Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

WP:VERIFY violations in the Lede supported by consensus?

The issue was an un-sourced statement, contrary to WP:VERIFY. An impeccable secondary source was inserted The War of Independence (1947-49) by Netanel Lorch, Ph. D., Lt.Col.(Res), Ambassador and former Secretary-General of the Knesset, founder of the IDF Historical Division.

Netanel Lorch was chosen to be published on the Israeli Government website by the majority elected Government of the Israeli people, representing an overwhelming majority POV. There are some 718 book results"Netanel+Lorch"+"Israel's+War+of+Independence%2C+1947-1949" for Netanel Lorch's Israel's War of Independence, 1947-1949.

The dialogue was subsequently re-shuffled and as a matter of course and according to NMMNG's own criteria, reformatted appropriately. The reasons were clearly stated [1]

NMMNG's subsequent reversion states "backdoor unbolding after your bolding attempt failed. restoring long standing consensus version" [2].

A) "backdoor"? [3] ... back-door? [4]

B) Un-sourced material is in direct violation of WP:VERIFY no matter how long it stood by consensus.

C) The appropriate step in reverting should have been to challenge the source or to have brought it to Talk. Neither was done. Subsequently it has been re-reverted and brought here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talknic (talk • contribs) 04:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• You have violated 1RR (again). Self revert or you will be reported (again) and will probably be topic banned (again, only this time for longer).
• There is an ongoing discussion about a merge and what names historians use for the war in general and for each part of it. You are participating in that discussion. Making a revert while discussion is ongoing to also an offense that may result in a topic ban.
• Of all the historians that have been brought up in the discussion, this is the only one that divides the war into three phases. See WP:FRINGE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period).

• My first change was an edit per WP:VERIFY, not a revert. Your subsequent revert to un-sourced material is in violation of WP:VERIFY
• "Making a revert while discussion is ongoing to also an offense that may result in a topic ban." A) I edited it did not change any information. You reverted. You are also involved in that discussion. I removed your revert "while discussion is ongoing" ... BTW there were two prior edits to my edit. Both addded/changed information, you didn't object to it, why not?. I changed no information.
• "Of all the historians .. etc..etc" The statement was un-sourced. The basis of my edit was per WP:VERIFY and subsequent adjustment of order and format. Not a revert. The content/information remains exactly the same. I could have just removed the un-sourced statement. Instead I gave an explanation for the edit AND brought my reversion here, based on WP:VERIFY
• I sincerely doubt the the source I gave qualifies as a fringe theory ... talknic (talk) 09:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to try to explain policy to you since you never listen, but think back to the previous two times I told you that you were reverting and you argued you weren't. One got you notified of the ARBPIA discretionary sanctions and the other got you blocked for 31 hours and topic banned for 3 months. Consider your past experience with this type of thing and think carefully about your next step. The next time you're reported you will probably be blocked for 6 months as sanctions usually escalate. I am not going to discuss this further here with you. If you don't self-revert you will be reported. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- 1RR(one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period)

"the previous two times.." are not this time ... "..you argued you weren't." It was in fact only once and the particular page did not carry the IRR warning. You added it after, remember? [5] ... talknic (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I just want to discuss whether this is "an impeccable secondary source". I don't think it can really be called that. It's an unsourced overview of several wars. The author is said to have a PhD and has written books that would seem to be about the history of the war, but we don't know what field the PhD is in and we don't know what the status of the books are, except that they are quite old, and that the author was a participant in some of the events. It might count as "a self-published expert source". It would be likely to be biased (pro-Israel) but that's a minor issue. It's well written and could perhaps be a guide for what we can include in our articles, but if we did use it as a guide in that way we would have a lot of reshaping to do. It divides the 1947-1949 war into four phases rather than two as in our current article structure. I would be interested in reading any other comments about whether this is an appropriate source. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith -- Published on the Israeli Govt Web site, is not self published.

"we don't know what field the PhD is in" A PhD is not his only qualifier. Also Lt.Col.(Res), Ambassador and former Secretary-General of the Knesset, is the founder of the IDF Historical Division, author of the Edge of the Sword (Putnam's 1961, reprinted in Military History Classics, Easton Press 1991), One Long War (Keter 1976), Shield of Zion (Howell Press 1992), and Major Knesset Debates (UPA and JCPA 1993).

Netanel Lorch has already been used as a reference for his books that "seem to be about the history of the war" [6] ... [7] ... [8]... [9] ... [10] ... talknic (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a history article so we source mainly to academic historians. The Israeli government is not an academic publisher. Official government documents are reliable for all sorts of things but not usually for history when it relates to an ethnic or national conflict. Yes, I saw all the credentials you have listed and they are impressive in their own way, but are they relevant here? Cited elsewhere in WP is neither here nor there. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith -- "academic historians" -- Netanel Lorch is the founder of the IDF Historical Division and; [11]

"Cited elsewhere in WP is neither here nor there" Odd, "cited elsewhere in WP" has been used numerous times in debates I've been involved in as a reason FOR inclusion ... talknic (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting question I now see. Historiography section of 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle has many ramifications for sourcing in this article. If we go along with what is written there (and we might not, it is only WP after all, and may be OS), we must regard Lorch's work as superseded by Morris. Ah, but this is a later text by Lorch. Yes, but then it is only a short unreferenced thing on a government website. Sorry, it is clear from WP:V and WP:OTHERSTUFF that cited elsewhere in WP is neither here nor there. Used in numerous times in debates is also neither here nor there. Would be really good to have comments from others, or we could take to RSN. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I confirm that the history department of the IDF is not a wp:rs source -generally speaking- BUT for the information that is talked about here (number of phases) it is of course reliable. The question is in fact not to know if there is an historian who divide this into 4 phases but what the majority does...

Once for all, and please, don't ask sources for this so obvious it is for who knows the story but check, eg, in Gelber's book in reading this fully :

• the Palestine war is usually divided into 2 phases : before and after 15 May
• the Arab-Israeli war is often divided into 3 phases : 15/5 to 10 june - truce - 10 days campain - truce - Remaining operations - armistice (we get the 4 phases discussed here above) but there are other ways to structure this : Morris divide this into about 10 phases because Morris always go deep into details...
• the war of independence is not the Arab-Israeli War, the war of independence is the 1948 Palestine War
• al-Naqba is not the Arab-Israeli War, al-Naqba is the 1948 Palestine War.

91.180.207.119 (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The four phases in the document talknic wants to insert are not as you mentioned above. It's 29/11/47-1/4/48, 1/4/48-15/5/48, 15/5/48-19/7/48, 19/7/48-10/7/49. I have never seen another historian divide the war in such a way, and I've read quite a few books on the subject (rather than dig stuff up from google and pretend I know what the book is talking about). This is pretty fringe and does not belong in the lead. Not to mention, again, that since there's ongoing discussion about what this group of articles should look like, and how they should be called, trying to de-bold Israel War of Independence (which is a redirect to this article) after not being able to get something else bolded is just tendentious. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- "I've read quite a few books on the subject (rather than ... etc .. etc ..)" Irrelevant, cannot be proven here and; please stop your personal affronts.

"This is pretty fringe and does not belong in the lead". Per WP:VERIFY and your own demands, un-sourced information should not be in Wikipedia at all. The statement could have been removed. Instead I provided a verifiable source (albeit now contested), re-shuffled & reformatted, without altering any actual information.

Itsmejudith contested the source (appropriate), you reverted to an un-sourced (by consensus what's more) statement as did Space City USA (both inappropriate). I note no objection on your part to the edit which did change the information[12], while the discussion you referred to continued (for which you've failed to provide the alleged WP:POLICY). One might conclude you're WP:HOUNDING. ... talknic (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I did contest (and fix) a part of the edit you claim I didn't object to. The rest was copyediting that didn't change the meaning of what the article said.

You on the other hand substantially changed the meaning of the lead (with implications on redirects that point to this article) while there is an ongoing discussion relevant exactly to the part you changed (very inappropriate). You did it because you weren't able to convince anyone with your arguments to bold another part of the lead (very inappropriate). Changing back to the status quo while discussion is ongoing is appropriate (see WP:BRD). You should consider yourself lucky someone reverted you since it's obvious your ego wouldn't allow you to self-revert. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - 'fixed', but did not revert something which added information to the page. 'fixed' changed the added information BTW. Nor did you object to this information being added [13] which adds information on the consequences of the war only from the Jewish POV, yet there is no information on the consequences of the war on Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs. WP:NPOV.

The record shows my addition of a source did not 'substantially' change any information on the page, in fact it complied with WP:VERIFY albeit against a consensus in contravention of WP:VERIFY. "You did it because.." .. it was not sourced and is still not sourced and importantly, it is not sourced oddly enough, by consensus. "..consider yourself lucky .." As status quo was and still is in contravention of WP:VERIFY, you had no actual basis to report me. "..it's obvious .." I gave the reasons for A) my edit, B) undoing YOUR revert, then initiating this discussion. I've complied with WP:BRD with the one exception as previously mentioned.

Your constant hounding is on the record as is that of AnonMoos, despite numerous requests for it to cease. It has resulted in copious amount of un-necessary dialogue and clutter on issues I've raised. Speaking of which;

Please address the issue, which is at this stage either a suitable source or even deletion of the statement altogether ... talknic (talk) 12:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That you claim I'm hounding you on a page I was editing before you even joined wikipedia is just more of the same of your usual, let's call it "unique", interpretation of how things work around here. Feel free to go ahead and report me if you think you have a case though.

Your interpretation of BRD is just more of the same. Who could have guessed you'd think the R in BRD would be your last revert? It's not like what this basically means is that if you change something and people object you should discuss it without continuing to revert after an objection.

What this group of articles should be called, and by extension which alternative names should be used for each article, which implies what should be bolded in the lead is currently under discussion. You know this since you are participating in that discussion. In fact, just a few days ago you were arguing something else should be bolded like the names you de-bolded now. When that failed you moved on to de-bolding. This is not good faith editing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - The record shows other edits have been carried out on the Lede as the merge discussion has been in progress, including by yourself. The issue is un-sourced information by consensus. Please address it. (Providing edit summaries would be helpful BTW)... talknic (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You are either unwilling or incapable of understanding what I'm telling you. I'm done here. I have warned you about making edits to something that's under discussion. I will report you without further notice if you do it again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- You didn't warn the other editor and even made your own edit. The issue is: WP:VERIFY violations in the Lede supported by consensus. Please address it ... talknic (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Reverted to un-sourced by consensus version. Source provided by Jaakobou gave the date for the War of Independence from Nov 19th 1947 ... talknic (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't follow Jaakobou's link, but in principle there's no reason why an Israeli government website couldn't be a reliable source for what the war is called in Israel. Also, Wikipedia policies tend to somewhat discourage fact-tagging in the opening paragraph of an article. AnonMoos (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- "I didn't follow Jaakobou's link" What a pity... "in principle there's no reason why an Israeli government website" Best you click on the link he provided [14]. Meanwhile, I already used the Israeli Govt Website [15]. It was reverted by NMMNG. Argued against by Itsmejudith. Consensus has it that it should be un-sourced, contrary to WP:VERIFY. However, that's not the reason I reverted Jaakobou's contribution ... talknic (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

NOTED: Revert and un-necessary 'VANDAL' slur by user (with rollback privileges), to un-attributed Ynet source giving dates from Nov 1947 and; adding another an-attributed source [16] (Addressed here [17] )... talknic (talk) 02:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Are the un-attributed Ynet entry, giving the date as of Nov 1947 and un-attributed Kibbutz article being retained by consensus? ... talknic (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

We need good sources for everything, but we are allowed to have unreferenced sources in the lede so long as they summarise material that is well sourced in the body of the article. Does that answer your question? Itsmejudith (talk) 07:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith -- "Does that answer your question?" Yes. It certainly does. WP:LEDE "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources

"We need good sources for everything," Er yes.... What on earth do you think I've been saying about the current sources? ... talknic (talk) 11:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Dubious tag - Saudi Arabia

There have been two dubious tags on the following sentence since 2008:

"Saudi Arabia sent a contingent of 800 men[76]–1,200[77][dubious – discuss] to fight with Egyptian and Jordanian forces.[78][dubious – discuss]"

I'd like to remove these tags since the presence of Saudi troops is well documented. Morris, 2008 (p. 205) cites the following:

"British embassy, Jedda, to Bernard Burrows, 18 August 1948, PRO FO 371-68788 speaks of 1,200 "regular" Saudi troops as well as irregulars"

Morris also mentions "some Saudi, Sudanese and local irregular companies" serving with the Egyptian expeditionary force's Fourth Brigade on page 322 and says "Egyptians and their Saudi auxiliaries had fought bravely..." at Huleikat on 19-20 October on page 326. GabrielF (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me. AnonMoos (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed the dubious tags. I also changed the text to read that Saudi forces served with Egyptian rather than Egyptian and Jordanian troops since there's no mention of Saudis serving with the Jordanians in Morris. GabrielF (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

my recent edit

I made the following changes to the article:

• In the template on the right, I changed the wording to "former Mandate Palestine". I believe that was the term most editors supported in a previous discussion we had.
• In the same template, I removed the text from the "casus" part. I'm not sure what this is supposed to be. Causes? Casus belli? In either case the description there wasn't correct so I removed it. Suggestions welcome.
• In the same template, in the "territory" part, I restored the wikilinks to the articles about Jordanian and Egyptian occupation and removed all the "protected" stuff which I don't think is supported by any sources. I incorporated with a small change talknic's text regarding the Partition Plan areas.
• I restored the wikilink from Green Line to Green Line (Israel) which I think is appropriate and I have to wonder if talknic even read the article before he reverted to the dab page link. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok for me. Noisetier (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - Your reasons for deciding to revert with changes is completely unsourced and so sudden (again only on my edit). I provided a VERIFIABLE, RS, Secondary Source in the edit summary, per WP:policy and; there was a pre-existing Source in the 'casus' section

"former Mandate Palestine". I believe that was the term most editors supported in a previous discussion we had."A) Alas no. Different section and different words actually. Same problem. The article is about the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, 15th May 1948. It begins by telling readers the Mandate expired on the 14th May 1948. Now the article is talking about the 'former Mandate Palestine' and not what existed in it's place. Israel and a non self governed territory called Palestine. Even the Israeli Government says Palestine B) Did most readers have a Secondary Source that accurately conveyed the meaning of the UNSC resolutions? In fact, they didn't, not a single one and; the term most editors supported isn't in the source they chose by consensus, to keep [18]. Any sources you might now care to provide referencing the UNSC resolutions and/or ceasefire agreements and/or armistice agreements must accurately reflect them and no UNSC Resolution or ceasefire agreement or armistice agreement on the matter says "former Mandate Palestine" maybe because it would have been quite imprecise. The "former Mandate Palestine" could include Transjordan.

