Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War/Archive 2

Repeated Arab assaults and attacks lead to the formation of Jewish armed groups. Two of these groups, the Stern gang and the Irgun, resort to acts widely condemned by both Jews and non-Jews as terrorism; this terrorism was against British and Arab targets, both military and civilian.

Let's see... Weren't the "Stern gang" (a.k.a Lehi) and Irgun created in the late 30s? And weren't their actions carried out towards the late 40s? So why put them in 1920? And finally, wasn't there a third organisation... Haganah? Which could not be called terrorist no matter how hard you try? Funny that's not mentioned. --Uriyan

---

Don't ask me... all I did was change "self-defense groups" into "armed groups", and delete the bit about "Most of whose actions were non-controversial" (or whatever it said), since I'm sure a lot of people (e.g. Palestinians) don't consider any of those acts non-controversial.

---

This article needs a lot of work. It doesn't feel NPOV, but then I really don't know much about the creation of Israel. There are some grammar issues (changing tense, not to mention most of it is in the 'present' tense) but I didn't fix them simply because most of this article is about the creation of Israel, _not_ the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. I don't know if there is a topic already present that covers the creation of Israel. If there is, most of this should be eliminated except what can be merged. If there isn't, most of this topic probably can be moved to a new topic covering Israel's creation. The information on the war itself could do with some expanding too. Takers? Rgamble

The creation of the State of Israel is more-or-less about the same series of events as the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. You can't separate the two, unless you are referring to the 150 year history of modern political Zionism which led to the creation of the State of Israel; I agree that this would belong in a separate article, and it already is. See the article on Zionism. Maybe we should note this in the article's text. [[[user:RK|RK]]]

---

With the Golan Heights, it is not exact as to what actually constitutes the Golan Heights or where the border ran. There was a debate between Britain and France over the northern border of Palestine, and the location of Jewish settlements in the region did affect the outcome, however, most of the Golan Heights was then in French hands. Danny

---

Removed this:

(Much in this entry is disputed by many Palestinian Arabs, but not by most Western historians.)

As it basically says that the Palestinians are lying and this is the correct version. Instead, lets find a version that we all can agree on. BL

---

Changelog:

Mandate of Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state The Arab claimed it was unreasonable that Israel should get the best land, most of the industrial capacity and 60% of the area, when they made up less than a third of the population

Jews were not less than a third but almost exactly a third of the population. What "industrial capacity" are you talking about? Palestine did not have a developed industrial system (and neither does Israel now, 50 years later). Finally, perhaps it is 55% (not 60%!) of the area, but that's including the Negev desert, which takes up a very fair share. Now if you remember, Arabs rejected a portion the Negev at the Camp David talks because they thought it was useless. Now it's definitely suited for urban development (after Israel installed water pipes that lead water from the Kinneret to the Negev); 50 years ago it was a total loss. You can't consistently use both an argument and its opposite.

([1]) and held title to only 6% of the land

As you might have perhaps noticed, most of the lands were state-owned. If you bring up the "communal holding" argument (as in here), then it's invalid, as it doesn't give a figure to compare with. What the reader would probably want to know is land utilization, of the Jews and the Arabs. Otherwise it's comparison between apples and oranges.

([2]). The Arab leadership rejected the partition offer, turning to neighboring Arab nations to ask for their help to prevent the UN partition plan from going into effect, in return for the lands of Palestine.

It is documented in many places that the Arab leadership's request was to remove the Jews (I believe the wording was "pushing the Jews into the sea"). It seems unfortunate that you ignore this. I find this "invention", which goes in a direct contradiction to the facts, fallacious and biased.

You ignore the fact that the first part of the 1948 war was a defensive. Well, it was. Egyptians were contained at kibbutz Yad Mordechai; Syrian forces were stopped in Jezreel; Israel was unable to hold the Jewish Quarter of Old Jerusalem, but still grasped on the Jewish Western neighborhoods. As to "/who else" part: do you really want to know this, or you don't care? --Uri

---

I'm somewhat surprised that an article allegedly about the Arab-Israeli War has only a few paragraphs on the actual war! I appreciate the desire to put things in context, but that should fall short of describing the entire thing... Martin

---

Israel made efforts to allow Arab Jews to come to Israel. "Operation Magic Carpet" culminated a deal to transport 45,000 Yemeni Jews to Israel and "Operation Ezra and Nechemia" transported 130,000 Iraqi Jews to Israel. In both cases, the Arab states of origin had beforehand prohibitted their Jewish populations from leaving.

See http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Immigration/carpet.html and http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Immigration/ezra.html.

Egyptian Jews were expelled after Israel's 1956 invasion of the Sinai Peninsula, and in the context that some of them had participated in an Israel-sponsored bombing plot in 1953. And Morocco, the source of some 240,000 Jewish refugees, prohibited emigration to Israel until 1961.

The paragraphs above don't belong in this article which is supposed to be about the 1948 war. Move them to History of Israel or somewhere similar. -- zero

Good point. I will also remove " and more than 600,000 Jewish refugees (See Map and Israeli Estimate), were created during this conflict." for the same reason.137.186.217.254 07:16, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

I removed "The British administration did little to mitigate the riots." because it is wrong. The British increased their military and police force several fold, killed thousands of Arabs in more or less open battle, imposed curfews, conducted hundreds of raids, destroyed hundreds of houses (including at least one whole village), and hanged more than 100 Arabs. -- zero

---

A number of errors that stand out:

1) The goal of Plan "D" (or Dalet), prepared by the Haganah High Command in March of 1948, was not just "to take over and control the areas alotted to the Jewish state in the partition plan", but was to include "those of the blocs of Jewish settlements and such Jewish population as were outside those borders" (see http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/d442111e70e417e3802564740045a309?OpenDocument). Also, Plan "D" should be moved to the latter part of the "First phase".

2) The "First phase" announces that "Arabs...took the offensive" without taking into account the facts as related by numerous leaders of Israeli military planning, including what Mr. Menachem Begin, an Irgun leader wrote (again, from http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/d442111e70e417e3802564740045a309?OpenDocument):

"In the months preceding the Arab invasion, and while the five Arab States (Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Transjordan) were conducting preparations for concerted aggression, we continued to make sallies into the Arab area. In the early days of 1948, we were explaining to our officers and men, however, that this was not enough. Attacks of this nature carried out by any Jewish forces were indeed of great psychological importance, and their military effect, to the extent that they widened the Arab front and forced the enemies on to the defensive, was not without value. But it was clear to us that even most daring sallies carried out by partisan troops would never be able to decide the issue. Our hope lay in gaining control of territory.

