Talk:Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine

Heavy bias against Zionism
The article is a poorly put together piece of anti-Zionist propaganda. For a moment I considered making some edits, but now I think that wouldn't be necessary. The article is so laughably bad, I doubt anyone, barring some muslim/left-wing fanatics, is going to take it seriously.95.26.28.162 (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

§== New article ==

I created this article from Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs after it was agreed on the talk-page to rename it thus. Renaming was decided upon after that article was nominated for deletion --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I came here because I wanted to see what changes had occurred since the move from the original title and noted that there had been none, except by you. It has survived very well, congrats, JaapBoBo. I had watched some of the mediation, as you had said, it did cover both sides already.  Anyway, I decided to do a re-write of the lede for the reader with as little disruption as possible, since I did not catch all of the mediation.  Between the time I made the edits and came back to drop this note, an intervening edit had occurred, as noted below.  CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

However, the article has NOT been renamed 'Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs'. It has been renamed 'Zionist and Palestinian Arab attitudes before 1948'. In fact Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian attitudes to Zionist, Palestinian or other Jews are manifestly NOT covered. The article is in fact an anti-Jewish, but pro-Palestinian Muslim and Christian nationalist one, that adduces every attitude of Zionist Jews that may be represented as or in a reprehensible way, and omits even a positively selective overview of Palestinian Muslims and Christians.

It should be renamed Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs, from an anti-Jewish, but pro-Palestinian Muslim and Christian nationalist perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkharya (talk • contribs) 09:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Zionist attitudes are recorded in detail, their every stray thought of personified just so you know how they were absolutely shocked to see all of this coming and had no intention at all of seizing any clearing all this territory despite the Arab aggression and such. These polemics are produced by Israeli universities which study the issue. Palestinians don't have universities so it is understandable that much less of the time period remains. I dunno, would you like me to go grab various Zionist propaganda, let me guess, their entire thoughts on the subject are "By Allah I am an intolerant Muslim antisemite who just personally did the holocaust and now I want to kill more Jews!" That's usually like their only mention, they have no internal thought processes, just soulless golems and solely cause all conflicts, out poisoning wells and drinking the blood of Jewish children.

Yeah, this article is astoundingly bad. I don't think I've ever seen a Wikipedia article use such shitty grammar or such biased language. Facts aside, the writing is just unacceptable, and not up to the standards Wikipedia has anywhere else. How has it been this bad for twelve years? Daniel J. Hakimi (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Reverted, sort of
I reverted this for the following reasons:
 * Most facts I removed, were either a result of the war/nakba or events that followed this very specific historical period, including 'external protagonists intervene' and what [Trans]'Jordan' eventually did. These tend to complicate the issue of the limited time period for which the article was written and are things that did not influence the 'attitudes' in this specific period.  Attitudes were already set; yes, they maybe changed attitudes, but later.
 * The included (former)ref 1 'At the exception of the Gaza strip officialy under the control of the Arab Palestinian government for all-Palestine but in practice under Egyptian military rule.' Should probably come from a book, and is also as a result of/after the fact.
 * These shouldn't go in the lede anyway, and probably shouldn't be included below. Are they there now?
 * The 1948 Palestine war is a neologism. I did a quick Google search as a 'sniff test' and it exists; Wiki's internal link is less than a year old and virtually all references are relatively new internet links or paperbacks with the ink hardly dry.  I'm a stickler, maybe old fashioned, but I'd like to see a real book, at least, say, 10 years old. What info does the wiki 1948 Palestine war article tell you?  It says civil war, some of whom were involved, and .... see the 1948 Arab Israeli War.  Point taken?

