Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War/Archive 10

message: http://www.motl.org/resource/curriculum/curriculum_15.htm Zeq 16:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good source 

message: This is purly wrong translation (and does not make any sense) Komemeiut is "rebuilding, resconstruction, restoration"  and also "to become independent " etc...Zeq 03:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''War of Standing Straight''' 

message: Ian, you agree to delete Haj Amin. It is rather well-sourced (here). There are more reference in Gelber (and I think in all history books on the topic) about Haj Amin than about the 1936-39 Great uprising consequences on 1948's war. I don't understand how you are convinced that it is justified to delete one and not the other. Could you explain your point ? Alithien 15:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree. Husseini is rarely described as having an important role in the war. Even Karsh has little to say about him. On the other hand historians often claim that the Palestinians lost the 1948 war in 1936-39. --Ian Pitchford 22:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Husseini is more an example of the wider issues of why the Arabs fell to pieces, as such. As far as I can ascertain, he is not particularly significant in the wider scheme of how the specific 1948 war went. - Cyril Washbrook 09:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that he didn't have a real impact on the military part of the conflict, but he was politically very influential among the palestinians.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I don't think any serious source would disagree with Moshe's assessment, though of course he was also opposed by segments of Palestinian society and political groups, some of which were successful in thwarting his ambitions. --Ian Pitchford 11:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  deletion's rule 

message: Were really these youth organisation ? Nor Gelber (p.5) or Karsh (p.26) precises this. For the spelling they both write this with one "j". And so does Morris (I have just checked) =correction, he uses 2 jj p.36= with one j he refers to something else. What means "youth" here ? Christophe Greffe 20:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: p.404, Gelber again doesn't precise "youth". p.397. He precises Futawa was loyal toward Husseini but again doesn't precise the "youth". p28 he talks about the Negev local Najada. So I deduce they were not "only" located at Jaffa. p31 he precises they were still in their infancy but that doens't mean these were "youth" organisation. p40 he talks about "Najada members in the town-s-. p41, he talks about Najada members in Jerusalem. (I didn't check more but would deduce that numbers of Morris only concerns Jaffa ? What do you think ? Christophe Greffe 21:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a valuable enough source for en wikipedia ? They talk about a 10,000-members "youth" organisation and also talks about a new one I didn't know :  Alithien  21:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: There is a rather good source already cited for this claim. To say something was based at one place doesn't mean it only existed there. BTW Christophe it doesn't mean anything in English to say that someone "precises" something. --Ian Pitchford 22:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. The English word would be "underline" then. What means BTW ? Alithien 06:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That would be appropriate and your meaning is clear most of the time. --Ian Pitchford 11:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naj(j)ada and Futawa 

message: Can "O Jerusalem" be considered as a valuable source because they give much information about the acquisition of weapons by Haganah and Arabs that I personally didn't find with so much details in the other references books ? Alithien 20:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why you couldn't use "O Jerusalem". Jayjg (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Jayjg. Because this is a self published book and they are not scholars (etc)... Given the reknown of this book (even referred by historians, such as Karsh) do editors agree we write "factual information" (not analysis) from L&C. We would keep them unless better sources confirm or deny the information. Do you feel this is reasonnable or acceptable ? Christophe Greffe 06:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that books by journalists are perfectly acceptable. As a publication of Simon & Schuster it isn't self-published. --Ian Pitchford 11:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Perfect. I agree with you. But I don't understand how can be interpretated english wikipedia policy about sources because by paying you can see your book published by such private publishers. That is why I hesitated. As far as I understand, if these people just asked a friend to publish their book they would become relevant for wikipedia. This doesn't matter. Alithien 10:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main point is that publishers (who have reputations to maintain and potential legal penalties to avoid) have various forms of quality control, and academic publishers use peer review, which means that their scholarly volumes have been vetted by subject experts prior to publication. The other organizations we've discussed elsewhere are not publishers in this sense as they will just publish anything at all for a fee. --Ian Pitchford 12:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand and agree. Alithien 12:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lapierre and Collins 

message: Not to give the feeling that the "universe" was against the Yishuv, wouldn't it be important to gather the arab coalised forces as far as reasonnable ? I introduce this but feel free to revert. Alithien 08:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ian suggested to wait for some time before to proceed to see if this is needed (see our talk's page). I agree. Wait and see, so. 08:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance of forces 

message: Somebody deleted this : Of the Arab aircraft, only less than a dozen fighters and three to four bombers saw action, the rest were unserviceable..
Personnally I only heard about Egyptian bombing of Tel Aviv and don't know for the remaining. Karsh underlines that Iraqi air forces had only half of their planes operationnel (Karsh, p.27). I don't know their range of action. I read on the "apparently neutral" website that it was roughly the same for the Egyptian air forces . They talk also about 5 squadrons like Karsh. Are there reliable scholar sources about this (I write reliable because sometimes historians, even or maybe particularly academicians, do not know a lot about military matters) ? Alithien 08:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arab air forces 

