Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Arms at the end of the Mandate

The article now says: Sources disagree about the amount of arms at the Yishuv's disposal at the end of the Mandate. According to Karsh before the arrival of arms shipments from Czechoslovakia as part of Operation Balak, there was roughly one weapon for every three fighters and even the Palmach armed only two out of every three of its active members.[84] According to Collins and LaPierre, by April 1948 the Haganah had managed to accumulate only about 20,000 rifles and Sten guns for the 35,000 soldiers who existed on paper.[85]. According to Walid Khalidi "the arms at the disposal of these forces were plentiful".[86]

I assume this part before the arrival of arms shipments from Czechoslovakia as part of Operation Balak, there was roughly one weapon for every three fighters and even the Palmach armed only two out of every three of its active members. is from 'Karsh, p. 24'. If it is not it should be removed from the article because it is pov.

Overall I know that Walid Khalidi is a reliable source. Efraim Karsh is a notorious distorter of facts (praised by some journalists, but severely criticised by impartial and even pro-Israeli scholars). I don't know Collins and LaPierre, but their work seems to be a kind of 'historic fiction', so it would be usefull to know their source. Maybe we should also check some more sources to get better NPOV. I can check Pappe and add his numbers. --JaapBoBo (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep cool ;-)

Khalidi and Karsh are distorders of facts but all they write is not distorsion :-)

On the matter, I think Shlaim and even Gelber writes that in MAy 1948, Haganah has more than enough light weapons.

I don't think there is any "controverse" about that. These "historians" (K-K) just give the status at the date that is good for their thesis, they don't have to be neutral.

But I think there is a misunderstanding :

• beginni:ng of the civil war : there is one weapon for each three soldiers
• end of march : a few more.
• beginning of April : the first light weapons arrived from CZ. Haganah had 3 planes that transported them daily - Haganah takes the offensive.
• On May 15 (or to be sure, let's say in the following days), they have enough light weapons (except at Jerusalem under siege) and ammunitions for all soldiers because ships carrying weapons were waiting at sea.
• Until June 11, Haganah lacks heavy weapons (artillery - tanks - planes)
• During the first truce (11 june - 9 July) all types of weapons, munitions and material required for a war is "deversed" from USA, FR (10 tanks) and CZ.
• Spitfires will arrive in october/november (I think - should be checked).

Ceedjee (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

NB: Gadna should not be taken into account. These were youth movements. They were not armed and not used for fights. (Even if Pappe and Khalidi add Gadna in Jewish forces - that is not needed to show Haganah was more powerful than palestinians and this is not serious and discredite them : I would have to check but I think at Gadna they were younger than 16). Ceedjee (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is Walid Khalidi not a reliable source? To my knowledge his scholarly work is highly regarded. E.g. Glazer ('The Palestinian Exodus in 1948', Steven Glazer, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 9, No. 4. (Summer, 1980), pp. 96-118.) finds him reliable. I've never seen serious criticism of Khalidi. --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Collins and LaPierre's O Jerusalem wasn't exactly "historical fiction" along the lines of say the noxious Exodus, but I'm not sure we should be relying on it. I mean, it's not as if the question of Haganah preparedness for war hasn't been studied in scholarly journals, can't we cite them instead? <eleland/talkedits> 23:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Personnaly, I don't have scholarly journals. I have had only access to a few articles.

But I can (easily) get the references concerning the above-mentionned sources.

Would it be worth developing this in the article ?

Ceedjee (talk) 08:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

@JaapBoBo. The fact an historian is reliable or not should be out of our focus. What is important is that his mind and analysis are relevant or not because they give a relevant point of view.

It was an answer to the way you introduced your own comments on Karsh and what I mean is that nearly all of them are not reliable in this debate. (Karsh is not reliable but certainly not because he would be a distorder and certainly not for everything).

The main difficulty and only concern we should have is the due:weight to give to each information and to take care we give *all* pov on a matter.

W. Khalidi is not reliable because his analysis are childish, old and don't take fairly all the known facts at his disposal. That is not a crime. When he published, the Israeli historians in front of him stated that the exodus had been caused by Arab leaders...

Ceedjee (talk) 08:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Aha!? "W. Khalidi is not reliable because his analysis are childish, old and don't take fairly all the known facts at his disposal", So because you don't agree with his pov you find him not reliable?!

On the other hand, Karsh has been shown to be a distorter of facts, but Walid Khalidi certainly not. --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You miss the main point.

Let's assume I show you 5 majors *lies* or *distorsions* of facts made by Khalidi, according to the way you consider reliability, how will you deal him in your edits ?

Ceedjee (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh... And Karsh has never been shown to be a distorder of facts. He has been accused of that by Morris. And if the accusations performed against him are enough, than you can remove Finkelstein, Morris, Pappé and all the other who are controversed. Ceedjee (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

OOPH! If Morris says everyone agreed that the Palestinians had no chance in a civil war, then he is simply wrong. The CIA report said that the Jews had no chance in a civil war. You can find the document by its designation: NARA # NN3-263-92-005, 24-AUG-92 at http://www.foia.cia.gov/search.asp I did not find a way to link to the document produced by the query, but the text version is posted here: http://www.zionism-israel.com/hdoc/CIA_Conesquences_Partition_Palestine_1947.htm . Putting it at this or that Web site does not change the authenticity of the document, despite Eleland's comment above. I don't think Morris says that though. Can you kindly provide a reference? Karsh says Benny Morris is a liar and Benny Morris says Karsh is a liar. The rule to follow is to look at the facts and ignore what these guys say about each other. It doesn't matter what Karsh says about what Ben Gurion said or what Morris says about what Ben Gurion said. It matters what Ben Gurion actually wrote and said and in what context. Ben Gurion and Hajj Amin al Husseini and the CIA are historical actors. They are PRIMARY SOURCES. Morris and Karsh and alll of us and the rest of the zoo are just observers - their opinions should not be changing the past. Maybe Morris also said the Mediterranean ocean turned to pink lemonade. You can quote him as a source and according to Wikipedia rules it is OK. It is not OK for me to explain that I just looked at the Mediterranean and tasted it and it is salty and blue, because that is original research according to Wikipedia, which is not allowed. Morris clearly does quote Ben Gurion out of context, and Morris now claims that all those who believed that he was saying that the Jews were responsible for kicking out the Arabs "misunderstood" him. He is always being "misunderstood" - very strange that people cannot understand him! Likewise for Finkelstein and others, we have to look at the things they say and determine if they are reasonable. We should not reject an obvious truth even if it comes from Khaldi or Karsh palestineremembered or zionism-israel.com or stormfront or Wikipedia, just because the sources do not agree with our opinions It is not reasonable to say all the experts predicted the Palestinians would lose, if the CIA predicted the Jews would lose and so did Montgomery. Most British were certain the Jews would lose apparently. The reasons for the Arab defeat are explained well by Morris, by Ismail Safwat and others - no central command, no organization. Despite their failure to get additional arms (also a reason cited by O Jerusalem! which is as accurate as any other source - I have checked) the fact is that the Syrian and Egyptian armies had plenty of rifles and ammunition. They didn't arm the Palestinians because they didn't want armies of volunteers running around with guns and they didn't trust each other (the book edited by Avi Shlaim explains all that background. Khalidi and others usually do not lie. They simply leave out big parts of the truth that might be inconvenient. I didn't see that Khalidi explained anywhere that the leader of the Palestinian Arabs in 1948 was Hajj Amin al Husseini, a Nazi who told the British he planned to exterminate the Jews. Karsh OTOH is not going to dwell on Deir Yassin. Pappe is an exception, as he says openly that facts are for pedants and don't matter. Mewnews (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean Morris said at the time no one said Zionists would have difficulties against the Palestinians. I say that today, nobody denies Palestinians had not a single chance to win.

You are wrong to claim we should focus on primary sources. On the contrary ! We cannot use primary sources because we are not historians and so we cannot analyse them with enough distances.

We can only report WP:RS secondary sources. And sometimes, for illustration purpose, primary sources.

Ceedjee (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Holocaust

I came here to add a quote from a historian that the 1948 war was viewed by some as a continuation of the Jewish uprisings in the ghettos, but there's no obvious place to put it, because we have no section on the Holocaust. Does anyone mind if I add one? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 15:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please give the quote and the historian before ? Thank you. Ceedjee (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ceedjee, the quote I wanted to add was from Ben-Zion Dinur, the first chairman of Yad Vashem, who told the Knesset in 1954 that the 1948 war was a direct continuation of the armed struggle in the ghettos. See, for example, footnote 21. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 15:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Slimvirgin,

don't you think this should rather be in an article dedicated to the influence of the Holocaust on the Israeli nation ?

In particular, the image according to which Israel was a weak David in front of a strong Nazi-like Arab Goliath; ie that the Israeli position was equivalent to one of the jewish fighters in the ghettos and that the Arab position was equivalent to the one of a powerfull army seeking to exterminate them, like the Nazi when the attacked the ghettos, is not considered correct any more but is considered to be one of the myth of the '48 war that contributed to build/solder the Israeli nation...

You can find more information in Avi Shlaim, The Debate about 1948

(NB: don't consider that it is biased because Pappe published this, this is rather not controversed)

About the influence on the Holocaust on the Israeli nation, you can find more in Idith Zertal, Israel's holocaust and the politics of nationhood (which cannot be compared with and is of another level than the Holocaust industry of Finkelstein)...

Rgds, Ceedjee (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion between Zeq and ceedjee

Ceedjee, the war started before there was "Israel". the war was a direct result of the holocaust (since survivers came to israel to escape Europe) and let us not forget the an important palestinian who had a direct connection to the war and at least some indirect connection to the holocaust. Zeq (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Zeq,

The war started before there was Israel (you are right) but, the fighters were the men and women who will become the First Israelis and built Israel'snationhood.

When IZL and LHI started to fight the British in '44 and when later Haganah joined them, it was not to prepare a land to welcome the Holocaust survivors. It was to get their independence from British and to get their state, a goal they had been preparing for 30 years.

In the final fight, most of these (future-)Israelis were convinced they were fighting for their survival, that they were weak, that their enemy were Nazi-like Arabs. All of them thought that very honnestly. And it was true for them and their day-to-day experience. But (hopefully), at a wider scale, Ben Gurion and Yishuv's leaders had prepared them for war and they were more organised, more numerous and better equiped than Palestinians and after July than all Arabs. (Which is extremally positive. I mean without that, they would have lost !)

That doesn't mean that Israel was built on fallacy. The so-called myths honnesly translate what the Israeli felt and what they (most often) lived locally. But they had not the wide picture that their leaders partially had and that historians have (New Historians, and particularly the worst of them) are criticized because they mix what they know, what yishuv's leaders knew and what future-Israeli knew...

Here, the problem with Slimvirgin's quote is that it dates back from 195x, right in the middle of the forging of that nationhood's feeling and Yad Vashem, the ultimate (from my pov) reference about the Holocaust, is not a reference about the '48 war... Ceedjee (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The serious fighting started on 1947. Most of the Yeshuv was Hagana which cooprated with the British and many actauuly faught the germans in the British army. The cooperation with the British was especcialy strong during the late 1944 "season" where hagana people spied and turned into British hands terrorists from Lehi and Etzel.

Many of the fighters in 1948 were Nazi camp survivers . Especially famous is the battle on latrun in April 1948: Latrun#1948_Arab-Israeli_War Zeq (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Zeq, you know I know this topic very well.

I don't know what you want to prove or not ?

Latroun (operation Ben Nun A) took place on 25 May (5 other assaults were performed during the war).

There were 4 batallions involved in Ben Nun A. (32 - Alexandroni where Ariel Sharon served; 71 - 71 - 73 : "Sheva" brigade - Harel forces participated too). Only companies A and B of the 72e batallion had new immigrants. ie 150 men out of 1650 fighters. Others were sabras.

Nevertheless, there were far more new immigrants later, after July, when Jews from camps in Cypra were incorporated to Tsahal.

