * Ykantor: you did not "only" move the sections around, you also inserted about 3 K of text, as the diff shows. That being said: I will certainly not claim that the article was perfect before you started editing!: It clearly wasn´t. I think we now should focus on how to get the article better, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Huldra, please delete the "one-eyed" friend (metaphorically speaking) reference; it's an unnecessary insult. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  16:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC) --- Thanks. 20:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * to Huldra: - Concerning "to see / note down in Wikipedia every attack from A on B, while totally ignoring/being blind to attacks the other way around.". You are right but actually my purpose was to find more support for the claim that the Arab started the civil war as a response to the 29 Nov 1947 U.N partition resolution, as the Arab leaders openly claimed. I was looking into attacks within the first 2 weeks after the resolution and found some attacks (including 1 error of mine). Once I find notable events, as a by product, I usually insert them into other relevant articles as well, which in this case happened to be some Arab villages  articles.  I am rather busy and do not have plans to deal with specific villages articles. BTW The Arab League general Safwat said that "Despite the fact that skirmishes and battles have begun, the Jews at this stage are still trying to contain the fighting to as narrow a sphere as possible in the hope that partition will be implemented and a Jewish government formed; they hope that if the fighting remains limited, the Arabs will acquiesce in the fait accompli. This can be seen from the fact that the Jews have not so far attacked Arab villages unless the inhabitants of those villages attacked them or provoked them first." (source: General Ismail Safwat report, 23 March 1948, cited from  Journal of Palestine studies, 1998, no. 3, p. 70 ) <P>-You pointed to the right revision. Please have a look in the history page, and see that this this revision has increased the article size by 50 bytes only, which is negligible. Hence it proves that practically nothing was changed, apart from shifting of some text to the right timeline location. BTW in my opinion it is a redundant text and should be reduced substantially. BTW no. 2- Later I moved another redundant text to the background too. Ykantor (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistency
The last line in the intro does not agree with the article Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries. On this page it says 700,000 Jews fled or were expelled from Arab lands and moved to Israel between 48 and 51, while the other article states only 260,000 Jews left, fled, or were expelled during this same time. Can someone with more knowledge fix these two errors. Sepsis II (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We have to check this. I agree with you. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Baloney. The other article clearly states " 800,000–1,000,000 Jews left, fled, or were expelled from their homes in Arab countries. ". If you want to increase the number here from 700,000 to 800,000-1,000,000, go right ahead, no one is stopping you. Here come the Suns (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * According to this, 700,000 is more than the total immigration to Israel between 48 and 51. About 320,000 immigrants came from Europe and Russia between 48 and 51, so "700,000 Jews fled or were expelled from Arab lands and moved to Israel between 48 and 51" is clearly wrong. Either way, experience suggests that it's probably not worth trying to discuss or improve things for articles that an editor like Here come the Suns is planning to involve themselves with. It can wait. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It stands out like dogs' balls that the invariable figure, inclusive of all reasons from flight, aliyah, emigration under incentives, expulsion etc) thrown out by hasbarists, 700,000 (for a three year period) serves to create a POV balance for the 700,000 Palestrinians expelled over several months in 1948. Sure, they had it tough, but Arabs gave us an equally hard time. The figure is utterly disreputable.
 * The exact figures by country, (and it's aliyah predominantly, not 'fled' or 'expelled') for May 14-December 1951 from Arab countries are available in Devorah Hakohen Immigrants in Turmoil: Mass Immigration to Israel and Its Repercussions in the 1950s and after, Syracuse University Press 2003 p.267 (And it was translated by our own Gila Brand)
 * By my rough calculation, the number from Arab countries amounts to 324,730. Someone should check, and enter the figures (there are small variables there, given unknown provenance) onto the page. This is permitted in wikipedia if one has a precise statistical source, and merely adds up. It is not WP:OR, and would correct a long-standing piece of propagandistic rubbery figuring.Nishidani (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni
Can we put Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni on the list of commanders? He is important because he commanded the important siege on Jerusalem and was a co-leader of the Holy War Army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.242.69.115 (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Abd al-kader al-Husayni died on 9 April.
 * The 1948 Arab-Israeli war started on 15 May, ie 5 weeks after his death.
 * He is listed in the article about the Civil War period. Pluto2012 (talk) 01:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The Arabs started the war
The article: " violence erupted almost immediately, feeding into a spiral of reprisals and counter-reprisals.". This is not true, as the Arabs started the war and continuously attacked the Jews (e.g. Blocking Jerusalem), While the Yishuv was interested to calm the situation, in order to maximize the chance of the partition.<P> see The Arabs started the war. Ykantor (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Ykantor (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2014
For grammatical reasons, the last part of the last sentence in the introduction should be changed from "...with one third of them fled or were expelled from their countries in Middle East." to "...with one third of them having fled or having been expelled from their countries in Middle East."

