Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War/Archive 11

message: Theodor Herzl's perspective on how the Jews should settle the lands of Palestine are painted in a very dovish manner.  He encouraged the emigration of the indigenous population from Palestine through the encouragement of employment elsewhere, AND the refusal to employ them locally. (America And The Founding Of Israel, p. 49, Righteous Victims, p. 21-22)
He also advocated deceit in purchasing lands from the original owners.  This article makes it seem as though Herzl WANTED to live in peace with the indigenous people, which is definitely not the case. He wanted a predominantly Jewish state.
slaman 25 May 2007 
I am writing a study guide for our annual Harvard National Model United Nations conference, in which I will direct the Security Council's discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I took a course in Middle Eastern politics in which we used Ian Bickerton and Carla Klausner's "A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict" which I, along with the vast majority of students, happened to find very well-organized and well-balanced in views. However, upon surfing the net and finding this article, I regret to inform that it appears to be rather biased on the Israeli/Jewish side. I hope you will take this into consideration when editing. Note: I am neither Muslim nor Jewish.
213.175.169.4 18:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Morris, in fact, notes that the period following the Resolution vote was characterized by Arab initiatives and Jewish reprisals. Jayjg (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If a source is needed for the fact that neither Arabs nor Israeli governments were particularly happy with the partition plan, I believe that there is a quote on the issue from David Ben-Gurion in Avi Shlaim's book "Iron Wall", in the preface. But I'm not near the library at the moment. 131.111.221.240 10:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: I have not read through the whole article, but I would not be surprised if there are tons of neutrality issues lurking throughout the text. I feel extremely strongly on this issue, and I am in no mood to get into an editwar or flamewar over these things. Thus, I leave my comments on the neutrality at that.
(1) There are obviously some sections that need expansion in a major way. There are at least four or five sections labeled as such by the section stub template, but the inclusion of those sections shows potential for an even more thorough and informative article. The Aftermath section needs help, as it seems to totally ignore the elephant in the room - namely, the creation of the State of Israel.
(2) I love the inclusion of the sections for the political objectives of the main participants. However, I do not think "protagonists" is the best word for this. And there is the glaring omission of the Yishuv. Yes, it is true that Israel was not a state until after the 1948 war, and so perhaps they were omitted for that reason. But the political objectives of the British Palestinian Jews living on that land were decidedly different from that of the governments back in London, Washington, etc. This deserves at least some mention. It's like discussing the American Revolution, and mentioning the interests or goals of Britain and France and leaving out that of the colonists because they count as British subjects.
There are obviously some major issues with this article, but overall, it undoubtedly deserves at least a B-class assessment for length, details, images, charts and maps. I have seen very few articles with this amount of well-organized, relevant, and clearly written content. LordAmeth 16:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:MilHist Assessment 

message: Anita Shapira's book Land and Power is inaccurate and misleading about Orde Wingate and the Special Night Squads, and should not be used as an authoritative source about either. Consequently, the section of this article dealing with the same has been changed so as not to be misleading. Citing it while ignoring the mounds of documented information about Wingate is selective historiography and does not serve any scholarly purpose.
After communicating with Dr. Shapira, she stated that her inclusion of the rumors was not intended to be an assertation of fact, and that she did not have actual evidence of Wingate having performed any such atrocities as rumored. See the upcoming English version of her biography on Yigal Allon for clarification. As stated previously, citing her earlier book as authority on Wingate is highly inaccurate and poor scholarship.
:There are plenty of other sources available in Google Books. Martin van Creveld makes the same comments about Wingate. --Ian Pitchford 11:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article was ignorant about Wingate 

message: The casus belli of this conflict is specified as "Arab rejection of the existence of the State of Israel". This issue is obviously subject to debate, but the above phrase is surely a very one-sided summary. Many would argue that the casus belli was the creation of Israel in itself. Is it not possible to have a more neutral explanation, e.g. "dispute over the territory of Palestine"? (I deliberately chose not to write "Palestinan territory")
:A dispute is not a casus belli of war. The rejection of the state and the aim of destroying it were the casus belli. —Aiden 23:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Casus belli" is a legal phrase that refers to an action.  I don't think that rejections or aims can be examples.  --Zerotalk 01:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the war certainly didn't spawn out of thin air. Rejection of the UN partion plan on the part of the Arab states was the casus belli. —Aiden 04:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A casus belli is an act which legally justifies war.  An act that causes a war is not necessarily a casus belli.  If your neighbors violently attack you, that makes it legal to wage war on them so it is a casus belli.  Refusing to recognise you might lead to a war but it is not a casus belli.   I think we should only use the phrase in its strict legal meaning. --Zerotalk 13:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What would you propose? —Aiden 14:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see any possibility of getting an accurate and npov item into the panel.  As it stands "casus belli" is incorrect usage and "Arab rejection of the existence of the State of Israel" is the Israeli point of view only.  The Arab point of view would be that the creation of Israel was the cause.  We aren't supposed to choose one.  --Zerotalk 16:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: this argument is irrelevant... obviously the Casus belli in the Arab states' eyes was the creation of Israel. Israel didn't have any Casus belli because it was on the defense - Israel had no  aspiration for a war whatsoever which is why they accepted the UN Partition and planned to start establishing their state according to the UN resolution. The Arab states' Casus belli was illegal, since they had no justficiation starting a war according to the International Law rules of justified  Casus belli. Therefore the correct definition is that the unjustified and illegal Casus belli of the war was Israel's creation , because the Arab states denied Israel's right to exist. Amoruso 17:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  in other words, there's simply no casus belli to this war. the war is an example to when starting the war itself, not concerning the rules of the conflict after the war started, is completely illegal and can't be justifed in any way. These are two different doctrines in Internatioal Law. Amoruso 17:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casus belli? 

