Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War/Archive 9

message: The first IDF chief of staff was Yaakov Dori, and he was followed by Yigael Yadin. Yigal Alon was never COS of IDF.--Nitsansh 06:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israeli commander 

message: Smelly as in doesn't fit your POV? Because if I recall correctly you removed information attributed to four cited sources. —Aiden 01:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Leaving aside the fact that none of those sources are the least bit respectable, material has to be relevant and balanced as well as sourced.  This was neither.  It was pure propagandising.  --Zero 01:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, for example, this fake quotation doesn't even make sense: "In 1940, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem, requested the Axis powers to acknowledge the Arab right: to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy."  Can you explain by what method Italy had "solved the Jewish question" in 1940?  Now, if you really want to know what the Mufti wrote to the Axis at that time you can get hold of Zvi Elpeleg's biography and there in an appendix you will find the whole multi-page letter.  That is called "finding a respectable source", something we are supposed to do here on Wikipedia.  --Zero 19:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Persecution of Jews was well under way in Germany in 1940. Why mufti chose to also include Italy, you should ask him. I didn't investigate the matter of persecution of Jews in Italy prior to 1940 (if there was any), and for what we know neither did der Mufti.  Heptor  talk 22:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In other words, you don't know.  There is no evidence that this quotation is geniune.  Since it contradicts what serious historians like Elpeleg have reported, it is a reasonable assumption that it is fake.  --Zero 22:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In other words, you take davantage of the temoprary ban and continue the edit war. Zeq 22:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, this is rich. While Heptor isn´t? Just like he is not revert warring here? (While I and Palmiro are?) Zeq: having a POV doesn´t give you carte blanche to pursue it 100% of the time. Why on earth do you not clean up the stuff you brought into Israeli Arabs? Where you misrepresented each and every link? (-as I have pointed out to you.) How on earth can you justify such wrong inf. remaining in the article? Regards, Huldra 23:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Hmmyes, I do not know how the the mentioning of Italy in that sentence makes it impossible for the mufti to have said that. Could you please elaborate how this quotation contradicts Elpeleg and other serious historians you speak of? -- Heptor  talk 23:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wish the trash can had a lock on it, this smelly stuff keeps coming back inside"? 

message: Is anyone just waiting to continue the edit war once the protection is removed ?
Some civility is in order.
Zeq 08:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected but no discussion ? 

message: Even the foreign press, in regular contact with all sides during the conflict of 1948, wrote nothing to suggest that the flight of the Palestinians was not voluntary. Nor did Arab spokesmen, such as the Palestinian representative to the U.N., Jamal Husseini, or the secretary general of the Arab League, blame the Jews contemporaneously with the 1948 war for the flight of Arabs and Palestinians. In fact, those who fled were urged to do so by other Arabs. As then Prime Minister of Iraq Nuri Said put it: 
* "[…] the Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down". 
One Arab who fled encapsulated this thinking in the Jordanian newspaper Al-Difaa: "The Arab governments told:
* “[…] Get out so that we can get in.' So we got out, but they did not get in. And a bad situation, impossibly, was allowed to get worse”. 
Arabs and Palestinians displaced by the 1948 war were resettled in camps administered by the UNRA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency), the only such agency established for any refugee group since the massive dislocations of World War II. The partition of India occurred at the same time as the conflict in Palestine, and millions of Hindus and Muslims were uprooted, but virtually nothing was done for them. Nothing was done in response to the Chinese occupation of Tibet, where a long-standing religious, social, and political culture was virtually destroyed. 
Yet 55 years after they were first established, the Arab refugee camps still exist. With the exception of Jordan, the Arab governments home to these camps have refused to grant citizenship to the refugees and opposed their resettlement. In Lebanon, 400,000 stateless Palestinians are not allowed to attend public school, own property, or even improve their housing stock. Three generations later, they continue to serve as political pawns of the Arab states, still hopeful of reversing the events of 1948. 
* "[…] The return of the refugees," as President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt said years later, "will mean the end of Israel." 
The U.N, through its administration of the camps, has made a complicated problem infinitely more so. How? U.N. officials define refugees in the Middle East to include the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948. In other parts of the world, descendants of refugees are not defined as refugees. The result of this unique treatment has been to increase the numbers of Arab refugees from roughly 700 000 to over 4 million, by including children, grandchildren, even great-grandchildren. As a former prime minister of Syria, Khaled al Azm, wrote in his memoirs, 
* "[…] It is we who demanded the return of the refugees while it is we who made them leave. We brought disaster upon them. [We] exploited them in executing crimes of murder and throwing bombs. All this in the service of political purposes." 
And so it goes, to this very day. At the time of the founding of the State of Israel, 900, 000 Jewish refugees were forced out of neighboring Arab States in a coordinated effort. These refugees were absorbed into the new Israel. Yet the world was, and still is, untroubled by the plight of Jewish refugees from Arab lands.
Takima 01:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please restrict yourself to discussing the article.  Your political opinions should go on some other venue. --Zero 12:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refugees for eternity 