71.46.96.239 (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

✅ - albeit worded slightly differently. Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Weapons
In the "weapons" section... there are a lot of guns that were widely used and are not shown, like the Vz. 24 (czech origin rifle, used along with the 98k), vz. 37 (heavy machine gun of czech origin) and others!. And karabiner 98k its most probable that were capturated and not copy (althoug they were localy produced in skoda.... but nothing of this is verificable). There is an article about the weapons imported from czechoslovakia, that were the most important suppliers of israel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.122.8.46 (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2014
In the belligerents section, we need to be fair and include or exclude emblems from both sides.

108.31.31.102 (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  22:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead nonsense and a few remarks
"Around 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from the area that became Israel and they became Palestinian refugees.[16] The war and the creation of Israel also triggered the Jewish exodus from Arab lands. In the three years following the war, about 700,000 Jews residing elsewhere in the Middle East fled or were expelled from their countries, with many of those Jewish refugees migrating to Israel." (1) This looks like NPOV because of the balancing act, down to the identity of 'fled or expelled' referring to Palestinians driven off their land in an armed conflict in some months of warfare, to the 'fled or expelled' referring to a complex series of events following 1948, that extended for over a decade, where, apart from the political tensions, riots, sometimes bloody, in Yemen, Iraq, Libya and elsewhere, the government of Israeli actively pressed for mass aliyah in numerous operations even predating the war. The silliness is also in the miraculous balancing of the figures, 700,000/700,000 creating the deceptive image of a geopolitical tit-for-tat in which Israel expelled and the Arabs expelled equal numbers in identical operations.

I'm sure some sided histories of good repute support this 'hasbara/Zionist' meme, but it is not historical description of a respectable kind, and we shouldn't be repeating it here.

(2) The lead is once more illiterate, in terms of english prose.