That said and being unaware of this neolog ue ism, I did note during my search the particular civil war aspects inferred and the fact that the term has been used by both sides, to an extent; it is also used by some New Historians, who I generally appreciate. So, after the revert, I added a sentence to include it and it's limited usage. I am still suspicious of the term, however, until I learn more about it; it could be that over the years it becomes more widely accepted and I can see possibly why, but not now. Wiki is not a vehicle to push new concepts, just to document them, until they start coming back as, well, books and RS. Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1948 Palestine war is more inclusive of the whole real conflict. A narrative is often presented that starts the chronology at the declaration of independence and the declaration of war by the Arab states. Without mentioning that hostilities were ongoing, also as is one was a response to the other rather than both being expected reactions to the preceding withdrawal. It's just made to be a spiteful reaction because the evil arabs are too antisemitic to let the Jews have a tiny tiny little state. The agency and existence of the Palestinians in this narrative is completely eliminated, the long proceeding bloody civil war they'd been involved in that often leaves the yishuvs hands not so spotless goes unmentioned, the fact that half the Nakb was completed by that time is erased, The fact that this would probably be a very really and very serious causus belli is erased, no Israel and its document get centered instead, crazy arabs just mad at a document because they're savages. Instead of Israel massively expanding its held territory and ethnically cleansing, it's a defensive war of course where they repel the enemy at their borders. Always in the Orthodox western narrative, it is cut so that the opening shot is poor poor small small Israel getting some seeming suckerpunch out of nowhere, when really that was just the middle of ongoing fight. All the figures on the Zionist side are intensely personified and their reasoning at each turn carefully spelled out, the Arabs are soulless husks that are just violent for no reason and maybe here and there we have a clip of some hate speech or fanatical religious reference from an Israeli news source. Israeli signs a treaty and takes from it the legitimizization of their statehood, while never intending to keep any other article, but the other side does not sign this treaty which luckily invalidates the treaty and with it the proposed borders and the other sides own claim to statehood. But not the part that granted Israel statehood, that's good. Because it's an invalid treaty without the agreement of both parties somehow that legalizes everything they want from it while negating anything they don't. 2601:140:8900:61D0:B061:5B12:33D0:D5EA (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry guy. I will revert you.
 * I understand your point of view and your motivation but I will not start a debate with somebody who doesn't know the topic.
 * The content of this article is a mess : it is highly pro-palestinian oritented and I still don't know how to "correct" this because the problem also comes from the structure. It is really very bad and instead of discussing about the lead you should just start reading books on the topic, as did JaapBoBo and as I did before him. Ceedjee (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict : this was added by Ceedjee (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC) before reading former 1948CasualObserver answer). Ceedjee (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