"Causes? Casus belli? In either case the description there wasn't correct so I removed it" I actually corrected it to reflect the pre-existibg source. You didn't object when it was blatantly wrong according to the pre existing source. Only suddenly when I edited to correct it.

"I restored the wikilinks to the articles about Jordanian and Egyptian occupation and removed all the "protected" stuff which I don't think is supported by any sources" In respect to the Arab States, 'protected' was supported by the reference of the casus section you so suddenly and deftly removed. If Israel didn't protect the territory allotted by the Partition Plan, who did? and; Israel did occupy some 50% of the territory allotted for an Arab State. [19] ... [20] ... [21]

"I restored the wikilink from Green Line to Green Line (Israel) which I think is appropriate" What you think must be supportable.

"and I have to wonder if talknic even read the article before he reverted to the dab page link." Save your personal comments for an appropriate place, not in Wikipedia ... talknic (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know you don't like the former mandate wording but it was supported by several editors and only you objected, so consensus didn't go your way.

I didn't notice the casus thing before you changed it. Like I said, I'm not sure what it means and anyway the text doesn't show up in the article, it's just in the template.

The ref that was in the casus thing was 1. a primary source and 2. didn't say anyone protected anything, it was a letter by one side of the conflict with what they say their intentions were. So even if we used it, it would need to be attributed, not stated in the encyclopedia's neutral voice.

Did you actually read the Green Line (Israel) article? Could you explain why you think it's less appropriate than a link to a disambiguation page? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- "I know you don't like the former mandate wording " False.- :WP:policy requires secondary sources that accurately reflect the documents they refer to.

"it was supported by several editors" False. The discussion was on a different section, did not say "former Mandate Palestine". I just gave the link to the discussion. Consensus without any Secondary Sources what-so-ever. Consensus to retain a statement NOT supported by the source that was and still is in the article.

"I didn't notice the casus thing before you changed it. " NMMNG the list of your reverts within a few minutes of my making an edit on articles, far exceeds all the changes (apart from reverts) you have made on any of those articles since I started editing Wikipedia.

"I'm not sure what it means" So you removed it, without knowing what it meant or even bothering to research where it came from or why it might have been there, otherwise I have no doubt you would have removed any other instance you could find.

"and anyway the text doesn't show up in the article, it's just in the template." False. You seem not to have bothered to look even in this Article.

"The ref that was in the casus thing was 1. a primary source" you complained on my edit. Which seems to indicate you are waiting for me as you rarely edit yourself and have not picked up GLARING errors. You could have put a request for a better source on it on. You did not ask for a Secondary Source, you did a wholesale revert. Here [22] There are numerous others.

"and 2. didn't say anyone protected anything, it was a letter by one side of the conflict with what they say their intentions were. " Precisely, their intention was to protect and guess what, they DID. The Gaza strip and what was renamed the West Bank. Which is in fact, partial success.

"Did you actually read the Green Line (Israel) article?" Yes. My error on the disambiguation page. The Green Line is not only applicable to Israel. The article title Green Line (Israel) in itself is NPOV ... talknic (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you please report me for hounding you already? Reading your silly accusation in every post you make is not only quite boring, it makes the chore of reading your long rambling diatribes all the more unpleasant.

Former British Mandate - wording was supported by several other editors in another discussion. You're the only one who objected. It's called consensus.

Casus - still not sure what it means. You have not provided any explanation, not to mention a plausible one. How can we know if the text fits if nobody knows what it's supposed to be describing?

Protected - I don't think you understand how to use the encyclopedia's neutral voice properly.

Green Line - your edit summary and reply above leads me to believe you didn't read the article that was linked to before you reverted it. You saw the word "Israel" there and reverted because of that.

Did I cover everything? I think I did. Since I'm not going to repeat myself for your amusement, and another editor supported the changes I made, I will not be responding further unless an editor other than you raises concerns. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

NMMG - " your long rambling diatribes " Detailed and exacting, addressing the issue, points raise, questions asked. Unlike your personal comment

"Former British Mandate wording was supported by several other editors in another discussion." Yes. "It's called consensus"..without any supporting source, which is a rather bizarre interpretation of WP:Policy and; it was for another Article, not this one and; the 'former British Mandate' was the set of instructions under which Palestine was administered. I doubt any war has taken place in a set of instructions. "another editor supported the changes I made, " One or thousands, consensus to use un-sourced material is hilarious.

"Casus - still not sure what it means" I didn't put it there you didn't complain until I made an edit. "How can we know if the text fits if nobody knows what it's supposed to be describing? Your presumption that your own seemingly (feigned) ignorance extends to all other readers is no reason. Removing something because you didn't know what it means='I don't like it' "You have not provided any explanation, not to mention a plausible one" I did in fact[23]. The list of false accusations grows ever longer.

"Protected - I don't think you understand how to use the encyclopedia's neutral voice properly" Uh? The Arab League stated "10. Now that the British mandate over Palestine has come to an end, without there being a legitimate constitutional authority in the country, which would safeguard the maintenance of security and respect for law and which would protect the lives and properties of the inhabitants, the Governments of the Arab States declare the following:" Where in the described the steps they intended to take to protect the lives and properties of the inhabitants. They did protect the lives and properties of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

"You saw the word "Israel" there and reverted because of that" Another false accusation. I didn't see the names of any of the other parties. Israel didn't sign the cease fire or Armistice Agreements with itself. The title of the article is NPOV

"Did I cover everything? I think I did" No matter that: none of it is supported by any Secondary Sources; there are false accusations; you think consensus supported by no Secondary Sources to include unsourced highly contentious information is somehow legitimate ... talknic (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

"former Mandate Palestine" unless explained, could lead readers to believe it includes Transjordan .. added WP:CN Arab failure addedWP:CN the the Arab States achieved 50% of their stated aim, protecting the lives and property of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank on behalf of the Palestinians. The statement 'failure' is contradicted by the next entry in Territorial Changes ... talknic (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The Green Line was not the result of the Armistice Agreements

Currently reads: "The war concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, which established armistice lines, known as the Green Line, between Israeli forces and the forces in the Jordanian-held West Bank"

A) The Green Line (Moshe Dayan / Abdullah al-Tal map) was the result of a Cease Fire Agreement 30 November 1948. B) The Green Line did not depict all the Armistice Demarcation Lines set by the FOUR Armistice Agreements ... talknic (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Found a good scholarly text that does derive the Green Line from the armistice agreements. [24]. Do you have a problem with it? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith -- A) The Green Line does not reflect the FOUR armistice Agreements. B) Your source says "the Green Line boundary which separated Israel from the West Bank" The Green Line was the Cease Fire line of Nov 1948. It was taken as the basis for the 1949 Armistice Agreement, which set Armistice Demarcation Lines separating Israeli forces and Jordanian forces. Armistice Demarcation Lines do not change boundaries/borders/frontiers. (Legal annexation does. Israel has never legally annexed any territory)

The Jordan/Israel Armistice Agreement says this "the Armistice Demarcation Lines shall correspond to the lines defined in the 30 November 1948 Cease-Fire Agreement"

It says "defined in the 30 November 1948 Cease-Fire Agreement" three times

It says "Armistice Demarcation Line/s" twenty three times

It says "boundary" only once. Here "9. The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto." 'without prejudice to' means it changes nothing.

Your source does not accurately reflect the Armistice Agreements, the Armistice Demarcation Lines or the Green Line. It's scholarly fantasy ... talknic (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The Green line does indeed reflect the four armistice agreements. That it was based on an earlier case fire agreement doesn't change what it means. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - "The Green line does indeed reflect the four armistice agreements" For a start, it doesn't reflect the Egypt /Israel Armistice Agreement "This withdrawal shall begin on the day after that which follows the signing of this Agreement, at 0500 hours GMT, and shall be beyond the Egypt-Palestine frontier" ... talknic (talk) 06:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Other than you, talknic, disagreeing, is there any argument against this source by David Newman (political geographer) as RS?

About to use consensus to publish reliably sourced mis-information? Put to the RS test, it fails dismally in that it doesn't accurately reflect the Armistice Agreements .. Egypt - "This withdrawal shall begin on the day after that which follows the signing of this Agreement, at 0500 hours GMT, and shall be beyond the Egypt-Palestine frontier." ... Lebanon - "The Armistice Demarcation Line should follow the international boundary between Lebanon and Palestine" ... talknic (talk) 06:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Folks, "green line" is not a formal name for anything. It is just an informal popular name. So arguing what it really means seems to be pointless. The only question is what its former and current popular meanings were/are. My impression is that now, today, it is used for the armistice line with a bit of a cheat around the Latrun salient. Some use it for all the armistice lines, some for just the Israeli-Jordan armistice line. I suggest that "known as the Green Line" should become "popularly known as the Green Line". Zero^talk 23:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Zero -- "popularly known as the Green Line" With an explanation of how it was originally defined in the 30 November 1948 Cease-Fire Agreement ... talknic (talk) 06:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The notion of Wikipedia is to inform readers. The notion of not fully informing them, leaving ambiguous statements, is quite bizarre ... talknic (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV in respect to consequences of the war in the Lede

The Lede directly addresses the consequences of the War on the Jewish population only. Israel's neighbouring Arab Palestinians A) also fled the violence and/or were dispossessed B) Parts of their territory were acquired by war by Israel and never annexed to Israel and; under the armistice agreements, all of their territory was under military control/occupation by their neighbouring Jewish State and their neighbouring Arab States, effecting them for the next 19 years ... talknic (talk) 06:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

This again? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- "This" is not "again". It has only arisen since the addition of information 29 September 2011 (against your own criteria of editing while a merge is under discussion)

Please address the issue. Perhaps you might explain how it doesn't contravene WP:NPOV given that Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs were also effected by the war. Or explain how the Palestinian Arabs didn't neighbour Israel or; how Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs didn't flee the violence and/or weren't dispossessed or; how, under the Armistice Agreements, Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs weren't controlled by their neighbouring Jewish state and their neighbouring Arab States for 19 years ... talknic (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

As I explained to you in the past, this would be easier for you if you didn't make up terminology like "neighbouring Palestinian Arabs". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- Are you desperately trying to say Israel has no neighbouring Palestinian Arabs? They don't exist? Usually people who live next to each other are neighbours. If they're Palestinian Arabs, then they'd be neighbouring Palestinian Arabs. It's how the English language constructs meaningful dialogue ... talknic (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The only desperate thing here is your repeated attempts to convince people that your personal opinions are worthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia. I gave you some advice. Take it or leave it. I'm done here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- A) Noted your refusal to answer a very simple question. B) I've not suggested my personal opinion for inclusion. C) Please refrain from personal remarks. thx ... talknic (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Talknic, why the heck are you resurrecting this semi-nonsense gibberish about "neighboring" yet again another time after it was already found to be distinctly useless with respect to article improvement?????????? The word "neighboring" was chosen to refer to the Arab nations surrounding the British mandate territory (somewhat poorly-chosen, since in fact Iraq doesn't neighbor the mandate territory). It certainly can't refer to Arabs who were actually IN Palestine (and therefore not "neighboring"[sic] it), and your attempts to pretend otherwise became tediously monotonously tiresomely boring long ago. AnonMoos (talk) 08:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- A) The gibberish "neighboring" is already in the Article. B) The Article does not say "the Arab nations" or "the British mandate territory" (there was no Mandate after May 14th 1948) C) I've not asserted that Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs were neighbouring Palestine.