(3)Ykantor. You have been given a lot of room to work this page. Half of the edits you do I am tempted to revert. I thought it best to let you work down the page, and then revise it, retaining improvements and removing POV-pushing. You appear, at this point, to be editing only to improve the Israeli narrative as the only truthful account. Can you therefore tell editors if you are near the end of a systematic rewrite, or just tinkering along?Nishidani (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * -I will appreciate it if you tell me what is unbalanced, and I'll try to improve it. As I said previously, I do not believe in parallel narratives. There is one truth only, although sometimes we do not know for sure. - Concerning the 700000/ 700000 question mark, it should be relatively simple to find sources for the number of the Jewish refugees. As much as I know, the 700,000 Palestinian refugees is well sourced. In my opinion, there is no need to "balance" the refugees of both sides. Each community has suffered a lot, independently of the other community suffering.<P>-I wish you could read the Hebrew autobiography of an Israeli, who grew up in Aleppo Syria, and immigrated to Israel just after the 1948 war. He says that as the French rule collapsed, the Jews started feeling insecure and some left. Later, right after the U.N partition resolution vote, there was an pogrom in Aleppo when the Rioters were chanting "Palestine is ours and the Jews are our dogs". It is a rhyme in Arabic, sounding like: "Palestin baladna veyahud calabna". As a consequence, lot of Jews left Syria, although the Syrian president, Al Quwately  asked the Jews to stay and promised normal life. The young Jews were mobilized to the army, where the suffered a lot of humiliation. He himself, together with his friends, payed  a smuggler and left  Syria in order to avoid the service in the army.<P> This is of course just one story, but it is typical. Whenever people are afraid, they might leave home, as happened in Palestine as well. Ykantor (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As Arab statesmen said before the war, any UN partition would have dangerous consequences for the Jewish populations of Arab lands. This was not intrinsically a threat: it was a logical guess about the implications of an UN plan. The implication was well understood by Jewish authorities. In Iraq preparation for aliyah was begun 6 years earlier with the establishment of the Zionist hehalutz movement (see Esther Meir-Glitzenstein, Zionism in an Arab Country: Jews in Iraq in the 1940s, Routledge 2004 pp.64ff.). As soon as war stopped aliyah from Europe, the Yishuv focused many secret missions to prepare the communities in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt to prepare for departure) These kinds of encouragement of Jewish communities in Arab lands to prepare for the state in Palestine long preceded the war therefore, and were ratcheted up after the war in several countries. To create in the lead a par of this foreseen and yishuv-encouraged aliyah from Arab lands and the emigration that arose from the deep tensions caused by the establishment of Israel and the expulsion of Palestinians, with the systematic expulsion of 700,000 Palestinians during the war, is frankly speaking not historical, but polemical, an abuse of two related yet distant phenomena in order to create a justifying nexus, and parity we have in the lead. History has victors and losers, never parity, and one avoids this by simply stating the substantive factual record of events, not by second-guessing motives, or using celebrity quotations to exaggerate attitudes that otherwise had no role in the way events worked out. The anecdotal is useful if illustrative: by Benny Morris's minimalist accountancy 24 pogroms were exacted on Palestinians in the war, and refugees took their stories to foreign Arab communities. These things were reported, and in turn had disastrous impacts on Arab public opinion and, in turn, on indigenous Jewish communities in those countries, perhaps even in Aleppo. Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the "parallelism" between the two "exodus" is made by historians (Morris and Laurens at least) but I disagree with the symetry that is given in this lead of the article on the '48 war. The only one is that it was a disaster for both.
 * I would suggest the following (with the appropriate correction of my bad English):
 * "The war triggered radical demographic changes in the area. The majority of the Palestinian Arab population fled or was expelled from their cities and villages during the war, was denied return and became stateless refugees. The outcome placed Jewish communities in the Arab world in difficult straits: incidents of mob violence and legal discrimination were not infrequent. Over the ensuing decades, as geopolitical tensions grew, most Jews emigrated either abroad or to the new state of Israel, which vigorously encouraged the return of diaspora communities."(?) (Nishidani's modification of Pluto's suggestion. Leads need not specify too many details) Nishidani (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC))
 * Note that I think this material belongs to the article 1948 Palestine War and not this one.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Nishidani,
 * Much, much better than my proposal. I will translate it back to French.
 * I would just suggest were not infrequent -> were frequent