"At the end of January, 1948, at a meeting of the Command of the Irgun in which the Planning Section participated, we outlined four strategic objectives: (1) Jerusalem; (2) Jaffa; (3) the Lydda-Ramleh plain; and (4) the Triangle.

"Setting ourselves these objectives we knew that their achievement would be dependent on many factors but primarily on the strength in men and arms that we would have at our disposal. We consequently decided to treat the plans as 'alternatives': we would carry out what we could. As it happened, of the four parts of the strategic plan we executed only the second in full.

"In the first and third parts we were able to record important achievements on the battlefield - but we did not attain decisive victories.

"As for the fourth part, we were never allowed an opportunity even to begin to put the plan into operation. The conquest of Jaffa, however, stands out as an event of first-rate importance in the struggle for Hebrew independence."

Also, Ben-Gurion writes (again, from http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/d442111e70e417e3802564740045a309?OpenDocument):

"...Field troops and Palmach in particular were thus deployed and quickly showed the mettle that was soon to animate our army and bring it victory.

"...New Jerusalem was occupied, and the guerrillas were expelled from Haifa, Jaffa, Tiberias, Safad while still the Mandatory was present. It needed sagacity and self-control not to fall foul of the British army. The Hagana did its job; until a day or two before the Arab invasion not a settlement was lost, no road cut, although movement was seriously dislocated, despite express assurances of the British to keep the roads safe so long as they remained. Arabs started fleeing from the cities almost as soon as disturbances began in the early days of December 1947. As fighting spread, the exodus was joined by bedouin and fellahin, but not the remotest Jewish homestead was abandoned and nothing a tottering Administration (meaning the British Mandatory) could unkindly do stopped us from reaching our goal on May 14, 1948 in a State made larger and Jewish by the Haganah ..."

3) The "Third phase" claims "[t]he UN approved" accepting Israel as a member state in May 1948, when that did not happen until 11 May 1949, or the latter part of the "Fourth phase", as outlined on this site.

4) Again, in the "Third phase", it is claimed that:

"Lebanese, Syrian, Iraqi, and Egyptian troops invaded Israel and joined the arab guerrillas. A bitter war ensued."

While obviously and shamefully short, especially considering this article is supposedly concerning these two sentences, it is factually incorrect. Another snippet from http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/d442111e70e417e3802564740045a309?OpenDocument:

During the months preceding the end of the Mandate, Jewish forces had moved to occupy key cities and areas in the territory designated for the Arab State. Ben-Gurion writes that before the Mandate ended:

"... no Jewish settlement, however remote, was entered or seized by the Arabs, while the Haganah ... captured many Arab positions and liberated Tiberias and Haifa, Jaffa and Safad ... So, on the day of destiny, that part of Palestine where the Haganah could operate was almost clear of Arabs".

The major part of Jerusalem meant to be internationalized under the partition plan, had also been occupied by Jewish forces.

On the termination of the Mandate, Jewish forces moved to occupy further territory beyond the boundaries specified by the Partition resolution. This lead to the influx of neighboring Arab militias, who entered, according to these reasons as outlined in the cable the Arab League sent the United Nations Secretary-General:

"Now that the Mandate over Palestine has come to an end, leaving no legally constituted authority behind in order to administer law and order in the country and afford the necessary and adequate protection to life and property, the Arab States declare as follows:

"(a) The right to set up a Government in Palestine pertains to its inhabitants under the principles of self-determination recognized by the Covenant of the League of Nations as well as the United Nations Charter;

"(b) Peace and order have been completely upset in Palestine, and, in consequence of Jewish aggression, approximately over a quarter of a million of the Arab population have been compelled to leave their homes and emigrate to neighbouring Arab countries. The prevailing events in Palestine exposed the concealed aggressive intentions of the Zionists and their imperialistic motives ...

"(c) The Mandatory has already announced that on the termination of the Mandate it will no longer be responsible for the maintenance of law and order in Palestine ... This leaves Palestine absolutely without any administrative authority ...

"...

"(e) ... The recent disturbances in Palestine further constitute a serious and direct threat to peace and security within the territories of the Arab States themselves. For these reasons, and considering that the security of Palestine is a sacred trust for them, and out of anxiousness to check the further deterioration of the prevailing conditions and to prevent the spread of disorder and lawlessness into the neighbouring Arab lands, and in order to fill the vacuum created by the termination of the Mandate and the failure to replace it by any legally constituted authority, the Arab Governments find themselves compelled to intervene for the sole purpose of restoring peace and security and establishing law and order in Palestine.

"The Arab States recognize that the independence and sovereignty of Palestine which was so far subject to the British Mandate has now, with the termination of the Mandate, become established in fact, and maintain that the lawful inhabitants of Palestine are alone competent and entitled to set up an administration in Palestine for the discharge of all governmental functions without any external interference. As soon as that stage is reached for the intervention of the Arab States, which is confined to the restoration of peace and establishment of law and order, shall be put an end to, and the sovereign State of Palestine will be competent in co-operation with the other States members of the Arab League, to take every step for the promotion of the welfare and security of its peoples and territory ..."

Here is where the meat of the story begins, which the UN document sums up with the following:

"The fighting between the Arab forces on one hand and what were now Israeli forces on the other escalated into the first Middle East War. The Israeli forces were well manned and well trained, drawing on the Jewish Brigade formed during the Second World War, and on the various armed groups such as the Haganah, the Palmach, and the Irgun. They were well equipped with arms acquired within and without Palestine during the Mandate period. The intervention by the Arab States in support of the "Arab State" in Palestine proved largely ineffective in the face of decisive Israeli military superiority. Within weeks, Israel had occupied most of the territory of Palestine, with the exception of the "West Bank" of the Jordan, held by the Arab Legion from Jordan and the Gaza Strip, held by Egyptian forces (map at annex II.) But for these exceptions, Israel now controlled virtually the entire territory claimed by the Zionist Movement at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 as the "Jewish national home"."

5) The section "First Truce" incorrectly states that "[o]n June 11 a general truce was agreed upon largely due to mediator Count Folke Bernadotte's efforts". The cease-fire was ordered by the Security Council on 29 May 1948 and Bernadotte was sent to the region to supervise the cease-fire.

