Talk:Soviet Union and the Arab–Israeli conflict

message: This definetly needs to be expanded. The Soviets provided the Arabs with thousands of tanks, planes, personnel and in the War of Attrition, Soviet Fighters themselves were patrolling the skies above Egypt.I don't know the specifics - so if someone could check this out that would be great.Tourskin 02:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article overlaps substantially with Zionology, and a merge seems to be indicated. --John Nagle 19:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Reading both articles again, part of the problem is that the Soviet Union and the Arab-Israeli conflict is mostly about ideology and propaganda issues, not about USSR military and material support (weapons, money) for the Arab side in the earlier Arab-Israeli wars.  We need some input from military history buffs, who can add things like lists of weapons systems. --John Nagle 17:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add it to WikiProject Military History, that would be the first step in attracting attention from those folks.  --Abnn 22:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this article has too much that more properly belongs in Zionology and that that article should be renamed Soviet anti-Zionism.  This article should focus on political, diplomatic and military relations to the conflict, which deserve a much expanded treatment.  I'll do a little on this now.John Z 03:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: NO.  This is deliberate stunt to dilute the valuable insight and data in the "Zionology" entry.  Cross pollinate data by all means, but keep it SEPARATE.
*NO merge. Zionology is a notable, important and independent historical topic, especially since it's an anti-Zionist ideology in its own right, and probably still exists today in Russia as a sentiment against Zionism. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 11:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest merge of [[Zionology]] into  [[Soviet Union and the Arab-Israeli conflict]] 

message: :That is an oft-repeated error on WP articles, and it is demonstrably false. Unfortunately this article is locked for editing. It is simply not the case that the Soviet Union distinguished between de-facto and de-jure recognition of Israel. The communique of the Soviet FM Molotov simply stated that the USSR had decided to "recognize officially" the new State of Israel and its provisional government. 
:http://cojs.org/russ_recognize_israel-_associated_press-_san_francisco_chronicle-_may_18-_1948/
:The United States' letter of recognition on May 15 did not make the distinction between "de facto" and "de jure" recognition of the STATE of Israel, and gave unqualified recognition to the State of Israel. It was the Provisional Government thereof that was given de facto recognition. This fact was confirmed by the State Department. 
:https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1948v05p2/d460
:The Acting United States Representative at the United Nations (Jessup) to the Secretary of State, July 13, 1948: "It is our understanding that US recognition of State of Israel is unqualified, that is, de jure, while our recognition of PGI was a de facto recognition of government that state. Is this interpretation correct?"
:The State Department, on July 15, stated its agreement with New York’s understanding and set forth its belief that “in cases of recognition of new states as distinguished from new govts no question of de facto as against de jure recognition is involved.”
:Thus, the first country to officially recognize the State of Israel was the United States, not the Soviet Union, and neither country distinguished between "de facto" and "de jure" in their recognition of the State of Israel. Jacob D (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  No, the Soviet Union was not the first country to grant "de jure recognition" of Israel. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Soviet Union and the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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/20120312181034/http://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/552494/browse?type=title to http://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/552494/browse?type=title
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) 15:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: In the last paragraph of the section titled "Effects of the Cold War", please change "In March 1985 Mikhail Gorbachev became the Secretary General of the CPSU and in April he declared perestroika." to "In March 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev became the Secretary General of the CPSU; in April, he declared perestroika." or to something else that is similar.  
Adding a comma after "March 1985" would improve the sentence's grammar, so I strongly recommend making that change exactly as I have written it. It may also help to separate the "in April he declared perestroika" from the rest of the sentence using either a comma, a semicolon, or a period instead of the word "and" as it is an independent clause and then also add a comma in between "in April" and "he declared". Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!  01:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2024