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer in English 'not infrequent' because it denies the rareness of harassment but does not assert that violence was frequent (almost daily, everywhere in the Arab world). One must remember that the 700,000 expelled or removed, whatever the controversies over details, met that fate after two decades in which this kind of expulsion or transfer was analysed, proposed, deliberated and then executed militarily. Nothing corresponding to this policy of getting rid of all Jewish communities existed in the Arab world, and what took place, from country to country, varied in logic, and circumstances. The Lavon Affair had disastrous results for Egypt's Jewish community, as did the constant clashes on the Golan/Israeli border, the invasion of 56, etc. This is not to discount the outbursts of intolerance on the 'Arab street', but 'frequent' over a 25 year period, over a zone stretching from Morocco to Iran, suggests an endemic policy of monthly violence against Jews that does not appear to me to fit the case. These niceties ('not rare/commonplace' are far from synonyms) are often lost in prose, but in precise historical narratives are worth careful consideration. Thanks. Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure enough, I came up with a good example of this rhetorical form which differentiates what, at a grammatical level, would be the same proposition, while reading Murakami's Dancing Dancing Dancing last night:
 * "(Gotanda Ryōichi) Do you think that's normal?
 * (Narrator) I don't think it's abnormal,'I said." (p.150)
 * The narrator, by this, is not saying (that sleeping with one's ex-wife) is 'normal', implying it is not. But neither is it 'abnormal', implying it may be irregular or rare, but not in itself strange. Nishidani (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * to Nishidani: According to History of the Jews in Iraq :"before the anti-Jewish actions of the 1930s and 1940s, overall Iraqi Jews "viewed themselves as Arabs of the Jewish faith, rather than as a separate race or nationality".[11] Additionally, early Labor Zionism mostly concentrated on the Jews of Europe, skipping Iraqi Jews because of their lack of interest in agriculture....Despite protestations of their loyalty to Iraq, Iraqi Jews were increasingly subject to discrimination and harsh laws. On August 27, 1934..,the Farhud ("violent dispossession") pogrom of June 1 and 2, 1941, broke out in Baghdad in which approximately 200 Jews were murdered...Afterwards, Zionist emissaries from Palestine were sent to teach Iraqi Jews self-defense, which they were eager to learn. ...In March 1950 Iraq passed a law of one year duration allowing Jews to emigrate ... were motivated, ... by "economic considerations, chief of which was that almost all the property of departing Jews reverted to the state treasury...Israel was initially reluctant to absorb so many immigrants, (Hillel, 1987) but eventually mounted an airlift in March 1951 ...Between 1948 and 1951 121,633 Jews left the country, leaving 15,000 behind.[16]". <P> The Iraqi Jews considered themselves as Arabs with Jewish religion, but suffering pogroms and sanctions, they had to leave their country. Ykantor (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't give me arguments from other wiki pages. Almost 98% of wiki pages in this area are stupid, nescient and boring. It is esp. bad to do so with Iraq since you preferred to reply by iting poorly drafted wiki pages than the academic source I referred you to, Esther Meir-Glitzenstein's book.Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * A couple of sources relevant to the subject of Jewish emigration from Arab countries:
 * The Ramat Gan Committee
 * Haaretz - Rachel Shabi - The Jewish refugee equation: An obnoxious form of diplomacy, 2 October 2012.
 * <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  20:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * @Nishhidani- You are right that your academic source is much better that Wiki pages, but My Google books access to this book is rather limited. If you highlight which points of mine are suspicious, I'll try to find a better source or to modify it.
 * @ ZScarpia: Thanks for those interesting sources. some notes to Shabi:<P>- "asks Rachel Shabi, what on earth has each refugee issue got to do with the other? ". who claim for such a connection? e.g. Netanyahu does not claim such a connection. Interestingly, the Iraqi government in 19 Oct 1949 proposed to exchange Iraqi Jews for Palestinian refugees. <P>-"how then can Arab nations be solely to blame (although it is true that they bear some of it) for the departure of those Jewish populations?"  Nuri es Said  "On August 21, 1950, Nuri As-said, the Iraqi minister of interior, threatened to revoke the license of the company transporting the Jewish exodus if it did not fulfill its daily quota of 500 Jews. On September 18, 1950, he summoned a representative of the Jewish community and claimed Israel was behind the delay, threatening to "take them to the borders" and forcibly expel the Jews" . A quote:"in mid September 1950, Nuri al-Said replaced...as prime minister. Nuri was determined to drive the Jews out of his country as quickly as..."  . There were anti Jewish laws.  <P>As she says, the majority of the Iraqi Jews were not Zionist, but had to choose whether to stay or to leave.  About 80%-90% of them were sufficiently frightened and decided to leave. Undoubtedly, some were Zionist but probably a small minority of those who lived. Let us say that "only" 70% percent fled because they were frightened, who is responsible?   <P>-"Several members of my family stayed in Iraq into the 1970s; how did they manage that if all, as is claimed, were forced to flee several decades earlier" Is there such a claim that they forced to flee? I am not aware of it. Those who continue to live in Iraq gambled that they could survive there. In a retrospective, according to the archive, they were lucky because the Iraqi premier Nuri al Said planned to load all the Jews on trucks that would take them directly to Israel. <P>- "if Jewish from Arab countries do have property claims, why should they all - including those residing outside Israel - choose to make those through the Israeli government?".  If they tried to go independently, they failed. So they should welcome  any one who tries, on behalf of them. <P>- to be continued