But whatever, the situation was not the same as the one of the Jews fighting in the ghettos and Israel's nation built a myth around Latroun (if you don't like Zertal, try the Hebrew version of Anita Shapira (she "hates" new historians" : L'imaginiare d'Israel (I don't know the title in Hebrew, but I think it was published only in Hebrew and in French)... Ceedjee (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Percentage of Palestine

There seems to be a bit of a misconception in this section:-

In 1949, Israel signed separate armistices with Egypt on 24 February, Lebanon on 23 March, Transjordan on 3 April, and Syria on 20 July. The new borders of Israel, as set by the agreements, encompassed about 78% of mandatory Palestine as it stood after the independence of Jordan in 1946. Considering the original British mandate (including Jordan, which was included within the Mandate in the summer of 1921, but excluded from the provisions for a Jewish National Home), however, Israel was created only on 18% of the total area of Palestine and Transjordan. This was about 50 percent more than the UN partition proposal allotted it. These cease-fire lines were known afterwards as the "Green Line". The Gaza Strip and the West Bank were occupied by Egypt and Transjordan respectively. The United Nations Truce Supervision Organization and Mixed Armistice Commissions were set up to monitor ceasefires, supervise the armistice agreements; to prevent isolated incidents from escalating and assist other UN peacekeeping operations in the region.

There was no original mandate. There error in thinking that there was an original mandate comes from the Treaty of Sèvres While the treaty was in discussion; Turkish national movement under Mustafa Kemal Pasha split with the monarchy based in Constantinople, which set up a Turkish Grand National Assembly in Ankara, successfully fought the Turkish War of Independence and forced the former wartime Allies to return to the negotiating table. Arabs were unwilling to accept the French rule in Syria, the Turks around Mosul were attacking the British, the Arabs were in arms against the British rule in Baghdad. There was also disorder in Egypt. And the Treaty was not ratified it was not until the Treaty of Lausanne was signed and ratified could the League of Nations authorise a mandate. There was no Mandate for Palestine until 1922 where under article 25 Jordan was expressly excluded from the British Mandate of Palestine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley kennedy3 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Transjordan

Transjordan is listed as a belligerant in the box on the right. When I click on Transjordan I get to a WP page that says Transjordan ceased to exist in 1946. I think a knowledgable person should reconcil this WP page with Transjordan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo8rge (talk • contribs) 00:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem looks to be with the Transjordan article, not this one. The infobox there implies 1946 was the terminal date, but 1946 turns out to be the year of independence; the country continued to exist. It takes some digging in the text to learn that the "Trans" in Transjordan wasn't dropped until 1949. A note on that article's talk page might bring some clarification. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:John Glubb Pasha.jpg

The image Image:John Glubb Pasha.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

undue weight

I removed this from the "demography outcome section" :

History would produce different accounts as to the reasons behind Palestinian flight from Israel. Historian and former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami argues that during the war "[The] Arab community [was] in a state of terror facing a ruthless Israeli army whose path to victory was paved not only by its exploits against the regular Arab armies, but also by the intimidation and at times atrocities and massacres it perpetrated against the civilian Arab community. A panic-stricken Arab community was uprooted under the impact of massacres that would be carved into the Arabs' monument of grief and hatred". Jewish historian Ilan Pappé calls the exodus an ethnic cleansing.

On the other hand, Shmuel Katz claims in his book "Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine" that "the Arab refugees were not driven from Palestine by anyone. The vast majority left, whether of their own free will or at the orders or exhortations of their leaders, always with the same reassurance-that their departure would help in the war against Israel.". That claim, however, has been criticized by many scholars for lack of credible evidence. The book, originally written in 1973, was even described as one-sided by The New York Times.

This is material for the article about the causes of the 1948 exodus and there is a linked at the beginning of this section concerning this. 1 line here is more than enough. Alithien 06:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing

Nothing in the article references ethnic cleansing. Yet Israeli historians like Pappe and Morris agree that ethnic cleansing occurred during this war. Why is it not mentioned in the main article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiolou (talk • contribs) 20:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

note

per this diff - i'm interested in reinserting the information relating Marshall and the CIA.

Despite Morris's assertion, Secretary of State [[George Marshall]] had told Jewish agency Foreign Minister [[Moshe Sharret]] in early May or late April 1948, "Believe me, I am talking about things about which I know. You are sitting there in the coastal plains of Palestine, while the Arabs hold the mountain ridges. I know you have some arms and your Haganah, but the Arabs have regular armies. They are well trained and they have heavy arms. How can you hope hope to hold out?"<ref>Collins and LaPierre, 1973 p.315</ref>. Earlier, a CIA report had predicted that it was unlikely that the Jews could hold out against the Arabs of Palestine without extensive outside help, because a war would disrupt the economy for too long. The CIA did not believe that Arab states would intervene. <ref>[http://www.zionism-israel.com/hdoc/CIA_Conesquences_Partition_Palestine_1947.htm The Cconsequences of The Partition of Palestine, CIA, November 28, 1947]</ref>

are there any suggestions/contentions left before i make a neutral effort to reinsert the input? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, the discussion is all above. Zionism-Israel.org meets none of Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, and the Marshall quote, referring to intervention by the Arab states, is not relevant to Morris' assessment of the Palestinians inability to hold out without such an intervention. It might be useful somewhere else, but not in a discussion of the 1947 civil war, and not misleadingly contrasted with Morris. <eleland/talkedits> 22:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, this website is not acceptable.

I think it is better to refer to British politicians and officiers who served in Palestine and whose analysis are more relevant.

Sachar, History of Israel from the rise of Zionism to our time, p.297 : "On december 17, Bevin arned Marshall that the Jews would get their "throats cut". The foreign secretary's appraisal was entirely shared by military leaders. In March of 1948, with hostilities no begun, Field Marshal Montgomery offered his opinion that "the Jews had bought it" - that they were unable to protect their lines of communication. The reports of British officers in Jerusalem, Amman, and Cairo sustained this view. The following month General Sir Gordon Marmillan, commander of British forces in Palestine, stated flatly thatt the Arab armies would have no difficulty in taking over the whole country."

Ok ? Ceedjee (talk) 08:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

@Jaakobou: did you read the comments above, and did you think this through?

Morris statement and the CIA report are related to the civil war, which is discussed earlier in the article. Above that the CIA report is not from a reliable source.

The Marshall assesment could be in, but to avoid undue weight, it should be much shorter, (also the text should not refer to Morris assertion, because Marshall refers to the War with the Arab states) e.g. "American Secretary of State George Marshall thought the Yishuv was doomed to lose the war"[ref] . But I suspect that there were also other observers (who were closer to the action) who held a similar view. Maybe its better to mention their pov's, because they are more relevant. --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Such as Mc Millan, who was the chief officer of the British troops in Palestine and who stayed at Haifa with British troops even after May 14... Ceedjee (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Was this issue resolved? Best I'm reading, JaapBoBo notes that we should list down the other opinion.. so, was this done? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Picking this up again, I just noticed what we were claiming about a Syrian armored attack on Degania, stopped by plucky militiamen using molotov cocktails and bare hands, then driven off with 19th century field guns hastily snatched out of museums. The source was Zionism Israel - well, really, the source was a breathless propaganda broadcast from the Haganah, Z-I was just passing it along.

In reality, the Syrians were stopped by substantial elements of the Golani brigade, armed with towed anti-tank guns and PIAT anti-tank projectors. The artillery used was not 19th century - Israeli gunners called them "Napoleonchikim" as a joke. They were presumably surplus from WW2 and definitely did not come out of any museums.

So no, Zionism-Israel should not be used, except perhaps as a source for campfire stories, folklore, and mythology. <eleland/talkedits> 17:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yemeni contingent

I'm currently doing research on Yemen, and I cannot find any source which states that Yemen sent an expeditionary force. Given that the British controlled Aden at this time, and Imam Yahya has hardly concerned with matters outside of his area of influence, I find this highly unlikely. Unless someone provides a source, I think it should probably be deleted. Chris kupka 19:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A map from New York Times  A M M A R  22:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this image is supposed to be proving, but I agree with Chris. From what I have read Yemen did not have an army at this time and would have had no ability to move troops to Palestine. Thus, unless someone produces any credible evidence that Yemen was involved, I support Chris' idea of deleting the misleading information. Additionally, Saudi Arabia did not have an army during this period either. At the very least the article is confusing because it implies that the governments of Yemen and Saudi Arabia sent troops which is false. DruidODurham (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

a reference.  A M M A R  04:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm deleting it from the main page. Sorry it took me, what, two years? ChrisKupka (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not know about Yemen, but in the book "Israel: A History" by Martin Gilbert, the author says "Even Saudi Arabia sent a small contingent, that fought under Egyptian command."(Page 193). Therefore to say that Saudi Arabia didn't encourage forces to fight in 1948 would be false. Just to point out in another wiki article it says "Saudi-Arabia and Sudan also sent forces to participate in the invasion." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel#The_War_of_Independence:_the_Arab_invasion_phase —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clockward Orange (talk • contribs) 19:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

A new review of Benny Morris; might be useful for a source of neutral summaries rather than quotemining from his book, not that I am implying for a moment that anyone in these and related articles might do something of that sort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Relata refero (talk • contribs) 07:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

15 May 1948 or 14 May 1948

The article implies that the British Mandate of Palestine dissolved on 15 May 1948 but I've always heard May 14th as the date. The British Mandate of Palestine article isn't very clear on the issue either. Which is the commonly accepted date, May 14th or 15th? Jason Quinn (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems as if there's a bias involved in the date itself. Some use May 14th as it was the date of independence of Israel and others use May 15th as it is the day the League of Arab States announced an intended United State of Palestine. What should we do in the article? Any history buffs want to elucidate this? Jason Quinn (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The mandate was set to expire at 00:00 local time 15 May. The British had physically abandoned their last bastions of authority ("Bevingrad") early morning 14 May, arguably terminating the Mandate, and the Zionists were aware of their timetable before hand. Israel proclaimed independence at 16:00 local time 14 May - probably would have been sooner, only 14 May was a Saturday and declaring the Jewish State during the Sabbath would have been a faux pas to put it mildly. <eleland/talkedits> 17:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference Problem

The sentence "During the period beginning in December 1947 and ending in January 1948, it was estimated that nearly 1,000 people were killed and 2,000 people were injured" is referenced, using [34], to "Special UN commission (16 April 1948), § II.5" However, the link for that is on the very same page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War#rapport_special and the #rapport_special apparently no longer exists. What was the original referencing information for this sentence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PinkWorld (talk • contribs) 19:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Casualties and Losses:

According to this article, only the Israeli side suffered civilians casualties. How is that possible? --Fiolou (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Was Lebanon a "belligerent?"

I notice Lebanon is listed, but on the page of Lebanon itself, it says it did not invade Israel, decided at the last minute.Tallicfan20 (talk) 10:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Lebanon did not have much of an army then (about 3000 including support personnel). Lebanon decided to not follow the Arab League plan that would have taken it deep inside Palestine. But there was one brief engagement with Israeli forces: for a few days Lebanon took the village of Malikiyya 700 meters inside Palestine. So both pages are correct. Zero^talk 11:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Spelling of Hebrew words: Hello. The name of the war in the Hebrew transcription should be Milhemet Ha'Atzma'ut, not Milhamat. The correction is to use two e's and not a's, regardless of the decision about the letter Het (H, KH, CH). Likewise Milhemet HaShihrur, Milhemet HaKomemiut and so forth. Thank you

how was the isreal and arab war about —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.210.208 (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Jordan vis Transjordan

Regarding 1948 Arab–Israeli War/First phase: 14 May – 11 June 1948. I do have some changes I want to make here. For example "invading the new state". But the recent change of Transjordanian to Jordanian is silly. There was no Jordan until April 1949. Rather than offend I have changed the link to Transjordan.Padres Hana (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

decisive victory?

it was an impressive israeli victory, no doubt, but i dont think it was very decisive. israel lost a lot of battles, and many of it's operations and objectives faild. israel failed trying to conquer parts of what is now called the "west bank" and "gaza strip" also, it lost some teritory early in the war which it couldn't regain (gush etzion, jewish quarter in jerusalem, kfar darom) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.192.188 (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

If the basic issue is judged to be "survival of Israel" vs. "throwing the Jews into the sea", then the Jews won overall (though not every single military encounter was a Jewish victory). AnonMoos (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

1948 Arab–Israeli War

does anyone know what day the 1948 Arab-Israeli war actually was?or if the day israel was attacked happened (also created)was first?