CasualObserver1948, you wrote : "Some recent scholars on both sides have refered to this particular period as the 1948 Palestine War because of some civil war aspects." Could you source : some / recent / and the cause you give ? Concerning your claim this is a neologism. You are wrong (the proof is the first reference of 1955). In fact, you mix (as most people it is true) the period that starts in May and the other one that starts in Dec and that comprise the first one. More of that, it is no sense to make a parallel on one side, with the 1948 Arab-Israeli War (= the independence war) where 300,000 Palestinians became refugees, and on the other side, with Naqba where 700-750,000 Palestinians became refugees. Ceedjee (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Nb: I answered here above without reading your comments.
 * This is not "some scholars". That is the majority (if not all) who are known : Efraim Karsh, "David Tal", Ilan Pappé, Yoav Gelber, Benny Morris, Rashid Khalidi, Tom Segev, Avi Shlaim, etc etc
 * The first reference in google books dates back to 1958 :
 * And the reason is not some "civil war aspects". The reason is that there cannot be an Arab-Israeli war without Israel and the war period started in Dec 1947 while Israeli (and the war of independence) birth (and started) on 14 May 1948.
 * I'm a slow typist, sorry. I won't revert you because I am on an 1RR pledge at WP:IPCOLL, even tho this article isn't included in that and that wasn't necessarily a revert.  Obviously you read part of my page, thanks. I did look at the ONE ref you noted that was >10 yrs, thanks. It seemed more of a snippet, but never mind.  My main objection is that the 1948 PalWar is a link with little info substantitive info in and of itself, it requires going other places.  A far better way is to work on that article and flesh it out with your sources.  I admited that I didnt know the terminology, I didnt say I didnt know the subject.  I have no problem really with the facts the New Historians bring, but the 1948Pal war is a concept at this point, certainly not a fact of wide acceptance, yet.  It is bedtime on my side of the world. Did you see my edits at 1948 Palestine War ? CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Apperently you did see it, since it is already reverted there. Good night CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustration.
 * But what can I do ? I gave you the reasons on your talk page.
 * NPoV doesn't mean artificially equilibrating things. It means giving all pov's on a matter.
 * I am not part of the current conflict on the I-P topics. I am out of that "game". And If I didn't subscribe in your attempt to cool the matters it is only because I would have written :
 * whether people read on the matters, or they refrain from editing the articles.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Main objection
CO48 : "My main objection is that the 1948 PalWar is a link with little info substantitive info in and of itself, it requires going other places. A far better way is to work on that article and flesh it out with your sources.  I admited that I didnt know the terminology, I didnt say I didnt know the subject.  I have no problem really with the facts the New Historians bring, but the 1948Pal war is a concept at this point, certainly not a fact of wide acceptance, yet.  It is bedtime on my side of the world" CasualObserver1948.
 * I agree that the article is short. Sorry for that. I wrote on wp:fr the whole of the article related to the 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine that is FA there. Somebody translated it here. That is already a good stuff.
 * These are not New historians. Please : click on the name I gave you : Efraim Karsh and Yoav Gelber. You made as if you were open minded but that is the 4th time I give these names to you ! And I added the Kimche brothers on your talk page. Do you know who they were ? And David Tal is not anecdotical either even if he wrote after the 10 years probation period.
 * " but the 1948Pal war is a concept at this point, certainly not a fact of wide acceptance, yet". Among people who doens't know the topic, I think you are right. And I don't care because among historians, there is not a single doubt about this formulation. Find sources that put the events from Nov47 to May48 in a chapter titled "The 1948 Arab-Israeli War" and we will discuss. (There are some. I found 2 who did so). Ceedjee (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good morning, Ceedjee, it is a new day. We have differences that I am not going to debate any more now.  I believe that it is fair and appropriate to leave this to other editors for their opinions and consensus will hopefully prevail as it should.  Any comments by other editors?  CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

POV flag
Between 1920 and 1948, Arabs systematically put forward force and violence against Jews and Zionists (in 1920 - 1921 - 1929 - 1936/39). They rejected all compromise with Jews, particularly during the hard years of Nazism growth in Europe. They also chose the German Nazi camp during WWII (which is an attitude against Jews...), particularly their leader (Amin al-Husseini) who collaborated with them (according to some sources, even in the extermination of some Jews). All this should be developed because this is the main cause of the transfer idea (impossible to live with Arabs) and the events that lead to 1948 expulsions (as explained by Benny Morris in the Birth revisited) is also there. Ceedjee (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We totally weren't planning to replace them but then they hysterically started rioting and talking about us "replacing them" so sadly in the end we had to replace them. If I write in my diary "I'm going to go over to my neighbors house and kill him" and then later go over and do it, I fail to see how any intervening circumstances could possibly render it a justified homicide on my part. At worst my neighbor is simultaneously doing the same thing and we're both murderers.