message: Maybe you thought about this during these last 3 months. Maybe you didn't change your mind...
The events that are described in this article talked about the "Palestine war of 1948" and not only about the "1948 arab-israeli war". This latter started on May 15. Check the sources. There is few confusion about this in scholars' writings. Only in encyclopedias or on the internet. Alithien 11:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I permit to insist 

message: A Casus belli need not be correct or accurate. Websters defines it as "an event or action that justifies or allegedly justifies a war or conflict"  and the 'pedia article Casus belli notes that "Informal usage varies beyond its technical definition to refer to any "just cause" a nation may claim for entering into a conflict."
Therefore we need make no judgements about the validity of the casus belli. We need only to report what the belligerents claimed.
The "claimed just causes" were expressed on 15 May 1948 by the Arab League in their declaration of war . The major greivance was "the aggressive intentions and the imperialistic designs of the Zionists, including the atrocities committed by them against the peace-loving Arab inhabitants, especially in Dayr Yasin, Tiberias and others". The League further argued that "This state of affairs is threatening to spread to the neighbouring Arab countries", and therefore "the Arab League, a regional organisation [under] Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations" was legally justified to intervene in collective self-defense.
The Declaration re-iterated the Arab rejection of any Jewish state; however this was NOT the "claimed just cause" for war. The Arabs said that "it would not be possible to carry [Partition] out by peaceful means, and that its forcible imposition would constitute a threat to peace and security in this area". In other words the foundation of a Jewish state was not the casus belli; it was the "forcible imposition" of a Jewish state.
The argument here is certainly tenuous, but it was made and should be reported so that wikipedia readers can judge for themselves. I will make appropriate changes.
Eleland 11:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casus Belli as expressed by contemporary belligerents 

message: A user added other militias to Israel's side. "Jewish militias: Haganah, Irgun, Lehi" and "Druze militias." The Jewish militias, at least the Haganah, was de facto Israel's army. As far as I know, the Druze did not form separate militias but were a subsect of the IDF. They had their own flag., and you can find that flag pic (and upload it from) here. The Druze sided with Israel and actively fought on their side. I was surprised to see that this was not mentioned. It certainly should be as should the fact that some Bedouin Arabs also joined Israeli forces. --Shamir1 22:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other militias 

message: "The SHAI, the intelligence and counter-espionage arm of the Haganah, was the forebear of Mossad.[15]"
The SHAI evolved into AMAN (IDF's Military Intelligence) during the war and the SHAI commander Isser Be'eri became the first head of AMAN. The Mossad was only created at December 1949, after the war had ended. I think that changing the line to "was the forebear of Israel's Intelligence Services" is far better. 88.154.135.216 17:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mossad 

message: I suggest to replace this section :  by this one : 
Alithien 14:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I proceed given the lack of reaction... Alithien 07:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacement 

message: Hi IP24,
The source is in the main article.
* Lapierre and Collins have a full chapter about the 25,000,000 of US$ gathered by Golda Meir in the US (in December 47).
* Benny Morris states that among the 129 000 000 $ gathered between october 1947 et march 1949, more than 78 000 000 will be used to buy weapons. (Victims, p.240 in the French version).
* Here is a primary source about Golda speech named The Speech that made possible a Jewish State. L&C refers to it in their book and a summary can be found there.
More information have been gathered here : :fr:Problématique du matériel lors de la guerre de Palestine de 1948 but it is still incomplete and in French.
Alithien 07:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Due to funds gathered by Golda Meir from sympathisers in the United States 