6) The omission of Bernadotte's end is surprising. Both of his recommendations were rejected by both sides, but before the UN could act on either of the recommendations, Bernadotte was assassinated by Lehi (Israel's official explanation, although they then claimed that Lehi existed only as a political group and had disbanded its military), sometimes referred to as the Stern Gang. A report to the UN on the assassination included information that the Count's killers were wearing Israeli army uniforms and also noted that "the Provisional Government of Israel must assume the full responsibility ... for these assassinations ..." The Security Council requested the Israeli Government to investigate the assassination and to submit a report to the Council, but no report was received. (see the UN document)

7) The section under "1949 Armistice Agreements" is incorrect. Though the agreements were separately signed from Feb through July 1949, they "specified inter alia that the 'armistice between the armed forces [was] an indispensable step toward the liquidation of armed conflict and the restoration of peace in Palestine', recognizing 'the principle that no military or political advantage should be gained". The agreements "being dictated exclusively by military, and not political, considerations' did not prejudice the political positions of any of the parties on the ultimate settlement of the Palestine question. Thus they gave Israel no legal right to the territories occupied during the 1948 hostilities, beyond the lines specified in the partition resolution." (see the UN document)

"While in occupation of territories beyond those allotted by the resolution, Israel applied for admission to the United Nations on 29 November 1948. It was criticized in the Security Council for its non-compliance with United Nations resolutions and on 17 December 1948 its application failed, receiving 5 votes in favour, 1 against, with 5 abstentions." (see UN document)

8) Another omission is resolution 194, establishing "the right of peaceful return of the Palestinians to their homes (a right that has been reiterated annually by the General Assembly up to the present time)". (again, see UN document)

9) Again, the "1949 Armistice Agreements" section omits any mention of the inconclusive Conciliation Commission for Palestine, whose report showed that Israel "now envisaged a Palestinian Arab State limited to the territories occupied by Egypt and Jordan, but this was unacceptable at the time to both the Palestinian Arabs and to the Arab States". (see UN document)

10) The article omits the correct date that Israel was admitted into the UN: 11 May 1949.

11) The "neutral" stasis of the article is betrayed by the mentioning of Jews having their rights diminished in Arab states without mentioning the reciprocal situation as existed (and exists) in Israel.

More errors may remain, but that is all the time I have now...

Earthsound 22:12, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Please be proactive and work on the article itself. Of course you are right that there are lots of problems with the article as it stands. Btw, the Bernadotte assassination is at Folke Bernadotte and Lehi so maybe no more than a pointer is needed here. -- zero 06:10, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Zero: I got my numbers for the sizes of the Arab regular forces from Eugene Rogan's article Jordan and 1948: The Persistence of an official History in The War for Palestine, Cambridge University Press, 2001. This is the text of his footnote:

Glubb, Soldier with the Arabs, p. 94; Madi and Musa, Tarkih al-urdunn, p. 472. British sources set the relative strength of Israeli and Arab forces on the eve of Britain's withdrawal at 74,000 and 19,200, respectively. Wilson, King 'Abdullah, p. 170.

I have no reason to believe that this source is better than yours. But as there seems to be disagreement on the numbers, I think we should include a footnote or citation or whatever to indicate where we got them. Where did you get your numbers? Is there disagreement between different reports?

DanKeshet

I got the values from Morris, Righteous Victims. I know there are differences of opinion on the numbers. I'm going away for a few days and won't have time to look at the citations until I get back (however I'm not sure I'd trust Glubb except maybe for the Jordanian strength). -- zero 21:55, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

WHO removed Plan Dalet?????????????????+ BL 04:36, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Minor edit: changing "Naqba" to "Nakba." The latter, spelled in Arabic with kaf, means disaster, calamity, catastrophe. The former (incorrect) transliteration, spelled in Arabic with qaf, means opening, breach, hole; and I am given to understand that it has the vulgar colloquial (and anatomical) meaning that you might expect. (Note: my username is JBJD, and even though I'm logged in, the preview of the page doesn't appear to list my username after my comment. I'm a Wiki newbie and admittedly haven't gone through the FAQs at any length. Anybody know how to do this, or should I just RTFM?)

Fixed several English language problems, and added references to Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and the general leader of the Palestinian Arabs during the Mandatory period. He was missing from the text, possibly because of his collaboration with the Nazis and family relation to Yasser Arafat.

The war simply cannot be understood without the inclusion of the Grand Mufti. He set in stone both Palestinian Arab ideology and their strategy of of sporadic, disorganized terror.

There are other strategic omissions, including the Siege of Jerusalem and the Arab League meetings of November and December, 1947, during which the war was declared and funded.

---

Noam Chomsky [3] among others says that Al-Aqsa intifada is NOT the result of Sharon's visit to the temple mount. OneVoice 21:14, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I reverted whoever changed the text to read that the Israelis refer to this war as the "War of Conquest", because it seems exceptionally unlikely. If anyone has evidence that this is indeed the case (rather than "War of Independence") then please supply it here. DJ Clayworth 15:27, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

UNGA Resolution 194 [4] stipulates many things. One of these is return of refuges (Article 11), with no word limited only to Arabs. However, a condition is set: wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours. Arabs ignored this article no less than Israel. In addition, Arabs ignored Article 7 (free access to Holy Places). Access to Jerusalem (Article 9) was also blocked. Both Israel and Arabs, as well as UN Security Council, ignored Article 8 (demilitarization of Jerusalem, corpus separatum). -- 128.139.226.36 08:14, 24 May 2004

The text as you had it implies a symmetry of reaction on the refugee issue, since no other issue is mentioned. Of course there was no such symmetry. The Arabs announced they would implement the refugee clauses if Israel did too, but of course Israel was deadset against this. --Zero 10:53, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

There are many different published figures for the strength of the Arab armies. The numbers in the article come from the book of Israeli military historian Amitzur Ilan, which is a recent specialist book that examines this question closely. Don't change them unless you have a source that you can argue is better. --Zero 09:10, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jersualem

"May 28, when the Arab Legion succeeded in expelling Israeli forces from the Arab quarters of Jerusalem"

What happened on May 28 1948 was the occupation and subsequent expulsion of 1,600 Jews living in the Jewish quarter of the Old City for generations. Calling the Jewish quarter "Arab quarters" and speaking only about Israeli forces is an ugly piece of disinformation.

Avihu 16:34, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It feels a little biased in favour of the Zionists to me. There seems to be no mention of the King David Hotel or any such things. While attacks on Jews and Christians prior to the declaration of the state of Israel are mentioned, there is no mention of any attacks on Arabs. Also, there seems to be an assumption that the population split into Muslim, Jewish and Christian with the accompanying assumption that Arabs are muslim, Racial Jews are religious jews and 'white people' are christian. I don't know, feels like it could use a little work. But I agree, very hard topic to work on...