 * Ykantor, the answer to the first question you directed at me is given at the top of Rachel Shabi's article in the paragraph which links to this Haaretz article by Barak Ravid which discusses "a decision by the Prime Minister's Office and the Foreign Ministry, based on a recommendation from the National Security Council, that from now on, the Jewish refugees will be considered a core issue in all final-status negotiations with the Palestinians." The decission came after a committee "recommended that the issue of compensating the Jewish refugees be raised in negotiations with the Palestinians as an inseparable part of discussions on the Palestinian refugees." "It is in Israel's interest to create a connection between the issues of the Jewish and Palestinian refugees, the document said, so Israel should present them as a single issue in all negotiations. `It's necessary to instill the duality of the term refugee into international discourse. Linking these issues will serve Israel in the negotiations.` Specifically, it said, such linkage would deter excessive claims on behalf of the Palestinian refugees, or at least moderate them."   <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  21:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @ZScarpia: Yes, you are right. Personally I do not agree with the linking. The only communality is that any refugee, Palestinian and Iraqi Jew, should be compensated. Ykantor (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

<P>Notes:


 * Ykantor. Let me, at the risk of appearing condescending, give you a quick pointer on how to read and write history. One doesn't write wiki articles scouring sources for select quotes that replace the historical analyses of scholars, which is what you tend to do here, with an eye invariably to quotes from Arab political leaders instead of what secondary historical sources, which must evaluate complex geopolitical, strategic, logistic factors to arrive at interpretative probabilities for what happened. A quote is usable if it catches or underlines some policy or act that had decided historical consequences. It would be easy to counter this by adducing 20-30 quotations from Yishuv notables from the 1920s to 1947 suggesting how to dispose of the Palestinians, the theme goes back 50 years, and was a powerful element in Zionist planning, and has no simultaneously parallel in some pre-1948 Arab planning concerning their Jewish communities. It is pointless therefore engaging in quotes vs book analyses. The parallel that Scarpia documents, showing that only recently the Palrefugee 1948 is to be placed on a par with the compelled, assisted, encouraged (multifactor) Jewish aliyah from Arab lands 1948-1973 only underlines the danger. It's allowing political interests in a spinning of history to get the advantage of what historians write (and conveying the substance of the historiography is very difficult given the differences among scholars). What historians do is calibrate theories by weight of probability. I.e.
 * "'What impelled (120,000) this (Iraqi) community to rise up in unison and emigrate to Israel? . . Some scholars believe that the Jews of Iraq had always maintained strong ties to Zion. Once the State of Israel came into being and opened its gates, they joined the influx of 'the children returning to their own border'. Others claim that it was the unrestrained policy of the Iraqi regime, or, as they called it, its 'anti-semitism', which forced the Jews to uproot themselves. . .It has been argued by other scholars that anti-semitism alone could not have sufficed to force the Jewish community to leave Iraq, and that the large-scale emigration of Iraq's Jews was the result of Zionist education on the one hand, and the official policy of oppression and discrimination on the other.' 'Ben-Gurion, considered immigration to be a central component in Israel's security.'..the foundation of our states security,' he declared,' is wide-scale immigration, at a rapid pace, in ever-wider dimensions' (a 'war effort') . .Another group of historians, some of them Arabs, claim that the Iraqi authorities were liberal in their attitude towards the Jews and cooperated with the community leaders in a spirit of conciliation and understanding - -According to this school of thought, the Israel authorities were interested, for reasons of their own, not only in rescue operations but also in importing Jews from countries where they had been well-integrated.'Moshe Gat,The Jewish Exodus from Iraq, 1948-1951, 2013 Routledge pp.1-2."
 * That itself is a simplified version of a complex argument (Gat's own view gives weight to the activities of the Mossad le Aliya in Iraq). The wiki editor who is scrupulous will observe that there are at least four theories, in just this one case of Iraq (Yemen is simpler) each of which might be prioritized by selective quotation. And (s)he will make efforts to see where consensus in sources lies, draft text to throw into relief the difference positions, and take into account that the situations of Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, Iran, Syria etc., all have complex elements to do not sit easy with any overarching theory of 'fled and expelled' over such a diversified field of behaviour. What you do is dragnet up information that supports the (now Netayahu prioritized equation of Jewish refugees-Palestinian refugees) and factoring in quotes, privilege just one of them. That is POV pushing. So try to desist from selective quote brandishing, which, intrinsically, leads to WP:OR, and hew closely to standard respect for the evaluative narratives of academic historians. Otrherwise the talk page will just keep drifting on in futile, pointless quote swaps.Nishidani (talk) 09:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @Nishidani: yours: "One doesn't write wiki articles scouring sources for select quotes that replace the historical analyses of scholars, which is what you tend to do here, with an eye invariably to quotes from Arab political leaders instead of what secondary historical sources". You are of course right . However, in my opinion, The article is biased and does not contain Morris (and others) view that the Arabs started the war,and Plan D was not a plan of expulsion. Those views were repeatedly deleted here. I have also noted, that Morris (and others) views are suspected as being biased towards the Israeli side. e.g. "by Benny Morris's minimalist accountancy 24 pogroms were exacted on Palestinians in the war". Hence I realized that there is a better chance to convince editors , by quoting Arab leaders and generals of the period. For instance, Morris view that the Arabs started the war, was deleted but there is an added citation of  general Safwat report :"Despite the fact that skirmishes and battles have begun, the Jews at this stage are still trying to contain the fighting to as narrow a sphere as possible in the hope that partition will be implemented and a Jewish government formed; they hope that if the fighting remains limited, the Arabs will acquiesce in the fait accompli. This can be seen from the fact that the Jews have not so far attacked Arab villages unless the inhabitants of those villages attacked them or provoked them first." Actually he said that at this period it was an Yishuv interest to calm the flames. I hope that some of the editors here,  may re-consider there attitude toward the issue of "who started it", because of this quote and/ or similar quotes. <P>- Both sides, had their share of wrong doing, and we have to admit the facts, some might be bitter facts.  I know it is difficult. e.g. As I "knew" that the refugees left because the Arab leaders told them to leave, it was difficult for me too to discover that it is not true. - Our top priority is improving Wikipedia, but there could be a by-product. Curious people of both side might discover what really happened, what was the other side motivation and aims, and that the other side is not an homogeneous entity, but a group of people, under some internal and external pressures, and theirleaders are persons with personal, political and state interests, and might quarrel within themselves. Hopefully, such a realization could improve a little bit the situation here. (to be continued) Ykantor (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I reverted your next quote from Ben-Gurion. It's well sourced but again, totally irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia, and articles must be designed to convey the essential information neatly, in order, and with a sense of narrative. Patching in your personal tidbits, regardless of their relevance to a narrative, is pointless. The only thing gained by that quote from B-G is a signal to the reader:'Tremble! The chief panicked that we had only one Sherman tank against the Arabs! It was touch and go!'. The Jordanian army had no tanks. Syria and Egypt did, but Syrian tanks proved useless, and quite a few Egyptian tanks lacked any barrage potential. Do we really need to go into this? It was a pre-WW2 war whose materiél resources were well-summed up by Tal:
 * "In a war that involved five armies-Israeli, Egyptian, Jordanian, Syrian and Lebanese - no more than 150,000 soldiers, nearly two-thirds of whom were Israelis, took part in the hostilities at their height. The soldiers' weapons and equipment were meager and often substandard. Both sides combined had only about 80 planes, most of them obsolescent and poorly maintained. Only a few dozen tanks took part in the fighting, and some of the Egyptian tanks lacked guns. The Israelis had fewer than a dozen tanks. From a military point of view it was as though the Second World War had never been fought and as though the tank had not become the main weapons system of modern armies.' David Tal,War in Palestine, 1948: Israeli and Arab Strategy and Diplomacy,p.3."
 * The whole article is a mess, poorly divided, and even the section you stuffed that item into has no raison d'etre. The whole page needs to be edited into some reasonable basic encyclopedic form, something which requires extensive reorganization.Nishidani (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Israeli forces - placing text according to the timeline
Israeli forces- placing text according to the timeline. I wrote that "No added/ deleted text" but apparently I made a mistake, since the article size grew. I have to check for the reason. Ykantor (talk) 07:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