              dude so totally need help social studies  
                                                  Victoria  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.148.241 (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC) 

False Citation??

footnote 101, quoting "this will be a war of extermination..." cites historians Benny Morris and Sachar. I checked these books for the quote using google book search and could not find it mentioned. Elsewhere I saw NY Times cited for this quote, and I searched their archives without luck. I am loath to edit until I physically peruse these sources, but I may never get around to it. So if I have yet to do so, and you have the time or sources at your disposal, please investigate. - Levi Keller —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.177.251 (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There are numerous allegations and quotes made by Zionists which are totally unsupported, if not outright false. I can't tell you whether this is another one, but it's entirely possible. Benny Morris is an extremely right-wing Zionist, his works are much used for (and presumably correct) when documenting massacres and so forth committed by Israel, he should not be trusted on anything that reflects on anti-Israeli forces. Cumbria4 (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

And of course, this is only one of many, many disturbing elements or thoroughly POV editing in this article, and it needs tagging as POV. Cumbria4 (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The contents of Morris' "Righteous Victims" can be viewed by anyone with an Amazon account. The quote, now at footnote 107, does indeed appear in that version of the book, on page 217. It is also referenced, if anyone wishes to carry on from there. Morris, furthermore, is a highly respected and highly quoted historian and a leading authority on the subject on the 1948 war. The suggestion that he should be employed only when his subject matter is approved by one particular POV is, at best, slightly amusing. Poliocretes (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If you provided the URL we'd be able to check. On the subject of Benny Morris, he has said he supports ethnic cleansing, anything he claims in it's favour should not be taken at face-value. Cumbria4 (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, perhaps I took it for granted that people would understand what I mean. Go to Amazon.com and search for the book. If you're a registered user, the site will allow you to go through the contents. Poliocretes (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you may think about Benny Morris, Poliocretes is right. The answer to Levi's original question is a resounding "no". The Citation is not false. I found the quote on page 219, not 217, but it's definitely there. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This seems inaccurate

"Abdullah kept his promise not to attack the Jewish state, and the Arab Legion was limited to defending Arab areas of Jerusalem and those parts of the designated Arab state that Jewish forces invaded." I say not. After all, he invaded Jewish Jerusalem, and put the resident Jews there under seige. That was not a defensive maneuver. The Jewish forces had not invaded that area. This sentence should be removed since it is neither true nor sourced. I bring it up here but expect to remove it shortly if no justification and proof for it is presented. Thank you. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 04:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. In addition, There were other areas that were attacked by the Jordanian Legion that were within Israel proper besides West Jerusalem and the Jewish Quarter of the Old City. I would support removal of that sentence as it is inaccurate.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The sentence seems to be accurate. I'll see if I can find a source to back it up. --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I looked in Morris' book "1948". Morris writes that "the king had decided - as became clear from the Legion's subsequent actions - to move into Arab Palestine while trying to avoid war with the Yishuv and refaining from attacking the territory of the UN-defined Jewish state. [...] 'Abdullah's aim was to take over the West Bank rather than destroy the Jewish state". However, Morris does not use the word "promise" about the November understanding between Abdullah and the Jewish Agency. Morris also speculates that Abdullah refraining from attacking the territory allocated to the Jews may in part have been due to his army running out of ammunition. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

According to Karsh's Fabricating Israeli History, there was never an agreement between Abdullah and the Jewish Agency. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There was an agreement made in November, but the agreement was not reaffirmed in the talks the following May between Meir and Abdullah. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You should read the book. Anyway, I forgot to say that my point was that we can't say there was an agreement or a promise or whatever in the encyclopedia's neutral voice. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Does Karsch dispute the November meeting?. --Frederico1234 (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

No, he addresses it at length. His conclusion is that there was no agreement. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence as it is unsourced and contrary to mainstream sources--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

As seen above, Morris partially supports the sentence, although he do not phrase it quite that way. The sentence should be modified to be more in agreement with what Morris says. A complete removal of the sentence is not called for. --Frederico1234 (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we can say that Abdullah didn't attack areas allocated to the Jewish state, and attribute opinions about his motivation to whatever sources make the claim. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That sounds acceptable. Thanks. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: "Abdullah refrained from attacking areas allocated to the Jewish state, and the Arab Legion was limited to defending Arab areas of Jerusalem and those parts of the designated Arab state that Jewish forces invaded." How about that? --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Unacceptable. Abdullah attacked Jewish West Jerusalem as well as the Jewish quarter of East Jerusalem and the Mt. Scopus area.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's incorrect to say that the Arab Legion was limited to defending Arab areas of Jerusalem, etc. See Morris (2008) page 211 "His Majesty... is extremely anxious and indeed insists that a force from Ramallah with artillery be sent to attack the Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The quote continues: "The Jews are attacking ... the Old City ... An attack on the Jews would ease the preassure. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I know. Still, he attacked Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem (this wasn't the only instance) so I think your suggested wording doesn't work. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

How about this: "Abdullah refrained from attacking areas allocated to the Jewish state, "preferring to establish defensive perimiters around the areas Jordan coveted". The quote is from "Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict" (6th edition) by Charles D. Smith, page 205. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty good. I think the only thing that's missing is pointing out that Jerusalem was not allocated to either state and/or that the areas Abdullah "coveted" included a Jewish population. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding the missing bits; The status of Jerusalem according to the Partition Plan is already covered in same the section: "Jerusalem was given neither to the Arab nor the Jewish state, but was to be an internationally administered area". Jordans occupation of the Jewish Quarter is covered in the section 1948 Arab–Israeli War#Intervention by Arab League countries. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The rest of the section needs work as well, since it's stating as fact there was an agreement between Abdullah and the JA, which as I pointed out above is disputed. Anyway, upon looking at your suggestion again, I guess what bothers me is that it sounds like he was totally defensive, which isn't correct. He did set up "defensive perimeters", but he did that after taking over some predominately Jewish areas like the Jewish Quarter and the Etzion block. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

[deindenting -- AnonMoos]

A few cats for the pigeons to contend with. It is true that Jerusalem was not allocated to either state in the UNGA Res 181. However, UNGA Res 181 only came into effect if a party or parties declared. At the time the Mandate expired, Jerusalem was a part of Palestine. Israel did not declare Sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem. Confirmed in statements by the Israeli Government to the UNSC 22nd May 1948. Corpus separatum was not implemented.

So, when did the status of Jerusalem legally change from being a part of Palestine? It didn't. The Jewish areas were in Palestine.

We can see this reflected in the fact that there are numerous UNSC Resolutions passed against Israel for attempting to "change the status" of Jerusalem also UNSC Resolutions 267, 271, 298, 465, 476. There is no UNSC Resolution condemning TransJordan for A) Taking control of Palestinian territories B) changing the status of territories it [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/legsess.htmlannexed as a temporary trustee (Session: 12-I Date: May 1950)]. There's no UNSC Resolution simply because Jerusalem was still a part of Palestine. (I cannot provide a link to the non-existent] Under the UN Charter, Regional Powers have a right to take control of non-self-governing territories they represent and attempt to expel foreign forces. Anyone who took up arms, even for self defense, Jewish or non-Jewish, became a belligerent talknic (talk) 04:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Talknic -- Unfortunately, your comments have very limited usefulness, since you seem to be confusing the use of the word "Palestine" to refer to the British Mandate of Palestine with the use of the word "Palestine" to refer to the Arab state which would have been hypothetically created out of the British Mandate of Palestine under the provisions of the November 29th, 1947 partition plan. (This second usage was actually not very common during the 1947-1949 period.) Also, the condemnations of Israel occurred AFTER the 1967 6-day war, and did NOT cover West Jerusalem (as you seem to imply). Many Israelis have been somewhat cynical about the fact that there was no condemnation of Jordan for destroying Jewish synagogues in the Old City of Jerusalem, and consider that it reveals some of the worst features and consistent biases of the UN system... AnonMoos (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You both.

Try to use sources before stating what you believe is true.

Noisetier (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Noisetier ..Acknowledged.. sources added to previous. Apologies for the length and detail in countering some of the notions expressed here.

AnonMoos - When you can show that the name of the territory remaining after Israel was declared, has been officially changed to something other than Palestine, you might have a point. According to this map from the National Library of Israel, in 1480, 440 years prior to the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, the region was called 'Palestina'. During the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, the region was called, oddly enough, 'Palestine'. Prior to the end of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, the region was called 'Palestine'. After the mandate expired and for 60 seconds before the Declaration for the Establishment of Israel came into effect, the area that had been under the Mandate was still called Palestine. One minute after the Mandate ended and the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel came into effect, a part of Palestine was renamed Israel. What remained was still called Palestine. (Resolution 49: The Palestine Question 22 May). It IS very commonly used in EVERY UNSC Resolution on the matter. None of which called for peace in Israel. (Sorry cannot provide a source for something that does not exist)

The confusion comes because in whatever shape or form it has existed, no matter how much of it has been whittled away, what remains of Palestine, is still called Palestine. Unlike the area declared independent of Palestine, which was renamed Israel.

"the condemnations of Israel occurred AFTER the 1967 6-day war, and did NOT cover West Jerusalem (as you seem to imply)"

Indeed the condemnations did come after Israel's first attempt to annex any of the territories it had 'acquired' by war. A condemnation of unilateral annexation could hardly have come before any annexation was attempted. UNSC Res 252 says precisely this "2. Considers that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change that status;" Unless otherwise stated, that would be ANY of Jerusalem.

"..there was no condemnation of Jordan for destroying Jewish synagogues in the Old City of Jerusalem, and consider that it reveals some of the worst features and consistent biases of the UN system..."

A) Unfortunately, when folk take up arms and position themselves in places of worship, the structure becomes a valid military target. B) When the Torah Scrolls are removed from a Synagogue, it has been de-consecrated. Similar to a de-consecrated Church, it's just another building.(1) (2) (3) It is a pity that some fine buildings with historical religious connections were destroyed, but it is a fallacy to say they were all Synagogues. C) Did the UN condemn Israel for it's destruction of non-Jewish places of worship, de-consecrated or not? To mention one and not the other is hypocrisy.

"...consistent biases of the UN system."

This allegedly biased UN gave the Jewish Federation/Agency the opportunity to establish a Jewish State (UNGA Res 181) in some 56% of 1948 Mandate Palestine, of which Jewish institutions, (who were not citizens of Palestine), over seas Jewish investors, (also not citizens of Palestine) and Jewish Palestinians, had purchased 'real estate' (not territory). Simple maths (no link) tells us this constituted only a tiny fraction of the territory allocated to the Jewish State, GRATIS. Some bias.

The UN Charter, GCs, Human Rights Conventions, were based in large part on the circumstances that befell our Jewish fellows under the Nazis. Under the Charter, GCs, Human Rights conventions, Israel and Israelis have exactly the same rights afforded every other people and State. They also have the same prohibitions. One should bear in mind that not all peoples are in entities or states that are UN Members.

The Resolutions against Israel are for the most part reminders. E.g., UNSC Res 252 is ONE resolution, which, if Israel had adhered to it's obligations, would not have brought a further five reminders. UNSC Resolutions 267, 271, 298, 465, 476. Same for almost every other resolution against Israel. Is the gas company biased when you don't pay your bill?

In conclusion and back to the point. By default, what was not the Sovereign Territory of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt or Israel on May 15th 1948, was Palestine, which encompassed the Jewish areas in Jerusalem. talknic (talk) 09:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -- "He did set up "defensive perimeters", but he did that after taking over some predominately Jewish areas like the Jewish Quarter and the Etzion block." Areas which were still within Palestine. Corpus separatum had not been instituted, it's status had not changed from being a part of what remained of Palestine after Israel had declared it's own boundaries in accordance with the resolution enshrined in the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel.

Intervention by Arab League countries

This is misleading. The items are out of order and truncated.

"The official motives for their intervention were set out in a statement[95] of 15 May 1948 :

'...the only solution of the Palestine problem is the establishment of a unitary Palestinian State, in accordance with democratic principles, whereby its inhabitants will enjoy complete equality before the law, [and whereby] minorities will be assured of all the guarantees recognised in democratic constitutional countries ....:

There were numerous statements, that was only one, incomplete.

"The main legal objection the Arab League had to the division of Palestine in UN Resolution 181 was that it did not respect the rights of its Arab inhabitants "

That's NOT what it says. THIS is what it says "the people of Palestine "!!!