NPOV issues

This article is marked as in NPOV dispute. What are the outstanding issues? I have one

• The estimate of 600,000 Jewish refugees from this conflict, attributed to JAFI, is a misattribution: the figure is of Jewish people who sought refuge in Israel during the period from 1948 to 1972; of the figure of 260,000 from Morocco, very few of that number left in 1948-1949.

What else? ---- Charles Stewart 17:20, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This:

The status of Jews in Arab states varied greatly from state to state. Some observers wish to maintain that the Jewish populations were more "prevented from leaving" than "expelled". Their civil liberties, too, were in many cases vastly inferior to of their Muslim fellow citizens. For example, in Yemen, Jews were and are prohibited from carrying weapons of any type, even to the point of prohibiting traditional ceremonial Yemeni knives, carried by a large portion of the Yemeni population. The net result was that after over two thousand years of living in Arab controlled countries, the atmosphere was sufficiently anti-Jewishly charged that almost to a man, entire communities of Jews in the hundreds of thousands felt they had no option but to take leave of old homes and move to the uncertainties of the new Jewish state of Israel in effect becoming "refugees" in everything but name. These fears were compounded by the Holocaust, which ended with the defeat of Nazi Germany three years before the founding of the state of Israel.

Someone please dePOV both. Sir Paul 07:29, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

This entire article went from bad to worse. It is sad to see everything on wikipedia about Palestine/Israel so completely distorted. It happens on both sides, but particularly tends to ignore the Palestinian viewpoint and that of the very important work of Israeli Historians such as Avi Shlaim. It's a shame, because it lowers my faith in Wikipedia as a whole. If I can't get good information about the 1948 War, what can I trust on the site?

Minor Change

Revised grammatical issues in the first section. Removed the statement "for their own interest" from the section about the adjustments to Paletine's borders, as it had no support or references.

Authors should revise line to be more accurate.

"This immigration drew immediate and violent opposition from local Arabs." Should be revised. All indications that this was certainly not the case. For the most part, the local Arab population did not become armed for many years. The violent Jewish gangs (Stern gang for one) had a agenda from the early 20's to annex the entire area they now (outside of the Sinai) control. The Turks were able to keep control of the Arabs because only the Jordanians East of the West Bank had any considerable fighting force. The Egytians and the Persians did much later, but had little issue with Israel in the 20's.

This is incorrect, there was indeed immediate (and violent) opposition to Jewish immigration in the 1920s by the Arabs of Palestine, see for example: the Jerusalem pogrom of April, 1920 (which actually led to the creation of Haganah), the attacks on Tel Hai in 1920, and the Jaffa riots of 1921, not to mention the riots of 1929. While the Revisionist Zionists did indeed want to control the entire area of modern Israel, they did not organize until 1925 (and then mostly in Europe) and the Irgun was not created until 1931, and the Stern gang until 1940. The chronology you are giving is not correct. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Numbers of planes

I have found many references to Israel flying Czechoslovakian built Messerschmidt Bf-109's (and possibly some ex RAF planes) as part opf their airforce in 1948 - so removing the table as being of dubious accuracy. See - amongst others: http://history1900s.about.com/library/prm/blkillingmachine5.htm http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1470135,00.html http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/bf109/Bf109Story.htm http://www.goisrael.com/pressroom/pressReleases.asp?actiontype=show&id=15122 http://www.bf109.com/foreign.html

"At the huge outdoor Israel Air Force Museum, 4 miles southwest of Beersheba, you’ll find 90 wonderous airplanes neatly parked. See a Messerschmitt bought from Czechoslovakia in 1948, a Kfir, Israel’s first fighter plane, and the current Israel President’s, Ezer Weizmann’s, Spitfire. An excellent documentary film is shown inside the very Boeing 707 that was used to rescue the Entebbe hostages in 1976. Phone 07-990-6428."

Not enough to give good numbers - but enough references to show the table is not good. 62.252.0.7 22:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted your change, as I think it is somewhat hasty on your part to simply remove the table based on the above links. We provide a source for the data: (Source: Jehuda Wallach (ed.), "Not on a silver platter"). If there is a legitimate dispute with the figures given by this source, one might consider:

• strengthening the source attribution, as in:
  • The ordnance on May 15, as given by Jehuda Wallach, were as follows....
• mentioning that a dispute may exist, as in:
  • Additional sources show that other aircraft may have been available....

I really don't see the need to wholesale remove data where a scholarly source has been provided. Func( t, c, @, ) 10:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Problem is that once you discredit one part of a "scolarly source" - and the presence in Israels Air Force Museum of a fighter plane that the source claims not to have existed seems good evidence to me - means that the whole credability is shot, at least with respect to that part of the work. I deliberately took out just the table because I wanted to avoid weasel words showing some sort of "controversy" then the author clearly simply got it wrong. 62.252.0.7 11:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The source of this disagreement can be seen at Avia S-199. Those aircraft were converted Messerschmidts, with the airframe pretty much unchanged. That's why many sources call them Messerschmidts. Secondly, they didn't start arriving until some weeks after May 15, so they won't appear in a list of Israel's equipment as of May 15. --Zero 13:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Arab ordnance

The table of ordnance gives the Haganah estimates made at the time with incomplete information. It is not a table based on the best information that has become available since then. As Morris notes (Victims, p217), "In practice [the Arabs] had far less, much of the equipment (especially the aircraft) being unserviceable, and some of the remainder never reaching Palestine." A good source on this in English is "The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Arms Race: Arms, Embargo, Military Power and Decision in the 1948 Palestine War" by Amitzur Ilan (Hebrew University). It can't be too biased to the left, since even Daniel Pipes likes it. --Zero 16:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

British aircraft

I don't have good sources on this...but...I understand that the IDF was across the international border in Egypt in early 1949 and indeed came under British and American pressure to leave, however I think they were already out of Egypt by Jan 7. I could easily be wrong. Also, I have one book that says the British planes were shot down over Egyptian territory; is it wrong? Ian, if you could cross-check your information with another source that would be good. Also, I think that the names of the pilots of the planes is way too fine detail for a summary page like this. --Zero 22:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll check a few more sources. I don't have a strong opinion on the level of detail. --Ian Pitchford 07:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's Aloni's description: "Early next morning 1 January 1949, and Israeli B-17 bombed the Egyptian ships that had shelled Tel Aviv the previous evening, but no hits were recorded. It was at this stage that the successful Israeli offensive resulted in a British demand that Israel's forces should retreat from Sinai back to the international border otherwise Britain would have to act in accordance with the 1936 Anglo-Egyptian Treaty. The British demand was followed by American diplomatic pressure, and the Israeli Prime Minister David Be-Gurion ordered the Israel Defence Force to retreat to the international border. This however, did not end the Israeli offensive and a new effort to cut the Egyptian Army at the Gaza Strip was launched on 4 January 1949 centred on Rafah junction... The major diplomatic breakthrough finally came on the morning of 5 January 1949 when the Egyptian government informed the UN of its willingness to accept a ceasefire and open negotiations with Israel under the UN umbrella. As a consequence a ceasefire was agreed to start at 1600 on 7 January 1949." (pp. 21-22). Boris Senior, who took part in the attack on the RAF on 7 January, also reports it as an accident. He thought the planes were Egyptian. See Senior, Boris (2005). New Heavens: My Life as a Fighter Pilot and a Founder of the Israel Air Force. Potomac Books. ISBN 1574886797. pp. 240-241. BTW there's what looks like an accurate list of Attributed Israeli Air Combat Victories here--Ian Pitchford 12:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Azzam Quotation

