Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War/Archive 5

Last Comment on Sources

It's disturbing that you pretend not even to know what question has been put to you after it has been asked more than a dozen times here and on your talk page. I want a scholarly source for the claim that there was "a widespread belief that the Israelis were facing a genocidal enemy" otherwise we are not having this racist nonsense in the article. As for your position on web links it leaves you with no argument against those who would add multiple links to the likes of Stormfront and other neo-Nazi sites in support of their racist claims and so please stop telling us that this is a serious position on sources. It would take me precisely ten minutes to put up a web page saying that you are one of the mufti's collaborators and little longer to put up fifteen. Would that make it encyclopedic material? Of course not. Wikipedia standards and policies on sources and disputes will be upheld for the benefit of this article and for the benefit of every serious contributor and reader. --Ian Pitchford 21:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Zeq, as you can see, Ian fels strongly about this. Would it be alright if we were to remove some of the intertnet sources, preferably adding in some other (non-internet) material as well?--Sean|Black 21:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

He certainly does! I mean, accusing Zionists and Israel of war crimes is one thing. It is both reasonable and expected that someone does that - unfortunatly, war crimes have been commited in most of the wars that have ever been fought. But comparing Zionists and Israel to the Nazis is totally unreasonable. -- Heptor _talk 15:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

That said, I do agree that some of the web links should be removed. It is not even necessary to have so many links, the fact that Mufti has collabed with the Nazis is not disputed. -- Heptor _talk 15:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The time it takes Ian to put up a web site or how much he feels is not the issue. This section talks about the frame of mind of the jews in the years after the holocaust and thir fear from a man that cooperated with Hitler, escaped to egypt to avoid war crimes and called for their anhilition. If there is a different way to write this (maybe this quote from a website about a scholarly book: "Hajj Amin al-Husseini has become the hero of the terrorist Palestine Liberation Organization, the founding father of the radical Palestine National Movement, and the inspiration of two generations of radical Islamic leaders to carry on Hitler’s war against the Jews.

David G. Dalin is a professor of history and political science at Ave Maria University. This article is adapted from his new book The Myth of Hitler’s Pope. " ?

I must say that actually I don't see the specifc quote that Ian object too nithr racist nor so important to the article so any other way to describe the situation I think would work. Can you propose a different wording ? Zeq 22:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Instead of "there was a popular belief..." "[Reliable source] has stated that there was a popular belief...". Is that acceptable to all?--Sean|Black 22:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

That's perfectly acceptable Sean and in fact I said that here on the talk page some weeks ago to no effect. --Ian Pitchford 22:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Zeq 04:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good, thank you for mediation Sean. -- Heptor _talk 10:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's ok but what is this "reliable source"? None has been suggested so far. Also the Mufti "quotation" has been brought into considerable doubt by the evidence I introduced above and so can't be used. A more general statement that the Mufti had been a Nazi collaborator would suffice. --Zero 10:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Publish your research in a peer review article and we will gladly add your reservations Zeq 10:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Primary sources are perfectly respectable and desirable: "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia". --Ian Pitchford 20:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that Zero is not merely quotes from original sources. What he did was that he found a book by Robert Fisk, where that same quotation that is disputed here appears with a reference to a BBC transcript of a speach made on German radio on a particular day. Zero checked those transcripts and found that even if Mufti did call for killing of Jews and Anglo-Saxons whereever they were to be found, but he, in that speach, didn't use the exact wording in the Fisk's book. It should be noted that Robert Fisk is not refered to in the current version of the article.

Don't misunderstand, I do think this is interesting stuff Zero found. But Zero did much more than just referencing to primary sources. Maybe Fisk simply got the date wrong? Maybe Zero got something wrong, and the exact quotation is hiding on the next page?