I suggest the following, with things in order & more wholesomely quoted chunks, (if we must have large chunks).

The official motives for their intervention were set out in the Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine Arab League Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine submitted to the UNSC S/743, 15 May 1948. The Declaration outlined the historical context and gave the main Arab League objection to the partition of Palestine under UN Resolution 181. Finally it gave the legal basis for intervention, emphasizing their belief that a unitary Palestinian state was the solution.

9. When the General Assembly of the United Nations issued, on 29 November 1947, its recommendation concerning the solution of the Palestine problem, on the basis of the establishment of an Arab State and of another Jewish [State] in [Palestine] together with placing the City of Jerusalem under the trusteeship of the United Nations, the Arab States drew attention to the injustice implied in this solution [affecting] the right Of the people of Palestine to immediate independence, as well as democratic principles and the provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations and [the Charter] of the United Nations.

10. Now that the British mandate over Palestine has come to an end, without there being a legitimate constitutional authority in the country, which would safeguard the maintenance of security and respect for law and which would protect the lives and properties of the inhabitants, the Governments of the Arab States declare the following:

(...)

First: That the rule of Palestine should revert to its inhabitants, in accordance with the provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations and [the Charter] of the United Nations and that [the Palestinians] should alone have the right to determine their future.

Second: Security and order in Palestine have become disrupted. The Zionist aggression resulted in the exodus of more than a quarter of a million of its Arab inhabitants from their homes and in their taking refuge in the neighbouring Arab countries.

Ninth The Governments of the Arab States emphasise, on this occasion, what they have already declared before the London Conference and the United Nations, that the only solution of the Palestine problem is the establishment of a unitary Palestinian State, in accordance with democratic principles, whereby its inhabitants will enjoy complete equality before the law, [and whereby] minorities will be assured of all the guarantees recognised in democratic constitutional countries, and [whereby] the holy places will be preserved and the right of access thereto guaranteed.talknic (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Requesting comments, suggestions. If there is no objection registered, I suggest the change be posted (with excessive chunks referenced) talknic (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As usual you're using primary sources and your personal opinion on what they mean. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy; The existing uses the exact same source. I can find no objection by yourself to the existing. The editor has misrepresented the evidence in the existing exact same source, by taking items out of order, truncating and misquoting. All of which are listed above. In the changes, I have taken the existing, ordered it and cited it un-truncated (suggesting it be referenced), corrected the misquoted "Arab inhabitants".

As you have not previously objected to the source you cannot claim now that it is invalid and as you have not previously objected to the dialogue, can you please show me where, in the guidelines, that additional material from the cited source cannot be added in accordance with editorial policies. Thx. BTW Citing NON-existent policy guidelines is a reportable offence talknic (talk) 06:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Please go ahead and report me for whatever "reportable offence" you think I may have committed. Your attempts at conflict are starting to bore me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -- Why do you want to be reported? I have no intention of reporting anyone. Attempting to fully inform people is not conflict and your boredom is of little interest or relevance

I see no actual VALID objection in your last comment and no VALID reason for preventing additional material in accordance with the guidelines. The edit retains the existing source, to which there have been no previous objections. The opening is the same with the exception that the 'statement' has been replaced to reflect the fact that there were 'statements'. The structure is basically the same, though now correctly ordered. The truncated statement has been un-truncated and will be referenced to quote the full statement. Likewise with other verbatim quotes. The errant "it did not respect the rights of its Arab inhabitants" corrected to accurately reflect the existing source. To wit:

//The official motives for their intervention were set out in the Arab League Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine (1st ref) submitted to and accepted by the UNSC S/743, 15 May 1948. The Declaration outlined the historical context and gave the main Arab League objection to the partition of Palestine under UN Resolution 181. Drawing attention to the resolution undermining the rights of the people of Palestine (2nd ref ), contrary to the Covenant of the League of Nations and United Nations Charter.

Finally it gave the legal basis for intervention and emphasized their opinion that the solution lay in a democratic unitary Palestinian state with equal rights and freedom of worship for all, including access to and preservation of religious sites.(3rd ref )// talknic (talk) 04:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Noting no response since 04:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Calling again for valid objections or suggestions as to how this might be accurately conveyed talknic (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Noting no response since 04:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Noting NMMNG's refusal to even acknowledge the existence of anomalies in the article and his refusal to contribute to improving the article. Calling again for valid objections, suggestions or contributions as to how an invalid entry can be improved to accurately reflect the existing source. talknic (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The addition of an entirely new section: The legal status and extent of territories at the outset of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War

I realize the issue of borders is discussed elsewhere, but considering the legal extent and status of territories at the outset of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War is one the most important factors of the the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. It should be given more than the cursory glance it is thus far afforded here.

I suggest the addition of an entirely new section directly after 1 Background

2 The legal status and extent of territories at the outset of the war

Containing:

1) The extent of Israel's declared territories

2) Palestine by default of A) Israel being declared independent of post Mandate Palestine and B)the failure to implement corpus separatum.

talknic (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

There was no recognized or ratified "legal" definition of the "extent of territories" at the outset of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War" -- the Arabs had torn the November 29th 1947 partition plan into tiny little pieces and flushed it down the crapper, while the British refused to hand over sovereignty or territory to either Arabs or Jews as they withdrew... AnonMoos (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what the Arabs did in respect to UNGA Res 181. It was a non-binding resolution, under which either party could declare if they wished or they could simply ignore it. There was no clause telling the parties to sit down and co-sign or sign at the same time. No clause preventing one state being declared without the other. A declaration of Sovereign Independence is by its very nature UNILATERAL.

Either they unconditionally took the deal or they didn't. Israel did. Without reservation. UNGA resolution 181 is still enshrined in the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel.

These two documents tell us Israel considered itself to have declared its boundaries as being "within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947"

1)

May 15, 1948 Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States,

“MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.” It was not withdrawn. It was the basis of US recognition. The Israeli Government did not refuse US recognition

2)

The reply of the Provisional Government of Israel (S/766) to the questions addressed to the “Jewish authorities in Palestine” was transmitted by the acting representative of Israel at the United Nations on May 22.

Question (a): Over which areas of Palestine do you actually exercise control at present over the entire area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947?

“In addition, the Provisional Government exercises control over the city of Jaffa; Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier; a strip of territory alongside the road from Hilda to Jerusalem; almost all of new Jerusalem; and of the Jewish quarter within the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. The above areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel, are under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard. The Southern Negev is uninhabited desert over which no effective authority has ever existed.” talknic (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Please see my comments above on the pointlessness of delving into ex-post-facto abstract metaphysical theological exegesis on the legal status of UNGA 181 -- and also the rather poor taste and dubious legality involved in the Arabs rejecting the United Nations partition proposal with a flaunting show of contemptuous scorn in 1947 and early 1948 (and refusing to abide by any of the obligations that would have been binding on them under the plan), but then turning around 20 or 40 or 60 years later and claiming that the plan is now binding on the Jews! Your snarky and self-satisfied edit summaries also don't add anything constructive to the conversation.

In May 1948, the really serious fighting hadn't started yet, and some people in New York (though extremely few in the middle east itself) still thought that some variation of the partition plan could bring peace. Later events greatly changed the situation. Since Israel was not admitted to the United Nations on any condition that it accept the 1947 partition plan boundaries, it's all water under the bridge now, and legally quite irrelevant.... AnonMoos (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"In May 1948, the really serious fighting hadn't started yet".

You don't know this topic. More than half of the deaths of the '48 war occured before 15 May ! The fights for the control of Jerusalem and its blockade started jan '48. Arab Liberation Army forces (+5000) entered in Feb and March. Cities of Haifa, Jaffa, Beit Shean, Tiberiade and Safed were conquered by the Jewish forces before 15 May. The coastal plain and whole West of Galilea too. Massacres of Deir Yassin, Hadassah hospital and Massacre of Kfar Etzion occured before 15 May too. Noisetier (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

However, much of that fighting was by irregular or poorly armed forces -- the Israelis didn't yet have significant Czech heavy arms, the Arab armies hadn't openly crossed over the borders, neither side had any airplanes, etc. It may sound incredibly unrealistic, but some people thought that if no set-piece battles between formally-organized armies with tanks, planes, and artillery pieces had taken place, then the peace had not been irretrievably shattered, and there might be some chance of implementing some plan after all -- and the Jews were careful not to needlessly contradict such views, so as to appear reasonable and hold on to whatever international support they could. That has more to do with the May 1948 stuff posted above than does Israel supposedly binding itself unilaterally to obey all of UNGA 181 for all time even while the Arabs obeyed none of it -- which is unfortunately nonsense... AnonMoos (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if you showed us what text you're proposing to add, keeping in mind that without reliable secondary sources it's unlikely to make it into the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

+1. Per No More Mr Nice Guy.

State precisely what you want to change and give the *secondary* sources that concur with it. Noisetier (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos Would you please address the verifiably sourced points, with some verifiable sources of your own that counter those I have provided. UNGA Res 181 was NON-BINDING. Take or leave it. The Arab States didn't take it, they were not legally obliged to. Israel did, without reservation (sorry no sources for reservations that don't exist)

"..the plan is now binding on the Jews"

The Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel (which has not been withdrawn or appended and which still enshines UNGA Res 181) and the subsequent official statements of the Israeli Government are binding on ISRAEL. Israel has a 20% non-Jewish population. The Declaration and subsequent statements by the Israeli Government confirming it's declared boundaries are also binding on the state they live in. Israel.

"Your snarky and self-satisfied edit summaries also don't add anything constructive to the conversation."

Your personal affront is against the guidelines. Please desist.

"the really serious fighting hadn't started yet, and some people in New York etc etc"

Unless these 'some people' are cited and sourced, it's not admissible here. Furthermore under the preemptive Plan Dalet, launched prior to Declaration, escalating the civil war, saw death and dispossession visited upon hundreds of thousands of non-Jewish folk who WERE NOT militant at all. That war has never ended in an armistice or peace treaty (sorry no sources for a non-existent armistices and treaties )

"Israel was not admitted to the United Nations on any condition that it accept the 1947 partition plan boundaries"

Israel was already recognized "as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947" Israel WAS admitted on the basis that it adhere to the UN Charter in its entirety and the existing Customary International Law in its entirety. You're not addressing the topic with anything verifiable.

No More Mr Nice Guy A) Primary sources fitting the WP:PSTS policy are allowed. To wit "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source"

B) Under the WP:PSTS policy This (without interpretation): "the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947" cited from this "the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947" fits that guideline precisely.

C) The questions in the "Letter dated 18 may 1948 from the Assistant Secretary-General for Security Council Affairs addressed to the Jewish Agency for Palestine, and reply dated 22 May 1948 addressed to the Secretary-General concerning the questions submitted by the Security Council" IS a secondary source for the Israeli Government statement to the President of the USA, May 15th 1948.

D) The notion of talk is to thrash out a verifiably sourced, well informed way to present valid information in neutral manner. WE as editors have undertaken to find a way of doing this. The actual Sovereign extent of countries' boundaries are one of the the most important issues in any war. This is no exception. That you continually remove it seems to point to a bias unbecoming of the guideline for neutrality. talknic (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos "...the Arab armies hadn't openly crossed over the borders" ... They'd be the borders you claim don't exist?

"..neither side had any airplanes" Where did this come from I wonder..'Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. However, the Egyptian Air Force continued its bombing raids over the city, and efforts were later made to shell the city from the ground. The fledgling Israeli Air Force responded by bombing military installations inside and near Damascus and Amman." and this "on May 29, after Israel's fledgeling air force performed its first combat mission, when four Avia S-199s attacked Egyptian armored column of 500 vehicles on its way to Ashdod. The Israeli planes dropped 70 kilogram bombs and strafed the column, although their machine guns jammed quickly. Two of the planes crashed, killing a pilot."

"That has more to do with the May 1948 stuff posted above" It has more to do with the fighting. This is about 'The legal status and extent of territories at the outset of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War'

"... than does Israel supposedly binding itself unilaterally to obey all of UNGA 181 for all time..." Israel is bound to its Declaration and subsequent official statements regarding it's boundaries. "....even while the Arabs obeyed none of it" They were not bound to accept it and didn't.