With reference to Kriegman's addition of "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades" (Howard M Sachar, A History of Israel, New York: Knopf, 1979, p. 333) it's worth noting that Sachar doesn't provide a reference. I haven't been able to find any source for this quotation anywhere, although there are 662 pages including the phrase on the web, plus many mentions in books. --Ian Pitchford 18:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know - I guess the search a while back was inconclusive? Of course I do not support reliance on such quotes, and prefer official statements, if kept, maybe something like (the original source of this quote is difficult to ascertain or apparently unknown) should be added. Things like that, true or not, are all over the web, when the official statement is in part in one place, and in full nowhere yet.John Z 22:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I searched google, Jewish Virtual Library attributes the same quotation to Isi Leibler, The Case For Israel, (Australia: The Globe Press, 1972), p. 15.. Would still be interesting to find original press reports, such as a newspaper article. But it is generally difficult to find first-hand documentation to events that happened so long time ago. Did Stalin really say "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic"? It is widely believed that he said that, but is it possible to source it? --Heptor 22:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

For those interested, we did some earlier digging (Ian doing the yeoman's work) here. --Goodoldpolonius2 01:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I must say, I find it striking that this quotation is subject to such careful scrutiny; not inappropriate, but striking. There was no rush to correct the clearly biased implication created when the words of Azzam's cablegram, calling for a "United State of Palestine," were put into the article. That sounds so reasonable: A United State. The Arabs were fighting for a shared state where everyone was equal, like the US is supposed to be. How noble.

Yet it would be hard to refute the well-known fact that the Mufti of Jerusalem and other Arab leaders were calling for a Holy War of annihilation and that it is common, even today, for Arab leaders to say one thing in public forums (especially in English) and another thing in Arabic. And back then, it was far more common for people all over the world, including major Western figures to make overt antisemitic comments (not to mention that killing people who are encroaching on your homeland is universally considered OK, i.e., Azzam's statement was not that extreme). After all, how else would you explain Hitler's rise to power while spewing out vicious antisemitism and how, to Hitler's surprise, it was so easily, and eagerly converted into genocide?

My Israeli sources tell me that the cleric in this video, for example, is a major religious figure. He gave this talk on Palestinian Authority TV (!) while the Palestinians had supposedly abandoned their goal of destroying Israel (and Israelis) and were negotiating for peaceful coexistence. You can't expect the Israelis to take seriously the notion that the Palestinians are committed to peaceful coexistence while the young men in the audience in the video (and at home watching their TVs) are being indoctrinated with this hateful drivel. (If you look at the video and don't want to watch the whole thing, be sure to catch the very end.)

The point is that this stuff goes on all the time, on all sides of armed conflicts. We have videos today and only the few references of Assam's statement in the past because video is now ubiquitous, and because the linked video was filmed for dissemination via TV. The research some of you did on this issue indicates it is true, or at least in the range of truth certainty of the average factoid in the Wikipedia. Kriegman 6:26 UTC, September 23, 2005

Concerning the "clearly biased implication" I was the one who originally wrote those words, with input from Brian Tvedt and Heptor at the Arab Israeli conflict page, with the intent of giving a sourced replacement of a phrase that had long been in the article, but which had been reasonably enough objected to. Jayjg then put it into this article. I am sure he will be happy to hear of his clear pro-Arab bias, or at least blindness to it, by the way. In any case, I tried to summarize the relevant content of this longwinded cablegram, and if anything the need for brevity made me say slightly more than the cablegram had said. I believe it is more accurate than the current version, which says that the Arab states intended to set up a state in Palestine, which they did not precisely say. I hope you realize that when it comes to quotes, summaries or paraphrases, the question of bias simply does not come up, they are presumed to reflect the speaker's bias by anybody reasonable. The phrase "United State of Palestine" is a direct quote from the cable. If it makes the Arab League look good, it is because they wanted to look good there. The only question is whether the quote or paraphrase is accurate or not. Additional comments, like "ostensibly" are in fact an intrusion of bias, spin or at best should be sourced, not really made by a Wikipedia editor. It would be like putting "pretended that" in front of the other Azzam quotation. As I said I would, I put up the cablegram at wikisource ( I did find it in full somewhere else, but it is cleaned up, more readable and much easier to find now.) So I am changing back more or less to the previous version, and putting in the link to the full statement; anybody can now check the accuracy; I would be happy with any better paraphrase than mine.John Z 10:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your changes, and your critique of "ostensibly." But I am puzzled by your statement that "the question of bias simply does not come up … when it comes to quotes, summaries or paraphrases." Of course, the words are what they are. But putting in one speaker's words and not mentioning other words said by the speaker can obviously be very biased, as in an ad for a movie that says "'Best movie of the summer" (Madam Reviewer, ABC News)" when what Madam Reviewer wrote was "Best movie of the summer to avoid." Putting in a Palestinian Leader's English press releases and not mentioning its inconcsistency with what he was saying in Arabic to his own people leaves out information the reader may need to evaluate the ingenuousness and/or purpose of either set of words.