Look I understand the Jewish circumstances at the time, you had to do what you had to do, the holocaust was literally ongoing. I do not dispute the Jewish claim to the land, neither do I dispute the Palestinian claim, it was a unique circumstance where the ethnogenisis of two people have reasonable right to sovereignty over the same land. Please do not mention scripture or God giving it to you, that makes you sound like a religious fanatic. Surely if you're only claim were fanatical religious declarations of God's will, the Palestinian claim would be superior because it's real. But the Jews claim is real too, a unique case of an ethnoreligious group being thrown out of the area by an empire and maintaining their culture in division with the union the religion, laws, and Rabbis provided. I accept that this Jewish nation shows have a real claim in some sense to be the ancient nation and does have a rightful claim to the land, using purely secular reason, no fantastical references to God. But the Palestinians were not the Roman's who smashed the Jewish revolts, they were not Germans who did the holocaust, they cannot be held responsible for either of those events. Their ethnogenesis is complex but perfectly valid, it had been 2000 years, is it baffling in two millennium a nation can form, or such a nation's claim to the labs it where it dwelt? That's normal, Israel's claim is the first of its kind ever in history. That's why this is the first time this has ever happened in history, in no other case in history have two people had as equally a rational and just claim to a single area. You won... thanks. I at best hold you but blameless. I refuse to condemn the Palestinian. If the Jews nationhood confused them and that responded ignorantly, they were baffled at the same exact time as the so called greatest and wisest civilizations in the world, if this is a crime that is supposed to responded to by leading all your land and property than I object, surely you should stay with the United States and Germany, let us make clear for you. I have no clue why it is never satisfying enough merely that Israel not faulted, no, Israel must glorified yet more, how dare I suggest that there could exist anything at all for Israel to not be faulted for, or not exaggerate and demonize the crimes of the Palestinians beyond all measure. The blamelessness of the Palestinians is a dangerous suggestion that they paid a price and sacrificed something, when really they were just rudely minding their own business like any other nation at the same tums as God told you to return. 2601:140:8900:61D0:B061:5B12:33D0:D5EA (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The 'transfer idea' came from Zionist ideology, not from Arab hostility. --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That is why Transjordans and British suggested this too. They were poisonned by Zionist ideology :-)
 * Another explanation is that the violence, misunderstanding, mutual suspision, lack of compromise, racism, mutual hatred, explosions of violence,... that grew and grew generated that common feeling in human race that living together was not possible and that the other only wanted to steal or kill... Maybe that could be the origin of the transfer idea... You never wanted to see a colleague you didn't like transferred somewhere else ?
 * And, did you notice that Palestinian Arabs also wanted the transfer during that period ? But of Jews : anywhere but not in Palestine...
 * Sure that if that would have happened, there would be a Pappé to explain us that Mufti and Hitler collaborated to exterminate Jews and this was in arab ideology as proven by excerpts of Koran taken out of their context and nobody would talk about the attitude of the jewish Zionists (arrogance, racism, extreme violence...) vs Palestinian Arabs because for some people, it is not history that matters but only politics and it is important to complain the victim.
 * Cheers, Ceedjee (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know that I agree with your reading of this article as deliberate propaganda trying to cast Arabs as victims. But there is certainly a marked difference in both quantity and quality of information - the Arab attitude towards Jewish settlement and Zionism is barely skimmed, and the language is diffident and waffling. It definitely results in an imbalance. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 04:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

ceedjee read "Army of Shadows", It appears that the concentration on "One Notable" (Hajj Amin) has left you and many others with the opinion that the hajj Amins opinion was the only Palestinian Arab opinion....Hajj Amin does not represent all the Palestinian nationalists, he was merely the most vociferous of all the opinions heard and then regurgitated and replayed ad infinitum as it has been blasted at full volume by Zionists who have repeatedly tried to drown out all other Palestinian nationalist voices...ceedjee your assertions that "Arabs systematically put forward force and violence against Jews and Zionists" are quite visibly shown to be false...why are there Druze in the IDF?...ps even Teveth calls them Palestinian Arabs....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "They also chose the German Nazi camp during WWII (which is an attitude against Jews...)" really? More on the lines of "Hajj Amin chose the German Nazi camp during WWII as a reaction to Zionism and the presentiment fear of dispossession"...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Amin al-Husseini, 2 spellings?
I assume that the photo of "Husany" is of Amin al-Husseini? Or are these different people?--Jrm2007 (talk) 06:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Flapan and Meir quotation
It is not permitted to construct a case against a cited opinion. This is a textbook example of WP:SYNTH. Also the words "When the Zionist arrived in Palestine" do not appear in the interview of Meir. I am looking at a scan of the original 1969 newspaper article in the Sunday Times. The full text of the relevant section is thus:
 * Giles: Do you think the emergence of the Palestinian fighting forces, the fedayeen, is an important new factor in the Middle East? Meir: IMPORTANT, NO. A new factor, yes. There was no such thing as Palestinians. When was there an independent Palestinian people with a Palestinian State? lt was either southern Syria before the first world war, and then it was a Palestine including Jordan. It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist. There is really no such thing as a representative body speaking for so-called Palestinians. Perhaps there was a possibility of coming to some understanding with people of the Western Bank. After two years, everybody has come to the conclusion there is no such thing.