Please address the issue WP:NPOV in respect to the consequences of the war on Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs. Thx ... talknic (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Talknic, if you have a concrete specific revision of the first paragraph in mind, then by all means present your proposed wording here, but PLEASE do not try to twist the word "neighboring" to give it a meaning which it transparently patently does NOT have in that context -- something which is a proven generator of distracting and semi-pointless tangential side-discussions, and also something of a sore point by now. Something else which is also pointless and useless for article improvement, a source of distracting diversions, and also a sore point by now is your monotonously tediously tiresome insistence that the never-implemented Arab-rejected, purely theoretical, speculative and hypothetical 11/29/1947 partition-proposal lines are somehow supposedly more important or real than the 1923-1948 British Mandate borders (which were actually implemented for 25 years or more, and still form the basis of the Israeli-Egyptian, Jordanian-Israeli, and Israeli Lebanese borders today).

I really don't understand why you keep on raising such points time and time again, since they significantly annoy other people, and do nothing to get your preferred wording into Wikipedia articles. If you have a compulsion to bang your head against the wall, then I would prefer that you do it as a solitary activity, rather than continually wasting other people's time. AnonMoos (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- A) The issue is not the first paragraph. B) The end of the first line is quite clear "the first in a series of wars fought between the State of Israel and its Arab neighbours in the continuing Arab–Israeli conflict" BTW "Palestinian Arabs"/"Arab Palestinians"/"Palestinians" are already mentioned in the Article some 23 times. In the body of the Article, Egyptian Jews are mentioned once. There is no other mention of Jews from the other Arab States in the body of the Article.

If Jewish folk who were NOT in the region of the war and who are only mentioned in the Article body once have a place in the Lede, simple maths gives Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs who WERE from the region and are mentioned some 23 times in the body of the Article a place in the Lede in respect to the consequences during the period of the Arab-Israeli War.

The issue is in the third paragraph -- WP:NPOV. I.e., the inclusion in the Lede of the fate of Jewish population; who were NOT from the region where the war was fought, while NOT including the fate of the Palestinian Arabs who WERE from the region in which the war was fought and;

including the fate of Jewish folk who, under the Armistice Agreements, were NOT under the military control of Israel's neighbouring Arab States for 19 years, while excluding the fate of Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs, who WERE left under the military control of their neighbouring Jewish State and their neighbouring Arab States for 19 years.

Furthermore as it is an "ongoing conflict", Palestinian Arab territories and the Palestinian Arabs within them, are still under the control of their neighbouring Jewish State

Please just address the WP:NPOV issue and; stop cluttering up the space with un-necessary off topic verbiage & personal comments .. Thx ... talknic (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Please propose text. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Istmejudith -- May I take it you agree, as it stands the Lede is need of balance? ... talknic (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's as bad as you say, because Nakba is linked. BTW, see WP:LEADCITE for how we don't necessarily have to have every point referenced. Although the tendency is to more referencing, so, please propose text. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith -- A) The issue is specific to the timeline of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. B) It has already been asserted, by consensus, that al Nakba is not specific to the timeline of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. C) The Armistice Agreements are however specific to the war and under which the Palestinian Arabs were controlled for the next 19 years, "..dictated exclusively by military considerations..." [25]

Unless someone can come up with a shorter text encompassing the plight of the Palestinians in respect to the period of the war from May 15th 1948, I'm afraid the best I can do at the moment is re-submit the following with new Secondary Sources;

// The war concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements leaving the Palestinian Arab territories under the occupation of Israel[26] .. (numerous pages), Egypt page 264 and Jordanpage 141 //

Although the suggestion is not based on any former rationale and despite their being mentioned some 23 times in the Article body, I imagine it will be vehemently opposed with all manner of excuses for excluding mention of the Palestinian/s/Arabs and/or 'occupation/occupied' in the Lede. (Especially by Israel, even though it is already in the body of the article) ... talknic (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Instead of telling us that a suggestion would be opposed, you might as well make a suggestion, and then we will see. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith - I made the suggestion "the best I can do at the moment is re-submit the following with new Secondary Sources" ... talknic (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I can't understand what you mean. Can you put it in quite basic English for me, thanks. Just say "I suggest we add this...." or "I suggest we take out this..." or "I suggest instead of .... we say ....". That sort of thing because we are all busy people. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith -- "re-submit the following.." IS 'That sort of thing' //The war concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements leaving the Palestinian Arab territories under the occupation of Israel[27] .. (numerous pages), Egypt page 264 and Jordanpage 141 // ... talknic (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not try to match the wording of the second paragraph: "The war commenced after the termination of the British Mandate for Palestine and the creation of an independent Israel at midnight on 14 May 1948..." by explicitly stating what happened to the territory that made up the British Mandate? Perhaps "The war concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, which left the former territories of the British Mandate under the control of Israel, Jordan and Egypt." GabrielF (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

GabrielF - Why? The Mandate ended May 14th 1948. GONE! OVER! FINISHED! The Armistice Agreements were signed 1949 at the END of the war, by which time Israel had been declared, recognized as requested, accepted into the UN and had signed the Armistice Agreements BEFORE ever claiming any territories (31st Aug 1949[28]) beyond it's recognized Sovereign extent. Whatever lay outside of Israel was quite simply NOT Israeli and; most importantly there was never any Mandate border between the territory of Palestine which became Israel and what remained of the territory of Palestine after Israel was declared independent. Pre-Mandate ending and pre-Israeli declaration, were only Mandate borders between Palestine and it's neighbouring Arab States ... talknic (talk) 09:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Talknic, as has been repeatedly explained to you before, in many books and articles (on Wikipedia and elsewhere) about many wars and other events leading to territorial changes (often having absolutely nothing to do with the middle east), it's extremely common to compare and contrast the status quo ante boundaries with the post-event boundaries, so as to better be able to explain and understand exactly what the changes were. Furthermore, your insistence that the British Mandate borders (which were actually physically implemented for 25 years or more, and still form the main basis for the Israeli-Egyptian Lebanese-Israeli, and Israeli-Jordanian borders even today) were somehow less "real" or important than the never-implemented Arab-rejected purely hypothetical UN Partition plan lines is not only rather nonsensical, but also does not do anything to facilitate constructive or productive article improvements... AnonMoos (talk)

AnonMoos -- How amazing. Odd though...the Armistice Agreements, which is what we're discussing here, DO NOT contain the words "Mandate" or "British Mandate". Editors and their Secondary Sources, need to accurately reflect the Armistice Agreements if they're talking about the Armistice Agreements ... talknic (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It really didn't matter in the slightest -- whether the word "Mandate" was mentioned or not, the mandate borders were still the status quo ante bellum, and the Lebanon-Israel Blue line was still the old Mandate border, the Israeli-Egyptian line south of Rafa was the still the old Mandate border (which had been the old Egyptian-Ottoman border as early as the 1880s), and the Israeli-Jordanian line south of the Dead Sea was still the old Mandate border. By contrast, the new "Green line" did not correspond with the never-implemented Arab-rejected purely theoretical 1947 partition plan lines (whose importance you keep trying to elevate) hardly anywhere... AnonMoos (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - the Issue under discussion is the Armistice Agreements. There is no mention of the word "Mandate" or "Mandate borders" or "British Mandate" in ANY of the armistice agreements ... talknic (talk) 04:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos puts it well. The issue here is conveying to the reader a summary of what happened. We say what the state of affairs was before the war, what happened during the war, and what happened as a result of the war. The clearest thing for the reader is to use the same terminology throughout. If you start introducing terms which haven't been previously defined such as "Palestinian Arab territories" you're just confusing the reader. What does "Palestinian Arab territories" mean anyway? Are you talking about the territories allocated to an Arab state under the partition plan? How is a casual reader supposed to know that's what you mean if they haven't heard of the partition plan? And why should we get into the complexity of discussing the partition plan in the lede of the article? This is supposed to be a brief introduction. It needs to be kept relatively simple and straightforward. GabrielF (talk) 07:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"The area of the former British mandate of Palestine" is neutral and informative. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

GabrielF /Itsmejudith - None of the Armistice Agreements use "Mandate" or "British mandate" or "British Mandate of Palestine". It does NOT accurately reflect the Armistice Agreements

""The area of the former British mandate of Palestine" could mean any former mandate territory, including TransJordan and Israel.

Thus far there has not been one valid objection accurately reflecting the Armistice Agreements ... talknic (talk) 10:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Armistice Agreements - Israel/Egypt "the Egypt-Palestine frontier" Four times. Calls for "peace in Palestine" six times. No mention of "Mandate" or "British mandate" or "British Mandate of Palestine" or "former British mandate of Palestine"

Israel/Lebanon "Article V 1. The Armistice Demarcation Line should follow the international boundary between Lebanon and Palestine." Calls for "peace in Palestine" six times. No mention of "Mandate" or "British mandate" or "British Mandate of Palestine" or "former British mandate of Palestine"

Israel/Syria "Article V 3. Where the existing truce lines run along the international boundary between Syria and Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line." Calls for "peace in Palestine" six times. No mention of "Mandate" or "British mandate" or "British Mandate of Palestine" or "former British mandate of Palestine"

Israel/Jordan Calls for "peace in Palestine" six times. No mention of "Mandate" or "British mandate" or "British Mandate of Palestine" or "former British mandate of Palestine"

Why are certain editors insisting on something which DOES NOT accurately reflect Armistice Agreements? ... talknic (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Primary source. Cf a secondary source [29]. NB I don't regard this as a good enough secondary source for this article, but it is an example of how this is being presented to a general readership- and in a source that is required to be as neutral as possible. It's the first source after WP that comes up in a Google search for 1949 armistice. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Do we agree that Haupert, J. S. (1969), POLITICAL GEOGRAPHY OF THE ISRAELI-SYRIAN BOUNDARY DISPUTE, 1949–1967. The Professional Geographer, 21: 163–171. doi: 10.1111/j.0033-0124.1969.00163.x is a good secondary source? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

[30]"as a result of the 1949 armistice that divided the new Jewish state of Israel from other parts of Mandate Palestine." The text is chronologically incorrect. The Declaration for the Establishment of the state of Israel 15th May 1948 & it's subsequent recognition by the International Community of Nations/States, which occurred AFTER the Mandate expired May 14th 1948, divided Israel from Palestine. There was no "Mandate Palestine" in 1949 at the time of the Armistice Agreements.

The map is also incorrect. The Armistice Agreements did not alter any borders. Secondary Sources must accurately convey the meanings of the Armistice Agreements they're talking about

How can we agree Haupert, J. S. is a good source, when we don't know what point Haupert is conveying? ... talknic (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

We look at the credentials of the author, the publication, and the publisher. They tell us whether the source is proper scholarly history. If it is, and it is on-topic, then we can use it. If we use it, we summarise its argument faithfully. That's the right way to work. The wrong way to work is to start with a WP:POINT we want to make and then scrape around for an author to back it up. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. You've not given the point on which Haupert is to be assessed. If it is this, it doesn't show all the Armistice Demarcation lines of 1949.

"The wrong way to work is to start with a WP:POINT we want to make and then scrape around for an author to back it up." What is it you're doing other than scraping around to prove a point? The Armistice Agreements do not change. Opinion on what they say does. When an opinion inserts a definitive word NOT contained or even alluded to in the Armistice Agreements, are they RS on that point? I'm not scratching around looking for a source to prove a point, I'm looking at the Armistice Agreements your sources are talking about ... talknic (talk) 08:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Over month of silence has passed ... " If we use it, we summarise its argument faithfully. That's the right way to work. " The source itself is also required by WP:RSto be faithfull to the documents it references. Consensus to retain information by Secondary Sources not accurately reflecting the Armistice Agreements they reference, might well be seen to be the work of a group of propagandists ... talknic (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Claiming your interpretation of primary sources trumps the interpretation made in scholarly works might well be seen as the work of a tendentious editor. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy - The sources I've provided for inclusion in the article are Secondary. Please stop making false accusations and address the issue ... talknic (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

---

SUMMARY : I brought the NPOV issue to Talk. Excuses and moving goal posts thus far consist of:

• NMMNG - referring to the issue prior to the addition of material concerning the direct consequences of the war only for Jewish folk who did not even live in the region, whilst there is no mention of the direct consequences of the war for the Palestinians who did live in the region, thereby contravening WP:NPOV

NMMNG then goes on "if you didn't make up terminology like "neighbouring Palestinian Arabs" However, Israel's "Arab neighbours" are already mentioned in the Lede and; the Palestinians, who do in fact neighbour Israel and; are in fact already been mentioned numerous times throughout the article. In the construct of the English language, we describe people living next to each other as neighbours. One can only presume NMMNG thinks the Palestinians didn't exist.

Hypocritically, NMMNG and company opt, by consensus no less, for the retention of the terminology 'Mandate Palestine', 'British Mandate' although the phrase is not mentioned at all in any of the Ceasefire/Armistice Agreements or UNSC Resolutions which, if referenced by Secondary Sources must be accurately portrayed. Furthermore, the Mandate did not exist at the time of the Armistice Agreements or for that matter throughout the war. Mandates are sets of conditions for the administration 'of' a territory and it's people. The Mandate itself has no territory.

NMMNG then goes on to accuse me of using Primary Sources, when they were in fact Secondary Sources.

• Anomoos - saying "gibberish about "neighboring"" when the words "neighbours" already exists in the Lede referring to Israel's "Arab neighbours" and; instead of addressing the issue, fills the page with irrelevant, off topic nonsense, silly personal remarks and accusations more than obviously designed to frustrate and obfuscate.
• Istmejudith - who asks me to propose a text, which I provide. She then asks me to propose a text, which I repeat! After which she asks me to propose a text, which I repeat again!! Quite bizarre and again a seemingly obvious attempt to frustrate and obfuscate.