For example, Arab leaders may also exagerrate their inflammatory anti-Israeli rhetoric when speaking to their own people. The current Palestinian leader may be willing to be more conciliatory with the Israelis. But can he survive in power without saying more hard line things in Arabic? Without presenting the context---that he is negotiating with Israelis, while needing to maintain a precarious power base among his own people---presentation of either set of his words could surely be biased. Thus, the meaning of a speaker's words cannot stand alone without understanding the context in which they were said. If you don't want us to interpret the meaning in the context, we need at least to provide information about said context to the reader so they can form their own interpretation. If we don't do that, then surely presenting quotations can be biased, even if the words are accurately presented. Kriegman 12:03 UTC, September 23, 2005

Actually, my concern about the quotation, and quotations in general, goes far beyond the use of this one from Azzam. In this particular case the quotation is ambiguous and the context that would allow an analysis is lacking because no one at all seems to know where it's from. However, the more serious issue is that quotations such as these are being used as a substitute for an analysis of actual policies and actual events as illustrated by the original source material. The quotation does not reflect Arab goals or strategies. Illustrations are being used in Wikipedia in the same way. Take the article on the Six-Day War, for example. It contains a picture of a "1964 Jordanian postal stamp depicting their territorial ambitions", but this has nothing at all to do with Jordan's actual goals or strategy in the 1967 war. --Ian Pitchford 12:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Ian, as an evolutionary biologist, your equating actions with intentions ("actual goals") is surprising. Animal behavior is full of deceptions and, as Trivers pointed out, self-deceptions (often in the service of more effective deception). Goals and aims are not necessarily reflected in actions. Actions may be modified and not used to pursue one's actual goals in response to threats and the conflicting aims of others. If you believe that Jordan did not have the ambition of taking over the area (and that other Arab nations such as Egypt, not just Israel, were in conflict with Jordan over such aims) then you are reading human territoriality and ubiquitous human empire building (especially when there is little opposition) from a very different perspective than that which seems to me to be consistent with human history (not to mention the territoriality of the ape line from which we appear to have descended). The same with genocidal action.

I believe there are people on both sides of this particular conflict that would eagerly wipe out the other side, committing genocide in the process if necessary. On the Palestinian side, they are held in check by Israeli might and weak opposition from Arab moderates who dare not speak up. On the Israeli side, they are held in check by strong opposition from moderates (who can speak up without fear) coupled with opposition from realists who understand that engaging in vicious, unrestrained genocidal behavior would force America to stop backing Israel, making Israel's long term survival tenuous at best.

In my evolutionary reading of human history, "ethnic cleansing" is the rule, not the exception. The modern, enlightened experiment with democracies of mixed race/ethnicity is a novel, recent, and fragile development (as can be seen as Europe increasingly struggles with immigration). America is a young nation whose success in mixing groups has largely been dependent on incredible abundance and a lack of any real threats from neighboring nations. Rights and freedoms are being squeezed here and we may see terrible ethnic tensions either tearing this nation apart or leading to much more control by an oligarchy. (Whoops! I almost forgot to mention the ethnic cleansing massive genocide (and subsequent vicious slavery) upon which America was built. It is the very recent struggle to create "civil rights" that must be seen as novel and too short lived to be an exception that challenges the rule.)

I wasn't around in 48. But from what I remember from the 67 and 73 Arab-Israeli wars, and from the limited information you all were able to verify about the Azzam quote---coupled with this evolutionary view of human history/behavior---I find your questioning the interpretation of Azzam's words to be rather incredible. Not only does the standard interpretation seem correct, it doesn't even strike me as remarkable. It is ordinary human behavior from someone who believed, at the time, that his side could get away with it. I believe we would hear lots of Israelis (not just fringe fanatics) speaking like that---i.e., like the Palestinian cleric in the video linked above---if they believed they could get away with it. Your interpretation, on the other hand, strikes me as a "Man bites dog" view. I would suggest that, in science, more incredible theories---that are inconsistent with the bulk of the evidence and require a novel view---require more impressive evidence (see Hume "On Miracles" ;-) Kriegman 13:16 UTC , September 23, 2005

Unfortunately, evidence is lacking here. Again, dealing specifically with the Azzam quotation, the interpretation is credible. Whether it's accurate or not, or whether Azzam actually said those words, I don't know. I do know that it's of no great significance in understanding the events that took place. The same is true of the picture of a 1964 postage stamp: it doesn't help us to understand Jordan's goals or actions. These and other quotations and images are being used for propaganda effect, not to enlighten. --Ian Pitchford 13:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Ian, this seems an about face. Didn't you once argue that a 1938 speech by Ben Gurion was highly relevant to Israeli actions during the 1982 Lebanon War? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but not in isolation. Also it was a real speech by a significant leader whose policies were realized in a series of wars. --Ian Pitchford 21:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Inter-Arab fighting during the 1947-1949 Arab-Israeli War

Hi folks,

I am very interested in the 1947-1949 Arab-Israeli War and want to learn more about it. Wikipedia has helped me very much in this regard. I do, however, have one question regarding this particular conflict. My question is as follows:

Was there organized fighting BETWEEN Arabs during the course of the 1947-1949 Arab-Israeli War? Please let me know if there was. Thanks.

Best wishes,

Albert

There were frequent disputes but no actual fighting of any significance. --Zero 22:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info.

Best wishes,

Albert

China

", while China broadly backed the Arab claims" Which China? Was it nationalist china (today Taiwan) or Red China (mostly referred as China today)?

Since they had their own civil war at that time it's not clear who was the supporter of the arab side. 213.191.70.226 12:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

British Involvment

I have added a passage describing that in some instances British army deserters actually assisted in attacks on Jews. This is not very often disputed anymore and I provided references and an external link at the bottom.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 06:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

There is one well-known case of a bombing in Jerusalem that was aided by two British deserters. Your attempt to portray this as a larger phenomenon using words like "many" is misguided and misleadionist side. In the absence of a proper description of this rather minor (from the history point of view) phenomenon, your sentence is gone. --Zero 06:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, Juling. In fact there weren't many and there were also British soldiers who actively helped the Zian, the Haaretz article refers to the Ben Yehuda Street bombing, which was indeed carried out by a couple of deserters. Otherwise, it is hard to argue that there was any sorts of widespread attacks on Jews by British deserters. There were certainly complaints, during the Hadassah Medical Convoy and other events, that the British did not intervene as quickly as they should have, but nothing like what you describe.