message: "Finkelstein and [another writer] share a method: they selectively quote from [my books] what suits their purposes while ignoring, and in Finkelstein's case, ridiculing what doesn't. Neither seems to know anything about 1948 beyond what is to be found in my books and neither marshals sources or material from elsewhere that could serve to contradict my findings." Benny Morris. (see Finkelstein)Alithien 10:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Finkelstein isn't quoted or cited in this article at all. To be eligible he would have to make up his quotations and source everything to Jewish Virtual Library. --Ian Pitchford 10:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand, Finklestein wouldn't be elgible unless he sourced it to the Jewish Virtual Library? Can you explain that I'm kinda confused.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ian is ironical. He feels targeted by the remark and therefore answers -ironically- in stating that only JewishVirtualLibrarty would be a good source for this article. Moshe, I don't know if the "quote" if from Morris but if you feel it is not, it should be removed from Finkelstein'article where it comes from... Kind Regards Alithien 17:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly when I first wrote the that it wasn't benny Morris I did it out of misunderstanding, I didn't see the quotattion marks and actually thought the editor was claiming to be Benny Morris (Someone had just done a similar thing on another article talk page when I wrote it).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lol lol lol. I already wrote to Benny Morris. He is not very cooperative (which is I think quite normal, I don't blame him for that) but I am not him ;-) Alithien 21:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  some thoughts about this article 

message: Hello. I thank you for your attempt to "neutralize" the article. Let's see what can be done that way. Alithien 12:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's high time strict standards of relevance and good sourcing were enforced in this article. --Ian Pitchford 13:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent modifications of the article by Humus and Moshe 

message: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3248081,00.html
and German study:
http://www.ejpress.org/article/7448  
and a jewish study:
http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-kuntzel-s05.htm
Zeq 06:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  British study revels nazi connections to palestinians  

message: In the conclusion of chapter 8 - the Arab Regular Armies'Invasion of Palestine of Palestine 1948, Y. Gelber writes this :
:Despite the wild rhetoric that had preceded and accompanied the invasion, the invaders's goal was not and could not be "pushing the Jews to the Mediterranean". (...) Arab governements' primary goal was preventing the Palestinians'total ruin and the flooding of their own countries by more refugees. According to their perception, had the invasion not taken place, there was no Arab force in Palestine capable of checking the Haganah's offensive. (...) The Yishuv's comprehension fo the Arab onslaught was totally different. (...) The Yishuv perceived the peril of an Arab invasion as threatening its very existence. Having no real knowledge of the Arabs' true military capabilities, the Jews took Arab propaganda literally, preparing for the worst and reacting accordingly.
Alithien 12:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is material in the article that contradicts this conclusion, including Morris on military assessments and excerpts from Ben-Gurion's diary. --Ian Pitchford 16:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry ? Very precisely, and in citing quotes ONLY without analysis : which one ? Alithien 11:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But there's no evidence in Gelber's quotation, whereas Morris does cite his sources and Ben-Gurion's diary speaks for itself. --Ian Pitchford 11:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very precisely and in quoting article's sentences you refer to, what material in this article contradicts Gelber's conclusion ? Alithien 20:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When you write taht "there's no evidence in Gelber's quotation, whereas Morris does cite his source", do you mean Gelber doesn't conclude properly his chapter 8 or he would do not provide his sources ? Alithien 22:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gelber writes "The Yishuv perceived the peril of an Arab invasion as threatening its very existence. Having no real knowledge of the Arabs' true military capabilities, the Jews took Arab propaganda literally, preparing for the worst and reacting accordingly", but the Yishuv's military leaders rated their chances against the Arab forces at the beginning of the war at 50:50 in the assessment given to Ben-Gurion. As you know contemporary newspaper accounts suggest that the Yishuv was actually quite optimistic and that optimism is reflected in in Ben-Gurion's diary. After the difficult first few weeks, when strategic failures or failure to obtain equipment could have had a dramatic effect it, became clear that the Yishuv's optimism was well-founded. --Ian Pitchford 18:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Citing Morris on the military's direct advice to Ben-Gurion and quoting his diary is hardly personal research; nor is this: "at each stage of the war, the IDF outnumbered all the Arab forces arrayed against it, and, after the first round of fighting it outgunned them too. The final outcome of the war was therefore not a miracle but a faithful reflection of the underlying military balance in the Palestine theater. In this war, as in most wars, the stronger side prevailed" (Shlaim, 2001, p. 81).  As for the ALA the Yishuv opened negotiations with them on 1 April through Yehoshua Palmon: "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 agreed but explained frankly that he needed to score one military victory in order to establish his credentials" (Shlaim, 2001, p. 86). Golda Meir left the meeting with King Abdullah on 10 May and recorded in her own contemporary report that "Abdullah needed to send his army across the River Jordan in order to gain control over the Arab part of Palestine contiguous with his kingdom. He did not say anything about attacking the Jewish forces in their own territory" (Shlaim, 2001, p. 88). --Ian Pitchford 18:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find some comments of Shlaïm interesting. You can find here the excerpt of Ben-Gourion diary about the meeting of 10 may (it is in English). That event is a very interesting for WK. As you can see, treating this a npov way means giving *all* interpretation given by historians and not only shlaim's point of view. Alithien 20:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Remind me. The massacre of Kfar Etzion, it was indeed done by Arab Legion and 3 days after that meeting, wasn't it ? I am not sure if Jewish citizens were aware they were unfortunately on the bad side of the border. Alithien 20:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you agree now that it's not personal research, but different interpretations by historians and those directly involved? --Ian Pitchford 12:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arab and Jewish point of view on 15 Mai 1948