(The name of the interviewer "Giles" and the word "Meir" were added by me.) It is obvious Meir is referring to the Palestinians as not existing right up to the time of the interview. Zerotalk 05:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am embarrassed (again). Thank you for this info. However, I am not sure yet. In the meantime I have found an Hebrew site, in which she is quoted as saying that "when she immigrated to Palestine..." to the Washington Post at 16.6.1969 ( see also http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Golda_Meir ; http://dancutlermedicalart.com/FakeQuotes/FakedQuotes3.htm ). I have to look further. I'll return in a short time. BTW It is not my opinion. Ykantor (talk) 10:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have immediate access to the WP article, but I see two places it is described as a reprint of the ST article. I could check but it needs a physical visit to a library or $4 payment. Btw the two shorter quotations you found match mine except that it definitely says "There was" not "There were". Zerotalk 11:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize. It seems that my added sentence is based on an unreliable source. I have deleted it. Anyway, why is that a WP:SYNTH ? What is wrong in adding another quote? Ykantor (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Reversion of Greyshark's attempt at a summary
I have moved the below text to talk. If Greyshark feels strongly about this text, it must be confirmed to NPOV. Examples of the current obvious bias:


 * conflict started... [the trigger is disputed]
 * Arab nationalists staged [staged?]
 * return of several hard-line Palestinian Arab nationalists... marked the beginning of Palestinian Arab nationalist struggle [did it? and what about the hardline revisionist zionists?]
 * Amin al-Husseini, the architect of the Palestinian Arab national movement, immediately marked Jewish national movement and Jewish immigration to Palestine as the sole enemy to his cause [appears to be an attempt to demonise rather than to provide a balanced summary]
 * initiating large-scale riots [how the initiation occurred is disputed]
 * Among the results of the violence was the establishment of Jewish paramilitary force of Haganah [so the zionist militia was formed "in response" but the arab-palestinian was always evil?]
 * was initiated by the Arab leadership [same again]
 * resulted in massive Jewish casualties in Hebron and Safed, and the evacuation of Jews from Hebron and Gaza [no mention of the Arab casulaties]
 * For four months, under continuous Arab provocation and attack [only the Arabs provoked?]