message: British had 100,000 men in Palestine during war but is there a reference stating how many troops to be distinguished from the people working in their administration or for the supply chain.
The israeli governement website underline 100,000 people is more than the whole arab and jewish troops but it doesn't take into account that these last were supplied by the population where British had to organise their supply.
In summary : how many british soldiers, policemen, bureaucrats, physicians, etc ? Alithien 09:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  British troops in Palestine during war 

message: It's a bit of a mystery how the Jews just happened to have all this military hardware in 1948. Obviously there were some organization(s) who planned and financed the smuggling of arms and terrorists into the Mandate, but it won't be mentioned here. Also, no mention of the Jewish campaign of bombing and assassination against Mandate personnel.24.64.166.191 04:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See 1948_Arab-Israeli_War#Yishuv.2FBritish_Security_and_Intelligence_Collaboration. You're welcome :)
 Heptor  talk 19:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not much of a mystery really when you recall that there was a major war immediately preceeding this period (World War 2, you may have heard of it), and that the Jewish contigent of British Palestine took up arms on the Allied side - despite their long-running dispute with the British Mandate. Joffan 16:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is often reminded that people felt too easily in the "trap" of traditionnal historians that David faced 5 armies. Today people fall too easily in the trap that many good soldiers make a good army... The Haganah was composed of course of many good soldiers (see above) but they were not organised to combat involving many soldiers and had no material (whatever is claimed - just think about this !). In fact for field combat coordination they were not whether well trained or badly trainded, ... they were simply not trained because it was a clandestine army and people could not gather and train all together or simulate a war like other armies do regurlarly during manoeuvers. I have some quotes from British officers (and taken from new historians) stating that the Egyptian army was not ready because it was not able to organize the movement of more of 1 brigade (for info : 3000 men) due to the lack of training all together ! what to think about Hagannah ? When they talk about equipment they also exagerate a little bit. This clandestine army equipment cannot be compared to a state army equipment. So the question is real : where come this military "hardware" from ? In fact, as soon as dec 1947, they send agents to USA to gather funds and to Europe to by arms and hopefully for them they never faced real "campaign" before november 1948 when they counter-attack egyptian in the Neguev and for which they prepare. Alithien 22:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israeli defense arms smuggling 

message: Nobody answers my questions but this doesn't prevent me to ask them... :-) I would be very grateful if somebody could answer this one : I have read that Arab Legion had been fordidden by British to enter Palestine before 15 May 1948. But some incidents are related between arab legion and haganah before ! As the some convoys attacks near Hebron in jan48 and the well known attack of Kfar Etzion (from May 4 to May 13) by arab legion. Does someone have some information about that paradox ? Thank you. Alithien 22:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I forgot to answer your question.  Although the Arab Legion was supposed to leave Palestine before the Mandate ended, a few units (don't recall the correct military word) did not.  They also started to operate independently of British command.  (Officially they were in Palestine on secondment to the British Army.)  A good source for this is Benny Morris's book on Glubb Pasha; you can read bits of it at Amazon if you register. --Zero 09:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Palestinians began leaving in December, not January or February. The Arab Legion wasn't "British led" by May 24, the officers having being recalled by London and even before that they had orders to abandon their posts if the Legion was asked to enter the area allocated to the Jewish state in the partition resolution. At no stage did the Legion invade or cross into Israel. --Ian Pitchford 11:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arab Legion in Palestine before 15 May 1948 