Also, as I mentioned earlier, the fact that Mufti is confirmed to have called for killing Jews and Englishmen, makes it very probable that he also sometime did that using the wording provided by Pearlman et al. If someone says "let's burn the witches", he probably did sometime say "let's boil the witches". We have to consider things like that when evaluating credibility of our sources. To state that logically, my statement is that "Pearlman et al claim that Mufti said A. This claim is strengthened by the fact that BBC transcript from some date claim that Mufti said B, which is similar to A" (And not that "Mufti said B, because he said A". The latter is logically invalid)

Heptor _talk 21:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No one had provided any evidence at all that the quotations are genuine and even if they are genuine the position is as Zero summarised above: "No evidence of any sort, or even an opinion to that effect from a historian or contemporary source, has been provided to demonstrate that the Mufti's war-time broadcasts had any significance to the 1948 war. On the contrary, the mere fact that the vast majority of book-length accounts of the war by historians do not even mention the topic demonstrates that the bulk of professional opinion is that there was no significance." Speculation can't take the place of relevant sourced research. --Ian Pitchford 21:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• We understand Ian that you just reject all the sources we provided for that. otherwise you could not claim that there are no sources. Zero has well spent time to disproove the sources and show them wrong. So let me sumerize: You are re-writing Wikipedia policy and Zero is engage in Original Research. Zeq 04:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Hello, I don't have found any sources about this braodcast but it is well known that all arabs leaders made many "strong" declarations during this period. This "citation" illustrates at best the image they wanted to give even if there are many historians that remind that arab leaders -and especially Azzam Pacha- knew they had few chances to win the war against Zionists. I think this could be interesting to add and comment.

Another point : I think the part explaining the collaboration of jewish forces with britain forces during 1936-39 period is not important and certainly political. Nevertheless if you think it is important I think it should be emphasized that there were also arab forces working with the British. I have a source for this :) : Ilan Pappé (who is not particularly pro sionist !) writes in his book about the 1948 war in Palestine (pp176 in the French version) that several units of tranjordanian army served in Palestine during mandate in the police force ! (he writes this to explain they were better prepared than other arab forces)

Hi, and thank you for your contribution! I too heard something about Arabs fighting the Nazis, side by side with the British. If you have a reliable source that have this information, you should definitly include this information into the article! An English source would be strongly preferable, but French will do when nothing else is around. You can put your contribution directly into the article, but, because you are new, I would recomend you to put it on the talk page first, so it could be discussed. Personally I read about this Arab force on some pro-Palestinian web page, and it specified neither their numbers nor any details on when and where such involvement took place.

As to Pasha's quote, things are getting more controversial. Victory of the Zionists was far from obvious at the time. In the beginning of the war most people actually thought they didn't have a chance against the invading Arab armies. You can read more about this controversy in the article, but what we know is that Pasha said that the victory would be an easy task. It is simply not up to an encyclopedia to decide whether he meant it or not.

On a more formal note, if you wish to make further contributions, it would be preferable if you register. It only takes a minute and it will allow you to identify yourself more easily. You can sign your posts with ~~~~ (four tildos). It will be automatically replaced with your username and date.

With Best Regards

Heptor _talk 23:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It is mentioned very briefly in the article that Palestinian Arabs were recruited to the British Army. No figure is given, but I believe it was something like 9,000 - around one-quarter to one-third of the Palestinian Jews recruited. I'll look for a reference. The Israeli government was initially very concerned about the intervention of the Arab armies, and without the arms deal with the Czechs the struggle would have been much more different. However, within a month Ben-Gurion was discussing the invasion of Arab lands, but was, of course, aware that any such move could trigger a war with Britain, something the new state was very keen to avoid. Azzam Pasha was privy to high-level negotiations and knew that Egypt had no intention of being seriously involved in the War, other than to thwart Abdullah's ambitions for a Hashemite "Greater Syria". This they did by some token fighting, by diplomatic means, by blocking recruiting to the Palestinian forces and the Arab Liberation Army, and by blocking arms shipments to the Arab Legion. --Ian Pitchford 07:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The British created the Arab legion and glubb Pasha was it's comandr (he is a british officer) many other Brits faught against Israel during the 48 war. It must be reflected ciorrectly instad of trying to create an impression that the Brits were pro-israel. Zeq 08:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I've already answered your question about the Arab Legion above. Many British also fought with the Israelis (notably with Yitzhak Sadeh) and a British gentile, Gordon Levett, organised the key Operation Balak. The British were, of course - with typical colonial brutality - pro-British, not pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian. --Ian Pitchford 09:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I will soon subscribe to wikipedia. I want also to apologize bec. English is not my mother tongue.