Please stop posting your completely un-sourced opinion. Please respect the talk page guidelines, talknic (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No, when I said "the Arab armies hadn't openly crossed over the borders", I very clearly meant the 1923-1948 borders of the British Palestine Mandate (not the theoretical hypothetical abstract metaphysical lines in the November 29th 1947 partition plan, which were never "borders"[sic]). And the Egyptians had airplanes, but the Arabs and Jews fighting within the mandate territory before May 1948 didn't. And your edit summary accompanying your edit of 22:31, 19 March 2011 was far more of a "personal affront" than anything that I've addressed to you...

And meanwhile, you seem to be doing anything to avoid confronting the main issue -- namely, that the Arabs spent a large part of 1947 and 1948 vehemently and vitriolically denouncing the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan proposal, and spinning elaborate theories as to why it was null and void and without any legal validity whatsoever, so it seems quite ethically and legally dubious for their grandchildren to turn around 180° and all of a sudden now claim that it is enshrined as a pure and undisputable legal charter sent down from the skies (not to mention the additional dubiousness of claiming that the terms of a proposed agreement which never entered into force are binding on one side only, while the other side is perfectly free to ignore the obligations that would have been imposed on themselves). AnonMoos (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy has been here in the same time frame as AnonMoos and surely must have witnessed the havoc...But he hasn't taken AnonMoos to task. WHY NOT? talknic (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding policy. A letter is a primary source, even if it's in a collection of letters on a web site. A secondary source would be, for example, a book written by someone with some expertise in History or International law, explaining the significance of the letter and what it means. When you try to use such a letter to contrast something from a reliable secondary source you are engaging in WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

I have no problem whatsoever in including the above information if you find a reliable source for it. Considering many books have been written about the subject of this article, it shouldn't be a problem for you to find such a reliable source.

I'd also like to point out that this is not a discussion forum. All the back and forth about stuff like airplanes and what editors personally think the law is regarding various decelerations and letters is irrelevant, just wastes everyone's time, and makes the discussion about actual editing hard to follow. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Talknic -- Unfortunately your "sources" are semi-obscure documents which were quickly overtaken by events; and only people who already agree with your views are likely to be impressed by the absolute perpetual and non-contextual hair-splitting legalistic interpretation that you give to them. The United Nations in 1949 didn't consider that those documents overrode everything else to the end of time, so why should we do so now? AnonMoos (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- "On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable".talknic (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

So? See my comments above about how "It's perfectly true that UNGA 181 was kind of a stepping stone to recognized Israeli statehood... and lays down some enduring basic principles". However, S/RES/69 (1949)-S/1277 of 4 March 1949 and A/RES/273 (III) of 11 May 1949 make no mention of forcing the specific partition-plan lines onto Israel, so your belated personal attempts to do so would appear to be supererogatory... (See further Abba Eban's remarks at A/AC.24/SR.45 of 5 May 1949, which were the basic Israeli diplomatic commentary on the terms under which it was admitted to the United Nations.) -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- So look up irrevocable. S/RES/69 (1949)-S/1277 & A/RES/273 (III) of 11 May 1949 weren't about recognition. Israel had already been declared & recognized by 4 March 1949 / 11 May 1949. A/AC.24/SR.45 of 5 May 1949 Abba Eban is reported as saying " the State of Israel had proclaimed its independence, in accordance with the explicit instructions of the General Assembly itself" talknic (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Look up "pettifogging lawyering" and "abstract metaphysical exegesis". If there was any kind of consensus at the UN in 1949 that it was at all realistic or legally requisite to insist that the November 29 1947 partition plan boundary lines be implemented, then the UN would have required this at its point of maximum leverage -- when Israel was being admitted to the UN. Conversely, the failure to insist on the November 29 1947 partition plan boundary lines in the documents recording Israel's admission to the UN is an indication that the UN did NOT consider their implementation to be at all realistic or legally requisite. As for the rest, your oversimplified categorical and absolutist -- and peculiarly one-sided -- personal legal interpretations, in which the obligations of UNGA 181 are binding on one side only (so that one side has "all the pleasures" of UNGA 181, while the other side has "all the pains", as Dr. Johnson might have expressed it) are extremely unlikely to convince anybody who doesn't already fully agree with you.... AnonMoos (talk) 08:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos --- Your post is un-sourced, irrelevant to the topic, 'The legal status and extent of territories at the outset of the war'. Please stop derailing and stick to the topic. talknic (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

At the outset of the war, things were kind of confused and tumultuous, and certainly not formally legally codified -- insofar as the partition plan lines are concerned, the Arabs had torn the November 29th 1947 plan into tiny little pieces and flushed it straight down the crapper, while the British refused to hand over sovereignty or territory to either Arabs or Jews as they withdrew (as I already said above, in my very first reply in this section)... AnonMoos (talk) 07:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos|AnonMoos --- Irrelevancy noted talknic (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Arab Higher Committee of Amin al-Husayni - Amin al-Husayni wasn't the Grand Mufti of anywhere at the time of the war

I suggest the following change and the subsequent removal of the term Grand Mufti and/or Mufti from the rest of the article.

"After his removal from office as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (ref), Amin al-Husayni and Chairman of the Arab Higher Committee, had collaborated with Nazi Germany during World War II. " talknic (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It would have to be "the chairman of the Arab Higher Committee" to conform with English grammar. Under whatever title or lack of title, he was the undisputed single leading Arab Palestinian political personality from the 1929 Wailing Wall riots down to Nasser setting up the ever-glorious Ahmad Shuqeiri as his rival in 1964... AnonMoos (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - It wasn't Amin al-Husayni and the Chairman. He was the Chairman. On further checking...

the Arab Higher Committee ceased to exist 27th September 1937 when it was outlawed by the British.

I now suggest - "Amin al-Husayni had collaborated with Nazi Germany during World War II, after his dismissal from the office of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in 1936 (ref) and after the Arab Higher Committee was outlawed by the British on 27th September 1937."

The second part of your post is irrelevant to the nature of the suggested change. Ahmad Shuqeiri"The neutrality of this article is disputed" talknic (talk) 07:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That is again WP:OR. If you want to say he didn't represent the Palestinians in any official capacity, you're going to have to find a source that says so explicitly. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -- Rpt of suggestion To wit:

I now suggest - "Amin al-Husayni had collaborated with Nazi Germany during World War II, after his dismissal from the office of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in 1936 (ref) and after the Arab Higher Committee was outlawed by the British on 27th September 1937." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talknic (talk • contribs) 09:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a reliable source (per WP:RS) that says there was a "close collaborative relationship between Nazi leaders and the grand mufti of Jerusalem". I see no reason to change the text. I'll add the ref to the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -- None of the quotes in the article say "Grand Mufti of Jerusalem" talknic (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -- Noting your reversion. The JPost article is about a report. None of the quotes from the report, say "Grand Mufti of Jerusalem" This seems to be a dubious source. From the Jewish Virtual Library we have the following "The mufti was dismissed from his position following the riots of 1936."

Your change was made without addressing my objection of 11:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC). A consensus was not reached. talknic (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

JPost is considered a reliable source. If you disagree you may try to convince other editors at the relevant discussion board (in this case WP:RSN), but if you do a search on the board you'll find that this issue has come up before and there is a wide consensus JP is reliable. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy - "Secondary sources are written accounts of history based upon the evidence from primary sources." "Accuracy of information provided within articles". The evidence from their primary source does not mention 'Mufti' and the information provided within the article, not the opinion they provide with the article. In this instance JPost is not a reliable source. I suggest a source that does fully fill the criteria. talknic (talk) 10:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post is a reliable source, in general, but for history articles we prefer works by academic historians to newspapers. Does anyone have such an academic source to propose in this case? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Judith, could you please explain to Talknic how WP:RS works? I don't seem to be getting through to him. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Happy to explain to anyone, and I don't think the Jewish Virtual Library document is RS. But actually I think that the problem and solution lie elsewhere. This stuff should really be in the biography of al-Husayni. The paragraph currently in this article is too long and goes too much into stuff that happened before the 1948 war. Remember, we're writing hypertext. People can click on links to know more. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -- JPost does not fulfill the criteria for a reliable source in this instance. based upon the evidence from primary source The primary source does not say the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Does not even say Mufti. JPost has inaccurately given it's own opinion. //WP:RS Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context.// talknic (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(unindent). I don't think that looking at the Jerusalem Post's sources is the way to proceed with this. A newspaper is not a very good source for this period in history, and the JVL source isn't good either. So right now we have nothing at all to describe al-Husayni's functions in 1948. Some things are pretty certain. Al-Husayni was Grand Mufti of Jerusalem at one time. During the war, he still considered himself GM (he would do, it was the source of his authority). The Nazis considered him GM. During the war, he was not fulfilling the functions of GM in Jerusalem. No-one else had the post of GM; the post of GM of Jerusalem is not always filled. In 1948 he was in Cairo. In 1948 he was in charge of the Arab High Committee, which had been recreated after the war by the Arab League. Where does that leave us? Searching through Google Scholar and Google Books for sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Judith is right : in this article JPost or JVL should not be considered wp:rs or at least for what is discussed here above.

In '48, Amin al-Husseini / Husayni was the leader of the Arab Higher Comittee. That can be sourced eg from Yoav Gelber, Palestine, 1948, 2006, p.393 : "Arab Higher Committee (AHC) [was] [t]he representative body of the Arab community in Palestine (1936-7 and 1946-8). [I]t was dominated by the Mufti but included all Arab parties and public organizations."

Concerning al-Husseini / Husayni, "he collaborated with Germany" would more fit reality than "he collaborated with the Nazis", as proven by the same author, some book p.400 and/or by sources coming from historians withoug agenda but that is definitely impossible to discuss this here. Noisetier (talk) 07:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Noisetier -- Considering that Hajj Amin al-Husseini met personally with both Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler (there are photographs of both meetings: File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1987-004-09A,_Amin_al_Husseini_und_Adolf_Hitler.jpg and File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_101III-Alber-164-18A,_Großmufti_Amin_al_Husseini,_Heinrich_Himmler.jpg), and personally recruited for an SS unit, changing it from "collaborated with Nazis" to "collaborated with Germany" could be seen as whitewashing. If you want references, there are plenty on the Husseini article... AnonMoos (talk) 08:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Note also that the Nazis called him "Großmufti" in the original photo captions.

Could someone please also explain to Talknic that he doesn't get to decide if a reliable source was using primary sources correctly? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are a couple more refs for the Nazis calling him Grand Mufti - [1] [2] (see also page 67 in the second one). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest the deletion of the JPost reference and insert a verifiable source giving the date on which he was officially dismissed from the position of Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. I'd also like someone to explain why the Jewish Virtual Library does not fill the criteria of a secondary source in this instance. The primary source on this point, would surely be a copy of the actual dismissal notice talknic (talk) 07:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

JVL's a secondary source, it just isn't a reliable secondary source for this. JVL often acts as a host for documents published elsewhere, in which case it can be a good source of convenience. But its short, unattributed essays, well we just don't know quite enough about how much fact-checking has been done. Look at the end of this article. There is a long list of books by historians. Many of the historians have Wikipedia biographies; they have posts in well-known universities of various countries; their books are published by the main academic presses. That's the kind of thing that makes a source look good enough for an article on a topic relating to national history. You can get more opinions on the reliable sources noticeboard. WikiProject History has sourcing guidelines. And WikiProject Military History is one of the best projects on the encyclopedia. You don't have to take my word for it, lots of people would be pleased to advise you on sourcing. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"While we attempt to give a second opinion and consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy". "The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Identifying reliable sources. The policy that most directly relates is: Verifiability." talknic (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- "If you want references, there are plenty on the Husseini article.." Word count Nazi/s 10. German/y/s 8. In the JPost opinion, Nazi/z 8 German/y/s 2. In the report the article is reporting Nazi/s 2 German/y/s 6. What do we believe? The opinion of JPost or the report it is required to accurately reflect according to editorial policies?

No More Mr Nice Guy -- "Note also that the Nazis called him "Großmufti" in the original photo captions" 'original' = Primary source.

"Could someone please also explain to Talknic that he doesn't get to decide if a reliable source was using primary sources correctly?" Neither do you "While we attempt to give a second opinion and consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy". "The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Identifying reliable sources. The policy that most directly relates is: Verifiability."

"Here are a couple more refs ..." In the reliable sources list?

Are The Jewish Agency for Israel and The World Zionist Organization reliable sources? talknic (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No. Benny Morris, Ephraim Karsh and Yoav Gelber are reliable, although even then their interpretations may be contested. We should attribute and when the historians disagree both sides should be presented. If you find historians of the period who are writing in languages other than English, please present them, because we need to show a world view. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Talknic -- I don't understand half of your most recent comment, and am not sure I care to expend any effort to try to understand it (hint: if you want to be widely comprehended, then please try to cut down on the sed references -- I've never used sed, and never will use sed, and 99% of people would have no idea what you're talking about). However, it seems that you're working yourself into some kind of frenzy of semi-irrelevant Wikilawyering... If someone met personally with Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler and connived with high Nazi officials to make sure that Jews did not escape, then I really don't see why we can't say that that person "collaborated with Nazis". AnonMoos (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ooops forgot to sign a post. Apologies.

AnonMoos -- "I don't understand .......... Wikilawyering..." Uh....... huh

"If someone met..........I really don't see why we can't say that that person "collaborated with Nazis" " Me either. If Hajj Amin al-Husseini met personally with Adolf Nazi and Heinrich Himmler and connived with high Nazi officials to make sure that Jews did not escape, then he collaborated with Nazis. You may quote me verbatim. Meanwhile, stick to the topic. please talknic (talk) 06:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want to be treated with civility, then why don't you start by treating others with civility? (And cutting down on the sed references...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith "No."

You mean the Jewish Agency for Israel and The World Zionist Organization have NEVER BEEN discussed "To discuss the reliability of a specific source for a particular statement, consult the reliable sources noticeboard, which seeks to apply this policy to particular cases. For a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (WP:IRS). In the case of inconsistency between this policy and the WP:IRS guideline, or any other guideline related to sourcing, the policy has priority.

"..it just isn't a reliable secondary source for this" But JVL has not been discussed "for this"

"If you find historians of the period who are writing in languages other than English.." Please find some, I'll submit them for translation. I have no foreign language skills in order to find them and I am not aware of any already in the article.

Based on the reliable sources policy and the possible mis-use here of the nature of Reliable sources noticeboard and/or WP:IRS and the fact that neither JVL or the Jewish Agency for Israel or The World Zionist Organization have yet been discussed on Reliable sources noticeboard and/or WP:IRS in respect to this "particular case" and the consensus at this point in time that JPost does not fulfill the criteria for a reliable source in this "particular case", I suggest the following change and the subsequent removal of the term Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and or Mufti of Jerusalem from the article.

//After his official removal from office as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem by the British in 1936 (ref) and after the British had outlawed the Arab Higher Committee in 1937, Amin al-Husayni had collaborated with Nazi Germany during World War II// talknic (talk) 06:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Several editors have told you JVL is not a reliable source for this. The onus is on you to take it to W:RSN if you think otherwise. Good luck. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources and other principles#Reliable sources noticeboard and WP:IRS "To discuss the reliability of a specific source for a particular statement, consult the reliable sources noticeboard, which seeks to apply this policy to particular cases. For a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (WP:IRS). In the case of inconsistency between this policy and the WP:IRS guideline, or any other guideline related to sourcing, the policy has priority

The list of reliable sources is ONLY of those that have been discussed in relationship to particular cases. The list is not definitive.

Purposeful obstruction by deliberately misconstruing the guidelines has no validity what so ever. talknic (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You should consider that maybe it's you who is misunderstanding the guidelines rather than others misconstruing them. I have wasted enough time making a good faith effort to try and explain these things to you. I will not be commenting further on this issue. Do not take that as agreement for your suggested change. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy - I gather then, you will still be reading. Then you should consider..

Is stipulating a guideline that does NOT EXIST on numerous occasions, GOOD FAITH?

Is (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1948_Arab%96Israeli_War&oldid=419941322#Yishuv_forces_-_Irgun TWICE suggesting] the guidelines be broken, GOOD FAITH?

Is attempting to prevent a change based on grammar, GOOD FAITH?

Could it be that in order to be a part of general consensus, after numerous calls for comments, numerous calls for VALID reasons why the change should not be made and failing to respond to numerous calls for VALID suggestions as to how the change might be presented with ample explanation for why the change ought be made within the criteria set by POLICY, that you will then object?

Can anyone please explain: If there are HUNDREDS of instances where the guidelines on verifiable sources have been misconstrued in attempting to prevent further information being present that FULLY complies with the requirements according to POLICY, by claiming a source is not valid yet there has been no call for the source and the PARTICULAR statement to be subjected to the process for inclusion in the list, why ALL those misconstruing the guidelines should not be banned?

Can anyone tell me, is general consensus reached by misconstruing the POLICY regarding verifiable sources, valid?

Can anyone please explain the consequences for misconstruing the guidelines HUNDREDS of times by claiming the list of verifiable sources applies to ALL statements from a particular source, in order to prevent an ARTICLE having additional information added so as to present a fuller understanding of the issue, when the PARTICULAR statement from a verifiable source according to POLICY, has NOT yet gone through the process?

Can anyone please explain: Is it not true that the list of reliable sources ONLY reflects those that have been questioned on PARTICULAR issues and that unless there is a call for the source and PARTICULAR statement to go through the process, IT CAN BE USED if it still fulfills the criteria according to POLICY?

Can anyone please explain: Is the list of verifiable sources definitive on all statements from a particular source?

Can anyone please explain: If, WITHOUT prior objection, a source ALREADY being used to present one editor on a PARTICLUAR statement, why that SAME source cannot be used by another editor to add further information on the same PARTICULAR statement?

Can anyone please explain: Is it not the ARTICLE that eventually needs to be balanced, with DIFFERENT POVs presented within the guidelines, according to POLICY?

If not, I suggest the following change be made and call for suggestions on how it might bettered.

//After his official removal from office as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem by the British in 1936 (ref) and after the British had outlawed the Arab Higher Committee in 1937, Amin al-Husayni had collaborated with Nazi Germany during World War II// talknic (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - "If you want to be treated with civility, then why don't you start by treating others with civility?" Cite the instance/s

"(And cutting down on the sed references...)" Your evidence being? I have no idea, or interest in what you're talking about talknic (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

All the "German/y/s 8" etc. nonsense in your post of "21:25, 23 March 2011" above seems to be expressed in some variation of sed syntax. The vast majority of people without any knowledge of obscure obsolete Unix command-line utilities would have no idea what you were talking about, and even I don't know what you mean... AnonMoos (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

[deindent AnonMoos]

Two questions for contributing editors..(also posed at Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni ) 1) Did the Jewish Agency officially or un-officially recognize him as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem after he'd been officially dismissed from his position of Grand Mufti of Jerusalem prior to Declaration? 2) Did Israel officially or un-officially recognize him as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem after he'd been officially dismissed from his position of Grand Mufti of Jerusalem? If not, isn't it rather telling to be still calling him the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem? talknic (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The Jews of the Mandate / Israel "recognized" him as one of their most bitter and spiteful enemies from the 1929 Wailing Wall riots continuously down to the day he died. However, it really was not the role of Jewish leadership to decide who they thought was or was not the Grand Mufti before 1967, since the Jews didn't have any control over the Temple Mount platform holy sites before 1967... AnonMoos (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The British dismissed him from the secular position they had appointed him to. They didn't dismiss him as Grand Mufti, because that obviously was not within their power. See, for just one source, Encyclopedia of Islam. The JVL document you referred to is mistaken on the point and there is no other source that says he was dismissed as Grand Mufti. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos sed .. Irrelevant, unproven opinion. Most browsers have a find facility for the content on a page. I can count. That simple.

AnonMoos -- "it really was not the role of Jewish leadership to decide who they thought.." Oh? Whose role was it to decide what they thought? "The JVL document you referred to is mistaken"...It reflects the Jewish Agency for Israel and The World Zionist Organization. Do you have any secondary sources for your opinion? You did not answer the questions.

Itsmejudith -- His official position, by appointment by the British, was Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. After the British officially dismissed him from the role of Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, he was simply a mufti.

"there is no other source" -- The Middle East maze: Israel and her neighbors David A. Rausch - Page 33The British finally dismissed this Grand Mufti in October 1937. You did not answer the questions. talknic (talk) 07:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Taking the discussion to the Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni main page // talknic (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Reverted No More Mr Nice Guy's added source. The consensus he demanded was not reached. This was the second time No More Mr Nice Guy has added a source without the consensus he demands talknic (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

1. You have violated WP:1RR. Self revert or you will be reported.

2. You have just reverted by claiming "no consensus" without adding any substantial challenges to the source I provided. After you brought up WP:DRNC in another discussion [3] the only conclusion that can be drawn from your behavior is that you are seeking conflict. You really are trying to get yourself banned, eh? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

(why are you spamming?) As I have said on my talk page .. Nice try

1. One revision - removing the JPost source you added without the consensus you demand of others by misconstruing the guidelines.

You can show everyone where it says -- (Undid revision [nnnnnnnnn] by No More Mr Nice Guy -etc- ) yes?

and One reversion - your replacement of the JPost source. The second source you have added without the consensus you demand of others by misconstruing the guidelines.

(Undid revision 421797941 by No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) This is the second time No More Mr Nice Guy has added a source without the consensus he seeks.in talk.)

2. The source is not the issue. The reason was demanding consensus then making the changes without it. In the other discussion, unlike yourself, I've called for discussion, contributions, valid critical dialogue without making the change, patiently, over one number, confirmed by the advice I sought, as currently being wrong for the statement containing it.

As for this topic, the British were the authority at the time (no doubt you'll try to dispute that too) and it has been shown a number of times now in verifiable sources which accurately reflect numerous primary sources, that they both appointed Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni to the post of Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and dismissed him from it in 1937. He was the Grand Mufti of nowhere when he met Hitler. Secondary references calling him the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem after he'd been dismissed in 1937 are quite simply and easily proven unreliable in this instance. talknic (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yishuv forces - Irgun

I suggest the following change in order to reflect the nature of the group

Here "The Yishuv had 35,000 troops of the Haganah, 3,000 of Stern and Irgun, whose terrorist activities had been monitored by the British (ref) and a few thousand armed settlers.[50]" talknic (talk) 03:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, your source says that the British files "records but otherwise does not go into much detail about various terrorist acts attributed to that organisation". Although wikipedia tends to avoid labeling people and organizations as "terrorist", I wouldn't object to you doing it here if you'll join me in doing the same for other groups involved in this conflict. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -

Mi5 labels their activities as terrorist [4] "Subsequent files focus chiefly on Irgun's post-war terrorist activities. KV 5/35 (1946) includes reports on attacks on trains and the kidnapping of British servicemen. The attack on the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, including discussion on the conflicting claims as to whether or not a warning was given, is covered in KV 5/36. This file includes a message from Kim Philby to the Security Service of 9 July 1946 warning of possible Irgun attacks against the British legation in Beirut, just before the attack on the King David. KV 5/37 includes some discussion of the possibility that Irgun might accept assistance from the Russians and the implications of this. It also includes (at serial 142a) examples of stickers posted by Irgun activists in Montevideo that were forwarded to the Security Service by Kim Philby in September 1946.

The attack on the British embassy in Rome is covered in KV 5/38 (1946-1947) "

"I wouldn't object to you doing it here if you'll join me in doing the same for other groups involved in this conflict."

I can't find that condition within any guidelines. Moderate according to criteria. Edit how you see fit. talknic (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was kidding. We don't use the encyclopedia's neutral voice to label stuff as terrorist, per WP:TERRORIST. I was just curious to see how you'd respond. You can say that the British called these activities "terrorist" though, although forcing it into the sentence you suggested seems a bit weird. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

2nd suggestion "The Yishuv had 35,000 troops of the Haganah, 3,000 of Stern and Irgun, whose terrorist activities had been monitored by the British (ref), plus a few thousand armed settlers.[50]" talknic (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the difference between this and the 1st suggestion above, but anyway you're still calling it "terrorist activities" in the encyclopedia's neutral voice. It also still seems forced. How about just wikilinking Irgun and Stern Gang? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

How about you just do your job. ("Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist..." No mention of an action ) 3rd suggestion "The Yishuv had 35,000 troops of the Haganah, 3,000 of Stern, a few thousand armed settlers and Irgun[50], who had been monitored by the British and whose activities were considered by Mi5 to be terrorism(ref). " talknic (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

What's my job?