message: I see no discussion of disputes here in the past week, so I've unprotected. --Tony Sidaway 01:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Woohookitty restored protection, but has since said that he's bowing out of the page protection business for now.  I've applied on WP:RFPP for unprotection again. --Tony Sidaway 12:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected

message: Full references for Contested Spaces (Bickerton, Hill) added. -- Cyril Washbrook 23:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested Spaces 

message: This was removed  by Zero:
#  During the 1948 War, the Mufti is also alleged to have said "I declare a holy war, my Moslem brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!" (Leonard J. Davis and M. Decter, Eds., Myths and facts: A Concise Record of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Washington DC: Near East Report, 1982, p. 199). 
Zeq 05:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Propagandistic sources with no other support do not meet Wikipedia standards. --Zero 09:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly, this book is not such a source. It was in a recent ArbCom case and they did not rule this source out. If they would have this would be a different ball game. Zeq 10:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You don't understand the function of the Arbitration Committee.  --Zero 10:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but that is not the issue. You removed this sourced material based on ArbCom rulling but they never rulled in such way. so this material should be re-inserted. Zeq 05:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It was you and not me who was cautioned by the AC on the use of propagandistic sources.  Apparently you learnt nothing. --Zero 05:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that is the issue: Is this source valid for Wikipedia or not. BTW< you were warned to use dispute resolutions process and avoid edit war. Hopefully you will comply. Zeq 06:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great words of advice from Mr. Edit War himself. --Zero 06:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi. I have read that when they sent troops toward Palestine, Abdallah refused they cross Tranjordania and sent Arab Legion to prevent them. But this doesn't the information is true. Alithien 00:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I was under the impression that Saudi Arabia sent a small force that fought with the Egyptians in the south.  I think we can revert the anon insertion until a proper citation is provided.  Even then it is not worth spending more than a sentence or two on the Saudis as their involvement was tiny compared to the big players. --Zero 01:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on the revert. Alithien 15:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yoav Gelber, "Palestine 1948", 2006 clearly specifies there were 800 saudis who participated to the war. They waited at Aqaba and enter the coutry with the column of egyptian volonteers. He also precises Abdallah didn't agree they cross his country. Alithien  15:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Splendid. These references seem enough to cover the role of Saudi Arabia in this general article. --Ian Pitchford 10:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job Zero ! More precisely about what I wrote above : refering to Levinberg and different IDF documents, Gelber writes : "Another contingent comprised of 800 Saudi tribesmen had assembled near Aqaba, apparently heading for Neguev. (...) Ultimately they moved to Egypt and joined the Egyptian expeditionary force".(Palestine 1948, p.55). You are designed volunteer to introduce all the information in the article. ;-) Alithien 19:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually 96 dead, not casualties, so it is even higher.  According to one source quoted here, deaths for other Arab armies were Egypt: 2,000, Syria: 1,000, Jordan: 1,000, Iraq: 500, Lebanon: 500.  Comparing these to the total troop counts, 96/1200 is not unreasonably high.  --Zero 05:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Think about it, if your numbers our right then some of our current info must be wrong.  If lebanon lost 500 troops and we have said they had 2000 overall then a quater of their overall strength would have been lost.  I don't pretend to be an expert on military matters but I am pretty sure these casualty rates are unheard of.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sure some of our current info is wrong, because all these statistics are rough estimates and different researchers come up with different values.  We won't ever get them to look completely consistent.  On Lebanon: recently I saw a detailed analysis of the Lebanese force that used Lebanese sources for the first time.  Most early estimates were based on guesses made by Israeli soldiers in the field; obviously that is very difficult.  When I remember where it is, I'll report. --Zero 06:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think until then we can use one source for everything, just to be consistent?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Consistency might come at the price of accuracy.  An alternative would be to open about the difficulty of the problem and give some examples of disagreements.  --Zero 10:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I checked this morning before to go to work. Gelbert writes at the first truce there was 1 (one) casuality on the Libanese side and that illustrates how deep they participate. I come back with the exact page. I think the 2000 must be counted of course but their real involvment must be specified. Alithien 13:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If some fought skirmishes inside Lebanon then why should we only count the soldiers who were in in Israel?, and even if they didn't I believe it is customary to count non-combat troops, but I agree if it is possible then we should explain their roles.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was initially intended that the Lebanese army would not enter Palestine at all but just defend the border.  There was a lot of opposition in Lebanon to getting involved in the war.  In the end, they had some small involvement.  The skirmishes inside Lebanon were due to Jewish forces entering Lebanon.  They got as far as the Litani River and some of the Israeli generals wanted to keep going.  Anyway, to get back to the point, I agree that forces in support roles get counted as well as those in combat.  Within limits, naturally.  --Zero 11:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed of sourced material from this article 