U.K arms to the Arabs
to ZScarpia. your notes: <P>- Yes, there were such contracts, but the U.K had no set dates for supplying the arms and they could delay it. (source: An extract of Bevin replies to U.K. parliament members on 28 April 1948:)
 * ZScarpia:The UK was obliged by treaties to supply arms to states such as Jordan and Iraq which it had been the mandatory for.

<P>- This policy was applied selectivrly, in favour of the Arabs. <P>-"The British blockade of the Palestinian coast prevented any substantial increase of these quantities until mid-May. Concurrently, the Arabs succeeded in smuggling into the country small arms that their emissaries had purchased in neighbouring countries. The ALA brought a certain number of support arms and a few artillery pieces and armoured vehicles." (Gelber, Palestine 1948: War, Escape And The Emergence Of The Palestinian Refugee Problem, p.13) <P>-"Apart from Cunningham, no British official thought seriously of halting the ALA penetration of Palestine. Except for protesting, the High Commissioner, too, made no serious effort to obstruct the incursion" (Gelber, Palestine 1948: War, Escape And The Emergence Of The Palestinian Refugee Problem, p.51) <P> Moreover, the U.K continued to supply the Arab states even after they declared openly that they will invade Palestine, while blocking the Haganah arms ships.
 * ZScarpia:The British tried to prevent the flow of arms to both Arabs and Jews in Palestine while the Mandate was still in operation, not just the Yishuv.

<P>- correct. <P>- correct but does it matter to the victim ? Ykantor (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ZScarpia:Elements of the Yishuv were shooting at and bombing British troops and civilians up to the end of the Mandate.
 * ZScarpia:For the British, political and military penetration of the Middle East by the Soviet Union and its satellites were the main concern in that area.
 * I would think that what matters is helping the reader understand the strategic context. We don't take the point of view of the victim or anyone else. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course. The article should not mention it. However, this is the talk page and it already have happened here. I respect ZScarpia and in my opinion the atmosphere is positive. Ykantor (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)