A POV problem: the Arab League gave reasons for its intervention 
 The most of this 1948 Arab–Israeli War#The Arab League as a whole , discuss the cablegram in which the Arab League gave reasons for its intervention. This is a POV case, since it neglect to mention main stream sources with the opposite opinion i.e. that the Arab states invasion was illegal. Would you accept to remove this POV untill someone will balance it?    
 :The cablegram part is too long and should be shortened.    
 ::In principle all direct material from primary sources, unless indispensable, should be reported by the way they are summarized in secondary sources. So it is a matter of finding neutral comprehensive yet succinct RS reports to make the section briefer, as Frederico agrees. That can be done, in due course.    

 My recollection is that it was I who put in the article the first mention of the cablegram. I find it extraordinary how the article could have failed to mention it. The cablegram is a self serving  document and does not necessarily give the real reasons for the intervention of/invasion by the Arab states. Read as such, I would submit that it is not POV. I agree it needs to be put in the context of what RS say were the real reasons. I wish you all luck in coming to a consensus.    

 If a person does something, it is a denial of natural justice not to allow him to explain his reasons. In this case the Arab states have given a detailed explanation. Even in the absence of RS as to the real reasons, provided it is clear that extract is no more than the explanation of the Arab League, a summary of the cablegram should remain in the article. You do not need RS to explain what the cablegram says.    

 The official positions of all sides should be stated.  A certain amount of quotation might be appropriate in doing that, though the takes of reliable sources are essential as well.