message: A little known unit that was disbanded in April of 1948 was involved in some initial fighting.  This very interesting unit was composed of local Palestinian Arabs who were trained to do border patrol work during the Mandate, it was modelled on the Arab legion, but was not composed of Bedouin.  Michel Issa, a leader in the ALA during the war, led a company of these soldiers in the battle at Jaffa and Walid Khalidi has documented his important role in this battle.
I added a small bit of info about this unit and a link, but it turns out nothing has been written on it, I suggest that someone write a page on it, or when I get aorund to it I will.Seth J. Frantzman 21:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Trans-Jordanian Frontier Force 

message: Until reviewed by a neutral scholar, this article will be poved.
It is better for the credibility of wp, to state there is continual controversy on this article.
The discussion here above is an example of some points to correct. Alithien 09:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Hi. I didn't see a POV flag on article or its history. If still a concern, maybe detail your concerns and/or only flag the smallest subunits feasible. Thanks! HG | Talk 11:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been removed after another editor modified the introduction. :-) Alithien 11:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pov flag 

message: "Fleeing or expulsion" implies that all Palestinian Arabs left due to fear or force.  As stated in "Demographic outcome," it is not improper to say (although it seems unproven) that most left because their Arab neighbors asked them to.  So the first paragraph already assumes one distinct and unproven POV.  "Ostensibly" implies that there's a real reason in addition to the given reason.  I'd say that security concerns were the reason, but less loaded language would be suitable to say that this was Israel's viewpoint, e.g., "Israel, while accepting the remaining Arabs, banned those Arabs who migrated out of Palestine from returning, citing security concerns."  Also, I've heard Palestinians use "al Nakba" to describe the war itself, not just the movement of Palestinian Arabs in the war.  If this is an improper use, it is still a widely used one.  Indeed Nakba Day marks not the days of migration, but the first full day of the existence of the state of Israel.
Finally, I've heard documentaries claim that Jordan was a winner, not a loser, of the war.  They gained the West Bank, including the Old City of Jerusalem; although technically "occupied," it was quite a gain, both in terms of land and in making the holiest site of Judaism both inaccessible to Jews for 19 years and a point of contention among Arabs and Israelis ever since.  Contrast this with Egypt's gain of the tiny Gaza Strip and Syria's minor border changes. Calbaer 17:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest whole first paragraph is removed. Alithien 18:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alithien -- Hi. I didn't check the edit history. Facilitation style comment: Current version seems to have had improvements, at least for your concerns. Have you tried recommending or editing "exodus" instead of "flight and expulsion" in line with the Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus or Palestinian exodus? HG | Talk 11:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow.  So much POV in the first paragraph. 

message: I think the control of Jerusalem was obviously a political objective of the Yishouv and of all protagonists. Quite strangely, scholars focus that much on the "palestinian transfer" nowadays that I think they "forget" to talk about Jerusalem. Shouldn't we talk about Jerusalem and quote Lapierre and Collins to prove this ? Alithien 06:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jerusalem 

message: JaapBoBo, If you are not able to "write for the enemy" and to introduce all points of views (and not only theirs) don't edit articles.
* You give all pov's or you give none.
* You make the difference between "truth" and "mind" or you don't edit.
Alithien 06:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yishuv objectives 

message: I've added a neutralised version of an important pov on the Yishuv objectives. I am a bit familiar with other pov's but I don't know the right references. To achieve NPOV I invite others to add other pov's, including references.
P.S. Alithien: please don't delete this but try to discuss it first in the true Wikipedia spirit; remember: Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it. []
--JaapBoBo 21:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have always worked in that spirit. Alithien 10:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New 'Yishuv Objectives' 

message: The photograph being discussed is :Image:1948-Jordanian artillery shelling Jerusalem.jpg.
Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not an expert), but what is pictured appears to be a long-exposure photograph of parachute flares being used to illuminate part of the city (fired up on the image right, then drifting with the wind towards the left).  There may well have been shelling or fighting going on at the time, but I don't see evidence of that in this photo.
I was unable to load the photo's cited source page, and the site appears to be gone, but archive.org has a copy.  Does anyone know of a history book or other source which captions this photo?  It would be good to find a more specific citation, which credits the photographer or dates the photo. —Michael Z. 2007-09-25 22:55 Z
:I have no info about this but what you say sounds logical. Alithien 10:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shelling photo 

message: This edit  is not NPOV and even the calims made by the source ( a biased source the countries that started the war try to justify going into war) do not confirm what the editor has wrote. so the editor is even misquoting a highly biased source.....Zeq 16:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's my understanding that the article is presenting the bias, not presenting bias as facts. But I could be wrong. Beamathan (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This edit 

message: - the fact that Pappe is Jewish has nothing to do with this article. Also: katz is anti-zionist. Branding the exodus "ethnic cleansing" is POV and border on propeganda. Zeq 22:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit