Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Nakba

I noticed that the Arabs calling this war al-Nakba is unsourced in the article (and appears only in the lead). Anyone got a source handy? I intend to use this source in the Nakba article as well. If A=B then B=A. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has a source? Should I tag with cn or remove the statement completely? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

You can remove this statement completely. Noisetier (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Why, when it's common knowledge among tens of millions of people? AnonMoos (talk) 03:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahmad H. Sa'di and Lila Abu-Lughod (eds) Nakba: Palestine, 1948, and the claims of memory Columbia University Press 2007. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. What timeframe do they use for the term? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a collection of essays so may vary. Introduction, p.9 "such a short period - a matter of months". Implying, a name for the 1948 war. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

... Because Nakba more refer to the Civil War period because the Palestinian was defeated after operation Nachshon mainly, before the intervention of the Arab armies even if the "catastrophe" went on after. So Nakba fits more the 1948 Palestine War period. Noisetier (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think NMMNG has a point, the Nakba seems to usually refer to the expulsion of the Palestinians and not the coinciding war although it seems a little murky. Is this what all Arabs call it or should it just say Palestinians? Sol (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to doubt it -- the mindset of Arabs in 1948 was such that they regarded the existence of Israel as being a "catastrophe" all by itself, and "Nakba day" seems to be chiefly observed by protests against the existence of Israel... AnonMoos (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This one is a bit tricky. Various sources use Nakba as referring to the Palestinian exodus alongside the war and the creation of Israel (or even just the time period) or combinations thereof. I'm not digging up anything discussing the Nakba as a reference to the war by itself. Perhaps one of our Arabic speakers could dig something up. Sol (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree, which is why I originally asked this question. I haven't changed anything in either article yet, but my understanding is that "nakba" is not a reference specifically to the war. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard the term used this way, so I did some digging through the edit history, and I think I solved the mystery. It was like a game of telephone, where each successive edit, lost information, and we ended up with original research.

August 2007:

For Israelis, the war marks the successful establishment of the Israeli state, but for Palestinian Arabs, it signifies the beginning of the events referred to as "al Nakba" (Arabic: النكبة, "the Catastrophe"), a term used to describe the fleeing or expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian residents from the newly created state of Israel…

October 2007:

For Israelis, the war marks the successful re-establishment of the Israeli state, but Palestinian Arabs call it "al Nakba" (Arabic: النكبة, "the Catastrophe"), a term describing the expulsion and flight of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian residents from Israel.

2010

"The 1948 Arab–Israeli War, known by Israelis as the War of Independence (Hebrew: ‫מלחמת העצמאות‬‎, Milhemet HaAtzma'ut) or War of Liberation (Hebrew: ‫מלחמת השחרור‬‎, Milhemet HaShihrur) and by the Arabs as the Catastrophe (Arabic: النكبة‎, al-Nakba),

I corrected the lead, but kept a mention of Nakba in it. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 08:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It's still wonky and quite interesting to see the Palestinian Arabs being s l o w l y written out. Quite creepy. Especially in an article on a war fought in Palestine, over Palestine and by the Arab States on the behalf of "the people of Palestine".

There are three issues

1) The opening paragraph says "... wars fought between the State of Israel and its Arab neighbours in the long-running Arab-Israeli conflict"

The Palestinians are Arab neighbours to Israel in the long-running Arab-Israeli conflict. Al-Nakba was not visited upon or commemorated by Israel's neighbouring Arab States. It is commemorated by Israeli Palestinian Arabs and 'neighbouring' Palestinian Arabs, I suggest we write the Palestinians back in :-)

"Much of what the Palestinians refer to as the Catastrophe (Arabic: النكبة‎, al-Nakba) occurred amidst this war."

2) In the same paragraph we have "The war concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements." It should be a separate paragraph. Which brings us to a further issue effecting the whole opening

3) The Armistice agreements were only between Israel and the neighbouring Arab states, not the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs. The opening paragraph says "... wars fought between the State of Israel and its Arab neighbours in the long-running Arab-Israeli conflict" The written out Palestinians are Arab neighbours, who have never had an armistice with Israel.

In order to reconcile the opening line with the closing line I suggest

"The war between Israel and the neigbouring Arab States concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, leaving the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs under the military control of Israel, Jordan and Egypt." talknic (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

If there are no valid objections or further comments, I suggest the change be made talknic (talk) 04:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the current version works better. First of all not only the Palestinians refer to it as the Catastrophe. Second I think that "the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs" is not clear. Neighboring to whom? Syria? Lebanon? Also it's incorrect to say that the Palestinians were left under the military control of Israel, Jordan and Egypt. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -- "I think the current version works better." The opening line does not reconcile with the closing line, which does not mention the Palestinian Arabs as neighbouring the State of Israel.

"..not only the Palestinians refer to it as the Catastrophe" Irrelevant to the omission of the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs.

"Second I think that "the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs" is not clear. Neighboring to whom? Syria? Lebanon?" '..the State of Israel and its Arab neighbours' See the opening line, as it stands, to which you have no objection.

"Also it's incorrect to say that the Palestinians were left under the military control of Israel, Jordan and Egypt" Indeed, it would be incorrect to say, especially as that is not what was suggested.

If there are no valid, unbiased, objections or further comments, I suggest the following change be made in order to reconcile the closing line with the opening line : "The war between Israel and the neigbouring Arab States concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, leaving the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs under the military control of Israel, Jordan and Egypt." talknic (talk) 04:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"The State of Israel and its Arab neighbors" obviously refers to neighboring Arab states.

It is quite relevant who calls it the "Catastrophe".

The line about military control by Israel, Jordan and Egypt is still incorrect. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -- "obviously refers to neighboring Arab states" It says quite clearly "between the State of Israel and its Arab neighbours". It does not say "between the State of Israel and its neighboring Arab states". Obviously if it said 'State' on the one part, it would have said 'states' on the second part. The PALESTINIAN Arabs are neighbours to the State of Israel, they live NEXT TO IT!!! Folk who live next to each other are (.........)? (try to fill in the blank.)

"It is quite relevant who calls it the "Catastrophe"." It doesn't change the people next door, aka NEIGHBORING Palestinian Arabs.

"The line about military control by Israel, Jordan and Egypt is still incorrect" Your opinion is not a valid, verifiable, secondary source. According to you, you require a secondary source and you need a second secondary source showing the relevance of your first secondary source. talknic (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't need a secondary source to show that something you made up is incorrect. The onus is on you to show why the material you want to include belongs in the article. You are again showing you are not understanding policy and guidelines. As a new editor with all of 130 edits (around 60 of which are on this talk page), it would behoove you to stop being so aggressive with something you have a pretty limited understanding of and try to listen a bit. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't need a secondary source to show that something you made up is incorrect." The onus is on you to show why the material you want to include belongs in the article. You are again showing you are not understanding policy and guidelines. As a new editor with all of 130 edits (around 60 of which are on this talk page), it would behoove you to stop being so aggressive with something you have a pretty limited understanding of and try to listen a bit. [[User:No More Mr Nice Guy

No More Mr Nice Guy -- You have shown NO VALID reason why is is incorrect. According to your often voiced opinion, your opinion alone is worth no thing. And I don't need a second secondary source to show why the first secondary source is relevant. It is NOT a condition in the editorial POLICIES.

"The onus is on you to show why the material you want to include belongs in the article." I gave it already.

What is your objection to it? Would it be that Palestinian Arabs living next Israel are OBVIOUSLY neighbors? Most if not all people living next door are neighbours. Perhaps you mean occupation. Which you have alleged I made up .. how un-becoming. To wit..

1) Jordan Handbook of International Law By Anthony Aust Page 27. "On the basis of Security Council Resolution 62 (19-18) of 16 November 19-18, general armistice agreements were concluded between Israel and the neighbouring States in 1949. Articles V and VI of the Agreement between Israel and Jordan fixed the armistice demarcation line (called colloquially the "Green Line' because of the colour used for it on maps) separating Israel and the territory of West Bank of the Jordan river, which was at that time occupied by Jordan."

2) Egypt Israel Yearbook on Human Rights: 1993, Volume 23; Volume 1993 By Yoram Dinstein, Mala Tabory Page 41. "Egypt never claimed sovereignty over the Gaza strip during it's military occupation over the area from 1948-1967"

3) Israel The birth of Israel, 1945-1949: Ben-Gurion and his critics By Joseph Heller Page 39 "Shertok argued that American realism would not take seriously the so-called imminent danger of Israel's occupation of Nablus, Jenin, the Galilee, and perhaps Amman: "Either they would have to approve these occupations, thus embroiling themselves very deeply with the Arab world, or they would have to demand that we give up these conquests, thus fomenting an unnecessary quarrel with the Jewish world." Israeli policy makers, then, did not believe that American policy, perceived to be neutralized by the conflicting approaches of the White House and the State Department, could play a decisive role in the Arab-Israeli war."

If there are no VALID, unbiased, supported objections or further comments, I suggest the following change be made in order to reconcile the closing line with the opening line : "The war between Israel and the neigbouring Arab States concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, leaving the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs under the military control of Israel (1) , Jordan(2) and Egypt(3)." talknic (talk) 05:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

None of your sources talk about "neighbouring Palestinian Arabs", they talk about geographic areas. Both the one about Jordan and the one about Israel do not use the term "military control" or "military occupation". The one about Israel is not only about a discussion that happened before the armistice agreements were signed, it is also talking about a theoretical possibility. Unless Israel captured Amman or Nablus and all the books about the war neglected to mention it? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -- Having no interest in reconciling the first part of a section with the last, seems a strange way of improving the section in an article?

If there are no further VALID, unbiased, supported objections or further comments from parties obviously not interested in improving the article by their absence from the discussion and finding none of the references already listed as invalid, based on No More Mr Nice Guys critiques (people living next to each other are not neighbours unless it can be shown by a verifiable secondary source), I suggest the following change be made in order to simply reconcile the opening line of the section with the closing line section. To wit:

"The war between Israel and the neigbouring Arab States concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, leaving the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs (1) under the occupation of Jordan(2). Egypt (from 1948-1967 - 3) and leaving Israel occupying territories occupied(4) page 142 in the lead up to the war and over which Shertok later expressed concerns(5) page 39 prior to the armistice agreements which eventually saw Israel as an occupying power(6) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talknic (talk • contribs) 18:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see you changed it from "military control" (your term) to "occupation" (the term used by your sources). The problem is that the sources say that territories were occupied, not people.

Can you provide the full paragraph from your "neighboring Palestinians" source? It doesn't look like its talking about the 1949 armistice agreements.

Your source for Israel occupying "the neighboring Palestinians" is just a search result for "Israel occupation 1949". You need a source that explicitly says that Israel occupied a group of people (we can discuss the exact term separately) if that's what you want the article to say.

Shertok's concerns prior to the armistice agreements don't belong in the lead per WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy - Let's start with Shertok. I am completely aware that it is irrelevant to and un-necessary in the lead. It was YOUR suggestion that further sources were required.

To the rest ....As can be clearly seen in the preceding posts, based on your recommendations, consistent insistence and your interpretations of the guidelines, the numerous edits to a simple change has resulted in an overblown, completely inappropriate entry for the lead, which, if one were to continue to follow your instructions, would still not reconcile the opening sentence with the closing sentence and would still not have mentioned the THIRD MAJOR party.

//"The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific." // The suggested change was only to the last sentence of the lead, in order that it reconcile with the first sentence and reflect a neutral POV that included all the major parties to the conflict without being an over blown, multi-linked, fully explained essay.

The analysis of Bob drobbs @ 08:33, 30 December 2010 shows us that the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs have been slowly and COMPLETELY written out of the lead, resulting in a major third party to the conflict not being mentioned at all in the lead, which is in contradiction to the guidelines.

As I first pointed out, the first line says "between the State of Israel and its Arab neighbours". It does NOT say neighboring Arab States! The slowly written out Palestinian Arabs are A) NOT a minority and B) Normally a neighbour is a neighbour until such time as they are not living next to each other. Source - common sense, which is obviously not accepted on wikI/Pedia. Sans common sense, one should read the guidelines. I wonder, by demanding an editor have a secondary verifiable source for their own words, what are the consequences of misconstruing a guideline or demanding a non-existent guideline be observed, in order to prevent one of the THREE major parties being represented in the lead of an article?

Furthermore, you have

A) misrepresented what was written in the previous overblown (at your insistence), over-linked (at your insistence), suggestion. Where instead of improving the suggestion in good faith, it has been rendered completely in-appropriate. To wit: "You need a source that explicitly says that Israel occupied a group of people"...what was actually written "and leaving Israel occupying territories".

B) misconstrued guidelines "Can you provide the full paragraph from your "neighboring Palestinians" source?" //Verifiability in this context means that anyone should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries.//

I wonder what are the consequences misconstruing numerous guidelines demanding a non-existent guideline be observed, of misrepresenting what has been written, in order to prevent the lead article representing one of the THREE major parties and the eventual status of their territories after the armistices had been signed?

If there are no further VALID, unbiased, supported objections, guidelines to be misconstrued, misrepresentations of the suggested post or further comments from parties obviously not interested in improving the article, (indicated by their absence from the discussion), I suggest the following change be made in order to simply reconcile the opening sentence with the subsequent closing sentence in order to truly represent the THREE major parties to the conflict and the status of their territories after the signing of the armistices. To wit:

"The war between Israel and the four Arab States concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, leaving the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs under the occupation of Jordan and Egypt and Israel. talknic (talk) 07:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not suggest, say, or imply that you should put unnecessary and irrelevant things in the lead. I said you need to source whatever you want to put in. Which you do.

I'm not going to address your ramblings about me which include, but are not limited to, your misunderstanding of policy and guidelines, treating wikipedia as a message board/court room, and general belligerence. I will once again suggest you find an editor you trust or go to one of the boards and ask if the way you're interpreting policy is correct. I also suggest cutting down all the bold and caps if you don't want to come across as shouting.

The sources you have provided still do not support the change you want to make for the reasons stated previously. It would be easier for you if you stuck to ideas and terminology commonly used by experts rather than your personal theories. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy "I'm not going to address your ramblings..."

Best start house cleaning then ..

The THIRD MAJOR party to the conflict is not mentioned in the lead. Refusing to assist in forming a manner in which they are included, is quite simply NOT not good faith.

"I also suggest cutting down all the bold and caps if you don't want to come across as shouting." I suggest reading guidelines re their use.

I also suggest that the lead, ought mention the Palestinians in keeping with editorial policies. A) Israeli & State of Israel are linked. Neighbouring Arab states are not. Palestinians are not mentioned at all. To that end B) I call for contributions to shape the lead so that it does or being no valid objections thus far, accept the following change to the last sentence of the lead. "The war between Israel and the four Arab States concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, leaving the Palestinian Arabs under the occupation (or military control) of Jordan and Egypt and Israel. talknic (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Which guidelines do you suggest I read re bold and caps? WP:SHOUT perhaps? You should really read all of WP:TPG#YES while you're there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy - Bolding may be used to highlight key words or phrases... policy has priority.....implies nothing about ease of access to sources...primary sources are permitted if used carefully

Calling again for all those comments and suggestions as to how to include the third major party to the conflict in the lead. A Question -- Is it good faith to not object, not comment, not try to better an article after numerous calls, then suddenly object in order to prevent the Palestinians being mentioned? Yet another suggestion for the change..

"The war between Israel and the four Arab States concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, leaving the Palestinian Arabs under the military control of Jordan and Egypt (ref 1) Military control Page 46 and Israel Military control Page 25 (ref 2) (Full reference "After the 1949 Armistice Agreements, the activities of the Arab community were regarded primarily as concerns of Israel's security system, and most of the areas inhabited by the Arabs were placed under military control) talknic (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You are fooling only yourself by quoting sentence fragments from the guidelines and policy. I noticed you tend to do that when quoting other editors as well. Considering everyone has access to the originals, what exactly do you think you're achieving? I will once again suggest you go and seek the advice of experienced editors. You can start at the helpdesk.

Your sources once again talk about geographic areas, not people. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -- The sentence fragments are linked to the whole and have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the third major party to the conflict is not mentioned in the lead.

Now the objection being voiced is that although territory was under the Military control of Egypt, Jordan and Israel, the people living in the territory, for some strange reason, were not. I point you up the page to where the original objections were voiced to the original, almost identical suggestion for a change. I can't see the latest objection there.

Having called numerous times for input, valid suggestions/contributions/critical dialogue, so that the last sentence of the lead be improved to reconcile with the first sentence in the lead in order to re-include the written out Palestinian Arab neighbours, who were and still are, a major party to the conflict and neighbouring Arabs to Israel.

Noting no other valid objections have been forthcoming from other opposing contributors and that to now object would not be in good faith; and having reached a general consensus at this point in time with No More Mr Nice Guy that the territories were indeed under military occupation by Egypt, Jordan and Israel, I suggest the following change be made

"The war concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, leaving the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs under the military control of Jordan and Egypt (1) and Israel (2). talknic (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

We have reached no such consensus. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -- Reminder "Glad to see you changed it from "military control" (your term) to "occupation" (the term used by your sources)."

Military authority is military control is military occupation is occupation. Current since 1907 Definition according to the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."

Voice some valid objections or contribute in good faith to how the opening sentence in the lead can be reconciled somehow to remove the bias of not mentioning Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs at all. talknic (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Military authority is not the same as occupation. For example, a military base is under military authority, but not under occupation. In our case, your source about Israel is not saying that Israeli Arabs were under occupation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy --- 1) All the non-Israeli territories under military occupation or control or authority by Israel, were a military base? An interesting personal theory to be sure. Alas not a valid objection to removing the bias displayed by not including a major party to the conflict in the lead to the article. --- 2) Glad you caught on at last ... Israeli Arabs (obviously people) were under military authority. But according to you, the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs were not people? Or they were not under military occupation or control or authority? Perhaps Israel held no neighbouring territories under Military control or Military occupation after the signing of the armistice agreements? I'm not sure what you're trying to imply.

Your demands result in a bloated over verbose, multi linked, essay, contrary to the guidelines for the lead of an article, which at present does not name a particular, specific, major party to the conflict, Israel's Palestinian Arab neighbours.It's been an interesting discussion watching the goal posts move. However..

My justification for making the change is to remove the bias shown by not including a mention of a major party to the conflict, Israel's Palestinian Arab neighbours. The Bob drobbs analysis shows in fact, they were written out. The State of Israel is named, the other states signing the armistice agreements, Jordan and Egypt are named. The people most effected by the signing of the armistice agreements and a major party to the conflict, the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs are not. I am not required to justify the call for making the change any further.

Either accept my original suggestion or contribute in good faith to how an unbiased lead can be formulated. My suggested change to remove the bias against the Palestinian Arab neighbours reads thus "The war between Israel and the neigbouring Arab States concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, leaving the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs under the military control of Israel, Jordan and Egypt." Please contribute thx talknic (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not say that any territories were a military base. I'm having trouble deciding if you really don't understand what people are saying to you or you're just playing silly games.

My "demands" are that you adhere to policy and guidelines, particularly that you supply reliable secondary sources for the things you want to put in the article. You are obviously going to find that to be difficult when you're trying to include terms you make up and theories that are not supported by scholarship. While the Palestinians were a party to the conflict, they were not a party to the armistice agreements. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -- The dialogue from the outset of our discussion shows you changing your demands each time one has been met. That is not a show of good faith.

"particularly that you supply reliable secondary sources..." It is not a requirement in the lead of an article to source everything in minute detail. In fact we're asked not to. Interpreting the guidelines in order that it becomes so cluttered as to not comply with the guidelines is not a show of good faith.

"You are obviously going to find that to be difficult when you're trying to include terms you make up" The prior dialogue shows that to be a false accusation, which is not a show of good faith.

"..the Palestinians were a party to the conflict, they were not a party to the armistice agreements" Exactly as I said earlier. Yet the most effected by the Armistice Agreements, a major party to the conflict and one of Israel's Arab neighbours, yet they are not named. Either give a valid reason they should not be named or assist in including them in the lead to the article.

My suggestion stands all the issues it contains are addressed in the bulk of the article. "The war between Israel and the neigbouring Arab States concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, leaving the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs under the military control of Israel, Jordan and Egypt." Please contribute thx talknic (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Considering the way you've been conducting yourself, I have serious doubts you understand what good faith means.

If you come up with any new sources, I'll have a look at them. Otherwise my objection is noted above and I'm done wasting my time. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Noting No More Mr Nice Guy's refusal to contribute to how the omission of Israel's Palestinian Arab neighbours from the Lead of the Article might be addressed within the policy for the lead of an article. talknic (talk) 02:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

NB: Not sure what happened there. [1] If I deleted stuff inadvertently, apologies. Re-inserting reason for the change made. Noting no further comments since 02:25, 30 March 2011 and no attempt to reconcile the fact that the Arab neighbours most effected, being Israel's Palestinian Arab neighbours, are not named in the lead to the article. Noting NMMNG's continual moving of the goal posts each time his objections were met. Complying with NMMNG's demand for sources for the word 'occupation'/'occupied', leaving him with only the ridiculous notion that, although territories were under occupation or control, the people were not. Making the change to include Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs. Thus;

- The war concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, leaving the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs under the occupation of Israel , Jordan and Egypt. talknic (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You just changed the article after discussion did not result in consensus for the change you wanted, and you are misrepresenting the sources (specifically Shertok). Either of these is a blockable offense. I will report you if you don't self-revert. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -- Go Ahead. I called numerous times for comment. Are you gonna claim you weren't watching? A) There were no contributions at all towards resolving the bias exhibited by slowly removing mention of the word Palestinians in the lead, yet they were amongst the most effected by the war AND they neighbour Israel. B) Misrepresented Shertok? The "theoretical possibility" you mentioned before was what might happen between the US and the Jewish world. Not the fact that he said "Israel's occupation". C) Your demands have been met, all that is left is the completely ridiculous notion that: although territories were occupied or under military control, the people weren't. talknic (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not required to comment over and over on the same thing.

I am not going to rehash the same arguments with you again.

You are misrepresenting the sources and making a change you know has no consensus. You know this because there was a discussion about it.

Either of these can result in blocks. The only reason I'm giving you the courtesy of a second warning is because you're new here. You have been officially warned about the ARBPIA case and I will be reporting you pursuant to the remedies therein. I suggest you think about this carefully. There will be no further warning. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

So report

Answered to your so called 'misrepresentation'

The record here shows you don't rehash the same arguments. They change each time they're met. The only thing left was the hilarious notion that territories were occupied or under military control, but the people weren't.

All the changing demands were addressed and comments were called for. No comments for about 2 weeks, now suddenly up you pop....again. I believe it's called stalking. :-) talknic (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Noting NMMNG's continued stalking, edit warring, reversion and determination to have no mention in the lead of the article of Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs, the one group who were most effected by the Armistice Agreements. Claiming the first source does not support the text added to the article, when in fact it says. "Israel's occupation of.."..."..they would have to approve these occupations". The "theoretical possibility" NMMNG mentioned before as an objection, was what might happen between the US and the Jewish world. Not that Israel occupied territories! talknic (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

References to the preemptive nature of Plan Dalet

Noting NMMNG's uncivil deletion rather than calling for a citation.

In order to encapsulate the various other statements (bolded) "Ben-Gurion assigned Yigael Yadin the responsibility to come up with a plan in preparation for the announced intervention of the Arab states. The result of his analysis was Plan Dalet,which was put in place from the start of April onwards. The adoption of Plan Dalet marked the second stage of the war, in which Haganah passed from the defensive to the offensive." .... "The first operation, named Operation Nachshon, consisted of lifting the blockade on Jerusalem. Fifteen hundred men from the Haganah's Givati Brigade and the Palmach's Harel brigade went about clearing the route to the city between 5 and 20 April."

Inserting the word 'preemptive' putting Plan Dalet's nature in an overall context to the other statements (shown above):

//Ben-Gurion assigned Yigael Yadin the responsibility to come up with a plan in preparation for the announced intervention of the Arab states. The result of his analysis was the preemptive Plan Dalet, which was put in place from the start of April onwards. The adoption of Plan Dalet marked the second stage of the war, in which Haganah passed from the defensive to the offensive.// talknic (talk) 02:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Neither of your sources uses the word "preemptive", in fact, your second source says Haganah passed from the defensive to the offensive, so what exactly did they preempt?

I just did an interesting experiment. I searched for "preemptive Plan Dalet" in google. Guess what I found? Of the first 10 results, 2 are wikipedia articles where you added the term, 3 are on a blog by one "talknic" (any relation?) and another two are comments on websites by a "talknic" (what are the odds?). The remaining 3 are also comments on websites, two of which I strongly suspect are you as well. The same goes for the next 10 results. Google books on the other hand returns no results for the term in quotes.

I strongly suggest you remove your WP:OR and stop trying to push your pet theories into this encyclopedia. You can keep them on your blog. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy - talknic = talknic

Try [2] OR [3]. Furthermore Wikipedia recommends editors use their own words. It is not necessary to source every word used, only that words used are appropriate. To wit; [4] talknic (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

None of the sources you provided say Plan Dalet was preemptive. You can use your own words only if they convey the exact meaning of a reliable source. In this case they only convey the personal opinion you seem to be posting all over the internet.

In google books, "Plan Dalet" returns almost 2000 hits. There is only one hit for a book that includes Plan Dalet and the word "preemptive" and that's not even in the same paragraph. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy - The number of Google hits is irrelevant. This is Wikipedia where we're encouraged to improve Wikipedia articles, in our own words. The statement in the article here isn't mine. It had no sources at all....you didn't call for any sources...

I chose to add a word that encompasses the nature of the instances already in the article, of what were by definition of the word "preemptive", preemptive measures taken by Jewish forces under Plan Dalet. There's something wrong with taking preemptive measures?

BTW In the words of the source you unnecessarily asked for - 'pre-emptive' manoeuvring by Arab and Yishuv forces for territorial advantage....the actions taken under Plan Dalet are what is being written about, spread over couple of paragraphs. You think perhaps the author is talking about the Boer War in the first paragraph? Take the source out, but give me a good reason for removing an appropriate word of my own choosing. talknic (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all it's not an appropriate word, evidenced by the fact that no reliable source uses it in this particular way, and second, the onus is on you to show why it should be in the article, not the other way around. We've been over this before. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -- A. What is an appropriate word for preemptive measures that are described over a number of paragraphs? B. There is a reliable source using it in that way, not that a source is actually necessary for every word. C. Nothing was sourced in the paragraph. D. You haven't called for a cita... Ooooops deleted...anything else in the paragraph because it has no source?? talknic (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article Plan Dalet, "to Yoav Gelber and Benny Morris, it was a contingency plan." There are numerous other RS that can be quoted that also present it as a contingency plan. A contingency plan cannot be a preemptive plan, since a contingency plan requires action by the other side before it is implemented, and thus is defensive, not pre-emptive in nature. Parts of the plan were implemented earlier than originally intended because of the situation on the ground. We shouldn't use words like "preemptive" unless we have an RS that uses it. (and even then it should be noted that it is not the universal interpretation). As the WP article on Plan D says: "Its purpose is much debated." Besides Gelber and Morris, some other RS that present Plan D as a reaction (contingency) as opposed to a preemption include

• Thomas F. King (2005). Doing archaeology: a cultural resource management perspective. Left Coast Press. pp. 193–. ISBN 9781598740035. Retrieved 12 April 2011.

"But Plan Dalet was not for the purpose of capturing Tulkarem or Hebron or Qalqilya. It was meant to guarantee that the Jewish state, according to the partition plan, would be secure. In case of need - when there was no other way - freedom of action was given to commanders, to the level of battalion commanders, even to remove the Palestinian population from those areas, only if it would otherwise be impossible to hold on to that area. Plan Dalet was implemented earlier than planned because of the situation created by the war on tranport."

• Selwyn Ilan Troen; Noah Lucas (1995). Israel: the first decade of independence. SUNY Press. pp. 405–. ISBN 9780791422595. Retrieved 12 April 2011.

"In his plan, Yadi proposed to destroy hostile Arab villages within the area assigned to the Jewish state according to the UN decision of 29 November 1947, as well as to occupy those villages in the future Arab state which might serve as forward bases for operations against the Jewish state. The objective of "Plan Dalet" was the conquest and capture of rural and urban Arab centers within and along the borders of the Jewish state, so as to prevent the mounting of hostile operations from them. ....During March 1948, the fighting escalated with the begining of the Arab attack known as "War of the Roads," which was followed by reprisals by the Jewish forces, after which began the actual implementation of "Plan Dalet."

• Yehoshafat Harkabi (June 1974). Arab attitudes to Israel. John Wiley and Sons. pp. 366–. ISBN 9780470352038. Retrieved 12 April 2011.

"As documentary evidence that it was the Jews who started the war, attention is drawn to "Plan Dalet"....by Dr. Khalidi in his article...(and by Sha'ban, p.34) whose objective was ...control over the territory of the Jewish State and the defence of its borders against an invasion by the Arab armies." Khalidi adds that the Jewish occupation of Tiberias and Haifa before the Arab invasion shows that this plan was carried out. This conclusion is reached by means of a selective memory or selective oblivion in regard to the acts by the Palestinian Arabs which preceded Plan Dalet: the attacks on Kfar Szold, Kfar Etzion, Yehiam, Tirat Zvi and other villages, as well as the attempt to disrupt Jewish transport and communications, which made the plan a necessity."

• "J. Bowyer Bell (1977). Terror out of Zion: the fight for Israeli independence. Transaction Publishers. pp. 290–. ISBN 9781560008705. Retrieved 12 April 2011.

"Sitting on Ben-Gurions's desk was the Haganah's overall offensive plan, Dalet, which would begin when there was no more danger of British intervention. In March Ben-Gurion accepted that Jerusalem could not be relieved unless they activated the relevant operation from Dalet..."

Hope this helps. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 05:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Not really much help Snakeswithfeet, none of your sources say "contingency plan". As you can see above, they simply don't pass the crucial NMMNG criteria.

Meanwhile 'contingency' in the Wiki Plan Dalet article didn't come from Gelber or Morris. It's the work of one Ami Isseroff. Alas, it doesn't accurately reflect the Plan it cites. Which according to NMMNG's mysterious guidelines, it must.

Gelber & Morris appear to have been added here and changed places with the first source here then had a bit of a jostle here...and finally the original source for 'contingency' was ousted by Yoav Gelber (sans Morris)...here

Then Yoav Gelber was joined by most of the historians (whoever they were??) who suddenly became other historians (whoever they were??) who magically changed into most other historians who were all unceremoniously booted out here!

By now 'contingency' magically belonged to Yoav Gelber until Benny Morris appeared to claim some of the credit.

ALAS Yoav Gelber commenting on Mr Morris's work, says "preemptive" talknic (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems a touch of editing is in order both here and on the Plan Dalet page. Objections? talknic (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Last things first. Your emboldened link does mention the word "preemptive" but says nothing at all about Plan Dalet. You cannot assume he is talking about Plan Dalet. In that context "preemptive attack" appears to mean that there was information or evidence of a planned attack against the Jews, and it was preempted by the Jews attacking first. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to speak to the history of that other article here, though I may well take a look at it later. Regarding use of the expression "contingency plan," consider the following definitions for "contingency"

1. A future event or circumstance that is possible but cannot be predicted with certainty.
2. A provision for such an event or circumstance.

Virtually all sources acknowlege that the Plan was meant to be put into effect in the eventuality of war, if necessary:

• The King book cited above says "In case of need - when there was no other way - freedom of action was given to commanders, to the level of battalion commanders, even to remove the Palestinian population from those areas, only if it would otherwise be impossible to hold on to that area." A plan "In case of need" would be a contingency plan.

• Directly, Tal David Tal (2004). War in Palestine, 1948: strategy and diplomacy. Psychology Press. pp. 165–. "Nevertheless, it would be misleading to say that the General Staff was completely unprepared for the invasion, as Plan Dalet did lay down the deployment guidelines to meet that contingency."

• Helena Lindholm Schulz; Juliane Hammer (2003). The Palestinian diaspora: formation of identities and politics of homeland. Psychology Press. pp. 30–. "The prime purpose of Plan D was to secure the Jewish state against the expected Arab onslaught and to create 'territorial continuity between the major concentrations of Jewish population' [quoting Morris, 87]]... Eviction was thus contingent on the behavior of residents of different areas. In case of resistance the inhabitants were forced to leave, and in this regard plan D was a sort of blueprint..." In other words, contingent upon an Arab onslaught.

• Morris 1948, p.118 "The Haganah shift of strategy [toward activation of Plan D] was decided on incrementally during the first half of April; each decision appeared to be, and in large measure was, a response to a particular, local challenge. " In other words, the contingency was met.

• Morris p. 119 "The preamble stated: the aim "of this plan is to take control of the territory of the Jewish State and to defend its borders, as well as [defend] the blocs of settlement and the Jewish population outside these borders against a regular enemy, semi-regular[s] [that is ALA], and irregulars. ...Plan D was geared to an invasion by regular Arab armies. It was to be activated when "the forces of the {British] government in the country will no longer be in existence." It was "geared to an invasion by regular Arab armies." Had there been no hostilities, there would have been no reason to implement this (contingency) plan.

• COLLINS, L., & LAPIERRE, D. (1972). O Jerusalem! . New York, Simon and Schuster, p. 66 "It was the Haganah's primary strategic document. Known as Plan D, Dalet its basic premise was that warfare would break out in Palestine if the British withdrew and an attempt was made to establish a Jewish state. ...The plan foresaw a temporary vacuum preceding and coinciding Britain's withdrawal. During that vital first stage, the plan assigned to each settlement the task of static defense, of assuring its own survival until forces for a mobile war had be brought into play. The ability of those scattered settlements to survive would depend on whether the Haganah could get them the men and material required for their defense before the British left Palestine." The plan was based on the premise that war would break out, and was contingent upon the same.

Morris does say on page 118 of 1948 that the plan was put into effect "prematurely," that is, before the actual Arab invasion, but not before hostilities against the would-be Jewish state. The implication of preemptive is that the Plan was enacted before hostilities against the would-be Jewish state. This was not the case. To use the word "preemptive," you should demonstrate what was preempted and how, and show clearly an RS that makes the claim. There are numerous RS that acknowledge that the war against the Jews was started before the Plan went into effect, and therefore was NOT preemptive. Snakeswithfeet (talk)

Snakeswithfeet. A) None of your information provides 'contingency plan' B) I have shown conclusively where the word contingency came from in the Plan Dalet article. It did NOT come from Gelber / Morris. It's origin will be the same today, tomorrow, the day after... C) The notion that preventative measures planned for a number of contingencies (which are BTW variable conditions) and which was executed before the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, were not preemptive, is quite bizarre. The determination to prevent it being used even more so.

" The implication of preemptive is that the Plan was enacted before hostilities against the would-be Jewish state. This was not the case." It was implemented before the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. The topic is the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Plan Dalet's preventative measures preceded the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. talknic (talk) 10:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

They all do, with Tal specifically using the word "contingent": "Plan Dalet did lay down the deployment guidelines to meet that contingency." The "notion" that preventative measures planned for a number of contingencies after the UN Resolution is not the least "bizarre"; it is simple common sense. If you were told that you were going to be attacked, wouldn't you make a plan to meet that contingency? This is exactly what numerous reliable sources tell us. What is a bit bizarre however is your idea that because the plan was put into effect earlier than originally anticipated in response to hostilities in the lead-up to the war somehow makes it a "preemptive" plan. Further I find your comment that "The determination to prevent it being used even more" bizarre, rude. The same could have been said of your insistence on using the word "preemptive" without use of RS, based solely on your own interpretation, which has been pointed out by another editor earlier in this section. When you say, as you did above, "I chose to add a word that encompasses the nature of the instances already in the article, of what were by definition of the word "preemptive", preemptive measures taken by Jewish forces under Plan Dalet" this is not by definition but by personal interpretation. Had it been by definition you should be able to find at least one use of the word preempt or preemptive used in that way by RS as I was able to find the use of the word "contingency." Snakeswithfeet (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Snakeswithfeet -- To your first point. The contingency is not the plan. Your second point is a blatant misrepresentation of what was written. :::Compare:

The notion that preventative measures planned for a number of contingencies (which are BTW variable conditions) and which (were) executed before the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, were not preemptive, is quite bizarre.

The "notion" that preventative measures planned for a number of contingencies after the UN Resolution is not the least "bizarre"

"If you were told that you were going to be attacked, wouldn't you make a plan to meet that contingency? " Indeed. However in your own words, one does not plan contingencies. One plans to meet contingencies.

"What is a bit bizarre however is your idea that because the plan was put into effect earlier than originally anticipated in response to hostilities in the lead-up to the war" It wasn't. Hostilities on BOTH sides were already in progress. Jewish forces were already responding. Plan Dalet escalated the civil war prior to the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, resulting in Jewish forces already being outside of the State of Israel on the day it was declared, as planned.

The determination to prevent the word 'preemptive' being used is glaringly obvious as are all of NMMNG's attempts to suppress information he doesn't like and the more bizarre and convoluted your arguments, the more glaringly obvious it becomes.

One does not have to have a RS for one's own words. They only have to comply with the generally accepted meaning of the word in context to the article.

"..this is not by definition but by personal interpretation. The dictionary says otherwise

Furthermore, the word 'contingency' is wrongly attributed in this "According to the Wikipedia article Plan Dalet, "to Yoav Gelber and Benny Morris, it was a contingency plan." and in the Plan Dalet article. I note NMMNG's and your unwillingness to even address the matter, preferring it seems to leave incorrect information LIE. Oddly enough your desperation seems to make you blind to other ways of resolving the problem talknic (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The word 'contingency' doesn't appear even once in this article, not with regards to Plan Dalet or anything else. Thanks for the silly accusations and personal attacks though. I think I'll start a list. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -- A) I didn't say in this 'article' (see missed C&P previous). B) You're determination, unwillingness & desperation here are defined by your actions. C) You already have a list which, as I am sure you're well aware, also shows what you've been up to. talknic (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, you did say it. Then you went back and edited your comment after I responded to it, which is considered pretty bad form (see WP:REDACT). Next time you can just explain what you meant. As I tried unsuccessfully to explain to you, most editors will AGF.

So you want me to address the matter of another editor writing on this talk page that "According to the Wikipedia article Plan Dalet, "to Yoav Gelber and Benny Morris, it was a contingency plan."? Seems pretty accurate to me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy --- "Well, you did say it." Your presumption and my forgetting to C&P the earlier quote from here..You had not quoted the comment with a [diff]. The addition is explained in the subsequent comment.

If it seems 'pretty accurate to you', you're weighing in without having read what was provided. talknic (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine

"In the immediate aftermath of the United Nations' approval of the Partition plan, the explosions of joy amongst the Jewish community were counterbalanced by the expressions of discontent amongst the Arab community.[citation needed] Soon thereafter, violence broke out and became more prevalent. Murders, reprisals, and counter-reprisals killed dozens on both sides."

This statement is misleading and contributes nothing to helping ordinary readers understand the legal mechanisms by which Israel became a recognized state within the UN. The UN does not have any legally binding power to divided lands and create nations. So, to say that "In the immediate aftermath of the United Nations' approval of the Partition plan ..." is misleading in that it leads the reader to incorrectly conclude that the UN has the legal authority to 'approve' the division of lands and create nations, which it does not. What they approved was a non-binding UN General Assembly resolution based upon the British Plan for the Partition of Palestine, and nothing more. This is not the legal mechanism by which Israel came to be and any inference that it was is improper.

The resolution most often cited (though erroneously) as being responsible for 'creating' Israel is UN General Assembly Resolution 181, which accepted the British Plan for the Partition of Palestine as the basis for the resolution. While it is true that this resolution was 'approved', it was meant to lay the framework for later negotiations between the adverse parties (viz, The British Plan). 'Later' means after the expiration of the British Mandate, which was to be supplanted by a UN administrative mandate over the Palestinian territories in order to fill the legal void that would be created at the expiration of the former's legal mandate. That the UN failed in the ensuing chaos of war to establish its mandate over the area and that Zionist forces during the legal void that followed unilaterally declared independence upon the exact date and hour of the expiration of the British Mandate of Palestine lends no credence or support to the perception that this statement infers that Israel was somehow created by the UN.

Restatement or disambiguation to clarify that the UN was not the legal 'mechanism of creation' of Israel should be made possibly along with reference to UN 181, or the statement dropped. --DanKaiser (talk) 08:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

UNGA resolution 181 was not an endorsement of a British plan, because at that point the British pretty much had no plan, which is why they threw the matter into the lap of the United Nations in the first place (a plan drawn up by the British would have much more closely resembled the 1937 Peel plan than UNGA resolution 181). UNGA resolution 181 never came into force (because it was not agreed to by both parties), which is the most directly relevant fact. AnonMoos (talk) 09:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

"UNGA resolution 181 never came into force (because it was not agreed to by both parties), which is the most directly relevant fact."

That UNGA resolutions do not by definition have any legal force is more to the point. The entire opening statement of this section is misleading and to imply that one side accepted it and the other did not misleads the reader to conclude that an offer to both sides was proffered and, when one side refused it, the UN concluded in favor of the other party by "approving" of it. None of this is true much less accurate, which is why either clarification should be provided for the sake of historical accuracy and perspective or dropped. --DanKaiser (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"UNGA resolution 181 never came into force (because it was not agreed to by both parties)"

A declaration of independence is by it's very nature unilateral. Look up the word 'independence' There was no article in UNGA Res 181 requiring both parties to co-sign. The parties were not required to declare at the same time in order that either be recognized. The notion that there had to be an agreement is against the very basic principles of declaring independence. Either they accepted the deal or not. Israel accepted unconditionally, to declare Sovereign Independence over the territories recommended in UNGA Res 181 and abide by the laws governing such a declaration.

That the Arab states rejected UNGA Res 181 is a non-argument. If the parties wished to declare Sovereign Independence they had until had until no "later than 1 October 1948", during which time either entity could unilaterally declare.

If one declared and was recognized before the other, the second party was not bound to declare independence over what remained. In fact, they could have subdivided the allotted territory even further, had they wished. However, by May 15th 1948, Jewish forces under the preemptive Plan Dalet were already controlling territories slated for the Arab State.

Under Customary International Law an entity can only effectively declare Independent Sovereignty if they alone control all of the territories they are declaring sovereignty over. Note in the notification of Declaration, Israel's declaration came into effect "at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time" after the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine had expired. I.e., after Palestine was no longer under the control of the British under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine

Israel was not declared independent of Britain. Israel did not exist under the Mandate. Israel was declared independent of Palestine, to which the territory it declared, formerly belonged.

Note: ** Since declaring, Israel been in control of territories slated for the Arab State, "outside of Israel". There has never been an opportunity for the Palestinians/Arab States to effectively declare Independent Sovereignty over what remained of Palestine after Israel was declared independent of Palestine. In fact there has never been an opportunity throughout the entire history of Palestine. For over 2,000 years, there has always been some entity or another in control of some or all of Palestine.**

UNGA Resolutions -- although non-binding, will often reaffirm, cite, remind the parties of the Law. All law is binding. They often cite the UN Charter, binding in it's entirety on all UN Member States, without exception. Remind the parties of previous binding UNSC Resolutions. Such an UNGA resolution is a plea to states to adhere to what IS binding.

UNGA Res 181 -- The parties were obliged to it ONLY IF THEY DECIDED TO DECLARE, wherein they were bound to : declare according to Customary International Law governing the declaration of Independent Sovereignty and subsequently bound by their Declaration and any voluntary obligations it contained (e.g., to be "faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations" even though Israel was not yet a Member State) This included the Customary Laws of War, all Customary International Law and importantly, the UN Charter Chapter XI.

UN Members not recognizing an entity which has been recognized by the majority, are still bound to the UN Charter and must have "respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of States and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;"

Israel accepted UNGA Res 181 without reservation and enshrined it in the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel. According to the statement by the Provisional Israeli Government on the 15th May 1948 Israeli sovereignty was ONLY "within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947" to come into effect "at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time" Also available as PDF from the Truman Library Israel's statements in attempting to gain acceptance into the UN also cite UNGA Res 181.

Israeli's declared sovereign extent, also defined what was NOT Israeli. What remained of Palestine was and still is called Palestine. Unlike the new Jewish State, the territory did not undergo a name change. Israel did not declare sovereignty over Jerusalem. Corpus separatum was not instituted by the UN. Jerusalem's status did not change. It was and still is, a part of what remained of Palestine after May 15th 1948.

Note: ** There is some confusion generate by Palestine not being renamed. Prior to Israel's independence, UN/UNSC resolutions name 'Palestine', which referred to all of Mandate Palestine after TransJordan was declared independent. After Israel's independence, 'Palestine' in any UN/UNGA Resolution, refers ONLY to the area "outside of Israel" and not within the sovereign extent of the other states. **

When a UNSC Resolution post May 15th 1948 says "...in Palestine" It is not referring to any part of Israel. Careful reading of the UNSC resolutions, cease fires, armistice and peace agreements show us that the wars between Israel and the other Regional Powers, were IN Palestine. They call for peace 'in Palestine', not 'in Israel'. They also tell us the wars were between High Contracting Regional Powers, to a large degree over and IN Palestine except where Israel occupied the territory of a neighbouring state. Between High Contracting Powers, the Laws of War were applicable and when the Geneva Conventions came into force, they were also applicable. Meanwhile, the UN Charter Chapter XI has always been applicable to all UN Members and all who oblige themselves to be faithful to the UN Charter.

Israel had confirmed it's boundaries on at least two occasions before it became a UN Member State and before it made it's first illegal claim ( 31st Aug 1949 ) to territories it had previously stated in correspondence with the UNSC, (May 22nd 1948) were "..outside of Israel" Israel's claim was turned down by the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine.

The UN -- It is not within the UN's mandate to grant recognition to entities in order that they exist as states. States must exist BEFORE they can be recommended by the UNSC for acceptance into the UN.

Recognition of a declaring entity in order that they be recognized by individual states is NOT put to a vote in the UN. Individual countries either recognize or not, whether they are UN Member States or not. We can see this in the fact that there are UN Member States not recognized by other UN Member States, they are never the less, legitimate states, recognized by the majority.

Once a declaring entity is recognized by the majority of the International Community of Nations/States, the entity's Sovereignty according to their declaration, information provided to the International Community of Nations/States and the recognition given by them based on that information, becomes irrevocable. (Much the same as when a convention is ratified by the majority of States, it passes into Customary International Law)

Prior to acceptance into the UN, the UN can only issue recommendations or a 'statement' acknowledging the process or that a new state has been formed and/or recognized by the International Community of Nations/States. The UN/UNSC can only pass resolutions directly addressed to an entity after they have become UN Members. We can see this in the UNSC resolutions which, even though Israel obliged itself to be "faithful to the principles of the UN Charter", do not mention Israel until Israel becomes a UN Member State. There after, Israel was named/directly addressed.

BTW Israel was not declared independent of Britain. The mandate ended BEFORE the Israeli declaration came into effect. Israel has never been under the control of the British. Israel did not exist during the mandate period when the British had control of Palestine

To conclude. "the legal mechanisms by which Israel became a recognized state within the UN" cannot be explained in a few paragraphs. Omission of any of the key points leads to misunderstanding.

talknic (talk) 07:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Talknic -- let's not get into abstract metaphysical theological exegesis of UNGA 181 again (something which has generated hundreds of thousands of bytes of mostly somewhat repetitive discussions on the talk pages of several articles, without really directly leading to the improvement of any single Wikipedia article). At the simplest level, if the Arabs denounced the November 29th 1947 United Nations partition plan with abundant vitriolic vehemence and copious contumely in 1947 and early 1948, and refused to abide by any of the obligations which would have been binding on them under UNGA 181 (such as minority rights, respect for the holy places of other religions, borders open to trade, etc. etc.), then it's extremely difficult to see how they can validly claim that any UNGA 181 provisions are binding on Israel. It's perfectly true that UNGA 181 was kind of a stepping stone to recognized Israeli statehood (and could have been a stepping stone to recognized Arab statehood too, if the Arabs had been even a little unified, instead of being torn by the conflicting claims of Abdullah of Transjordan, the king of Egypt, Nazi collaborator Haj Amin al-Husseini, etc.), and also that UNGA 181 lays down some enduring basic principles. However, the specific details of the partition boundaries and the Jerusalem corpus separatum proposal have never had any meaningful legal force, and are simply stone-cold dead now... AnonMoos (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos The purpose here is not to confirm or reiterate what we believe. Which most of the hundreds of thousands of bytes of mostly somewhat repetitive discussions tend to do. The discussion on talk pages takes place in order that we might eventually distill an informed, impeccably sourced, neutral, way of presenting accurate information. Hopefully along the way, we will also inform ourselves, often contrary to notions often derived from sources that often attempt to justify, rather than honestly inform. Impeccably sourced justification is the stuff of propagandists, which should be weeded out. How long it takes is irrelevant. The talk pages are where the process transpires in all its critical, exacting, meticulous, billion byte, pedantry.

It would have behooved you to have addressed the detailed points raised countering DanKaisers notion. Instead, you've made further assertions, most of which were already covered in my initial reply. Never the less... let's look at some Official ISRAELI GOVERNMENT statements.

First. UNGA Res 181 was non-binding, it only effected the parties declaring by its conditions and the UN in respect to corpus separatum. That the Arab states rejected the resolution is irrelevant. It did not prevent Israel from being declared in accordance with UNGA Res 181, as witnessed by the declaration and the following official statements of the Israeli Government itself.

1) 5 months 17 days after the Arab States rejected UNGA Res 181, the Jewish Peoples Council accepted UNGA Res 181, without reservation, enshrining UNGA Res 181 in the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel, obliging Israel to those "enduring basic principles", the UN Charter and existing Customary International Law in their entirety. (the reference to UNGA Res 181 is still in the Declaration)

5 months 18 days after the Arab States rejected UNGA Res 181, the Israeli Government sought recognition as ".. an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947" and was recognized as such by the majority of the International Community of Nations, over riding the legal objection of the Arab States.

5 months 25 days after the Arab States rejected UNGA Res 181, in answer to the UNSC question "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?", the Israeli Government stated "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".

1 year 4 days after the Arab States rejected UNGA Res 181, Mr. Shertok for the Government of Israel stated that he could see no reason for such a far-reaching departure from the political settlement envisaged "in Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947"

All these Israeli Government statements were made AFTER the Arab States chose to ignore UNGA Res 181, which was their right. An entity cannot be forced to declare independence. It is completely at odds with the notion of independence. Ref - any dictionary. An entity may if it wishes remain a non-state entity and still have a right to all its territory, whilst Declared Independent Sovereign UN Member States are obliged to the UN Charter Chapter XI in its entirety and to all Customary International Law in existence at the time it stated its intention to adhere to International Law.

2) To your assertions:

A) "the Arabs denounced ... refused to abide by any of the obligations which would have been binding on them under UNGA 181 (such as minority rights, respect for the holy places of other religions, borders open to trade, etc. etc.)" How odd you a)provide no support b) their official statements are contrary to your claim. Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine "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" Almost to a word the notions of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.

B) "...could have been a stepping stone to recognized Arab statehood". Impossible. Jewish forces under the preemptive Plan Dalet, controlled some areas allocated for the Arab State, before the Mandate expired, during and after Israels Declaration. A declaration of Sovereign Independent Statehood is not effective until the territory being declared is completely under the control of the declaring party. 1. The entity must exercise effective and independent governmental control. 2. The entity must possess a defined territory over which it exercises such control.

C) "the Jerusalem corpus separatum proposal have never had any meaningful legal force. Indeed, it was never implemented. Its status as a part of what remained of Palestine, after Israel was declared independent of Palestine, has never changed from legally being a part of Palestine. Its status is reflected in the fact that (1) There is no UNSC condemnation of Jordans annexation of what became the West Bank. The Palestiniansrequested it, according to Customary International Law regarding the annexation of territories. The Arab States demanded Jordan annex as a temporary trustee (Session: 12-I Date: May 1950) (in keeping with UN Charter Chapt XI) (2) Whereas the UNSC "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" UNSC Resolution 252 21st May 1968, UNSC Resolution 267 3rd July 1969, UNSC Resolution 271 15th September 1969, UNSC Resolution 298 25th September 1971, UNSC Resolution 465 1st March 1980, UNSC Resolution 476 30th June 1980.

D)" Nazi collaborator Haj Amin al-Husseini" did not represent the Palestinians at the time. He'd been booted out of every position he was not elected to by the Palestinians. When he did represent the Palestinians, by appointment of one "Herbert Samuel, the first high commissioner of Palestine", a Jewish chap, the Palestinians of today were either tiny babies or not even born. Reference - simple maths.

If any of the above can be shown to be incorrect, inaccurate, untrue, irrelevant, unreliable, unverifiable, so be it.

Otherwise I suggest they be incorporated in accordance with WP:PSTS Policy:(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)

talknic (talk) 05:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You are using primary sources to draw conclusions, which is not allowed per wikipedia policy. You can't say that primary source A + primary source B = conclusion C. That's WP:OR. I suggest you spend less time informing us of your personal opinion and more time finding a secondary source that says what you're trying to say. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy.

A) The above is a dialogue answering to the completely un-sourced, un-verifiable remarks by one AnonMoos (who I notice you have not taken to task AT ALL?) and who asserted that "the specific details of the partition boundaries and the Jerusalem corpus separatum proposal have never had any meaningful legal force, and are simply stone-cold dead now"

The topic is not 'now' and there are numerous references to UNGA Res 181 by the Israeli Government during the war, specifically to the extent of Israels Sovereignty at the time.

B) I have not outlined exactly how the separate pieces of information in that post ought be introduced, except to say it should be incorporated in accordance with WP:PSTS Policy. The nature of a talk page is to discuss how WE can present information in accordance with the guidelines if WE find or decide the information is of value in order to present a neutral article. Is it verifiable? As a primary source, yes, confirmed numerous times all given above. Is it of value to the topic? Yes, in any war, the actual status of borders is paramount. WP:PSTS is quite clear about how a primary source might be injected into an article. To wit, each or any of the individual items needs to be placed and introduced (in line with WP:PSTS) according to specific points being made.

Given the importance of the status of borders in any war, especially this war, a reference to it ought be include early in the article. The Declaration itself gives everything but the extent of Israeli Sovereignty and the exact time the Declaration came into effect. I suggest the actual status of borders be introduced, without any interpretation, in the Background. It is an essential part of the background in terms of where hostile forces stood at the beginning of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War and what territories, belonging to whom, were actually invaded.

Currently "..on May 14th 1948 Israel was declared a State, with a provisional government taking charge from the moment of the termination of the Mandate on May 15th (existingcite)"

Making the change to "..on May 14th 1948 the state of Israel was declared as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,(newcite) with a provisional government taking charge one minute from the moment of the termination of the Mandate on May 15th (existingcite)" talknic (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

For the nth time, find a secondary source for your claims. It makes little sense replacing the deceleration of independence as source with a letter to the US government just because you like a bit of text in the latter.

AnonMoos has yet to make any changes to the article based on his personal interpretation of primary sources. When he does, I'll "take him to task" as well. In the meanwhile, this discussion is not getting you any closer to finding consensus for the changes you want to make. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

OK I give up on the primary source. Every published reference makes interpretive claims, analyses et al. And not a matter of whether I 'like a bit of text in the latter". The notion is to provide more exacting information. Based on the above reasoning, which I won't reiterate and a published book, complete with it's own biased interpretive claims (they all seem to have). I suggest the following changes.

Currently "..on May 14th 1948 Israel was declared a State, with a provisional government taking charge from the moment of the termination of the Mandate on May 15th (existingcite)"

Making the change to "..on May 14th 1948 the state of Israel was declared as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,(newcite) with a provisional government taking charge one minute from the moment of the termination of the Mandate on May 15th (existingcite)" talknic (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, interpretive claims and analysis by experts in secondary sources is what we're looking for. You just linked to a reproduction of the letter without any of that. That still won't work. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy

I suggest the following changes in the first part of Background

Currently "..on May 14th 1948 Israel was declared a State, with a provisional government taking charge from the moment of the termination of the Mandate on May 15th (existing cite)"

Making the change to "..on May 14th 1948 the state of Israel was declared as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,( newcite) with a provisional government taking charge one minute after the termination of the Mandate on May 15th (existing cite)"

BTW The existing cite appears to be a primary source? talknic (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Talknic -- The Arab governments in their concrete actions in reality conspicuously refused to abide by any of the obligations which would have been imposed on them by UNGA 1818 (such as minority rights, respect for the holy places of other religions, borders open to trade, etc.), so the purely theoretical verbiage of a "Declaration" which was composed mainly to appease and/or confuse world opinion is distinctly less than impressive... AnonMoos (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- Didn't sign up for obligations = no obligations. Did sign up for obligations = obligations

The Declaration was submitted to and accepted by the UNSC, without condemnation (sorry no source to a condemnation that does not exist) talknic (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Your personal opinion = irrelevant. Secondary sources saying something = can be used in articles. This is getting quite tiresome.

By the way, the issue of borders was deliberately left out of the DoI, see here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy - The dialogue in answer to AnonMoos is quite clearly separated by a line running across the page. Not relative to what might be put into an article. I've yet to see you comment on AnonMoos for interjecting with un-sourced personal opinion, adding NO thing of any value at all. I have merely answered to it in an informed and objective manner.

Yes I know the borders were deliberately left out. Purposeful deception is nothing to brag about. Do you intend to use it? talknic (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Repeat: I suggest the following changes in the first part of Background

Currently "..on May 14th 1948 Israel was declared a State, with a provisional government taking charge from the moment of the termination of the Mandate on May 15th (existing cite)"

Making the change to "..on May 14th 1948 the state of Israel was declared as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,( newcite) with a provisional government taking charge one minute after the termination of the Mandate on May 15th (existing cite)"

Comments please... BTW Is the existing cite what might be called a primary source? talknic (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a few comments.

First of all, please stop using lines running across the page. While it may seem clear to you what they mean, they are not commonly used on talk pages. It would also be nice if you could indent properly. And if you know something is not relevant to what may be put in the article then it doesn't belong on this talk page.

Second, I object to your proposed change for reasons I stated at least 10 times over the multiple places you opened this discussion. The fact you admit you know the borders were deliberately left out of the DoI but are still trying to argue based on your personal opinion and an obscure letter that Israel bound itself to specific borders makes me question the good faith of your editing. You have spent quite a lot of time arguing your opinion but have yet been able to produce a secondary source supporting it. This makes me think this is not an opinion supported by experts.

Third, are you challenging the fact that Israel declared its independence on 14th may, with a provisional government taking charge from the moment the mandate was terminated? If you are not challenging it I suggest you stop playing games. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy --- 1) Call AnonMoos to order and there'll be no lines. Nothing he has contributed belongs in this page..

2)I just gave a secondary source, per the guidelines, of additional information pertinent to the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, relative to the legal extent of territory. Under what guideline is additional information prohibited?

3)The 'obscure' letter was from the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States. It is referenced in about 30 books That meet the criteria.

4)That the borders were deliberately left out of the DoI only tells us they didn't want to mention them.

I suggest the changes in the first part of Background, adding additional material relative to the legal extent of territories in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War be made "..on May 14th 1948 the state of Israel was declared as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, with a provisional government taking charge one minute after( newcite) the termination of the Mandate on May 15th (existing cite)" talknic (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

If it's referenced in 30 books, it should be quite easy for you to supply a secondary source explaining its relevance. So far we have your opinion that this letter means something. Your opinion is not enough. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -- Now a secondary source explaining the relevance? Thanks for your assistance in helping me better understand the editorial requirements. Could you please show me where a secondary source explaining relevance is required under the guidelines. You seem to have forgotten to provide it. talknic (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I have shown you the relevant guidelines repeatedly. You just seem not to want to get it. This is getting quite tiresome. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -- I'm afraid you just don't get it You're disrupting by claiming a guideline that simply DOES NOT EXIST. Could you please show me where a second secondary source explaining relevance is required.

suggested change, with additional, relative information from a verifiable secondary source. //..on May 14th 1948 the State of Israel was declared as an independent republic, accepting the frontiers approved by the United Nations General Assembly resolution enshrined in the declaration. A provisional government was to take charge at one minute after( newcite) the termination of the Mandate on May 15th (existing cite)" // talknic (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's obvious I am unable to explain to you how WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH work. Please find an editor you trust and ask them if what you're trying to do is within wikipedia policy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's obvious you are unable to show where, in any of the policies you have referenced, that it is necessary to also supply a second secondary source explaining the first secondary sources relevance. Likewise, you have not been able to the show guideline preventing additional information presented in accordance with the guidelines. In fact (No More Mr Nice Guy 08:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)) you have now TWICE suggested: giving additional information and twice suggested breaching the specific guideline on labeling people or groups as terrorists -- (No More Mr Nice Guy 08:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)). Deliberate obstruction, proposing that guidelines be broken, preventing changes by citing non-existent wiki policies. Rather out of order according to the criteria YOU have referenced. talknic (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless there are valid objections, I suggest the following additional information be added to the existing //..on May 14th 1948 the State of Israel was declared as an independent republic, accepting the frontiers approved by the United Nations General Assembly resolution enshrined in the declaration. A provisional government was to take charge at one minute after( newcite) the termination of the Mandate on May 15th (existing cite)" // talknic (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Your suggested change has been objected to by two editors. Feel free to take it to one of the boards and attempt to try find consensus for it. I'm not going to try and explain policy and guidelines to you anymore since that is obviously making you upset and belligerent, and creating an uncollegial editing atmosphere. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -- After repeated requests, you have failed to point to the specific policy on having to have a second secondary source to explain the relevance of the first secondary source. There is no such requirement in your recommended reading. Your objection is invalid. Furthermore you have not, after repeated requests shown the guideline where additional information presented in accordance with the guideline is prohibited. There is no such requirement in your recommended reading. Misrepresenting the editorial policies is not a valid objection. The relevant 'objections' by AnonMoos are un-sourced otherwise they are completely irrelevant = disruption which is not a valid 'objection'. Unless the secondary source provided in the suggested change can be shown to be invalid according to editorial policies, objections based on personal bias and your personal opinions are completely worthless according to your own criteria talknic (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you just edit my comment? Don't do that. FYI, if you're trying to get yourself banned, just keep up this kind of disruptive editing. This plus your personal attacks, incivility, wikilawyering and general tendentiousness will make a pretty easy case for the admins. Did you notice the banner at the top of this page that says this article is under active arbitration remedies? I strongly suggest you follow the links up there and do some reading.

Anyway, you do not get to decide that other editors' objections are invalid. Editorial decisions are based on consensus. Feel free to proceed with dispute resolution. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you just edit my comment? " Not that I am aware of. Apologies if I did, it was inadvertent. Please re-state.

"Your personal attacks incivility....etc.." topic please.

"..you do not get to decide that other editors' objections are invalid." Indeed. Policy does and objections should surely reflect policy and be reliably sourced if referring to a source. To Wit //"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". // "for a particular statement" The list is ONLY applicable to sources that have undergone that process. Otherwise the policy has priority. The list of reliable sources is not definitive. Nor is there a requirement in the guidelines for having a second verifiable secondary source explaining the relevance first secondary source.

Unless there is a valid objection according to the guidelines, I suggest the following additional information be added to the existing for the following reasons. It tells us Israel is an independent republic, not apparent in the Declaration alone. What it's borders were at the outset the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, also not apparent in the declaration and that there was one minute from the time the Mandate ended until the declaration came into effect. //..on May 14th 1948 the independent republic State of Israel was declared, accepting the frontiers approved by the United Nations General Assembly resolution enshrined in the declaration. A provisional government was to take charge at one minute (newref) after the termination of the Mandate on May 15th (existing ref" // talknic (talk) 09:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Your personal interpretation of policy and your wikilawyering notwithstanding, you do not have consensus to make the change you want. If you make it, you will be reverted. If you make it repeatedly, you will be reported. 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) 09:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -- "If you make it, you will be reverted" I gather then, you will still be reading. Best have a really good reason, because I intend in talk, to give my reasons and call for opinion, contributions, comments and I will thoroughly read the guidelines as you have recommended.

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?

Is general consensus reached by misconstruing the POLICY regarding verifiable sources, valid?

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?

Is the list of verifiable sources definitive on all statements from a particular source?

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

I wonder... what are 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?

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, I wonder why ALL those misconstruing the guidelines should not be banned?

In consideration of the above, I call for VALID objections to the following change. I also call for comments on how it might be improved : //..on May 14th 1948 the independent republic State of Israel was declared, accepting the frontiers approved by the United Nations General Assembly resolution enshrined in the declaration. A provisional government was to take charge at one minute (newref) after the termination of the Mandate on May 15th (existing ref)" // talknic (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Having had no response since 04:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Calling again for valid objections to the change. I also call for comments on how it might be improved. Reversion might well be seen as not acting in good faith. talknic (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if this is not on anyone's watch list - re-iterating the above talknic (talk) 02:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Again attempting to make the article more informative in accordance with the editorial policy. Noting no attempts by NMMNG to contribute. Having taken his concerns into consideration yet again and having altered the suggestion yet again in order to comply. Noting there is no policy that requires one secondary source to have a second secondary source explaining the first's relevance. Noting the existing source in the sentence has never before been challenged. Noting no objections, contributions or critical dialogue since 04:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC), I suggest making a change to

..on May 14th 1948 the independent republic State of Israel was declared, accepting the frontiers approved by the United Nations General Assembly resolution enshrined in the declaration. A provisional government was to take charge at one minute [5] after the termination of the Mandate on May 15th (existing ref)"

Critique, objections, contributions will be appreciated talknic (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Israel deliberately did not define its borders [6] [7]. You have already acknowledged you know this, and even the source you provided above (written by an anti-Zionist) says so in the part where it's providing analysis rather than quoting a primary document. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy - "anti-Zionist" got a secondary source? ...where it's 'providing analysis', contrary to your ghastly mis-representation, it does not say 'Israel deliberately did not define its borders'. It says "carefully avoided any reference to boundaries". Furthermore, it goes on to say "..they were unable to avoid the issue when it came to securing recognition from the US government." It then confirms the notion by citing the letter.

"You have already acknowledged.." You're resorting to purposefully misrepresenting what I've said, again. You " the issue of borders was deliberately left out of the DoI" Reply.. "That the borders were deliberately left out of the DoI only tells us they didn't want to mention them."

The Jewish People's Council accepted and enshrined UNGA 181 in the Declaration. Care to point out the reservations? [8] (Existing source, which has lain unchallenged until I used it)

Your 'upon retirement'. Statements upon retirement, after the Declaration was made and the State of Israel was recognized, are a) not official, b) quite irrelevant c) as they are, complete twaddle in the face of the law.

Your [9] calls the notions "vagueness and double talk.."

BTW How does one recognize a Sovereign State if the limits of it's sovereignty aren't defined?

The secondary source I have provided gives us commentary supported by the official words of the official representative of the official Provisional Government of Israel. You want to challenge it, take to WP:RSN Until then, there seem to be no valid objections. talknic (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about with the "upon retirement" link. Did you bother to read the whole page? It says "Ben-Gurion carefully avoided committing Israel to a precisely defined border map". Your source on the other hand says that Israel carefully avoided any reference to boundaries (which exactly the same as saying it deliberately did not define its borders) but for the purpose of getting US recognition sent a letter saying X. That's hardly the same as saying Israel committed to certain borders.

Not sure why you're suggesting I take your source to RSN. I'm not challenging its meeting RS criteria and even if I were, the onus, as I'm sure you're aware by now, is on you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -- I read the whole page. And more. Where do you think "upon retirement" came from. His statements were made after leaving office. They were unofficial. "Ben-Gurion carefully avoided committing Israel to a precisely defined border map" He didn't provide a map. So what? He didn't need to. UNGA Res 181 did. UNGA Res 181 was accepted without reservation and was enshrined in the Declaration. It's still there.

"avoided any reference to" is NOT exactly the same as saying it "deliberately did not define its borders" I'm sure there are a lot of people who've had affairs who avoid any reference to them.

"sent a letter saying X" LOL. "That's hardly the same as saying Israel committed to certain borders." It says precisely what borders Israel committed to.

If you're not challenging my source meeting RS criteria, you quite simply have no valid objections. talknic (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I like what you did with "map" there. He didn't commit to a map means that he committed to the 181 map. Perfect logic.

My objection is based on WP:V and WP:NOR. The text you want to put in the article is not supported by the source you provided. And WP:NPOV. Even if you did find a reliable source that explicitly said that by sending that letter Israel bound itself to certain borders, you are well aware that it was Israeli policy not to commit to those borders and thus are not "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy - "He didn't commit to a map means that he committed to the 181 map" If you say so. I didn't. Stop misrepresenting, it's unbecoming.

WP:V? show it. WP:NOR? The text I 'suggest' putting in the article is supported by the source Pages 50 - 51. From "Hence...." through to "The letter notified the President" It then cites the letter. What's your next WP:???

"...it was Israeli policy not to commit to those borders " Statements made after leaving office, after the Declaration, after subsequent recognition are: not official, quite irrelevant to how recognition came about and only seem to point to a willingness to deceive.

"representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" ...... Achieving neutrality: As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process.

It is not up to one editor to present all significant views that have been published by reliable sources, it is up to "editors"

I've suggesting more detailed, relevant information be added to an existing article. The record shows thus far, that every time your objections are met, the goal posts move. talknic (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The goal posts have not moved. You have yet to meet the basic requirement of your source explicitly saying what you want the article to say. In this case, that Israel "accept[ed] the frontiers approved by the United Nations General Assembly". There is plenty of scholarship saying that Israel deliberately did not do that. Not based on statements made after leaving office, but based on the deliberations that lead to the wording of the DoI among other things. The sources I provided above and even the one you provided explicitly say so. Yet you're trying to argue that when a source says that Ben Gurion would not commit Israel to a "border map", that means he wouldn't supply a map. That's just weak. Particularly when you continue reading and there's a contemporary quote where he says that "regarding borders ... We neither accept or reject the United Nations proposals". It goes on to say that "years later BG related his reasons for opposing defined borders at that period".

It's not up to an editor to present all significant views if he's not aware of them. It is up to editors not to deliberately write something they know is misleading or incorrectly describes the situation, which is what you're trying to do here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy - Even if an editor was aware all significant views, which is highly improbable, intervening edits and reversions would make the task impossible, which is why the policy says 'editors' (plural).

Until such time as you can show any intentional attempt to mislead on my part, your comment stands as a false accusation.

He didn't supply a map. The whole notion is a non-argument. There was no need to supply a map. No Declaration of Sovereign Independence defines borders. Declarations of Sovereign Independence are either over predetermined frontiers, as were Jordan's, Lebanon's, Iraq's, Egypt's. Or over territories bound by the frontiers of existing neighbour states. Or through secession, wherein the agreement resulting in secession delineates the frontiers and precedes declaration.

The only exception is partition and here the frontiers were predetermined by UNGA Res 181. Which is last time I looked, still enshrined, without reservation, in the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel.

"years later" is irrelevant, unofficial, after declaration "We neither accept or reject the United Nations proposals" UNGA Res 181 is enshrined in the eventual declaration. "There is plenty of scholarship .." showing why borders were not mentioned in the declaration. None of it very honorable. There is no scholarship showing any such official reservation in the declaration and until you introduce dialogue into the article based on your sources, what they say is not only irrelevant, it also reveals less than honest intentions.

"explicitly saying what you want the article to say" We are encouraged to use our own words, to that end using A) the existing source which has gone unchallenged and B) a secondary source..

//on May 14th 1948 Israel was declared on the strength of the United Nations General Assembly resolution enshrined in the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel.[10] It was subsequently recognized as an independent republic within the frontiers detailed in the UNGA resolution. [11]// talknic (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Talknic -- I extremely strongly object to this proposed wording: "on May 14th 1948 the independent republic State of Israel was declared, accepting the frontiers approved by the United Nations General Assembly resolution enshrined in the declaration"
As has been discussed at great length on this article talk page and several others, on May 15, 1948 the Jews naturally placed great emphasis on the provisions of the November 29th 1947 partition plan regarding the setting up of Jewish and Arab states (since it was almost the only official document in favor of Jewish statehood which existed at that point -- something which later changed). However, it's complete and utter nonsense to say that the Jews bound themselves in advance to everlastingly respect the purely hypothetical and never-implemented partition plan boundaries proposed in the November 29th 1947 resolution, regardless of what the Arabs might choose to do. The November 29th 1947 partition plan boundaries were completely militarily indefensible (partly very intentionally so), and if the Jews had strictly kept within them in 1948, they would have found themselves very shortly being "thrown into the sea" -- something which the Jewish leadership at the time was extremely aware of. The Jews conditionally accepted the proposed November 29th 1947 partition plan boundaries, if the Arabs would keep to their side of them and would respect their other obligations under UNGA 181, but by May 1948 everybody (except for a few well-intentioned but strongly self-deluding individuals outside the Middle East) was very well aware that that wasn't gonna happen. As I already told you before, abstract metaphysical theological exegesis of UNGA 181 has generated hundreds of thousands of bytes of rather repetitive and redundant discussions on the talk pages of a number of articles, without ever directly leading to the significant improvement of any single Wikipedia article, and is therefore rather pointless (not to mention it being in rather poor taste for Arabs to long after the fact retroactively insist that UNGA 181 has eternally strongly binding legal validity, when during 1947-1949 the Arabs went to great lengths to insist that UNGA 181 was null and void and without any legal force whatever). AnonMoos (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos --- Non sourced opinion noted.

"The Jews conditionally accepted the proposed November 29th 1947 partition plan boundaries" Cite the official condition.

UNGA Res 181 was non binding. The Arab States had no obligation to accept it. They didn't accept it. They had no obligations under it.

The Jewish People's Council did accept it, unconditionally, enshrining it in the Declaration.[12] Thereby Israel had obligations under it, to both it's people, to the comity of nations and to the UN, all of which are outlined in the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel.[13]

To date, there is no constitution. There has never been an Israeli Government elected in accordance with the Declaration.[14] There has never been a law passed in Israel in accordance with the Declaration, by a Government elected in accordance with the Declaration.[15] talknic (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the word "unconditionally" does not appear in the Deceleration. You're offering us your original research again. Linking to something (three times in the same post) when it doesn't say what you claim it says won't change that.

Anyway, we're back to no consensus for your change, so I can stop wasting my time with this as well. Let us know if you come up with some WP:V and WP:RS compliant sourcing for your opinions. Then all you'll need to do is put it in WP:NPOV compliant wording and you're all set. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Talknic -- At least I don't blatantly misuse the sources I do give. Have you ever actually read the words of the URL http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Declaration%20of%20Establishment%20of%20State%20of%20Israel which you so freely invoke?? It says in reference to the United Nations November 29 1947 partition plan resolution "This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable." This is far from being an explicit commitment to perpetually unilaterally follow all of the obligations of UNGA 181 (even though the Arabs do not follow any of the obligations of UNGA 181), and only special pleading and tortuous twisted reasoning could transform it into an alleged explicit commitment to perpetually unilaterally follow all of the obligations of UNGA 181 (even though the Arabs did not follow any of the obligations of UNGA 181). And if such tendentious arguments are personal to you, then they are "Original Research", and so not relevant to Wikipedia articles. AnonMoos (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -- A) I guess you'll be marking [16] as original research throughout the entire article. Yes?

B) If there aren't any conditions, it's exactly as I have said = 'unconditional' (in my own words). Editors are encouraged to convey the essence of the sources they cite in their own words, not verbatim. If we were to apply your demands across the article, it would cease to exist.

BTW 'no consensus' hasn't stopped you from dashing off and making changes.

You could contribute to improving articles. talknic (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos --"It says .... irrevocable." Yes. A fact I pointed it out a while back on this discussion page.

"This is far from being an explicit commitment to perpetually unilaterally follow all of the obligations of UNGA 181." Israel was declared according to the conditions of UNGA 181, enshrining it in the Declaration, assuring the International Community of Nations that it would be "..faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations". Israel has since been accepted into the UN and is bound to adhere to the UN Charter and Customary International Law, in their entirety.

Under the UN Charter, Chapter XI all UN Member States have obligations.

Furthermore, under the UN Charter and Customary International Law and according to Elihu Lauterpacht territory cannot be 'acquired' by war. It can be 'restored' to a lawful sovereign by war.[17]. They must have first held Sovereignty over the territory they're attempting to restore. E.g., The Golan is Sovereign to Syria, the Sinai to Egypt. Failing a solution under Chapter VI, they had a right to attempt to restore their sovereign territory by war.

In order to enlarge one's Sovereign territory after the original Sovereign extent has been declared and recognized, further territories can only be added by legal annexation. Since at least the mid 1800's [18], there must be a referendum of the people in the territory being annexed.

(even though the Arabs do not follow any of the obligations of UNGA 181)" They have no obligations to UNGA Res 181, it was non-binding. They turned the offer down, as was their right. The Jewish People's Council accepted it and signed a Declaration to the effect. talknic (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Is "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." (WP:PSTS) really that hard to understand? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Talknic -- omitting the italicized words from the following passage would seem to smack of extreme disingenuousness on your part (if not worse): "This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable." Those are exactly the words which are essential to understanding the intended meaning of the whole passage.

In any case, your personal interpretation of the wording of the Israeli Declaration of Independence is not the most natural interpretation, is not the standard accepted interpretation, and was not enforced on Israel when Israel was admitted to the United Nations. Therefore your personal interpretation is pure Original Research, and utterly irrelevant to this article unless further acceptable sources can be found (as No_More_Mr_Nice_Guy has said). AnonMoos (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - A) Using .......... = nothing more than saving the trouble of repeating everything you say. B) Discussion is not the article. C) Your trail of un-sourced opinion and continual disruptive comments make it quite apparent there is a less than honorable reason for you being here.

"...... not enforced on Israel when Israel was admitted to the United Nations." All UN Member States are bound to the UN Charter and Customary International Law in their entirety. It is the basic premise under which UN Member States are admitted to the UN. Israel is no exception.

Exactly what is the 'standard accepted interpretation' of " ; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations", other than; it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations ?

No More Mr Nice Guy -- AnonMoos appears to be writing to me, I answer accordingly. Discussion here in talk is not an article entry.

I also note here you're only applying your criteria to one person, not the continued un-sourced opinions of AnonMoos. BTW numerous times I've pointed out the use of [19]. Your objections to it's use = nil. I doubt that one sided hypocrisy is the stuff of good faith.

My suggestion stands at; //on May 14th 1948 Israel was declared on the strength of the United Nations General Assembly resolution enshrined in the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel.[20] It was subsequently recognized as an independent republic within the frontiers detailed in UNGA Res 181.//

Are there any valid objections. NB: 1) The first source has not be previously challenged for being a primary source, despite my pointing it out numerous times. 2) Does the suggestion not reflect what has been quoted in the ref from the second (secondary) source? Is the second source unreliable? talknic (talk) 07:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but UNGA 181 was "enshrined in the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel" ONLY insofar as it was a "recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State" (the words which you keep doing your best to ignore). And it was not "subsequently recognized as an independent republic within the frontiers detailed in UNGA Res 181", because there is no mention of such conditions in S/RES/69 (1949)-S/1277 of 4 March 1949 or A/RES/273 (III) of 11 May 1949 and no acceptance by Israel of such conditions in A/AC.24/SR.45 of 5 May 1949.

I really wonder what the appeal or attraction of abstract metaphysical theological exegesis of UNGA 181 is, because on Wikipedia it always leads to the same thing -- hundreds of thousands of bytes of rather repetitively acrimonious discussions on article talk pages, and no real meaningful improvement of any Wikipedia article. AnonMoos (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - You can point that particular reservation out in the Declaration? Yes?

As for "the words which you keep doing your best to ignore" see 07:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC).

Why would there be any mention in S/RES/69, A/RES/273, A/AC.24/SR.45 ? The resolutions were in regard to accepting an already recognized Independent Sovereign State into the UN.

I have no interest in engaging with you or anyone else, on any thing other than improving the content of the article. Further irrelevant comments on your part will simply be ignored. (primary sourced BTW, nice bit of hypocrisy you're showing there) talknic (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You can call me whatever names you feel like in your snarky edit summaries, but that doesn't change the fact that most of your "evidence" for the obligations of UNGA 181 being binding on one side only is based on your own personal non-mainstream abstract metaphysical theological exegesis of original primary documents -- the very definition of "Original Research" for Wikipedia purposes. And if the Great Powers of the post-WW2 period, or the United Nations itself, felt that it was legally mandatory or diplomatically requisite for Israel to stay inside the UNGA 181 lines, they would have insisted on this at their point of maximum leverage -- when Israel was being admitted to the UN. However, this didn't happen. AnonMoos (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- You chose AnonMoos, that's the name I call you... change your name if you don't like it. Hypocrisy is when you can use primary sources, but others can't. Like NMMNG can make changes without consensus whilst a point is being discussed in order to reach consensus, but according to NMMNG others can't. The record shows both of you are leaving an easily recognizable, very ugly and very incriminating wake a mile wide.

The Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel says Israel will be "..faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations". Seems very clear. Israel was granted recognition as a state based on it's declaration.

Resolutions for accepting an already declared, existing, established, recognized, independent, sovereign state into the UN have nothing to do with recognizing an already declared, existing, established, recognized, independent, sovereign state for the simple reason that they're already a declared, existing, established, recognized, independent, sovereign state.

Acceptance of an already declared, existing, established, recognized, independent, sovereign state into the UN is conditional on that state adhering to the UN Charter in it's entirety and under which all UN Member States are obliged to act accordingly. Israel went the extra step of volunteering to be "faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations" before it was accepted into the UN and presumably even if it wasn't accepted into the UN.

When UN Member States act outside of their sovereign extent, they are subject to UN Charter Chapt 1 - Article 2 (4). Logic tells us in order to determine whether an already declared, existing, established, recognized, independent, sovereign state is acting outside of it's sovereign extent, it's borders must be defined.

Similarly under UN Charter Chapt 1 - Article 2 (7) in order to determine whether an already declared, existing, established, recognized, independent, sovereign state is acting within the extent of it's sovereignty, it's borders must be defined. Quite simple really.

"most of your "evidence" for the obligations of UNGA 181 being binding on one side" is based on simple logic. Only those who accept an offer and declare their obligation to adhere to the conditions of the offer are bound to those obligations. talknic (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You're a true expert at including puerile taunts and childish name-calling in your edit summaries; too bad that you didn't divert some of that energy you devote to meaningless name-calling into making sure that your proposed edits comply with Wikipedia policies instead. AnonMoos (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- 'Name calling'? AnonMoos is the only name I have addressed you with. The actions you chose meanwhile, deserve no less than the description they get. Simple.

The suggested change stands at //on May 14th 1948 Israel was declared on the strength of the United Nations General Assembly resolution enshrined in the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel.[21] It was subsequently recognized as an independent republic within the frontiers detailed in UNGA Res 181.//

As it stands, there are no valid objections, they have all been met. Consensus against, based on 'I don't like it' are not valid. Consensus against, by misrepresenting policy, are not valid. I'd appreciate contributions to improving it or valid objections, thx. Other wise reversion without a valid reason, will not be seen as good faith. talknic (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

As has been explained to you repeatedly, you don't get to decide that other editors' objections are invalid. I have already pointed you to where you can take this if you don't like the consensus that has formed on the talk page. Once again, it's called "dispute resolution" and you can read about it here. Maybe at last you will seek the advice of experienced editors and stop wasting everyone's time. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy - What consensus is there on the last suggestion? //on May 14th 1948 Israel was declared on the strength of the United Nations General Assembly resolution enshrined in the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel.[22] It was subsequently recognized as an independent republic within the frontiers detailed in UNGA Res 181.The Palestine question - Henry Cattan Pages 50 - 51 (from - According to .. Lovett .. - to - ...requesting recognition of Israel//

Fact is there isn't any consensus either way, it hasn't been discussed. The only consensus seems to be that you don't want any changes other than your own, with or without consensus.

Anyone of us could take it to WP:DR. However the policy guidelines recommend we attempt to resolve issues in the Talk pages and attempt to improve articles through contributing. An example in it's simplest form can be seen here. Not that Snakeswithfeet seems too keen improve it further.

The record shows I have made every attempt to comply with your ever moving goal posts on every issue I have attempted to address. As you are such a fan of WP:DR go ahead. But I note that when all of your concerns are addressed you disappear only to re-appear when you see a change being made or that a change might be imminent. Furthermore a fairly recognizable pattern of tag teaming appears to be emerging on every topic I attempt to improve. talknic (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus to include it in the article. We are not going to resolve it at the talk page because you don't understand policy correctly and refuse to seek the advice of experienced editors. I'm not going to DR since I don't mind if the article remains the way it is. If you want to try to find consensus to change it, you know what to do. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy - There has been no discussion at all on the suggestion as it currently stands.

"I don't mind if the article remains the way it is" is quite simply bizarre! talknic (talk) 04:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Talknic's ladder

Talknic -- I understand that you have a little "ladder" of chained passages in various different documents; you start out with passage A in document X, and then this is interpreted in the light of passage B in document Y, which is in turn interpreted in light of passage C in document Z and so on, until in the end, when you've climbed all the way to the top of your ladder, you arrive at an overall conclusion which seems to you to be overwhelmingly obvious, and scarcely disputable. However, other people find some of the rungs on your ladder to be quite weak, and that your overall "ladder-climbing" method is not really fully compatible with Wikipedia policies. When there are conflicting opinions, the Wikipedia way is to demand relevant sources supporting one side or the other. Unfortunately, so far you haven't provided non-"laddered" sources -- i.e. a document which says directly and unequivocally, with no need for extended interpretation, that "On the XXth of YY 1948 the Israeli government officially unilaterally and perpetually bound itself to stay within the United Nations General Assembly resolution 181 proposed borders", or something similar. AnonMoos (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting un-sourced, non-diffed, irrelevant, theory.

"On the XXth of YY 1948 the Israeli government officially unilaterally and perpetually bound itself to stay within the United Nations General Assembly resolution 181 proposed borders" If you say so, I didn't. I've never used the word perpetually. Nor anything even closely resembling "perpetually bound itself to stay within the United Nations General Assembly resolution 181 proposed borders" Very kind you to make something up on my behalf and slip it in, but no thanks. What say we stick to what has actually written, verbatim. Thx.

No country is bound to never extend it's borders. However, since at least the mid 1800's, any such acquisition covering territory which was never within its' declared and/or recognized sovereign extent, can only be acquired by legal annexation, after a referendum of the people in the territory about to be annexed. There has never been any such referendum on behalf of the people in any of the territory Israel has illegally annexed, nor in the territories acquired by war by Israel by 1949 and never annexed to Israel. talknic (talk) 10:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You can call me whatever names you like in your snarky edit summaries, but I don't need "sources" to observe and make comments about the overall way you work in these Wikipedia article talk page discussions -- and it would be nice if you had actually addressed some of the points I raised, instead of launching into a generic anti-Israeli tirade. This has at least as much to do with cutting short, or redirecting into more fruitful pathways, endless semi-repetitive talk page discussions, as it does with any alleged "vendetta"[sic]. Furthermore, your argument is a classic example of begging the question, since the question of whether the theoretical (and never implemented "on the ground") UNGA 181 partition lines have legal uti possidetis status, is exactly the disputed point which needs to be established. Assuming (without presenting any direct non-"laddered" evidence) that they do have such status allows you to indulge yourself in a no-doubt emotionally-satisfying rant, but it does nothing to bring these discussions to a mutually-agreeable conclusion, or create a fruitful atmosphere for productive and cooperative collaboration on article improvement. AnonMoos (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"Perpetuel et Irrévocable"

P.S. "Perpetual" was my slight paraphrase of the word "irrevocable", on which you placed such great stress. I don't see any great difference between the two, but if it makes you happier, then consider that I said "irrevocably" instead of "perpetually". AnonMoos (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - What anti-Israeli tirade? talknic (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC).

The one where you went on about what Israel had allegedly "illegally annexed"[sic] (referring to the pre-1967 period when you did so). AnonMoos (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Dare you to quote me verbatim, instead of fabricating. Thx. talknic (talk) 04:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The points you raised, for what they're worth, have been addressed. You keep making new stuff up, which is cute. Your name BTW was your choice, AnonMoos, don't like it, change it.

All UN Members are bound by the same charter. Irrevocable right to statehood, is quite different to "perpetually bound itself to stay within the United Nations General Assembly resolution 181 proposed borders". You keep writing about UNGA Res 181, not I. The Declaration ofr the Establishment of the State of Israel and obligations therein and Israel's acceptance into the UN and the obligations therein, both post date UNGA Res 181.

Perhaps you should try quoting folk, verbatim.... though it would mean being truthful, acting in good faith oh ... and having no false argument to with which to disprupt the discussion

As it stands, your behaviour is quite bizarre and revealing talknic (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC).

You're a past master at including puerile taunting and childish name-calling in your edit summaries (yet again). Too bad that you didn't divert a little of that apparently excess energy into substantively addressing some of the issues people have with your methods. It's really rather unfortunate that your answer again invokes your personal "ladder" method of chained interpretations of primary source documents (where selective passages of the Israeli declaration of independence are interpreted by juxtaposing selected passages of UNGA 181, which are in turn interpreted in the light of selected passages from the UN charter, and so on and so on). The ladder is a big part of what people object to in your proposed edits, as people have been more or less trying to tell you (in their various ways) for a while now, and resorting to ever-more laddering will not resolve any outstanding issues, or contribute to making productive and cooperative collaboration on article improvement possible. AnonMoos (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - I'm not interested in your irrelevant false accusations, interruptive comments emphasized with an extraordinary in-ablility to quote verbatim or your silly personal vendetta. Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means: Be precise in quoting others.

The record shows who is preventing the addition of information. BTW the wake you're leaving behind grows ever larger and more apparent talknic (talk) 04:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Too bad that you devoted all your effort to further childishly insulting edit summaries, and had nothing left over with which to constructively and substantively address the points at issue... AnonMoos (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Bizarre...you've presented no thing of substance. What you have presented has been addressed. Meanwhile your wake grows ever more self destructive talknic (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Whatever -- it's quite pointless (not to mention hypocritical) for you to attempt to invoke policies which demand high politeness and full civility in Wikipedia discussions, when you yourself constantly violate those policies with your childish tauntings and juvenile name-callings in your edit summaries. If this goes to some kind of mediation or arbitration etc., your edit summaries will be Exhibit A. AnonMoos (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead. Your own actions are on the record too, including your own vendetta section. talknic (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)