message: Here's what I can find:
*Riad es.Solh stated here to-night that King Ibn Saud had agreed that the Saudi Arabian army should join in Arab League military action to prevent the establishment of a Zionist state. (Fom Our Correspondent, Bagdhad, May 9. 'King Ibn Saud's Army', The Times, Monday, May 10, 1948; pg. 4; Issue 51067; col B.)
*The five Arab states who joined in the invasion of Palestine were Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq; while the two contingents came from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. All these states, however, only sent an expeditionary force to Palestine, keeping the bulk of their army at home. (p.81) (Shlaim, Avi (2001). Israel and the Arab Coalition. In Eugene Rogan and Avi Shlaim (eds.). The War for Palestine (pp. 79-103). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. )
*Saudi Arabia paid 20% of the cost of the Arab Liberation Army. (p. 193) (Landis, Joshua (2003) Syria in the 1948 Palestine War: Fighting King Abdullah’s Greater Syria Plan. In Eugene Rogan and Avi Shlaim (eds.). The War for Palestine (pp. 178-205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. )
*Saudi Arabia sent a small contingent, that fought under Egyptian command. (p. 193) (Gilbert, Martin (1998). Israel: A History. Black Swan. ) 
I can't find anything about actual fighting or casualties. --Ian Pitchford 16:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Splendid. These references seem enough to cover the role of Saudi Arabia in this general article. --Ian Pitchford 10:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job Zero ! More precisely about what I wrote above : refering to Levinberg and different IDF documents, Gelber writes : "Another contingent comprised of 800 Saudi tribesmen had assembled near Aqaba, apparently heading for Neguev. (...) Ultimately they moved to Egypt and joined the Egyptian expeditionary force".(Palestine 1948, p.55). You are designed volunteer to introduce all the information in the article. ;-) Alithien 19:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually 96 dead, not casualties, so it is even higher.  According to one source quoted here, deaths for other Arab armies were Egypt: 2,000, Syria: 1,000, Jordan: 1,000, Iraq: 500, Lebanon: 500.  Comparing these to the total troop counts, 96/1200 is not unreasonably high.  --Zero 05:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Think about it, if your numbers our right then some of our current info must be wrong.  If lebanon lost 500 troops and we have said they had 2000 overall then a quater of their overall strength would have been lost.  I don't pretend to be an expert on military matters but I am pretty sure these casualty rates are unheard of.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sure some of our current info is wrong, because all these statistics are rough estimates and different researchers come up with different values.  We won't ever get them to look completely consistent.  On Lebanon: recently I saw a detailed analysis of the Lebanese force that used Lebanese sources for the first time.  Most early estimates were based on guesses made by Israeli soldiers in the field; obviously that is very difficult.  When I remember where it is, I'll report. --Zero 06:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think until then we can use one source for everything, just to be consistent?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Consistency might come at the price of accuracy.  An alternative would be to open about the difficulty of the problem and give some examples of disagreements.  --Zero 10:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I checked this morning before to go to work. Gelbert writes at the first truce there was 1 (one) casuality on the Libanese side and that illustrates how deep they participate. I come back with the exact page. I think the 2000 must be counted of course but their real involvment must be specified. Alithien 13:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If some fought skirmishes inside Lebanon then why should we only count the soldiers who were in in Israel?, and even if they didn't I believe it is customary to count non-combat troops, but I agree if it is possible then we should explain their roles.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was initially intended that the Lebanese army would not enter Palestine at all but just defend the border.  There was a lot of opposition in Lebanon to getting involved in the war.  In the end, they had some small involvement.  The skirmishes inside Lebanon were due to Jewish forces entering Lebanon.  They got as far as the Litani River and some of the Israeli generals wanted to keep going.  Anyway, to get back to the point, I agree that forces in support roles get counted as well as those in combat.  Within limits, naturally.  --Zero 11:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Saudi Arabia