On another note, Zero -- I haven't found anything to back up the Mufti quote, but are we sure the source is bogus? I don't know what resources you have access to, but aparently (according to the International Journal of Middle East Studies ) there is a lot of useful material on the tactics and private statements of the Mufi in Isa Khalaf's 1986 Oxford University Thesis, "Arab Factionalist Politics and Social Differentiation in Palestine in the Last Decade of the Mandate" -- it may be on ProQuest. --Goodoldpolonius2 07:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Proquest has it for sale. KHALAF, ISSA K., D.Phil., University of Oxford (United Kingdom), 1988, 330 pages; AAT D-85473. Here's the abstract: This study, based primarily on British and Arabic archival material and Arabic published sources and newspapers, is a socio-political analysis of Palestinian Arab society during the period 1939-48, a time of rapid socio-economic changes (because of the war economy), yet largely ignored by historians and social scientists.
    The thesis analyzes the effects of social differentiation on factionalist politics by examining structural change at all levels of society. It also elucidates the external factors that exacerbated Palestinian factionalism: the socio-economic and political policies of the colonial state, Jewish settlement, and divisions in the wider Arab world. The central theme of continuity and change in Palestinian political sociology is interwoven with a secondary theme: They help explain the society's cohesion/fragmentation at the mandate's end. Therefore, the study presents a coherent analysis of the complex factors--internal to Palestinian society and external to it--that converged on Arab Palestine to cause its disintegration in 1948.
   For various complex structural and political reasons, the emergent classes were unsuccessful in their challenge of the urban notables. Also, the notability implicitly manipulated the Zionist danger and used this as a powerful weapon to mute any opposition, especially the middle class of professionals, intellectuals and bureaucrats.
    Ultimately, the rapid changes from vertical political cleavages to horizontal social stratification did not have the time to produce coherent political groups rooted in new social bases, groups that would have been able to bring the internal reform and to mobilize the various interests in society on other than factionalist lines. The transitional social structures uneasily coexisted with a highly factionalist socio-political mode of action and behaviour. This rendered the society extremely fragile. The 1947-48 war and the convergence of a number of military, political, and diplomatic pressures inevitably led to the unravelling of Arab society.

The reasons I am suspicious are that lots of quotes like this have been claimed but few proved, and that the Mufti did not in general talk like that. He might have been an extremist, but was an educated extremist and not an intemperate fanatic. Once I tried to locate the source of a similar quotation claimed to lie in the US National Archives but found that the document number was a fake. --Zero 08:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I found that Khalaf's thesis was published as a book, available at Amazon etc. It can be partially searched at print.google.com, but I couldn't find anything like this "quotation". --Zero 11:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, Zero, thanks for looking for it. I think its fair to say that there is not a lot of good evidence for the quote existing. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Given

• the well-known Nazi collaboration of the Mufti, (whith quite understandable motives, i.e., he was fighting to keep the Jews out of Palestine, but his motives are not the point),
• the fact that I couldn't find any Internet source that disputes this very widely cited quotation (and I can easily find innumerable refutations of other Jewish claims of genocidal action or motives on the part of the Palestinians, i.e., even the Palestinian sites I found didn't present any reason to doubt that the Mufti called for a war of genocide). For example, consider the 550 page Encyclopedia of the Palestine Problem that was dedicated to the Mufti. In it, you will find msssive justifcation for the Mufti's actions and not a word (that I could find) about whether or not the Mufti said what he is most famous for having said. Why would Palestinian sources not address such an outrageous Israeli lie? Maybe it isn't a lie. Indeed, it has been suggested that one of the reasons that Arafat changed his name when he was seeking power was to distance himself from the Mufti, who was a close relative. (Later, he openly acknowledged his admiration of the Mufti.)
• the fact that there is a citation for the quotation and I didn't find any reason presented here to consider it a bogus source,

for these reasons, I am putting back the Mufti quotation.

Eroneous doument numbers may be fakes or errors. But even if you found a fake and could prove that it was an attempt to distort history, we can't assume that someone else's writing is automatically wrong just because it reached a similar conclusion. For example, if we can show that a Holocaust denier made up bogus "facts" with false references, we still cannot therefore claim that another historian that questions the extent of the holocaust is using bogus references. Is there a reason that has been presented to consider the cited source a bogus work? If I missed that, please point it out to me. Kriegman 00:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

None of that is relevant. If you want to insert a quotation, you need to give a convincing source for it. Propaganda tracts like Myths and Facts don't count. --Zero 01:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I repeat, "I didn't find any reason presented here to consider it a bogus source." Apparently you know of such and can conclude that it is a "propaganda tract." If that is well known and has been established here, I may have come late to the party. Can you point out where that was established? If it hasn't been so established, on what basis are you making the claim? Kriegman 04:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

It's your baby; you have the onus to justify it's inclusion. So far you have not. You can't just insert any old rubbish and demand that someone else disprove it. --Zero 04:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

What!?! We not only need to cite sources, we need to cite sources to prove our sources are correct? Shouldn't we then need to cite sources to prove our source supporting citations are valid?

Of course, bogus, biased tracts should be discounted and not used as bases for statements in the Wikipedia. However, other than well-known, estblished peer reveiwed journals and famous books, probably between 50 and 80% of the sources cited in the Wikipedia could be summarily deleted by anyone who disagreed with their statements because the sources are not well known to most editors and nobody has proved that they are unbiased texts. This is clearly not happening. But this is the basis for your deletion.

You might be justified (1) to delete it if it is an unusual notion that contradicts other information and the source is not well-established (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence), (2) to delete it if there is some specific reason to conclude what you concluded (about it being a propaganda tract that distorts its "facts"), or (3) to note/edit the article to alert the reader as to doubts that some folks may have about the basis (source) for including the event in the article.

Certainly the fact that such a quotation is attributed to him, and is believed by nearly all those on the Israeli/Jewish side of this conflict, and is presented in innumerable forums as a "fact" is information that must be included if the Wikipedia is to present a complete picture of the 1948 War and the way it is understood today. This is simply information that must be included in any unbiased (!) presentation of the way the 1948 War is understood by one entire side of the conflict, even if it might be justified to modify the presentation of the quotation in some way (consistent with option 3).

But simply deleting the quotation and thus not allowing mention of something (the attributed quotation) that is almost universally believed by one side of this conflict/war to be a fact---and, I believe tellingly, unlike many, many less important "facts," is not disputed by the other side (probably because they either know it to be true or assume it to be because it is so un-extraordinary as to be commonplace [see the cleric in this video] and the Mufti was an active Nazi collaborator so that such an ordinary sentiment issued from a man known to be sympathetic to the content and who was, at the time, an active leader promoting armed violence among his followers is reasonable to believe)---distorts this article. Kriegman 19:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

So I can copy stuff here from Electronic Intifada and you won't complain. That will come in handy. --Zero 00:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a rather inadequate response. You know you can be insulting without calling people names. I never suggested that anything anyone wrote can be used as an authoritative citation. A facetious response that shows that you did not read what I wrote is quite insulting. This is the kind of response that leads to an edit war. How did you become an administrator if you fail to engage the issues?