Then ""The area of the former British mandate of Palestine" is neutral and informative." But it does not appear anywhere in any ceasefire/Armistice agreement or UNSC Resolution and; unless explained, could include Transjordan.

She then gives this "Nakba is linked." overlooking the fact that the consequences for Jewish folk, who did not live in the war zone, are already given space and the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries is also linked.

• GabrielF - Who begins talking about a completely different section and the inclusion of a Mandate not mentioned in any ceasefire/Armistice Agreement or UNSC resolution. He then moves goal posts completely to the: "... complexity of discussing the partition plan in the lede of the article?" Which is not the issue at hand

Goal posts move again to "This is supposed to be a brief introduction" while arguing to have no mention of the Palestinian Arabs who were from the war zone and who were also effected by the war, ignoring the fact that there is already mention of the consequences for only Jewish populations who were not in the war zone at all.

Consensus to not include the word Palestinians or Palestine in the Lede of an article about a war fought over their territory and on their behalves and resulting in them being dispossessed, is completely bizarre and could be seen to be the work of propagandists.

Is there actually any valid reason for not giving equal space to the consequences of the war for the Palestinians in the Lede under WP:NPOV Retention of material by consensus to contravene WP:NPOV is bizarre and would appear to be the MO of propagandists active in Wikipedia ... talknic (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Shorter summary: Talknic wanted to make a change to the article. Nobody supported it. Talknic doesn't know how to let go. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - Contravention of WP:NPOV supported by consensus likely points to the work of propagandists ...talknic (talk) 11:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

More likely points to your IDHT. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - The added information described only the direct consequences of the Jewish victims who were not even from the war zone. It threw the Paragraph into a violation of WP:WEIGHT.

The section I removed has the same source as the Wikilinked article, where the detail is righfully discussed, NOT in the Lede of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

I left the article giving equal weight to both parties, both wikilinked. Reverts to versions that are, by consensus of course, in violation of WP policies, do not appear to be the work of an editor acting in good faith ... talknic (talk) 16:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed statement:s. Reasons - NPOV / WEIGHT & Consensus in violation of Wikipedia policy

• Removed per WP:VERIFY //The fighting took place mostly on the former territory of the British Mandate and for a short time also in the Sinai Peninsula and southern Lebanon. // Not supported by the source.
• NMMNG's reason for revert "lead correctly summarizes article using consensus wording" british mandate is wikilinked in previous sentence so they likelihood that someone would be confused about what it includes is low"

A) Consensus to keep contentious non verifiable statements violates WP:VERIFY -- B) the Mandate was a set of conditions for administration. A set of conditions 1) has no territory 2) the article begins by telling readers the Mandate (set of conditions) expired May 14th 1948 -- C) NMMNG's wikilinked British Mandate has a map ... it includes Jordan!!!

• Removed per WP:WEIGHT Last part of added material concerning Jewish folk // initiating the first exodus wave of Egyptian, as well as other Middle Eastern and North African Jewish communities// Giving equal weight to the victims ... talknic (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The first statement about where the fighting took place is true whether the source supports it or not. It is also quite important and hence should be included. The source could be changed. --Frederico1234 (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Frederico1234 - The first part of the statement did not accurately reflect any UNSC resolution, any Ceasefire or Armistice Agreement and; Secondary Sources must accurately reflect the documents they cite and; the first part of the statement is not supported by the given source.

"The source could be changed" Look at the article history. The CN was vandalized and the statement kept unreliably sourced. (by consensus of course). Unless you can find a reliable Secondary Source accurately reflecting any UNSC resolution, Ceasefire or Armistice agreement saying "former territory of the British Mandate", it should be replaced with "Palestine", for which there are plentiful accurate Secondary Sources.

UNSC resolutions, a ceasefire agreements and Armistice agreements to the war say "peace in Palestine", because that's where most of the fighting took place, in Palestine, after Israel was declared independent of Palestine. (Note: Israel was impossible for Israel to have been declared independent of the British. Israel has never been under British rule, the Mandate ended before Israel's declaration came into effect 15th May 1948 When British administration existed, Israel didn't)

The phrase could lead people to think it includes Transjordan, as displayed by NMMNG's brilliant "british mandate is wikilinked" routine. With a nice a map which includes of all things, Transjordan! ... talknic (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

This borders on vandalism. Not to mention editing against consensus, the 1RR violation, WP:POINT, etc. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - consensus to violate WP:VERIFY WP:NPOV WP:WEIGHT is the real vandalism. "1RR violation" there is none. A source was required for the word "controversial". I gave it. From Morris's own book BTW ... talknic (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

This issue is now at AE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - Good ... talknic (talk) 08:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Questioning Israeli victory

Talknic called into question the claim in the info box that the '48 war was a tactical and strategic victory for Israel, given, in his words, that the Arab states preserved territory in the West Bank and Gaza under Arab control. I've provided the requested citation, but I feel its worth reiterating that this explanation is ahistorical for the following reasons: (1) Israel achieved its stated war aims (establishing a state and beating back an invasion) while the Arabs did not achieve their stated goals (preventing a state from being established). (2) The defeat was a humiliation for the Arab world which helped undermine regimes such as Farouk's in Egypt. (3) Talknic argues that establishing Arab control over the West Bank and Gaza should constitute an Arab victory - in fact the Partition Plan would have allotted considerably more land to the Arabs than the armistice and the Yishuv had previously negotiated with the Jordanians to essentially give them control of the West Bank in exchange for allowing the establishment of a Jewish state. Clearly, if you go to war, get humiliated and then get less than you would have gotten had you accepted a negotiated solution in the first place you have in no sense achieved a strategic victory. That '48 was an Israeli tactical victory is indisputable. GabrielF (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The war was clearly an Israeli victory. The Arab states didn't achieve any of their goals. MathKnight 19:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

MathKnight - '"The Arab states didn't achieve any of their goals" How odd. They retained the Gaza Strip and the West Bank on behalf of the Palestinians, about 50% of their stated goals. In fact, Israel Agreed in the Armistice Agreements ... talknic (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

GabrielF - "given, in his words" best you actually use my words in future

"(1) Israel achieved its stated war aims (establishing a state and beating back an invasion)" A) Show a source for Israel's Declaration of war (stated war aims). B) On what date was it lodged with the UNSC? C) Israel was already established by declaration and recognition before being accepted into the UN (must already be an established Independent State), before the Armistice Agreements.

"while the Arabs did not achieve their stated goals (preventing a state from being established)." cite their stated aim of "preventing a state from being established" Their stated aims are in the Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine, Secondary Sources must accurately portray that document, it being the official statement of their aims.

"(3) Talknic argues that establishing Arab control over the West Bank and Gaza should constitute an Arab victory - " Er, no I didn't. Quote me .. don't falsify..

"in fact the Partition Plan would have allotted considerably more land to the Arabs than the armistice" The Armistice did not allot ANY land to ANY of the parties. The armistice with Egypt says specifically the Armistice Demarcation Line was not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and; the provisions were dictated exclusively by military considerations.

"I've provided the requested citation" All you've provided is a book and page numbers. What are readers supposed to be looking for in the book? What is the context?

"in no sense achieved a strategic victory. That '48 was an Israeli tactical victory is indisputable." Problem, I haven't actually disputed those points. Best not to falsify what I've written ...talknic (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you believe that "a book and page numbers" does not constitute a citation? GabrielF (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

GabrielF - What are readers supposed to be looking for in the book? What is the context? Can you provide the full paragraph? Have you read a page? A chapter? These are the things I am required to provide by No More Mr Nice Guy's camp of consensus makers ... talknic (talk) 05:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to say that my "camp of consensus makers" includes many of the regular participants at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources.

I think many if not most of the regulars to this and related articles have read Morris' 1948. I have it in front of me right now. Are you really challenging GabrielF's reading or are you just trying to make a WP:POINT (again)? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - your "camp of consensus makers" at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources seem to behave like yourself - Line 324:, making false claims WhatamIdoing 00:39, 5 December 201 - Line 562: and GabrielF here, has unnecessarily misrepresenting what I've written. It seems to be common amongst your associates

GabrielF asserts that "Israel achieved its stated war aims (establishing a state and beating back an invasion" A) Israel didn't lodge an official declaration of war with the UNSC stating an aim of establishing a state. Israel was an Independent Sovereign State, already recognized BEFORE the Armistice Agreements were signed. C) Independent Sovereign States cannot be a part of non-self governing territories and be Independent Sovereign States. D) As for "beating back an invasion" The Israeli Government itself says "The State of Israel came into being on the evening of Friday, 14 May 1948. On the night of 14-15 May, the regular forces of Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon invaded Palestine. The Egyptian Foreign Minister informed the Security Council that "Egyptian armed forces have started to enter Palestine establish law and order" (his cable to the Security Council, S/743, 15 May 1948). The Governments of the Arab League States issued a statement on 15 May 1948, as their forces were advancing into Palestine:"[31]. From their stated aims, it is obvious they achieved at least 50% of their aim of protecting Palestine, Gaza and what became the West Bank ... talknic (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

My "associates", most of which I have never seen before that discussion at talk:Citing sources, behave like me because we all understand wikipedia policy, while you don't. On top of that, you never listen to anyone so I don't have much hope of you ever getting it.

Thanks for another long interpretation of primary sources. Riveting. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - Most actually didn't make any false accusations. You and certain others did however. Furthermore the discussion was to seek a change in WP policy, effecting any POV and any issue. You've made yet another a false accusation, of my not understanding policy.

"Thanks for another long interpretation of primary sources." Another false accusation. Quoted was the Israel govt spiel from [32] after which begins the Primary Source, the Arab States Declaration, at 1.

Three false accusations in a row ... Please address the issue ... talknic (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Which issue is that? That you've never so much as read a book on this subject and you think a good way to write an encyclopedia is to fish google for sentences that support your personal POV? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - Er no, the issue is: The Arab States did in fact achieve 50% of their stated aim to protect Palestine. If all you have to offer are false accusations and personal comments, you should not be here at all ... talknic (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Let us know when you find a reliable source (per WP:RS, not per talknic) that supports that claim. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - The statement 'failure' is contradicted by the next entry. "Territorial Changes" - "Jordanian occupation of West Bank, Egyptian occupation of the Gaza Strip" Both achievements. Both within the aims of the Arab States, to protect Palestine ... talknic (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is not a reliable source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - Er... Territorial Changes is not my opinion ...talknic (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Even if their aim was "to protect Palestine" and not to prevent the establishment of Israel, they have failed. First, to conquer only the territories that already offered to the Palestinian Arabs (but they refused) in the partition plan, is not a success. Second, if they keep waving the Nakba ("Catastrophe" in Arabic) in which many Arabs fled Israel and never returned, how does this qualify as success in protecting Palestine? (P.S. when they ment Palestine they ment the entire Land of Israel that was under the British mandate, and not only to the areas that are now under the Palestinian Authority control (only the West Bank and the Gaza Strip)). MathKnight 18:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

MathKnight - "Even if their aim was "to protect Palestine" " Read their Declaration, introduced here by a Secondary source, the Israeli Govt.

"to conquer only the territories that already offered to the Palestinian Arabs (but they refused) in the partition plan, is not a success. " A) The Arab States aim was not to 'conquer', but as stated in the Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine, to protect. B) The territory 'offered' the Palestinians, was already Palestinian territory. C) They rightly refused to recognize the partition plan based on legal grounds under the LoN Covenant and the UN Charter which guaranteed them self determination.

"when they ment Palestine they ment the entire Land of Israel that was under the British mandate" Very funny. Israel has never been under an Mandate. The 'Land of Israel' is only what has been recognized by the International Community of Nations. No more, no less. Israel was recognized as it asked to be recognized. For example "I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947". The US and the majority of countries who did recognize Israel, did so BEFORE Israel became a UN Member State, BEFORE the Armistice Agreements, BEFORE making any claims AFTER the armistice agreements were signed, to territory not belonging to any State. The Armistice Agreements and UNSC Resolutions differentiate between Israel and Palestine and call for "peace in Palestine." not 'in Israel'. The Armistice Agreements show that the Arab States did indeed protect both the Gaza Strip and what was officially renamed the West Bank, thereby achieving some 50% of their stated aims. Israel AGREED to the Armistice AGREEMENTS ... talknic (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Declaration are declarations, and not always the true intentions. If their aim was only to protect the West Bank (WB) and Gaza Strip (GS) why they invaded the land allocated to the Jews in the partition plan (the Egyptian army reached south of Ashdod and was forced back by the Jewish forces)? They invaded Israel in order to destroy it and they have failed - not only they didn't manage to conquer lands given to the Jews, they have also lost land allocated for a Palestinian state. If their true aim was only to protect the WB&GS, they would have stopped there and not push forward. Land of Israel is a geographic term (and not a political term), refering to the land the Hebrew ruled during ancient time, until the abolishment of Judea by the Roman forces after the Great Rebelion in 70AD. Most of the Land of Israel was renamed Syria-Palaestina by the Romans and later just Palestine by occupying forces. Land of Israel =/= State of Israel. You misinterperates the terms and therefore led to wrong conclusions. MathKnight 11:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

MathKnight -- "If their aim was only to protect the West Bank (WB) and Gaza Strip (GS)" Their aim was to protect what was allocated the Arab State, which was not just the the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Look at the partition map. Israel announced it was proclaimed thus "I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947" and that is how it was recognized.