Now it looks like the whole list were monitored by the British. You're trying to force this terrorism thing into a place where it just doesn't work. Why is it important to note in a section that assesses the size of the opposing forces that Irgun were monitored by the British? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Good question. What is your role here?

"Now it looks like the whole list were monitored by the British." It's correctly punctuated, the source is provided. People can see it only refers to the activities of Irgun. BTW it was very likely they were all monitored.

Unless you can show a legitimate reason why additional informative material, describing the nature of Irgun, should not be added, I suggest the third version be added. If you wish to do the same for other groups involved in this conflict, according to the editing criteria you have so kindly helped me with, go right ahead. talknic (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You asked me to do my job. What do you think my job is?

The sentence might be correctly punctuated, but it is ambiguous. Also, as I mentioned above, it is not clear to me why this is necessary in this context. So what if Mi5 considered them terrorists? What does that have to do with the size of the opposing forces in a section titled "military assessment"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy - "the size of the opposing forces" is not the only assessment already presented under "military assessment". To wit: ' underground paramilitary force'...' clandestine groups'...'covert arms acquisition'

Being a relative newby to editing in Wikipedia, I certainly appreciate your worthy assistance in honing acceptable contributions to Wiki pages. In the interests of fully understanding editorial policy, could you please show me where additional, relevant, informative, secondary sourced information presented within the guidelines, is prohibited. Because it seems rather strange that earlier you in fact offered a rather odious proposition wherein you "wouldn't object to ... doing the same for other groups involved in this conflict" under this very same section, thereby providing additional information to notions like underground, clandestine, covert, etc in respect to the "other groups involved in this conflict".

Finally, if here you have no more authority than I, your 'job' is fast becoming apparent by the failure to censure the disruptive AnonMoos and now only having your opinion left in attempts to prevent the addition of relevant, secondary sourced, material once the editorial criteria have been met. Again, thanks for your help.

I now suggest the following changes : 4th suggestion "The Yishuv had 35,000 troops of the Haganah, 3,000 of Stern, a few thousand armed settlers and Irgun[50], the latter of which had been monitored by the British and whose activities were considered by Mi5 to be terrorism(ref). " talknic (talk) 04:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you stop with the thinly veiled personal attacks before you find yourself blocked from editing. This is not a discussion board. Earlier, I was wondering if you were planning to label anyone else as "terrorist". Obviously you aren't. That's no big surprise at this point.

In the interests of fully understanding editorial policy, I suggest you read WP:NPOV, where it says significant views should be "represent[ed] fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias". When you have a simple list of groups and their sizes, and you try to label just one of them a terrorist group in the encyclopedia's neutral voice, you are not representing views proportionally or fairly. I think you answered the bias part when you declined to add anything to the other groups.

Anyway, and to the point, saying the British considered Irgun a terrorist group would fit, for example, lower in the "Yishuv forces" section where various groups are discussed in detail. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -- "personal attacks"? Please be specific

"...planning to label anyone else as "terrorist". Obviously you aren't." Please stop making false accusations by inference. I have not labeled anyone as a terrorist. It's against policy to label people/groups as terrorists. Why did you suggest it be done? To wit :"Although wikipedia tends to avoid labeling people and organizations as "terrorist", I wouldn't object to you doing it here if you'll join me in doing the same for other groups involved in this conflict"

"I think you answered the bias part when you declined to add anything to the other groups." I 'declined' your completely bizarre proposition to label people/groups as terrorists. A proposal to go against the guidelines, call people terrorists, 'here'= in Military Assessments, which you now wish to change. Furthermore, it is quite obvious we haven't gotten past the first instance on the page. The next down the page awaits your able contribution. WP:NPOV Go ahead, add additional, relevant, informative, secondary sourced information presented within the guidelines.

"...saying the British considered Irgun a terrorist group would fit, for example, lower in the "Yishuv forces" section where various groups are discussed in detail."

Happy to agree, sans "saying the British considered Irgun a terrorist group" You're forgetting the wiki guideline. Again. Suggestion 1) "The two clandestine groups had 2,000–4,000 and 500–800 members, respectively. Irgun, who had been monitored by the British and whose activities were considered by Mi5 to be terrorism(ref) and Lehi."

Which additional material would you now like to add? talknic (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

What wiki guideline am I forgetting "again"?

And in the off chance that you really didn't get that my suggestion to label groups as terrorist was made tongue-in-cheek, allow me to assure you that it was not a serious suggestion, as I made clear (for the few I thought might actually not get it) in my next post in the thread. I hope that clears up your misunderstanding. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy - "What wiki guideline am I forgetting "again"?" Labeling groups or people as terrorists is prohibited. After a hasty retreat from your ghastly proposition, you suggested "...saying the British considered Irgun a terrorist group would fit, "

"And in the off chance that you really didn't get that my suggestion to label groups as terrorist was made tongue-in-cheek, allow me to assure you that it was not a serious suggestion" What you really don't get, is the fact that you have since repeated it "...saying the British considered Irgun a terrorist group would fit, " talknic (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -- Reference added in the "Yishuv forces" section as you have suggested (naturally sans labeling people or groups 'terrorists')

We can now proceed. Please start an appropriate heading in order to discuss the changes you have in mind for "other groups involved in this conflict". Without any reference to them being called terrorists, please talknic (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Saying the British considered Irgun a terrorist group is not labeling people or groups as terrorist, it's reporting what the British thought. You really should understand the guidelines better before trying to use them in silly attempts at belligerence. Not to mention I was obviously not suggesting that exact text be put in the article. I really hope another editor will show up and be able to explain these things to you, since I have obviously failed at explaining them, and you don't understand them properly when you read them yourself.

By the way, the ref you added doesn't load and the prose is again awkward. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy "Saying the British considered Irgun a terrorist group is not labeling people or groups as terrorist, it's reporting what the British thought." The source says activities. " You really should understand the guidelines better" You really should stop misrepresenting, it's against the guidelines you advocate.

"Not to mention I was obviously not suggesting that exact text be put in the article." Uh huh //"Although wikipedia tends to avoid labeling people and organizations as "terrorist", I wouldn't object to you doing it here if you'll join me in doing the same for other groups involved in this conflict"// and again, after your hasty retreat //"...saying the British considered Irgun a terrorist group would fit.."// You did suggest exactly that. In the same sentence, you advocated breaking the very guidelines you yourself described.

"I really hope another editor will show up and be able to explain these things to you, since I have obviously failed at explaining.." No sir, you have done an admirable job talknic (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:WIKILAWYER.

I hope you'll soon realize that this is not a discussion board where you score virtual points for being more "clever" than everyone else, or your stint as a wikipedia editor is going to be quite short. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -- The prose was not challenged at 08:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I agreed to your suggestion of 08:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC) at 15:45, 22 March 2011 March 2011 (UTC) (sans labeling people or groups as 'terrorists')

The change was implemented at 01:04, 23 March 2011 without registered objection

The ref link was rectified at 16:21, 23 March 2011 Thanks for your help.

Please start an appropriate heading in order to discuss the changes you have in mind for "other groups involved in this conflict" talknic (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh well. Nobody can accuse me of not trying. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Marking issue resolved talknic (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

The Criticism section of the Irgun article touches on who viewed it as a terrorist organisation ... which, of course, included its opponents (the majority) within Israel when it was founded. Its methods included sending parcel bombs, throwing bombs into crowds and planting bombs in crowded market places. To raise money, it staged hold-ups. To point out that Wikipedia guidelines advise avoiding labelling individuals, groups or actions as terroristic is one thing ... to go further than that for an organisation such as the Irgun, is something else again.     ←   ZScarpia   23:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Maths - 22 is 39% of 56 not 18%

1) Do we need a secondary source for maths? Israel was allocated 56% of 100% 78 less 56 is 22 22 is 39% of 56 It should read "This was about 39% more than the UN partition proposal allotted it." Objections? talknic (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a source that says "When the war ended, the territory under Israeli control was 21 percent larger than the area allotted to in under the UN partition plan". I will fix the discrepancy and add the ref later. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Please don't. Your source has the math wrong. --Frederico1234 (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll wait for more sources. It's not really that this source has the math wrong, as much as these things are ambiguous (used to the advantage of marketers everywhere). 78% is 22% more than 56%. 78% is also 28% larger than 56%. 78% is also a 39% increase on 56%.

Let's get a few sources and see what most of them say.

While you're here, feel free to join in some of the other discussions. As you may have seen, I'm having some difficulty explaining policy and guidelines to talknic. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Percentages are indeed (mis)used in many ways on a daily basis. But mathematically speaking, only the statement that "78% is also a 39% increase on 56%" is correct. "78% is 22% more than 56%" is false and " 78% is also 28% larger than 56%" is false as well. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

78/100 - 22/100 = 56/100. 78% is 22% more than 56%.

78/100 - (78/100 * 28/100) = 56/100. 78% is 28% (of 78%) more than 56%.

78/100 - (56/100 * 39/100) = 56/100. 78% is 39% (of 56%) more than 56%.

The second and third are quite commonly used. I'm sure we can find relevant sources discussing this. It took me maybe 2 minutes to find the one above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand how you got those numbers. Here's another one: 100% is 100% as much (i.e. twice) as 0%. --Frederico1234 (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we do need a secondary source for maths (even though you seem to have got the numbers right). --Frederico1234 (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If that citation needed tag that was added after I made my above comment remains there, I'm going to have to put the source I provided in the article to replace it.No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Surely it'd be far more accurate to get a mathematical scholar, rather than the opinions of biased 'marketers'

[[5]] Suggested Question to ask : There is 56% of an area allocated. It is increased to 78% of the area. This is ??% more than the original allocation.

Ask or not ask? talknic (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The wording is the key. Saying this is "n" percent more than the original allocation is somewhat ambiguous, implying "n" additional percentage points. Saying this is "n" percent larger than the original allocation would be an improvement. Even better—if 56% and 78% are the correct figures—would be to say, or add, something like, "nearly two-fifths larger..." Hertz1888 (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

How about... 56% is increased to 78%. n% more than 56% talknic (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

How about "39% larger than 56%?" Hertz1888 (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The assertion is "This was about 18% more than the UN partition proposal allotted it." The question must reflect the assertion .. 56% is increased to 78%, n% more than the original 56% ... The altered statement need only correct the maths talknic (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If the actual numbers are 56 and 78, the assertion is stated misleadingly. Following it will put misleading information in the article. 18 is the difference, not the proportionate increase. I think we're going around in circles here. Aren't the actual areas, in sq. km or sq. mi., available somewhere, so that we can take a fresh, different approach? How long must this discussion go on? Hertz1888 (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The actual areas in sq. km or sq. mi. are already reflected in the percentages. Simply change the incorrect maths to reflect the correct proportional increase. It isn't difficult except of course if someone is purposefully trying to make it look less than the actual proportional increase, which will ensure the discussion goes on meanwhile the article reflects incorrect information, which can hardly be said to be acting in good faith

To that end I suggest the creaky maths be changed and add 'proportionally' which tells the reader how n% was reached, retaining the structure & grammar & what the author meant to show "This was proportionally about 39% more than the 56% the UN partition proposal allotted it." talknic (talk) 04:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That should work. Doesn't seem likely to confuse anyone. Hertz1888 (talk) 08:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus on the maths and wording. Change agreed? "This was proportionally about 39% more than the 56% the UN partition proposal allotted it." talknic (talk) 09:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No, don't agree. No unsourced calculations should appear. While it is sometimes OK to make a simple calculation like a percentage, it must never be done unless the numerator and denominator come from the same source, and in this case because it is such a sensitive question, I don't think it should be done at all unless a good source has made the percentage comparison itself. All calculations should therefore be left out until we have seen a good source for them. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Any opinion on the source I provided above? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a scholarly source, thanks. Ideally we would follow up the footnote and cite both this text and the text noted. But I don't get all the chapter footnotes in Google Books preview, so can't do that myself. What do you think about leaving the whole thing out for now? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

"Any opinion on the source" Yes. The statement is based on the premise of an 'proportional increase' to what Israel was allotted. The maths does not reflect the proportional increase as stated. It reflects the difference between, say 78 and 57. Finding what the author cited would only reveal the same problem talknic (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith --- " leaving the whole thing out for now" OK talknic (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't see the footnotes either, unfortunately. As I indicated above, I'm in no rush to change this, and I wouldn't mind leaving it out either. Although I do think the source fulfills wiki requirements. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I see what's happened, though. A source that is reliable for history has fallen foul of the "journalist's error", mistaking "percentage difference" and "percentage point difference". Not so reliable for arithmetic. We can leave the whole thing out. Or we give the before and after in square kilometres if we have a source for each. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

They've cited a source that has failed to make the distinction or, possibly, found a source that fails to make the distinction.