I have read other sources which stated there were other instances of deserters involvement in attacks, I believe the source was the "Jewish Virtual Library" which really isn't all that biased. In any case I have changed the passage to -"In fact in one case (the Ben Yehuda Street bombing) British deserters actually assisted in an attack on Jews".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 11:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added the names and a reference in case anyone wants to learn more. --Ian Pitchford 12:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Table Edit

I have changed the table to reflect the growth in the number of Arab soldiers throughtout the war. Currently it looks like the Jews outnumbered the arabs by about 4:1 by Dec. 1948 which wasn't the case. If someone can find a reliable estimate for their troop strength at the end of the war I would be grateful.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 08:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The Israeli forces outnumbered the Arabs by about 2:1. I'll add the ref and figures as soon as I have time. --Ian Pitchford ^{Talk | Contribs} 09:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't mean to suggest that the Jews didn't outnumber the Arabs, I just knew it wasn't by a 4:1 margin. Thanks for the help by the way.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 09:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. I should have the references to hand somewhere. --Ian Pitchford ^{Talk | Contribs} 09:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Mufti's quotation

The removal of the quotation (see the exchange in the "British Involvement" section above) seemed arbitrary and the deleter did not respond to any of these points:

• The source is widely referenced and quoted with the attributed quotation appearing in innumerable accounts of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Almost all accounts written from an Israeli perspective include this quotation and many (if not most) from a more neutral position.

• While pro-Arab accounts tend to leave out this quotation, unlike innnumerable refutations of Israeli/Jewish claims that have been called into question, no one presented any reason to doubt the accuracy of this quotation, and a refutatation of it is tellingly absent in the pro-Arab literature. As I noted in the discusion of the deletion of this quotation above:

"For example, consider the 550 page Encyclopedia of the Palestine Problem that was dedicated to the Mufti. In it, you will find msssive justifcation for the Mufti's actions and not a word (that I could find) about whether or not the Mufti said what he is most famous for having said. Why would Palestinian sources not address such an outrageous Israeli lie? Maybe it isn't a lie. Indeed, it has been suggested that one of the reasons that Arafat changed his name when he was seeking power was to distance himself from the Mufti, who was a close relative. (Later, he openly acknowledged his admiration of the Mufti.)"

• The latter fact must be taken with the entirely unextraordinary nature of the quotation coming from a known Nazi collaborator who was horrified by Zionism and the influx of Jews into Palestine. and who at the time was calling his people to arms, i.e., to engage in murderous force in war against the Jews. Not only was such a quotation a commonplace sentiment at the time, but even when Article XXII of the 1995 Oslo 2 agreement obliged the parties to "abstain from incitement, including hostile propaganda, against each other," the current Mufti of Jerusalem (who was appointed by Arafat) openly called for violence against Jews, "colonialist settlers who are sons of monkeys and pigs." He called on Allah to "take revenge" on them and to "destroy America, for she is ruled by Zionist Jews." Later, he praised suicide bombings as a "legitimate" "response to the occupation" and called the 6,000,000 dead in the Holocaust "a fairy tale." And he said the prospect of Jews praying on the Temple Mount would lead to "massacres the magnitude of which only Allah knows ... massacres and rivers of blood." He also said, "I am filled with rage toward the Jews. They are the most cowardly creatures Allah ever created." To suicide bombers, he said, "Oh, Muslims, attack and you will gain one of two blessings: either victory or martyrdom.... The Muslim loves death and martyrdom." (Source: The Boston Globe) The notion that such sentiments were not rampant back in 1948 and/or that this totally ordinary quotation and the sentiment it represents must be better documented than innumerable other claims in the Wikipedia is simply biased.

• If there were good reason to doubt the veracity of the quotation, the quotation must still be included and discussed in any encyclopedic article that tries to present a full and accurate picture of the current human understanding of this War. When one entire side of the conflict (and much of the rest of the world) takes this quotation to be a simple fact---even if it were found to be provably false---it cannot be ignored. It would need to be noted and discussed in any article on the human understanding and belief about this conflct. Therefore, if its veracity was provably dubious, the article should be edited to discuss this fact and the quotation should not be deleted. As I noted in the discusion of the deletion of this quotation above:

"Certainly the fact that such a quotation is attributed to him, and is believed by nearly all those on the Israeli/Jewish side of this conflict, and is presented in innumerable forums as a "fact" is information that must be included if the Wikipedia is to present a complete picture of the 1948 War and the way it is understood today. This is simply information that must be included in any unbiased (!) presentation of the way the 1948 War is understood by one entire side of the conflict"

In that same discussion above, I concluded:

"simply deleting the quotation and thus not allowing mention of something (the attributed quotation) that is almost universally believed by one side of this conflict/war to be a fact---and, I believe tellingly, unlike many, many less important "facts," is not disputed by the other side (probably because they either know it to be true or assume it to be because it is so un-extraordinary as to be commonplace [see the cleric in this video] and the Mufti was an active Nazi collaborator so that such an ordinary sentiment issued from a man known to be sympathetic to the content and who was, at the time, an active leader promoting armed violence among his followers is reasonable to believe)---distorts this article."

I waited several days to give the deleter an opportunity to respond to any of these points. Other than a facetious sarcastic comment, there has been virtually no response to this complete set of points.

For all of these reasons, I placed the quotation back in the article. While one could argue that the article may need editing to discuss this quotation and give it a more balanced presentation, it simply cannot be ignored and left out of an aritcle claiming to limn a full picture of human understanding and belief about this phenomenon. Kriegman 12:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Additional note: Since Benny Morris---who has been reviled by Jewish authors as a biased, pro-Arab revisionist---seems to be respected as an objective observer in this forum, though he did not comment specifically about this particular quotation, in contrast to Zero's characterization of the Mufti (he "was an educated extremist and not an intemperate fanatic") consider Morris's words on the Mufti:

"Unfortunately, [Arafat] has proven himself a worthy successor to Haj Muhammad Amin al Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem, who led the Palestinians during the 1930s into their (abortive) rebellion against the British mandate government and during the 1940s into their (again abortive) attempt to prevent the emergence of the Jewish state in 1948, resulting in their catastrophic defeat and the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem. Husseini had been implacable and incompetent (a dangerous mix) - but also a trickster and liar. Nobody had trusted him, neither his Arab colleagues nor the British nor the Zionists. Above all, Husseini had embodied rejectionism - a rejection of any compromise with the Zionist movement. He had rejected two international proposals to partition the country into Jewish and Arab polities, by the British Peel commission in 1937 and by the UN general assembly in November 1947. In between, he spent the war years (1941-45) in Berlin, working for the Nazi foreign ministry and recruiting Bosnian Muslims for the Wehrmacht." Kriegman 15:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)