I could go on, but i think the point is clear. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I find it highly amusing that on the same day (April 2), i was both accused of being an anti-Palestinian "blatant" POV pusher and "not liking" the name Israel, in favor of pro-"Byzantine POV"  - The irony is certainly evident. Practically speaking, all i made on this article (which is currently very much POV to the Arab side i think) was a copy-paste of a section from another article, without investing efforts into "blatant POV", so said. Cheers.GreyShark (dibra) 21:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi G, technically I said the text was biased, not you. This is not your usual behaviour and I appreciate your explanation, which makes sense. I will try and find the original article you're referring to and remove this trash from there as well. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I think also that this text doesn't comply with WP:NPoV.
 * If the first major outbreak of violence in this context is indeed the 1920 riots and if it is right it was a turning point, there is no real starting point of thir struggle. It is the convergence of 2 antagonist nationalism : on one side, the rise of Arab nationalism against Ottomans and a "timide" rise of Palestinian Arab nationalism ; and on the other side, the rise of Zionism
 * More, the Balfour Declaration is also another turning point. From the Arab point of view, it was illegitimate.
 * Other points :
 * al-Husseini was not a "hard-line Palestinian Arab nationalists" at the beginning and if we took about extremists, Jabotinsky should be mentionned. And if we mention extremists, we should mention all others too...
 * The proposal and rejection of different partitions plans, the use of violence by Irgun and LHI, and the "liberation war" (from 1944 to 1947) against the British should be mentionned too.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 08:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Sectarian conflict
Why is the word "sectarian" used in the title ? Would not "communal" be better ? I am not native in English but I understand "sectarian" as linked to "sect" and I wonder if this is the best choice. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If no comment is made, I will change the title to a more acceptable one.
 * I suggest "Inter-communal conflict in Mandatory Palestine".
 * Another option is "Arabo-Jewish conflict in Mandatory Palestine".
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 09:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem. The issue is a conflict between two sects or sections of Mandatory Palestine. Sects or sections don't have to be of the same religion and ethnicity, but can also be same nationality (Mandatory British in this case).GreyShark (dibra) 14:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Jewish side was a claim to Jewish nationhood, but that confuses most nations that aren't ethnoreligions (so pretty much everyone besides Jews). In fact the inability of anybody to rationalize the Jews unique national character, and their constant attempts to reduce Jewishness down to some single factor to them assimilate, is the cause of a lot of this. The Nazis thought Jews must be a race, their tendency to not 100% assimilate and disappear must mean they're genetically inferior and the cause of all communism, so they threw them in the gas chambers. Over in the Soviet Union on the other hand, they banned all the synagogues, rabbis, religious studies, law, all that nonsense which is superstitious, and gave them communism, then suspected most of those they'd given party of being in a Jewish plot and had then executed, and by 1990 when they finally let the Jews emigrate they proved that the Jews are not a race after all, many of them almost entirely indistinguishable from Russians, who had to be converted and entirely reintroduced to the religion with almost none of their original culture left. Amazingly from them was later found perhaps the only neo-Nazi gang to ever form in the State of Israel.
 * Because of this discomfort anyway, a lot of the time the political label is used instead, Zionist. This can be a slur in modern times, I'm not sure I like it because of the way it is often used as a loyalty test for Jews, are you one of the "good" "our" Jews, or are you a malicious Zionist? This should not be done, unfortunately because people are still confounded by Jewishness they still mindlessly abuse Jews like this 2601:140:8900:61D0:B061:5B12:33D0:D5EA (talk) 07:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion relevant to this topic
It is proposed to rename Jewish insurgency in Palestine → Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine.

Please discuss it on Jewish insurgency in Palestine talk page.GreyShark (dibra) 15:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

A second deletion proposal
This article is "copied from 'Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs'" and has already caused confusion among Wikiusers. It's editing history hard to access, it doesn't link to any other Wikipedia and it's also unclear to what conflict does it cover. We already have a B-class Mandatory Palestine article with a wide politics section in it. For understanding the wide scope of relations between the zionist movement and arab region We have the Arab–Israeli conflict and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. It's clear this article doesn't add anything but messing with Wikipedia. It was already up for a delete and i suggest either to do so or merge its relevant content with the above mentioned articles.Mateo (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Additionally, The previous deletion proposal was voted 5-2 in favor of delete, and even the keep voters stated this article needs heavy editing. This article remained incoherent with Wikipedias content, style of writing or editing, and has no sense keeping it as it is.Mateo (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

A plea for a 100 year narrative
Given the importance of the conflict articles to our project I had hoped for more feedback at this RFC, but I think I overcomplicated the description. Some editors may also be thinking "we've been just fine for 10 years so is there really a problem here that needs solving"? I would like to encourage more editors to contribute.

The core issue behind the RFC question is that most readers know very little about the conflict and therefore need one single summary article to read and begin their journey, and we need that single summary article to broadly match the picture that the 1,000s of books summarizing this conflict take. Instead we have sat for many years with three primary articles (IPC since 48, AIC since 48 and ICMP 20-48) which are fine but are missing something above them to thread them together into the 100-year-narrative of the conflict presented by the vast majority of books on the topic.

I recognize that many editors may find the question is a little more dry and boring than many of the debates around here, but its importance to the average Wikipedia reader can hardly be overstated.

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103061306/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/4941922311B4E3C585256D17004BD2E2 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/4941922311B4E3C585256D17004BD2E2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160415165629/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/leagcov.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/leagcov.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Proposed split
In 2014, this article was moved without discussion from its original title: "Zionist and Palestinian Arab attitudes before 1948." However, in the intervening three years, little to nothing has been done to fix the fact that 60% of the article -i.e. sections 1, 2 and 3 - are not written in a manner which adequately introduces the subject of "Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine".

As a result, I propose that the first three sections are slimmed down, with the bulk of the content merged into History of Zionism and Palestinian nationalism. Sections 4 and 5 then remain as they are, and form the core of this article.

Oncenawhile (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I fail to see a meaningful difference between the two titles ("Zionists" and "Palestinian Arabs" presumably being among the conflicting communities), except that the new title has the advantage of being less vague ("attitudes" regarding one another, presumably, and not the British or prison labor or "the Irish question"). I think WP:SOFIXIT applies here. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 00:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not proposing to change the title of this article - I think "Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine" is an important topic. My proposal is to perform major surgery to the article, removing most of the first three sections (which constitute 60% of the article) and merging them into two other pre-existing articles.
 * As to SOFIXIT, I am happy to do so if has no objections, as he is the only currently-active editor who has made significant edits to this article (the bulk of the article was written by  who appears to have left many years ago. When it was renamed in 2014, the article's content was almost unchanged from JaapBoBo's 2008 version, which read more like a scholarly essay than a wikipedia article. It has since been radically restructured by Greyshark) Oncenawhile (talk) 06:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I got the impression -- evidently the wrong impression -- that you were unhappy with the fact that the article had been moved without discussion. I recommended being bold because of the small number of editors who watch this article (fewer than 50), but I agree that Greyshark09 may feel strongly about the question. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - i agree with Malik Shabbaz that in current form the article is much better defined that it had been several years ago, but i also tend to agree with Once that some parts of this article are too broad for the main topic and could better be merged into Zionism and Palestinian Nationalism articles. Once, do you basically propose to partially merge material of the first three sections into History of Zionism and Palestinian nationalism, retaining summary? If so, i do not have strong objection, as long as we agree on abstract wording for "cut" sections.GreyShark (dibra) 07:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly what I have in mind - thank you. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Works for me, too. For the record, the present title is useful, the original made little sense, was too vague in some ways and too specific in others, and thus would be confusing to many readers. Anyway, I'm a huge fan of merging sourced but out-of-place content into places where it fits better.  Remaining article size is not an issue. There isn't a minimum article size, beyond enough to provide at least a modicum of encyclopedic context. Making or keeping an article longer than necessary just for the sake of being longer can make it worse. Getting content where it belongs and cross-referencing it is also consonant with WP:SUMMARY, WP:SPINOUT, WP:SPINOFF, WP:SPLIT, WP:MERGE, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure why this is a formal RFC, but that all sounds good to me. — OwenBlacker (talk) 11:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC) via the Feedback request service

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160415165629/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/leagcov.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/leagcov.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate sentences
There are several duplicate sentences in these sections. I cannot edit the page.

Ben Gurion's position Weizmann's position Proletarat (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * "According to Flapan, Ben-Gurion's assessment of Arab feelings led him to an even more militant line on the need to build up Jewish military strength: "I believe in our power, in our power which will grow, and if it will grow agreement will come..."
 * Is repeated twice, for example Proletarat (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)