"(the Egyptian army reached south of Ashdod and was forced back by the Jewish forces)" Ashdod didn't exist until 1957. Egypt went as far as Isdud, which was not allocated to the Jewish State or declared as Israeli. Neither was the huge chunk of territory Sth East of the Gaza Strip bordering Egypt or the big chunk of territory to the North bordering Lebanon. Furthermore there are no UNSC resolutions against any Arab State for invading Israel. It is customary that UN Member States are censured if they violate the boundaries of another State.

If Israel's true aim was to protect Israel, why has it since being declared, acquired by war and never legally annexed over 50 % of what remained of Palestine?

"Land of Israel is a geographic term (and not a political term), refering to the land the Hebrew ruled during ancient time" Irrelevant from the day Israel was proclaimed thus "I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947" and recognized as such before admission to the UN, before signing any Armistice Agreements

Land of Israel =/= history. State of Israel = what was declared independent of Palestine May 15th 1948 ... talknic (talk) 17:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this discussion really worthwhile? Some Arab countries started this war to prevent the implementation of the partition plan, which they considered unacceptable. The obvious goal was to prevent the establisment of a Jewish state on 56.4% of Palestine (which most Palestinians and the Arab countries deemed gross injustice). And equally obviously, this goal was not only not achieved, the result of the war was that the state of Israel covered not 56.4% but 78% of Palestine. So that Palestinians refer to these events as the Catastrofe ("Nakba") is certainly understandable.
@talknic, it is true that frequently attempts are made to include lopsided pro-Israeli POV in the articles, but this is not an example of it. The only point may be that the wording "Arab failure" sounds rather un-encyclopedic. Wouldn`t "Defeat of Arab countries" be better? Paul K. (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Paul kuiper NL - Is accuracy worthwhile? "Some Arab countries started this war to prevent the implementation of the partition plan, which they considered unacceptable." A) Actually, they said it could not come about by force "Palestine" and; by the 14th 15th May 1948 Jewish forces were already outside of the territory allotted the Jewish State B) A Civil War was already taking place and had been escalated by Plan Dalet in the months prior to Israeli Independence. From the moment Israel became and was recognized as an Independent Sovereign state[33] and with Jewish forces already outside of Israel, it became a war waged by a State on the non-self Governing territory of Palestine. The Arab States had a right under the UN Charter Chapt XI and a "sacred trust" to protect the non-self governing territories of what remained of Palestine after Israel was declared and which they represented at the time. The Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine was submitted to the UNSC [34]. There was no condemnation of it by the UNSC. Nor was there condemnation of Egypt and Transjordan occupying Gaza and the West Bank. In fact the Israeli Govt AGREED in the Armistice Agreements. Nor was there UNSC condemnation of Transjordan's unilateral annexation of what became the West Bank at the request of the Palestinians [35] ... talknic (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Your method here seems to be to take statements in primary sources as fact without considering the secondary sources that question them. That's bad scholarship and its inappropriate for wikipedia. What you should instead be doing is examining respected secondary sources and looking at how they explain these documents. GabrielF (talk) 17:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

GabrielF - Oh my. I provided Secondary Sources. So sorry ... talknic (talk) 20:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Talknic, earlier in this interminable thread, you mentioned that you felt other editors made onerous demands on you to demonstrate your understanding of your sources. The reason that other users are questioning your sources is that you are using the wrong type of sources. You are looking at original documents (treaties, public statements, UN resolutions, etc) and you are providing your own interpretation of these documents. That is not your job as an encyclopedia editor. If you'd like to publish an article in a journal arguing that the traditional concept of Israeli victory in 1948 is false, go right ahead, but Wikipedia is not the place for such original arguments. As an encyclopedia editor, your job is to look at how secondary sources have interpreted these documents and the other evidence that exists from this time period and to summarize and report what these secondary sources say. GabrielF (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

GabrielF - A) The version preferred by consensus (except 'casus'), was completely un-sourced. Any editor may simply remove it. B) The information in Territorial Changes is not my opinion. It shows the Arabs did in fact achieve some 50% of their stated aims of protecting Palestine on behalf of the Palestinians. C) If you want to say there was no success by the Arabs, you're gonna have to start re-writing all the articles saying Egypt occupied Gaza and Jordan occupied the West Bank. My you will be busy ... talknic (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

"War of Liberation" name

Just to clarify, when I searched for the Hebrew lettering more results came up, but Google Translate gives "Independence" as the only translation for the lettering. The Anglicization of the lettering is what only comes up with this article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The Hebrew may be common, but the English is rare. It may need to be removed, unless it is to clarify the Hebrew. Certainly the current prominent placement in the lede, bolded, is problematic. Would the Battle of Britain lede provide a better model? Jd2718 (talk) 15:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the transliteration can be improved. There's an "official" way to do it, but I don't know how. These are the common names in Hebrew though. You can see them in the lead at he.wiki, for example. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I drop my opposition after finding that this is a valid translation and there is some usage of the term in English-language sources.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I've reordered the sentence to place the Hebrew first followed in parentheses. Seeing the above comment, should I flip it back? Jd2718 (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

"war of liberation" should probably be capitalized, and may require bolding (I'm not going to go into a whole new endless discussion about that right now, though). Otherwise, looks fine. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure "known to Israelis" is really precise either. It's known in Hebrew as [...] but War of Independence is used by non-Israeli English speaking sources. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

This is hilarious. After all the Talk of not filling up a Lede with details that can, and should be, addressed via Wikilink or elsewhere in the body of articles, the lede is being now being bloated with what the war was to Israelis. Pushing the Lede and the first paragraph way over WP:WEIGHT & WP:NPOV, contrary to WP policies

... known to Israelis as the War of Independence (Hebrew: מלחמת העצמאות or מלחמת הקוממיות‎, Milkhemet Ha'atzma'ut or Milkhemet Hakomemmiyut or Hebrew: מלחמת השחרור‎, Milkhemet Hashikhrur literally "war of liberation" - stands at TWENTY NINE words. It consists entirely of the Israeli POV

... known to the Arab states as ... -- stands at ZERO words. ... known to the Palestinians as ... - stands at ZERO words

Furthermore, this is en.wiki. The current source is in Hebrew and is not attributed to any author ... talknic (talk) 17:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

If the current wording for the first paragraph is retained by consensus, it will be another in a long list of instances where consensus has been to violate WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, which might lead one to believe propagandists are busy at work, abusing the system ... talknic (talk) 09:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have access to Hebrew sources but I think that the War of Liberation [from the British] as well as War of Independence [from who ?] is the period ranging from 1944 (when the IZL decided to stop the truce) to 15 May 1948 (when the British left the coutnry). The 1948 Arab Israeli War is something else. At best, references to these words should be used in the article about the 1948 Palestine War but not this one. 87.65.225.88 (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Arabic for "nakba"

There seems to be an edit war over this and someone mistakenly thinking we should add the foreign-language form of all proper names. That isn't the case. We only do it for article subjects. A simple compromise is to say 1948 Palestinian exodus ("Nakba"). Itsmejudith (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. It's fine the way it is. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I find the inclusion of the English translation unusual as most sources I know that refer to it by a formal name use Nakba, as opposed to its English translation.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You can switch the English and Arabic. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

German & Yugoslav volunteers

According to Zeev Schiff, Benny Morris, Leslie Stein and Chaim Herzog, German ex-Nazi types as well as Bosnian Muslims and some Bosnians who fought with pro-Axis forces during the WW2, served as volunteers with Arab forces and not in insignificant numbers. According to Stein, as many as "500 Yugoslavs" fought as well as a "number of Germans," (Stein @ 44-45) I have therefore restored the edit.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Dozens of pro-Axis partisans and a handful of ex-Nazis is an obvious case of insignificant numbers when it is a war involving nearly 200,000 soldiers. That you are emphasizing the Nazi connection and inserting the flag of Nazi Germany in the belligerent section to represent a handful of Germans is emblematic of the various issues with this article I have been aching to correct. Expect me to elaborate more soon.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is what Morris has to say about foreign volunteers in 1948:

"Of the Arab states, only the Jordanians, who increased their roster of Britons during the war, managed to recruit and deploy foreign military experts to any real effect. The handful of ex-Nazi Germans or Bosnian Muslims recruited by Syria, Egypt, and the Palestinian Arabs proved of little significance." (Page 403)

If reputable secondary sources do not consider this contribution to be significant, it really doesn't belong in the info box. GabrielF (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC) (copied from my post on Jiujitsuguy's talk page)

A discussion on the matter was held on our (GabrielF & JJG) respective talk pages and agreement as to the precise text concerning German and Yugoslav volunteers seems within reach. I'll formulate something over the weekend. Regards,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

List of belligerents - Pakistan

I've searched Benny Morris's 1948, A History of the First Arab-Israeli War (2008) and can't find any mention of Pakistanis, let alone Pakistan (which only came into being on 14 August 1947), being involved in the 1948 war. Nor can I remember having seen Pakistan mentioned as a belligerent in any of the other reading that I've done. Perhaps the person who included Pakistan could quote exactly what the source paper says and also list what major sources mention Pakistan? I think that the list should be pruned down so that it shows only the countries (not political parties etc) who were officially involved in the fighting.     ←   ZScarpia   18:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine: 28 May 1948 Declaration of Establishment of Israel

1 I have used the actual words from the Israel Ministry of foreign Affairs - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War&action=submit. You will note the words:-

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL.

2 I have deleted the reference to the letter from ELIAHU EPSTEIN to President Truman for two reasons:-

a) It uses the words proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations. If the Declaration of 14 May 1948 referred to any frontiers, they are those bordering ERETZ-ISRAEL, an area considerably wider than those suggested for the Jewish state in UNGA Resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947. I might be so bold as to suggest that Truman was deceived into his de facto recognition of the new state.

b) The significance of the letter is not stated. Trahelliven (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Serious issues with article

This article is replete with several severe issues that are in need of attention. To elaborate:

• WP:NPOV is not being respected by the inclusion of material relating to the Nazis, the Holocaust, and antisemitism. The most recent offense has been the insertion of the flag of Nazi Germany in the belligerents section due to a handful of ex-Nazis fighting on the Arab side. It also emphasizes that out of several hundred Yugoslavs a few dozen were members of pro-Axis fascist groups. However, this is far from the only NPOV issue involved.

The political objectives section starts out by describing the Yishuv "fearing a repeat of the Holocaust" and simply looking to survive without making mention of any other objectives. In a subsection about Husseini it starts out by mentioning his collaboration with the Nazis and adding an allusion to the Holocaust, without providing any context as to why he was collaborating with the Nazis and what he actually knew of the Holocaust at the time. This, mind you, in the "political objectives" section. Even more significantly there is no mention in the background section or political objectives about the history of Jewish settlement or Arab opposition to the way in which it lead to their expulsion from certain areas of the territory as well as widespread discrimination against them by the settlers.

Further down in a section on British diplomacy there are references to the British thinking all Jews are communists, wanting to cut Israel down to size, and evacuating without considering the consequences. Again comments without context, like the fact the leading Zionists were self-described socialists or the fact the Soviets thought Israel would be a major ally for the same reason.

Then you have the section for the demographic outcome. In the second paragraph it falsely asserts that "Arab nations refused to absorb Palestinian refugees" when it is widely-known that Jordan gave every refugee citizenship in its territory and it is also known that Lebanon gave some of the refugees citizenship as well. On the Jewish exodus the section claims "many of these immigrants were forcibly expelled" despite evidence suggesting a significant amount left voluntarily, something that is mentioned after that in a manner that implies it is not significant. What follows from there is a rather butchered run-on sentence that starts out by mentioning antisemitic violence and pogroms. It then mentions government persecution due to the war or "political instability" without elaborating and only after mentioning this does it point out the rather significant matter of many just wanting to settle in Israel or the West. Obviously, it does not go into any of the unique details related to the flight of Jews from each of these countries. Even more problematic is the sentence starts out without clarifying whether this applies just to immigrants from Arab and Muslim countries or whether it also includes European Jews who are mentioned earlier in the paragraph.

• All of the above come together to violate WP:SYNTH by pushing a propaganda notion that the enemies of Israel do not have any legitimate reason for opposing it, but instead just hate Jews with some even wanting to have a redo of the Holocaust. Context is rarely given for the sides opposing/not supporting Israel, while the context given for Israelis ignores the less high-minded reasons for their actions. Honestly, this reads like something you would get from CAMERA or Arutz Sheva. The political objectives section heavily implies with the bit about Husseini that the Palestinians only wanted to kill the Jews and that the Yishuv were just stoically trying to survive. Throwing in the ex-Naxis mention and the Nazi flag in the belligerents section adds on to that little association game being played with the article. Amazingly the source provided for Husseini is a book about antisemitism written by an Israeli. With all the issues in the section about the British and the demographic outcome included, the obscenely incendiary and propagandistic nature of the resulting synthesis of material stands out plainly. I would say it easily reaches WP:COATRACK proportions.