Agreed to remove it for the moment? talknic (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

[ BTW ] talknic (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

UpDate by our esteemed mathematician companions on Wikipedia [ HERE ]

If it goes to a deliberation on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, I'll be citing their conclusion.

Any further contribution on a change to the number? If not I suggest it be changed talknic (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Three editors have told you that secondary sources are required. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -- Four editors have pointed out that the current statement is inaccurate. Two have agreed it should be left out pending further verifiable information. Two suggested it be referred to the maths boffins on Wikipedia, two of whom resolved by default of showing the correct maths according to the statement, that the current statement and 18% is simply wrong. A further reference citing anything other than what our esteemed colleagues have resolved, within the same statement, will be challenged.

At the top of the discussion page it says "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1948 Arab–Israeli War article.

Please point out where it says consensus is required in order to make minor changes to the article or is a valid reason, without explanation, for reversion...thx WP:DRNC

Noting your continued failure to contribute in good faith to resolving any issue I've pointed out and the continual mis-use of the guidelines, I again suggest that the statement be kept and the faulty maths corrected. To wit : "This was proportionally about 39% more than the 56% the UN partition proposal allotted it." talknic (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

DRNC is an essay, not a guideline, but anyway it talks about reverting something without discussion. Here we've had a discussion, the conclusions of which are clear. If you want to remove the text, nobody minds. If you want to change it in the way you're proposing, you're going to have to find a source.

I'm getting a little tired of your constant accusations of bad faith. The only person to supply a secondary source in this discussion has been me, and I've agreed not to use it pending more sources being found. You on the other hand tagged the article with a cn tag after I provided a source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please let's assume good faith. The source proposed by NMMNG simply made a mistake in maths, these things happen. My proposal is that we look for sources that give the land area before and after rather than making a percentage comparison. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -- Someone put the statement there in order to contribute to the article. It gave no secondary source and I cannot find a complaint about that prior to pointing out the faulty maths. The call for a citation is based on the faulty maths within the statement, not the statement. I believe it should be left and simply correct the maths, which has been confirmed as awry by the Maths boffins on Wikipedia, without it being identified as an wikI/Pedia issue. The correction of a single number is hardly a major edit. Meanwhile, you've not contributed to how it might be resolved except to hastily suggest another wrongly concluded figure and offer to rush off an change it without discussion, as you did with the JPost reference to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. On both accounts, you didn't call for the consensus you now demand.

Itsmejudith -- "we look for sources that give the land area before and after rather than making a percentage comparison" The result is the same and could be put in percentages as well, within the existing statement. Editors do not require a trial by high jury to make minor edits. I could have just corrected it, but having been so thoroughly guided by NMMNG brought the issue here to be resolved in an amicable manner. Maths issue having been resolved, I could remove the call for a citation, we could change the percentage. Then it becomes an issue of what exactly? talknic (talk) 07:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The book by Galnoor already cited is from an academic press. It looks to be reliable and on-topic for this article. We should follow Galnoor's figures and probably also his method. There is no reason to do our own calculations. If you insist that we need to make our own calculations, it doesn't need to go to Wikiproject Mathematics, anyone slightly numerate can do it, but where it should go is the no original research noticeboard, for further opinions. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Galnoor says "approximately 75%" not "78%". He does supply an actual figure in km2 though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy/Itsmejudith--- "The source proposed by NMMNG simply made a mistake in maths" (Itsmejudith). No More Mr Nice Guy -- The exact percentages are irrelevant to the problem. As the maths boffins at Wikipedia have confirmed, the basic premise for reaching the figure is wrong within the context of the statement. The determination to propagate a wrongly concluded figure is rather telling talknic (talk) 11:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Just put the basic numbers in, or I will do it from Galnoor. End of problem. No need to attribute motivation. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The correct numbers? Or the numbers based on a completely incorrect premise for the statement from a dubious source for this particular issue? "The source proposed by NMMNG simply made a mistake in maths, these things happen" talknic (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Galnoor is not the source I posted above, it's a source already in the article. Could you please spend more time actually reading and less time accusing people of stuff? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -- I said Galnoor? Where? thx .... Meanwhile see Itsmejudith.. BTW what source? at the point it incorrectly says 18%, it was and still is un-sourced. talknic (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

We can't say "approximately 75%" as that is wrong. --Frederico1234 (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you post a source you think is "right" rather than just saying the rest are "wrong"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

78% is approximately 75%. 78% may be spurious accuracy. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy - Here's one the maths boffins say is right BTW I haven't found any complaints but my own about there being no secondary sources for the present incorrectly arrived at 18%.

Itsmejudith - 75%, 78%, land measures et al are irrelevant to the issue raised. The premise on which the calculation is made, is incorrect for the statement made. The editors claim must be proven. All a challenger has to do is show it's wrong. I have sought expert advise and they say, very simply, it is wrong! talknic (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

78% is approximately 80%, not 75%. No source is needed for that. That is how one approximates numbers to nearest multiple of 5. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"Early in 1949 the contending parties - Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan signed general armistice agreements which recognized de facto Jewish control over half again as much territory as had been allocated to Israel under the plan for partition". Encyclopedia Americana - Volume 30 Page 533. talknic (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Whichever way you look at it, the 18% given is quite simply not compatible with the statement. Constantly blocking any attempt to rectify the issue, is contrary to the basic notion of contributing to improving Wikipedia

There was no objection to the current statement being un-sourced prior to my pointing out the error in the percentage. Now, suddenly, it must be sourced. I reiterate my objection and the fact that my call for a source was only based on the maths. Not the statement containing the wonky percentage.

The appearance of Galnoor is a mystery Itsmejudith or NMMNG seem reluctant to reveal.

As no alternative solution has be offered or agreed upon and no outside help sought apart from Hertz1888 and my own and looking at the comments thus far, wherein;

Four editors said the current 18% within the statement is inaccurate. Two agreed it should be left out pending further verifiable information. Two suggested it be referred to the maths boffins on Wikipedia, two of whom resolved that the current statement and 18% is simply wrong and provided the correct percentage.

The options seem to be 1) keeping the 78% which seems close to or nearest to the most often cited, and inserting the correct percentage per the maths boffins, based on 78% and the 56% percent allotted to Israel, leaving it un-sourced as it was before (without objection). 2) Deleting the statement completely, which kind of goes against the notions of improving Wikipedia.

I see nothing wrong, given there was no previous objection it being un-sourced, in option 1) accurately conveying the information it seems was intended by the current statement (not the maths). talknic (talk) 04:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC) .

The fact it was previously unsourced is not a reason to leave it unsourced. You were told several times you can either remove the current wording or find a source for the change you want to make. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. Done.

In 1949, Israel signed separate armistices with Egypt on 24 February, Lebanon on 23 March, Jordan on 3 April, and Syria on 20 July. The Armistice Demarcation Lines, as set by the agreements, saw the territory under Israeli control encompassing approximately three quarters of Palestine as it stood after the independence of Jordan in 1946. This was about one third more than was allotted to and declared as the Jewish State under the UN partition proposal enshrined in the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel.. The armistice lines were known afterwards as the "Green Line". The Gaza Strip and the West Bank were occupied by Egypt and Jordan respectively. The United Nations Truce Supervision Organization and Mixed Armistice Commissions were set up to monitor ceasefires, supervise the armistice agreements, to prevent isolated incidents from escalating, and assist other UN peacekeeping operations in the region. talknic (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I've made a few changes which include removing a primary source and the editorializing that surrounded it and changing the wording to reflect the other source more accurately. I also changed "Palestine as it stood after the independence of Jordan in 1946" to "Mandate Palestine". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy

A. The link now points to an entirely different page.

B. "Mandate Palestine"? Could mean any period between 1922 til May 14th 1948 when the Mandate expired and as the Armistice Agreements were signed in 1949, by itself is simply wrong. The Jordanian reference is an essential in order to clarify how the numbers were reached, explaining that Jordan was specifically NOT a part of the 1947 Partition Plan under which territory was allocated for a Jewish State.

C. The reference to Jordan was there before I made the change.[[6]] You didn't object. Only when I make a change you object?

D. Furthermore, there was no "Mandate" Palestine in 1949. It expired May 14th 1948 and by 1949 Israel had been declared (enshrining UNGA Res 181 in the Declaration) and recognized and accepted into the UN.

E. I did point it out 01:43, 21 March 2011 There was no objection on your part then. Only now when I use it you object? Or will you also be removing any other instance of the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel at www.mfa.gov.il and removing the editorializing?

F. "changing the wording to reflect the other source more accurately" 1. It was allocated for a Jewish State, not allocated to the Jewish State. 2. Now readers can have a luverly time reading about RUSSIA.

I suggest undoing the mashed link. Removing "Mandate Palestine" and putting the more informative reference to Jordan back in order to clarify the situation as it existed. Include a reference to the status of Israel's borders, a rather relevant and important factor, you seem loath to have mentioned anywhere. talknic (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

A. The link you put in the article took me to a search result (possibly because your link was to .au and I'm automatically redirected to .com), so I reformatted it. Looks like I bungled up the page number. Fixed.

B. "Mandate Palestine" is wikilinked to an article where the lead explains it did not include Transjordan.

C. The previous version said "Mandatory Palestine".

D. So what if there was no Mandate Palestine in 1949?

E. I'm not following you.

F. 1. Either works for me. 2. You said that already.

The only thing I loath to see is editors trying to force their pet theories into multiple articles without having proper sources. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -- The reference to Jordan is a simple sentence informing folk of how the figure in this section is arrived at, without having to go elsewhere where Jordan is not in reference to the figure in this section.

The previous version did NOT say "Mandatory Palestine" [[7]] It said "Mandatory Palestine as it stood after the independence of Jordan in 1946."

Mandatory is a term, not a name. Palestine was the name, it does not require 'Mandatory'. UNSC resolutions didn't use the term.

"Mandate Palestine" or "Mandatory Palestine" could mean anything from 1922 to May 14th 1948.

"I'm not following you" The record shows you are, quite closely...

Either might work for you, but one makes no sense, the Jewish State did not exist for anything to be allocated to it.

"the only thing I loath to see is editors trying to force their pet theories into multiple articles without having proper sources" -- Uh huh.. go to it -- You will also be removing any other instance of the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel sourced at www.mfa.gov.il and removing the editorializing? Otherwise one might assume you're just following me..

I suggest the following changes to give a more informative picture of the situation:

//In 1949, Israel signed separate armistices with Egypt on 24 February, Lebanon on 23 March, Jordan on 3 April, and Syria on 20 July. The Armistice Demarcation Lines, as set by the agreements, saw the territory under Israeli control encompassing approximately three quarters of Palestine as it stood between the independence of Jordan in 1946 and May 14th 1948. This was about one third more than was allocated for a Jewish State by the United Nations partition plan. These extra territories lay outside of the State of Israel[The Palestine Yearbook of International Law 1987-1988 - Pineschi, Anis F. Kassim Page 284] The Armistice Demarcation Lines were known afterwards as the "Green Line". The Gaza Strip and the West Bank were occupied by Egypt and Jordan respectively. The United Nations Truce Supervision Organization and Mixed Armistice Commissions were set up to monitor ceasefires, supervise the armistice agreements, to prevent isolated incidents from escalating, and assist other UN peacekeeping operations in the region. // talknic (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be still having problems understanding what a secondary source is. Since you won't listen to me and won't ask the advice of other editors, I once again see no point in continuing discussing with you. My objection as noted above still stands. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -- point out specifically in the guidelines what the heck it is you're referring to now instead of throwing yet another tizz.... thx talknic (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)