Concerning British involvment in the conflit : I agree with all you wrote. I think a neutral vision would be to underline that :

- Some Brits fought personnaly for both Arabs or Jews.

- British position were during the whole war in favour of their more fidel ally : Hachemite Kingdom of Transjordania they supported diplomatically during the whole conflit.

Concerning their interests, as far as I know they didn't care the conflit execpt not to be involved in it and to keep Neguev under allied hands.

Concerning 1936-39 revolt I really don't think this is a good point to describe this that much in this article on 1948 war. Of course some elements are interesting, as for example the fact Zionists had been trained but the general feeling after reading this is that British and Jews were allied... during 1948 war, which is completely false.

I would suggest to remove this but to refer to another article discussing discussing the revolt.

If the purpose is to be more objective concerning the balance of forces, we could add another chapter in this article that would be named "balance of forces" and that would explain how in theory the balance was in favour of arabs but in the facts that it was in favour of Sionists (better training for much troops - better organisation - more funds gathered for armement - not full involvment of arab neighbours reflected by few troops engaged beginning of war).

Thanks for these comments. Your first point about individual Britons fighting for both sides is already mentioned in the article. The second point about the British position is not correct as the British officers in the Arab Legion had instructions from London to abandon their posts if ordered to attack land allocated by the UN to the Jewish state. British involvement, directly and via Transjordan's influence on Syria, Iraq and irregular forces in Palestine limited the conflict. The revolt and its particularly brutal suppression by British colonial forces is generally mentioned by historians as one of the key reasons for the Palestinians' defeat as institutions were destroyed and leaders were exiled to the far corners of the British Empire. Statistics on forces are already in the article. --Ian Pitchford 12:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I think anons concern regarding forces was presenting their quality, not just their numerical strength. The former is just as an important factor as the latter, although it is arguably easier to present the numbers in an objective and neutral manner than the quality. With good sources though, it shouldnt be too hard to describe differences in quality in terms of equipment, morale, funding, leadership, tactics, experience etc. --Cybbe 13:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

There's always scope for more information on these topics. Perhpas I'm just assuming that readers can make a sensible inference about these things based on the information in precisely those sections anon objects to, i.e., those on th uprising and security collaboration. I suppose it is always best to make things explicit. --Ian Pitchford 15:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You have to assume that... We can not think for readers, even if they can not do that for temselves. Wikipedia should, perhaps with some exceptions out of concern for readability, only state facts and let the reader do the thinking.

Heptor _talk 12:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediation results

I have now altered article according as I believe was agreed during mediation. I also hope that if someone wishes to apply further controversial changes, he or she will discuss those changes on the talk page first, rather then start a new edit war. -- Heptor _talk 03:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

There was never any concensus, mediated or not, to include the "quotation" from the Mufti. It is just as unacceptable as it ever was. There is no evidence for it except Pearlman, whom I proved to be unreliable, and the primary evidence shows that it is most likely a distortion. As for the 1940 "quotation", are you going to tell us that "From Time Immemorial" is a reliable source? That's where the citation points to. --Zero 07:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, you have contributed little to the debate since 18 december, many people, Sean included, thought there was a consensus. Why didn't you maintain your objections during the mediation?