• There is also a somewhat less serious issue for fixing, merely by comparison, and that is the poor referencing in the article. Paragraphs and sometimes entire sections go without a citation at times. It is not strictly a case of minor or uncontroversial material either. A section on Operation Shoter mentions accusations of massacres without providing a single reference either way. Another paragraph in the section "Anglo-Israeli air clashes" is a huge block of text, it could easily be split into two or three paragraphs, with two citations tacked on at the end. The first two paragraphs of the background section have no citations either, though someone has at least added some citation tags there.

Looking over all this I am perplexed at how this article can still have a B-class ranking. This article is in need of some serious work to even be worthy of a C-class ranking, in my opinion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Some of the things you mention have merit, some I disagree with. It was very difficult to get anything done with this article for a while (you can see why if you check the archives). If you have any specific changes you want to make please either bring them up here or just go ahead and edit. Worse case you'll get reverted and then we can discuss. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

(1) I think there was a clear consensus that the addition of Nazi Germany to the combatant list was not appropriate. Its a recent change that has been reverted, so I don't think it has any bearing on your argument. (2) Your statement that "The political objectives section starts out by describing the Yishuv "fearing a repeat of the Holocaust" and simply looking to survive without making mention of any other objectives" is simply false - this section, which cites a highly-respected source, lists three additional war aims beyond survival. (3) The text appears to imply that the quote "to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy" is from a statement by Husseyni. Searching for the quote in Google Books, the earlier reference that I found was to a 1970 book by Jon Kimche, who was known as a critic of Israel. There are some later uses of the quote by dubious sources. I think that the quote does need to be tracked down and verified. The general point that Husseyni sided with the Nazis during the war is frequently made in secondary sources about the period and it was crucially important in 1948. I am sure that we could do a better job of presenting this. (4) I'm not opposed to adding some context to the statement that the Foreign Office thought that the Jews were communists. This is, however, a complex and nuanced subject - plenty of leading Britons in 1948 would have considered themselves socialists and a great many leftists in the West had not yet broken with Stalin. (5) I agree that a reference is needed for the section on Operation Shoter. The article Operation Shoter has a discussion of the allegations of massacres that appears to be well sourced. I will have to read through some of your other points carefully. I'm not convinced that the article is making the implicit point that you believe it is making - for instance the article makes it quite clear that King Hussein was willing to make a deal with the Yishuv to avert war and that the motivation of several Arab leaders was not hatred of Jews but a desire to expand their own territory and influence. GabrielF (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Point 1 is a nice sentiment, but that edit is symptomatic of the broader issue with this article. The second point is not really addressing what I said. It does mention other goals, but that is what it starts with so what I said was not false. Also, the parts after that are not any more respectful of NPOV. WP:V does not circumvent other policies. Can you honestly say that it is universally agreed by all major historians that the Yishuv were just looking to establish "defensible borders" and "reduce the size" of an Arab fifth column? Points three and four are welcome responses, though on the fourth point I think you are overlooking the recurring theme of antisemitism in this article. In fact, that is the main problem with your response. You do not see the obvious picture being painted. I have read enough on the conflict over the years and had enough debates about it to recognize that many of these points I am mentioning are very common claims amongst those who try to paint Israel's opponents or non-advocates as antisemitic or blind to antisemitism.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

@TDA, when your neighbor is raped, robbed or killed in a pogrom as part of official government policy and because of your status as a Jew, you are arbitrarily denied employment, the ability to conduct a livelihood, are subject to random beatings, robbery, imprisonment or worse, leaving under those conditions is certainly not voluntary. Arab pogroms against their respective Jewish communities, some of which had been in existence for 2,500 years is a well documented fact as is the Arab connection to Nazi Germany during WW2.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Fleeing oppression is voluntary, even if that may seem horrible to say. That Jews were oppressed by these governments does not mean you can claim in the article that the governments expelled them, unless they did just that. Certainly there were cases where Arab governments expelled their Jewish population (Egypt is the only definitive example I can think of at the moment) and we can back that up with sources. Sources also back up that there were just as many, if not considerably more, who made Aliyah out of nationalistic fervor following Israel's declaration of statehood. In certain cases sources back up that it was due to unique political circumstances like in Algeria, where Jews had been given French citizenship and were for over a hundred years essentially equal in status to French colonists. There is also the fact that the Arab League explicitly forbid emigration of Jews by member states, with countries like Iraq and Yemen seeing sudden mass emigration soon after the war mainly because Israel and Zionist groups conducted military-scale evacuations. Morocco is particularly unique in that leaders have even called on the Jewish population that fled to come back and there is still a sizable Jewish minority there. All these nuances are lost in the current wording that downplays the voluntary parts as well as the very long period of time over which it elapsed. Compared to the Nakba, which happened over a year or two, the Jewish exodus was like a dripping faucet. Your insistence on keeping things like this, together with your attempt to make associations with the Nazis is exactly the problem with this article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You have quite a few factual errors in the above statement, but never mind. I don't think many sources claim that most Jews decided voluntarily to emigrate from Arab countries without any pressure from the government and locals. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Quite a few would back up that a sizable amount that left for Israel did so for ideological reasons as much as anything else. After all, various Jewish organizations around the world actively encouraged Jews to make Aliyah so that the Jewish population could grow in Israel. The impression created by the current wording is that the Jewish community was being forced out of the Arab world because the Arab leaders were Nazi-loving Jewhaters. It really is a horrifically butchered spin on the actual history.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

If you have a source that says most Jews left the Arab countries for ideological reasons, I'd like to see it. Not all the Arab leaders were Nazi-loving Jew-haters, but some certainly were and I don't agree that the article creates the impression they all were. Can you quote the exact text you think gives that impression? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no one quote that lays it out. As I said, it is the material sprinkled across the article when taken as a whole. For instance, in the political objectives section this quote by itself is biased but does not imply a lot:

Initially, the aim was "simple and modest": to survive the assaults of the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab states. "The Zionist leaders deeply, genuinely, feared a Middle Eastern reenactment of the Holocaust, which had just ended; the Arabs' public rhetoric reinforced these fears".

However, when you take that and combine it with the first paragraph on Husseini a little further down in the section it takes on new meaning:

In 1940, he asked the Axis Powers to acknowledge the Arab right "to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy."

While I was looking over the British diplomacy section I also noticed that all the material in that section is backed by a single book from Karsh. That section includes some choice quotes:

Moreover, it was an article of faith for most British policy-makers that most Jews were Communists . . . General Sir Alan Cunningham wrote to Creech Jones at this time to complain "It appears to me that H.M.G.'s policy is now simply to get out of Palestine as quickly as possible without regard to the consequences in Palestine" . . . British officials regarded the prospect of an Arab invasion favorably as offering an excellent chance to overturn the UN partition resolution and cut Israel "down to size".

After that you have the demographic outcome section that makes sure to first assign antisemitic violence and pogroms as causes for the Jewish exodus and then mentioning government persecution as another before getting to the fact that there were people who actually left for socioeconomic or ideological reasons. You also have various omissions about the actual motivations of the Palestinian Arabs and what the Yishuv had been doing that incited so much hostility. Separated these bits of information say very little, together they paint a picture of the innocent Jewish population being beset and threatened at every turn by vile antisemites who seek their destruction.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Antisemitic violence and pogroms were indeed a major factors in the Jewish exodus from Arab countries. I can recommend a few books on the subject if you're not familiar. It's also true that British policy was to get out of Palestine without regard to the consequences, and that's being generous and not taking into account their subtle and not so subtle sabotage of the Partition Plan. We had a discussion about that which included other sources such as Pappe. Like I said, it was hard to improve this article for a while.

You can always add information to balance things you think are too one sided. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Bevin, the British foreign secretary, did think that the partition plan was fundamentally unfair and refused to involve the British government and armed forces in implementing it. Prior to the partition plan, attempts had been made to get the Jewish and Arab leaders to make peace agreements. Bevin said that if they didn't reach an agreement, the problem would be handed to the United Nations and the British would withdraw from Palestine. No agreement was reached; the Jewish leaders thought that Bevin was bluffing and the Arab leaders were quite happy that the problem be referred to the United Nations, where they thought that they would prevail. Bevin wasn't bluffing, so what he said would be done was done.     ←   ZScarpia   14:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a bit simplistic. The British deliberately did not cooperate with the UN in the implementation of the Partition Plan, including now allowing the UN Palestine Commission to enter the area to do its work of marking borders and trying to set up temporary governments. They also refused to transfer any functions of government (like the police, the post, the railway authority, etc) to anyone. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

As I wrote, British Government policy was to refuse to involve the British government and armed forces in implementing the partition resolution. That included refusing to allow various UN bodies involved in implementing partition to enter Palestine. It also included, rather than a refusal to hand over power (as far as I know, no bodies were demanding that power be handed to them), a refusal to organise a transferral of power.     ←   ZScarpia   19:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

So, part of the problem looks to be that sections of the article are sourced to single texts so that things which should be presented as viewpoints, if they are presented at all, are being presented as facts? I broadly support what you've written.     ←   ZScarpia   14:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to find the discussion we had about this. Pappe and Karsh say basically the same thing about the British. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, here it is. It's long and meandering but you'll see there are several sources, from both sides (although we didn't find one describing the British POV) that support what currently only Karsh is used for in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

From what I can tell that was a discussion about one point of possible agreement with Karsh on the British role at the UN Partition Plan article talk page, the section on British diplomacy in this article has a much broader scope than the material that was the focus of the discussion you mentioned. Please, do not misrepresent a discussion in another article to try and sway discussion in this one.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? You said you had a problem with a section of the article because it was sourced only to Karsh, then bolded part of a quote to show what you had a problem with. I pointed you to another discussion that has another source from someone with opposing views to those of Karsh, that supports the part you bolded. Now I'm "misrepresenting" another discussion to "try and sway" this one? You've gotta be kidding me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You were responding to someone else who objected to the section being sourced to one book and I was clearly not raising the material about them not "considering the consequences" of evacuating as my only objection to the material, which actually isn't addressed in that discussion anyway. By saying that the various sources "say basically the same thing about the British" and "support what currently only Karsh is used for" you are implying that all of my objections, as well those of other editors, were addressed by that discussion when they were not. So, yes, you were misrepresenting that discussion to try and sway this one. Anyway, focusing on the British diplomacy section in general I think a source like this should be considered: http://books.google.com/books?id=UcSUgrDsD_sC&pg=PA10&dq=Israel+British+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KqoTT7z9PNLogAek6ODAAw&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Israel%20British%201948&f=false. It is still a partisan source, but that makes the implication of British inaction actually serving to harm the Palestinian Arabs more significant. Similarly, the British pressuring Arab countries against taking Jerusalem provides yet another example of how this section currently presents only one very biased side of the question.

That source goes to another point that I haven't raised. The background section at the top of the article says "Jews would get 56% of the land, of which most was in the Negev Desert" implying that somehow they were getting stiffed by mostly receiving a barren wasteland for a state, a typical claim from pro-Israeli propagandists. Of course, the Zionist leadership and President Harry Truman made the Negev's inclusion in the Jewish state a redline for their support despite it having little to no Jewish population. They were so insistent on it the Yishuv established small settlements in the territory during the negotiations so as to lay some claim to the Negev. Only after the Negev was included did the Yishuv finally support the U.N. Partition. This point comes up with the 1948 War when Gelber notes the British were pushing this idea of having the Negev included in the Arab state, which would then be included in Transjordan, and describes motives that are clearly more about geopolitical maneuvering to build up its biggest ally in the region as opposed to being motivated out of any desire to oppose Israel as the current wording implies.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You have clearly either not read that discussion or not read the sources. Also, in the future, perhaps you shouldn't bold stuff if you don't want people to address it specifically.

Anyway, I'm starting to see a pattern here. You think certain things "imply" all kinds of stuff which you personally object to or that you have "had enough debates about" or whatever. How about you add whatever it is you think would balance what's currently in the article (none of which you seem to object to as not being reliably sourced) and we can go on from there? This kind of forumesque back and forth isn't really helping if you don't say what exactly you want to change and how.

For example, the fact that most of the land was in the Negev is noted in many if not most sources that discuss this topic. So the way to fix whatever "implication" you think this has (other than the fact that a large chunk of the proposed state was not arable land) is to go ahead and add more information and spare us your opinion about "pro-Israeli propagandists" or whatever. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I object to bias on Wikipedia in general and beyond that my opinion on the subject itself only serves to inform my edits in the sense that it is a result of sympathetically reviewing the information and arguments from both sides. What I can say is that the material included in this article and the information omitted make this article fit the classic pro-Israeli narrative of the war. As for suggestions, I just provided one in my previous comment on a possible second source to use in the British diplomacy section. My intention is to make changes to the article, but I would prefer some input first.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

What page is Negev stuff on?