As I understand it now, you consider Pearlman a "liar". Your reasoning is that in one of his books he wrote that in a report by the Shaw commision about 1929 Arab revolt "There was unanimity in the findings of the commission that the attacks were planned", while only the minority report made that conclusion. The majority report concluded, based on the same findings, that "The outbreak was not premeditated". Personally I don't consider this to be enough to make a total character assasination, should we ask someone to mediate? -- Heptor _talk 14:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Even if an editor consider a source to be "a liar" it is still a source. It is very clear in wikipedia policy that we do not do our use original research to evaluate academic sources. We find other source that claim that the first source is wrong. So the issue is not at all Perlman or nor Perlamn the issue is what the mufti said. On one hand Perlam sais he said X and on the other hand we need an acdemic source in that field to say he did not say it or was misquoted. It is important that the source will be someone in that field. If for example we have a Biology professor saying that Perlman is wrong this does not count. So instead of dealing with Perlman credentilas Ian and Zero should look for sources on what the Moufti said. Zeq 15:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Zero's summary. Wikipedia policies on reputable sources must be upheld. If editors aren't prepared to comply then there's no alternative but to settle the matter via arbitration. --Ian Pitchford 11:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It sounds to me, Ian, that "reputable sources" = "sources that fit Ian's opinion." Come now, grow up. --Leifern 18:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The mediation accepted citing sources like in any other wikip article and that what Heptor has done. Zeq 14:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. Heptor and you are still including the fundamentally racist claim that "Israelis were facing a genocidal enemy" without sources as well as fake quotations and links to propaganda. All of these additions violate Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. --Ian Pitchford 19:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Not true. Both of us agreed to remove that part but by trying to remove more than was agreed you rolled us back to square one. Read above, I agreed to remove that part (""Israelis were facing a genocidal enemy" ) but the sourced quotes of the Mufti stay. When we have a Prof of history saying the mufti said what he said this is good enough source for me and no other non-History profesror can claim otherwise unless you find a source in the field of history that claim the othr way. Zeq 19:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Zeq, which history professor are you talking about? --Zero 22:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been quite clear all along that reputable sources must be cited. You don't have a reputable source for your quotations, for the link between those quotations and the War, for your claims about the Mufti's role in the war, or for your claims about what Israelis believed about the war. It's all original research. --Ian Pitchford 20:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I am the anonymous who wrote 2 times before.

NB the litigeous sentences are not from the Mufti but from Azzam Pacha

- Many pro-zionist authors refer to this sentence but none of them is neutral.

- This sentence is quoted by Perlman who is an academic source.

- There doesn't seem to have other references for this

- No (academic) author claims this sentence is not true

- No pro-palestinian author claim this is not true or falsified.true or falsified.

- Arab leaders are reported to have uttered such threat towards Israel

I think there is enough to leave this in the article

Christophe Greffe 11:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Even if it was true that zero "proved Perlman to be a liar" which he didn't and it is laughable that he asserts this, it would still not mean that every single thing he has written is invalid, using Zero's reasoning, Chomsky, Fisk, and virtually every single person that writes on controversial topics could not be included in wikipedia, since it is just as easy to show instances where their assertions may not have been compleley true. Zero has taken poisoning the Well to a new level, good job Zero.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The litigeous quote can be found in "O Jerusalem" - Lapierre & Collins (p 606 in the French edition - it would be easy to find this in any edition using book's index). Lapierre & Collins is a semi-neutral source : it had no a apriori versus any protagonist. Nevertheless they received more cooperation for their book from israli than from arabs and can have been influenced. But I don't think it can be considered they wrote such a sentence without guarantee. They also wrote their book in 1971, ie only 23 years after the conflit and could discuss with many protagonist of the conflit. Christophe Greffe 11:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Good you decided to join, Chritophe. There are probably tons of different sources for that quotation, the mufti didn't exactly try to hide his opinions - on contrary he was literally broadcasting them. Anyhow, Ian Pitchford has submitted the matter to the Arbitration Committee. We'll se what it decides. -- Heptor _talk 12:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello again. I think I misunderstood the reason of the dispute. I thought it was due to this :

This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades". [41]

A fellow editor requested that someone provide references or sources for the information in this section.

but the dispute is about what Haj Amin Al Husseini told.

Whatever I think this article is very poor due to the too long background. The 36-39 revolt has not its place here as well as all that is told about jewish forces and of course what concerns Hajj Amin Al Husseini. Haj Amin Al Husseini is a protagonist of 1948 war but he doesn't deserve a paragraph and even his proved antisemitism doesn't. Other like Ben Gourion or Abdallah are far more important that Al-Husseini. This article is assumed to deal with 1948 war not settle the responsabilities of Israli-Arab wars.

I still think background should be shorten and all other information of the backgournd paragraph should be gathered in a paragraph dealing with the balance of forces.

I think it is an important information to explain and describe what where the real forces involved and to fall in one of the myth about this war ("David vs Goliath" on one side - "the protected and over supported jewish" on the other side).

Sionists were less but better trained and organised. They had very poor material but organised their supply from CZ. Palestinian never existed in that war. Liberation army were unprepared but numerous (6000 is much). Arab Legion was highly powerful (equiped and trained) but there were a secret treaty between Abdallah and Ben Gourion and they only fought for Jerusalem and not in the remaining of Palestine. Syrian, Iraki and Lebanon were not significant Egyptians forces were powerful but unprepared. Christophe Greffe 13:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say, Christophe, including that the Azzam quotation is probably genuine. (It is useless as a description of Azzam's role, though.) Unfortunately, some people think that the purpose of this article is to paint Arabs as Nazis and no amount of common sense or Wikipedia rules will stop them in this quest. --Zero 14:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello zero. Thank you for your comments. Honnestly when I read the whole article I have the feeling than there is a mix of pro sionist and pro arab propaganda in this.

I even wonder if this would not be interesting in this article in wikipedia to underline that 1948 war history is currently a battle field between pro israeli and pro palestinian thinkers. In France where there are important jewish and muslim communities this is the case. I assume this is the same in the USA. Christophe Greffe 20:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but this is not anly a weakness of Wikipedia, it is also its strength. An article may get poor editoral quality when many people add stuff supporting their point of view. But this process also adds information to articles. When the information in the article becomes stable, one could create a separate article, say "Background of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War", and link to it from the main article. I believe this ultimatly is good for Wikipedia.

By the way, the dispute over mufti's quotation is currently decided by the Arbitration Committee. You are one of the few persons who actually read what the dispute is about, so if you have the time, it would be helpfull if you dropped a statement. It doesn't have to long, in fact too many people wrote way too much. You can just put under Statement by party 6. -- Heptor _talk 02:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Heptor. This is done. Thank you for indicating this. As new user I was not aware of what was happening and exactly where.

I have read this in your comments : "the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was involved in much of the high level negotiations between the Arab leaders in the 1948 War." that Ian deleted. I think he is right because sentence is completely false. Mufti was not appreciated at all by Arab leaders. He was not invited to any important meeting of Arab league. Abdallah of course didn't like him at all because he was an dangerous adversary in his project to annex Arab Palestine. Only Egyptians supported him allowing to establish a "government" at Gaza during 1948 war. But their support was also politic just to weak Abdallah. Christophe Greffe 18:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I remember this "all-palestine goverment" was supported by many other arab countries. The list came up on talk somewhere, I think it was Syria, Iraq, the Emirates and some others (certainly not Jordan), but I dont remember exactly. Sounds quite high-level to me. Abdallah hated him, but there were other leaders who were willing to talk to him.

The All-Palestine Government was formed at the end of September 1948, by which time it was clear to everyone that Israel had won the war. --Zero 01:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Didn't you also state that it was obvious from the beginneing(that isaral would win)? In any case, this aws still during the war, wasn't it?-- Heptor _talk 02:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it would have been obvious in the beginning to ordinary Israelis-to-be, since they didn't know what they would be facing. It is only obvious in retrospect given what we now know about the relative strengths. However, by the end of September it would have been clear that there was no longer a danger of losing the war, even though the amount of territorial gain was still uncertain due to battles that remained to be fought. --Zero 03:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

This is very important to understanding of the topic, because if Israelis believed, or even suspected, that blood-mongerers like the mufti would have it their way if Arabs were to win, they would fight much more desperatly. -- Heptor _talk 18:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you can think of some way of paraphrasing this sentence? Anyhow, this has never been discussed before, so we can probably work something constructive out of it. -- Heptor _talk 18:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I have source that clearly indicates that Mufti had no credit at all among Arab leaders and I think they can be consider neutral on this precise topic (Pape). On the other hand I agree with you that *if* Israeli thought Mufti was listened they would have fought even more desesperately... Nevertheless this is "alternative history".