What kind of text do you want to add regarding British diplomacy? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The bit about the British push for Jordan annexing the Negev should be on the page that pops up when you click the link. It does not mention there what I said about the Zionist leadership seeking the Negev, so that might need a different source, though I think one is provided on another article. As far as text, my ultimate desire would be a change so significant that suggesting it would be more complicated than just making the change. However, any ideas about how to bring material in from the source above or any source you may find would be helpful. If can think of ways to make the changes yourself that would also be good.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it would hurt if we summarize the Karsh stuff and move some of the quotes from British officials to the footnotes, for example. Then you can add other sources that elaborate on the British support to Transjordan (not that I think it really changes the essence of what Karsh is saying). I don't think anyone contests the fact the the British supported the Arabs diplomatically and to some extent also militarily (for example the Arab Legion). The reasons they did so are open to some debate which we can elaborate on. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Karsh's viewpoint is a bit one-sided and it would be a good idea to balance it with that given in other sources.     ←   ZScarpia   11:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

---

To be still quoting from the 'academic' Pappe as though his anti-Israel propaganda had any historical or scholarly merit, is beyond parody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.213.102 (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

15 May 1948 - Invade or intervene: description of where Arab forces invaded or intervened.

Books have been written on which side caused the fighting starting on 15 May 1948. My immediate concern or rather hope is to see that the lanquage is neutral. To describe it as invaded Israel, without specifying exactly where in the former Mandate the troops entered, is to assume two things:-

1 The Declaration of the Establishment of Israel of 14 May 1948 was valid; and

2 Israel's legal boundaries included the whole of the former Mandate.

At best, the use of invade must be limited to the area set aside for the Jewish State under Resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947.

The arguments for the invalidity of the Declaration of 14 May 1948 are as follows:-

a Resolution 181(II) was only a recommendation.

b PART I of Resolution 181(II): Future constitution and government of Palestine: Clause: A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE provides:-

3. Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in part III of this plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948.

Two months from 14 May 1848 takes you to 14 July 1948. The Declaration of 14 May 1948, being slightly premature. appears to be in breach of the Resolution.

c Unless it means Eretz Israel, the Declaration did not specify identifiable boundaries.

The use of neutral terms such as marched into the area of the former Mandate avoids these problems.Trahelliven (talk) 06:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The term invade is used by reliable secondary sources. For instance, the relevant chapter title of Morris' book 1948: The First Arab-Israeli War is "The Pan-Arab Invasion, 15 May - 11 June 1948". The meaning of the term "intervene" is less clear. Invading means entering a place in large numbers, often in a military context. Intervene means to try to prevent something. When you say "intervened in" a country, it isn't clear what the purpose of the intervention was. I also don't think that the term "invade" implies that the entity being invaded has a legal right to that territory. The hatnote at D-Day says: "This article is about the first day of the Invasion of Normandy..." I don't think that implies that Germany had a legal right to France. I think your objection can be dealt with by saying that they invaded the territory of the former mandate.GabrielF (talk) 07:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Something like "entered Palestine and engaged the Israeli forces" would correctly summarize both where they were and what they did. Zero^talk 07:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Zero0000

If the Declaration were valid, part would no longer be Palestine. If the Declatation were invalid, they really should still be Jewish forces. I prefer as I suggested.Trahelliven (talk) 09:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

GabrielF

In the context of what happened on 6 June 1944, no-one today would suggest that the Allies were not enttled to take on the Germans on the beaches of Normandy, whatever word is used. In the context of 15 May 1948, where it is stll debated, which word to be used is still important. intervened is the word used in the Arab League Cablegram of 15 May.

I prefer not to use Palestine because it suggest the invalidity of the Declaration of 14 May, particularly if they entered what was included in the proposed Jewish State. Perhps invaded/intervened in the area of the former Mandate.

The Jewish Virtual Library tries to have it both ways. It talks about invaded the tiny new country but the map shows them entering areas some of which at least were set aside for the Arab State. Trahelliven (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2012 UTC)

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/invade48.html Trahelliven (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the map clearly shows the invasion of Arab armies into Jewish populations. For example... Arab Legion bombardment of West Jerusalem, Syrian advance over Degania, Egyptian attack on Yad Mordechai, etc--Jabotito48 (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Jabotito48

1 If you say that the Arab forces attacked Degania and Yad Mordechai, and the Arab Legion bombarded West Jerusalem, I bow to your superior knowledge. Until I read your post, I had heard of neither Degania nor Yad Mordechai. The map on the Jewish Virtual Library website mentions neither place nor that West Jerusalem was bombarded. I have now worked out where both of the first two places are and concede that they appear to have been in areas under Israeli control.

2 The map only indicates the movement of Arab forces, not what they attacked.

3 Other than showing isolated Jewish settlements, the map makes no mention whether areas were populated by Arabs or by Jews. It shows areas held by Israel

3 My post did not suggest that the Arab forces did not enter areas populated by Jews: it talked about areas set aside for the Arab State.

You are confusing three things, areas populated by either Arabs or Jews, areas set aside by the plan of partition for the two states, and areas occupied by each state.

Unfortunately, at critical times they never coincided. Trahelliven (talk) 03:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

What is your damn point, professor? Arab armies INVADED Israel one day after declaring independence (yes, including those areas to be part of the Jewish State according to Resolution 181). The JVL map clearly shows it and this map evidences it. And this is a matter of historical facts, not political opinions.--Jabotito48 (talk) 04:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

There are numerous reliable secondary sources that describe the Arab attack as an invasion. I don't think that anyone can seriously dispute that. To describe it as anything other is revisionist in the extreme. I voice my concurrence with Jabotito48 and GabrielF.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Jabotito48

GabrielF

Jiujitsuguy

I have no problem with the proposition that the Arab armies invaded that part of the former Mandate to be included in the Jewish State and which contained a majority of Jews. However a comparison of the JVL map and the map of the proposed partition in the article on Resolution 181(II). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_181 suggests that on 15 May 1948 Jewish forces had occupied the area between Jerusalem and the coast. The JVL map suggests that part of the Jordanian army moving south of Ramallah and north of Jerusalem never entered any of the area set aside for the Jewish state. On any test it did not invade Israel but engaged Jewish forces on the road to Jerusalem which was either part of the proposed Arab State or the City of Jerusalem. That was rather an intervention in the proposed Arab State and East Jerusalem and an invasion of the West Jerusalem rather than an invasion of Israel.

That is why the words invaded/intervened in the area of the former Mandate are neutral.

I might add that the Declaration of the Establishment of Israel of 14 May does not make clear exactly where Israel's boundaries were.

Could you provide me with a list of some of these reliable sources. Trahelliven (talk) 07:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_181 suggests that on 15 May 1948 Jewish forces had occupied the area between Jerusalem and the coast." That's because the war didn't start on 15 May 1948, but in November 1947. Regarding Israel's boundaries, the declaration of independence itself doesn't say anything about it (just "Jewish State in Eretz Israel, named State of Israel"). Obviously Ben Gurion knew Resolution 181 concerning borders was dead since November 30 because of Arab aggression and Israel could expand some defensible territory in the war to come. Israel, like many countries in the world, delimited its boundaries fighting in wars. 1949 Armistice Lines + Golan Heights + East Jerusalem were annexed after being conquered and are under Israeli law, so we can assume these are Israel's current boundaries (despite international community doesn't recognize last two), but Resolution 181 has no validity since December 1947. The West Bank, on the other hand, has never been annexed by Israel and is under partial military occupation and partial control by the Palestinian Authority.--Jabotito48 (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Jabotito48

1 If Ben-Gurion considered Resolution 181(II) dead concerning boundaries since 30 November 1947, I fail to understand how ELIAHU EPSTEIN, Agent, Provisional Government of Israel could say in his letter to President Truman seeking recognition from the U.S government, sent immediately after the Declaration of 14 May 1948, that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947. [36] Indeed in the Declaration itself at the end of the critical paragraph, the following phrase is used:- AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL.[37]

Israel did indeed later expand its boundaries at various later dates, but on 15 May 1948, the boundaries were those of the Resolution of 29 November 1947. Any action by nations of the Arab League outside those boundaries cannot be considered invading Israel.

2 As to which of the two sides was the most the aggressive is still a matter of dispute. I draw your attention to the Cablegram from the Secretary of the Arab League to the UN on 15 May 1948. [38] Trahelliven (talk) 04:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

All

In the article it says:-

Four of the seven countries of the Arab League at that time, namely Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Syria, backed by Saudi Arabian and Yemenite contingents invaded[94] territory in the former British Mandate of Palestine on the night of 14–15 May 1948.

Did they INVADE the area set aside for the Jewish State and the City of Jerusalem or did they just INTERVENE in the area set aside for the Arab State? As written it is not clear. Trahelliven (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Although I agree with a lot of what you say, your use of Epstein's memorandum violates the rules about interpretation of primary sources. There are a number of possible reasons why Epstein might have written what he did, but you can't just assume that it was the real position of the Provisional Government. In fact, as verified by multiple secondary sources of high quality, the Provisional Government explicitly decided to not specify boundaries. The minutes of their meetings have been available for years and worked over by historians. I don't recall any argument that those minutes were wrong and Epstein's exceptional version was right. Zero^talk 11:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The issue is very complex.

As Zero0000 pointed here above, stating that "Arab forces entered Palestine and engaged the Israeli forces" is what reflects the best what most of the reliable sources would agree on and the facts.

Palestinian historians, most New Historians but even some traditionnal historians have underlined for long that in April 1948, Arab States didn't want to participate in the war between Jews and Palestinians Arabs but Haganah/Palmah/IZL operations inside but also outside... the area allocated to the Jewish State (at Acre, Jaffa or on the Jerusalem road), the Palestinian exodus from these areas and the pressure of their own populations forced them to intervene.

Their intentions are not well known. Arabs States were not united but 5 (or 4 : Lebanon resigned decided not to participate only a few hours before 15 May) and their goals were different. Jordan clearly wanted to leave Israelis alone and just take as much as possible as the Arab State and Egypt wanted to prevent this plan or the part of this plan that was known...

81.247.40.95 (talk) 15:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

About this :

"Israel did indeed later expand its boundaries at various later dates, but on 15 May 1948, the boundaries were those of the Resolution of 29 November 1947. Any action by nations of the Arab League outside those boundaries cannot be considered invading Israel."

Stricto censu, it is true that after 15 May :

• Egyptian aircrafts bombed Tel-Aviv
• Iraqis forces tried to invade Yezreel valley without success
• Syrian forces tried to invade Israel by south and norht but failed completely and just established a 2 km bridgehead on north

But what about the fact that :

• On 13 May, Acre the whole costal plain west of Galile and out of the area allocated by the UN partition plan was attacked and captured during operation by Hagannah Ben Ami ?
• On 27 April, Jaffa (Arab according to the Partition Plan) was attacked even if it failed due to intervention of the British forces
• the road from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem was attacked and controlled by Palmach forces starting April 5

81.247.40.95 (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Trahelliven

Israel's declaration of independence doesn't say the country is based on boundaries defined by UN resolution 181. It only says this UN resolution recognizes (not "invents") the Jewish People's right to his homeland in Eretz Israel. Quote:

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

Anyway, Arabs also invaded territories assigned to the Jewish State by resolution 181, so further discussion is useless.--Jabotito48 (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

All

The point I made about Epstein's Letter to Truman is indeed OR and I would not put it in the article itself. In the article on Israel–United States relations, I included the corresponcence between Epstein and Truman after the key words of the Declaration. I made no comment on it. Perhaps I should not have included the following sentence as being OR:-

The phrase in Eretz-Israel is the only place in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel containing any reference to the location of the new State.

A phrase like the Arabs marched their forces into the former Mandate (or Palestine) is a neutral way of putting it. Trahelliven (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I think the current sentence is enough neutral and precise:

Four of the seven countries of the Arab League at that time, namely Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Syria, backed by Saudi Arabian and Yemenite contingents invaded territory in the former British Mandate of Palestine on the night of 14–15 May 1948. The forces of Syria and Egypt launched attacks outside of the proposed Arab section of the Partition Plan.--Jabotito48 (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not neutral. The word "invaded" is indeed a problem, as one cannot invade a party that invites participation. The last part is correct but misleading since there were far more Jewish forces than Arab forces outside their respective UN-nominated regions. Zero^talk 04:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Zero, your claim that there were "far more Jewish forces than Arab forces outside their respective UN-nominated regions" is utter gibberish and contrary to the body of mainstream scholarship. Jewish forces were outnumbered and outgunned by their Arab adversaries. The Arabs later attempted to rationalize their defeat by blaming it on inferior numbers and arms, a laughable charge. This pattern of excuses repeated itself in the Arab defeats of 1956, 1967 and 1973. Moreover, the body of mainstream scholarship regards the combined Arab assault as an invasion and they classify it as such.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• From Simon Innes: "It was at a meeting in Damascus during the first week of May 1948 that the Chiefs of Staff of the Arab armies formulated a plan for the invasion of Palestine." ME Conflicts p.22
• From J.N. Westwood: "The war may be divided into six periods. The period of the civil war in fact began with skirmishes before the British left and continued to 15 May 1948 when the Arab forces invaded". History of the Mid East Wars, p.14
• From Hamlyn Ivan V. Hogg: "On the following day the infant state of Israel was invaded simultaneously by armies from Egypt, TransJordan, Syria and Lebanon....with an overwhelming superiority in firepower." And "The tenacity of the Israeli defense shocked the invaders." Israeli War Machine p.19-20
• From Schiff: "Five Arab armies invaded Israel: The Syrians, the Arab Legion, Lebanese, Iraqis and Egyptians." Page 38, History of the Israeli Army 1874-1974
• From Herzog: "On the night of 14/15 May, the armies of five Arab states (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq) crossed the borders and began the invasion of Palestine." The Arab-Israeli Wars, p. 47
• From Leslie Stein: "The very next day, the fledgling state was invaded by the Arab armies of Syria, Iraq Transjordan and Egypt plus a small contingent from Saudi Arabia," The Making of Modern Israel 1948-1967, Page 16

This debate represents an attempt to insert highly revisionist non-mainstream views into an encyclopedia. The above-noted sources reflect the mainstream consensus. I don't think there's anything more to be discussed on this subject.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

"far more Jewish forces than Arab forces outside their respective UN-nominated regions"... yeah, sure, that's because Arab armies were repelled and DEFEATED before reaching Tel Aviv, but they performed an authentic invasion, no doubt.--Jabotito48 (talk) 06:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy

J N Westwood: What did the Arab forces invade?

Hamlyn and Schiff talk about the invasion of Israel. The discussion is about the invasion of/intervention in Palestine . How do you describe that? The emotive wording of Hamlyn suggests he is pro-Israeli. Trahelliven (talk) 06:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

"He is pro-Israel"... is that an argument? How many "pro-Palestinian" sources are in this article? (Tom Segev, Illan Pappe, Arab scholarships are clear examples). It's irrelevant whether they are pro-something, the only important thing in this case is if they are reliable sources or not. Arab invasion of Israel on 15 May 1948 is a matter of historical fact. Period.

By the way, it isn't hard to feel sympathy for a little nation – rebuilt after Holocaust – when its invaded by seven feudal armies committed to its destruction. It's a natural feeling, just like journalists and historians feeling sympathy for Republicans during the Spanish Civil War. However, neutrality, historical truth and rigor among encyclopedias and historians should be possible despite personal opinions (with all do respect, I don't think is your case). But it has nothing to do with this discussion, so I won't say anything else about it.--Jabotito48 (talk) 06:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

To Jiujitsuguy, you can call it gibberish all you like, but it is still true. The largest Arab force (Arab Legion) had orders to not enter the Jewish part of the UN partition and never did. The battles with them were all in the Arab part or in Jerusalem. The main battlefields (Ramle/Lydda, Latrun, Etzion) were in the Arab part. To say that the Jordanian army invaded Israel would be an objective falsehood. The main bulk of the Egyptian army and most of the battles with them were in the Gaza district, again in the Arab part. The evidence is that the Egyptian army would have continued northwards into the Jewish part, but they were stopped at Isdud (in the Arab part) so they didn't. The Jewish operations in the western Galilee were of course in the Arab part. The Jewish forces in Jaffa already in April were in the Arab part. The only important exception to this was in eastern Galilee, where Syrian forces certainly did invade the Jewish part and occupy a small region for a short time. In contrast to this, a large fraction all of Mandatory Palestine was already under effective control of Jewish forces before May 15 except for the parts (all in the Arab part) that the Arab Legion controlled. I don't know why you brought up the total size of all forces, as that is irrelevant to this particular issue. As for your list of sources, of course if you include the word "invade" in your search terms you will find what you want, but if you use other terms instead, like "intervene" you will find other sources. Zero^talk 06:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute, are you saying Arab armies invading areas assigned to be part of another Arab State is not "invading"? Because we could also say many Iraqis wanted the US to enter their territory to liberate them from Saddam, but everybody knows what happened in 2003 was an invasion.--Jabotito48 (talk) 07:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Arab forces were welcome by the Arab population and were called by local leaders to participate to the the war. At the time, Yishuv armies outnumbered Arab Palestinian forces by a factor 3 (30,000 vs 10,000) and the Arab population was living an exodus of 350,000 people from all the villages located to the Jewish State (out of 450,000 in these areas !). All mixed cities had been attacked by Yishuv forces (Haifa, Tiberiade, Beit Shean, Safed and Acre), Jaffa was under siege and despite the Arab siege of Jerusalem, the city was close to collapse under Jewish control... Please, check. 87.65.230.171 (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

@Trahelliven, I forgot to mention Leslie Stein, "The very next day, the fledgling state was invaded by the Arab armies of Syria, Iraq Transjordan and Egypt plus a small contingent from Saudi Arabia," The Making of Modern Israel 1948-1967, Page 16. Westwood refers to the invasion of Mandatory Palestine including the area allocated to the Jewish State under the Partition Plan. As for "Hamlyn," That's the publisher. The author is Ivan V. Hogg and your inference as to whether he's pro Israeli, pro Egyptian or pro Chinese is irrelevant. He's an RS and his scholarly work on the subject satisfies all the criteria for RS.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

According to Walid Khalidi, Yishuv invaded the future Arab state in April 1948... 87.65.230.171 (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

@Zero, I didn't "include the word 'invade' in [my] search terms." I have all the books in my library and if you want to see the relevant pages, give me your email address and I'll send them to you. Your erroneous assumptions about how I conduct my research says volumes about how you conduct yours. Also, You've been here long enough to know that we have an obligation to cite what the Reliable Sources say and not what we think they should say based on our own Original Research. I've given you six such sources with no effort.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that you don't read New Historians or Palestinian historians. Leslie Stein is just a little biaised and he doesn't have the goal to summurize the global know-how from a global point of view, as wikipedia must. 87.65.230.171 (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I take it back about your search methods, sorry. Of course I know that many sources use the word "invade". But it remains true that is one of the povs about the event and that there are other povs in reliable sources too. We are supposed to present multiple viewpoints. When we introduce a topic we should either try to represent the main povs at once, or we can be vague at the start and leave the details for later paragraphs. An example of the latter would be "entered the territory of the former mandate and engaged the Israeli forces", which is precise, does not contradict either the Israeli or Arab viewpoints, and leaves for later questions about motives and justifications. The only thing I'm arguing against is starting off with a statement matching the perspective of only one side. Zero^talk 08:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You forget who accepted the UN Partition Plan and who rejected it. You forget who started this war and who defended themselves. You forget Palestinian Arabs started this war in 1947 by attacking traffic, perpetrating bombings, pogroms... blocking routes and isolating communities. Only then Jewish forces took Jaffa (from where Tel Aviv population suffered sniper shootings), conquered towns to unify their communities, etc.--Jabotito48 (talk) 07:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It can be fairly said that Irgoun started that war at the end of 1945. The Partition plan was a step in the Israeli war of independence. And again in 1947, it is not the Arab who started the war in attacking the traffic : that was a terrible civil war resulting from madness attacks from both sides. Jewish forces took Jaffa, the Jerusalem road and the coastal plain while outnumbering Palestininan Arab forces by a factor 3. 87.65.230.171 (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Irgun started this war in 1945?? lol. Sure, and Arabs started in 1920, 1921, 1929 or 1936... individual attacks against British, Jews and Arabs is not a war. This war started after Arabs (both Palestinians and Arab League) rejected UN Partition Plan and begun attacking the Yishuv in 1947. Every historian knows that.--Jabotito48 (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The 1936-39 Arab revolt is the Palestinian Arab unfructuous independence war. After this, they were definitely defeated on the military point of view. Then WWII occured. The Yishuv independence war started just after WWII. This was lead by the Irgun and Lehi. Mapai and Mapam hesitated to join it because they prefered the political fight. But they joined it at some time anyway or fought it (as during the hunting season). During this period numerous political solutions were proposed to parties but all failed. Finally, due to the cost of staying in Palestine, British decided to leave. The UN voted the partition plan. A terrible civil war immediately erupted between the Palestinian Arabs and the Yishuv. In less than 1 month in April 1948, the Palestinian Arabs were defeated and the neighbouring Arab armies intervened in the war with Israel. On 15 May they engaged Israeli forces and except at Latrun and Jesuralem were totally defeated.

That is history. What you refer to is the Israeli Mapai collective memory.

91.180.76.137 (talk) 06:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy

Leslie Stein: I refer you to the review of Leslie Stein's book [39] which considerw him good on factual detail - But the passages where Stein is ready to have a critical look at Israeli history are rather rare. Very often Stein is apologetic on disputed issues of Israel’s history. Though found throughout the book, this becomes most apparent on the issue of the Palestinian refugees (chapter 2)..

It may or may not be correct to say that the Arab armies invaded Israel, but they intervened in the part allocated for the Arab State. If anyone can be said to have invaded the parts allocated for the Arab State, it was Israel. Trahelliven (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

@Trahelliven, First, you've linked me to a site in German and that's not a language that I'm familiar with. Second, Stein's book was published by Polity[40] a leading and well-respected international publishing company. The book has undergone a vetting process and subjected to peer review.[41] It meets or exceeds all criteria for RS. Your personal opinion, while valued as a colleague, is truly irrelevant to the building of an encyclopedia. What is relevant is reliable sources of which I've provided in abundance.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy

I apologise for linking you to the wrong website, but I used the wrong bracket at the end of the reference, now fixed. I will not comment myself on the book by Stein but I note that all the reviews in the Willey article [42] are from Jewish or Israeli reviewers, with the exception of the review from History Today. Do you know who wrote that review? Of course when advertising a book, it is not customary to give uncomplimentary reviews. Trahelliven (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Another quote from the review "If one is interested in a summary of the classical Zionist narrative and some answers to the New Historians, the book is worth reading it. But on the other hand, if one looks for an account taking both sides into consideration it is hardly recommendable". Our task here is not to explain the classic Zionist narrative, but to detail all significant views and opinions that have been published in a balanced way. Thus Stein can be used, but it should be remembered that he only represents one of a number of views that should be included in the article. Dlv999 (talk) 09:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

@Trahelliven: Concerning your comment "but I note that all the reviews in the Willey article are from Jewish or Israeli reviewers, with the exception of the review from History Today"(emphasis added); First, that's not true. Second, are you implying that because someone is of a particlar ethnicity, it precludes him or her from rendering an impatial opinion? If that's the way you feel, I think we're done here.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

On 15 May 8:00

• Carmeli brigade had taken Acre and the whole Western coast of Galilea (allocated to the Arab State by the UN Partition Plan)
• Irgoun and Kyriati brigades was besieging Jaffa and had taken control of all Arab villages around the city
• Harel brigades had taken the control of the road from Bad al Oued to Jerusalem in the aera allocated to the Arab State by the UN Partition Plan
• Etzioni and Harel brigades with the support of Irgoun had attacked East Jerusalem in the corpus separatum

This represents much more squared km than those the Arab had ever conotrolled of Israeli territory during the '48 war.

On the other side Iraki and Syrian armies tried to invade Israel, Egyptian army had planned to do so by never really reached the borders and the Arab Legion had no ambition to attack Israel at all. More, all were welcome by Arab population.

So who invaded what ? That is quite complex. 87.65.230.171 (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy

My apologies agaim. I made the classice mistake of not scrolling to the bottom of the page.

When one reads on a contraversial topic, one must first look at the background of the writer. A writer may give an excellent narrative but beware of remarks beyond the strict narrative. I always think that the classic case is the events of 1975 in Vietnam: The fall of Saigon or The liberation of Saigon. Trahelliven (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we just agree to use both invasion/intervention everywhere this issue occurs? There is a solid basis for the use of intervention. See http://www.mideastweb.org/arableague1948.htm Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

secondary sources for use of intervention. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=nyl9BoCABEsC&pg=PA49&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mSHJT6qWFc7B8gOsnNzKDw&ved=0CEoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false Pg 49 http://books.google.com.au/books?id=CC7381HrLqcC&pg=SA4-PA4&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mSHJT6qWFc7B8gOsnNzKDw&ved=0CGcQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false pg 456. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Z-f0IjwPFi4C&pg=PA129&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mSHJT6qWFc7B8gOsnNzKDw&ved=0CG0Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false pg 129. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=gWt2Sx5UUtwC&pg=PA93&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0yTJT53_BMil8QOrpYz-Dw&ved=0CDwQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false pg 93 http://books.google.com.au/books?id=_kArEWMDT18C&pg=PA169&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0yTJT53_BMil8QOrpYz-Dw&ved=0CEcQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false Pg 169 http://books.google.com.au/books?id=GX8jX9dJXIAC&pg=PA80&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EybJT9nBL8jA8gOH_ZnIDw&ved=0CF4Q6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false pg 30 http://books.google.com.au/books?id=K378ypOnH1oC&pg=PA594&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_SbJT-_LFcjX8QOb3unfDw&ved=0CEIQ6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false Pg 596 http://books.google.com.au/books?id=ghf_OBksgykC&pg=PA92&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XifJT-bjF8fi8QP0kvX9Dw&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAjgU#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false Pg 92 http://books.google.com.au/books?id=qm9kiTbtSWgC&pg=PA65&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5yfJT-CkOIXV8gOY0qnfDw&ved=0CGYQ6AEwCDgU#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false Pg 65 http://books.google.com.au/books?id=dCModlUjqMQC&pg=PA187&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lyjJT5jIJI3J8gO1k_z_Dw&ved=0CEEQ6AEwATge#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false pg 187

  [[http://books.google.com.au/books?id=hz42_ifdVkoC&pg=PA119&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lyjJT5jIJI3J8gO1k_z_Dw&ved=0CE0Q6AEwAzge#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false   Pg  119  http://books.google.com.au/books?id=u0sD-8r7I5QC&pg=PA49&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NCnJT7fGFtP-8QOipKTLDw&ved=0CFwQ6AEwBTgo#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false  pg 49  

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=LQcOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA55&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=winJT8TVGoPF8gPYz_jJDw&ved=0CF4Q6AEwBzgy#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false pg 55 Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)