Another aspect of alternative history is that sionists should be aware that if the war was won by Arabs, it would be their end and that much massacres would have been committed againt them. They were too much arab frustration accumulated (as prove 1936-39) revolt and former massacres (from both sides) indicate this too. The speech from "Azzam Pacha" is also clear about what could be expected for the jews.

Nevertheless I don't have precise understanding or know-how of what the sionists really thought at that time. Sometimes I have the feeling they were very confident. At other times they feel very pessimistic. Journal of Ben Gourion only can answer that question...

Christophe Greffe 19:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

They had good reason to be pessimistic in the beginning of the war, but that probably changed after a few months. Would be nice to get our hands on Ben Gurion's journal here :)

What does Pope say? Is it something Israelis would have known in 1948, or is a post-factum ananysis? We can not analyze what was going on in the heads of the Israelis, so it will always be a subjective case, but if some event was notable and verified, it should be included. Israeli editors here clearly believe that those statements were widely known in Israel, and it is not like Wikipedia is running out of space. -- Heptor _talk 19:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with what you say.

I think following sentences could be an appropriate way to handle this aspect : "Due to some massacres of Jews [sources] and due to the numerous declarations and broadcasts of Arab leaders [sources] and even if these latter didn't reflect their intention [sources] it can be assumed that most jews had the feeling that they would face a genocide war. Whatever this has acted positively on the moral of israeli fighters [sources]. It must be pointed that nothing indicates the jewish leaders had that feeling [sources] even if they met major difficultes and some despair at the beginning of the war [sources]. By the same way it can be assumed that due to massacres of Arabs [sources] and even if these had not be planned by jewish leaders [sources] but also due to some declarations and broadcasts of Arab leaders [sources] Arab Palestinians had the feeling that they also had to face a genocide war that push them to flee often even before they had to face israeli troops [sources]. [see refugees]. Christophe Greffe 09:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

This is good. I made a few comments where you wrote sources; I presume we drop statements when there are no sources.

I think following sentences could be an appropriate way to handle this aspect : "Due to some massacres of Jews [such as Hebron massacre and a few others] and due to the numerous declarations and broadcasts of Arab leaders [the very statements by Mufti and Pasha] and even if these latter didn't reflect their intention [Where do you get sources on people's true intention? Such statement could never be sourced.] it can be assumed that most jews had the feeling that they would face a genocide war. Whatever this has acted positively on the moral of israeli fighters [There are some known quotations by Golda Meir, like "We have always said that in our war with the Arabs we had a secret weapon — no alternative"[1] ]. It must be pointed that nothing indicates the jewish leaders had that feeling [Actullay, many did. I'll check sources] even if they met major difficultes and some despair at the beginning of the war [sources]. By the same way it can be assumed that due to massacres of Arabs [sources] and even if these had not be planned by jewish leaders [sources] but also due to some declarations and broadcasts of Arab leaders [sources] Arab Palestinians had the feeling that they also had to face a genocide war that push them to flee often even before they had to face israeli troops [sources]. [see refugees]. Christophe Greffe 09:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

We can implement this as soon Arb Com makes a decision, and protection is lifted. The statement by al-Husseini should be moved to Haj Amin al-Husayni article, and large part of the background should be replaced by the text you proposed. -- Heptor _talk 13:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Heptor. Thank you for your comments and additionnal inputs.

I don't know if this should replace background or if this should be placed somewhere else in the article ? We can discuss this in the subparagraph about background.

About reference on Arab intentions historians clearly explains that arab public declarations didn't reflect their policy and will [eg. Pape]. All of them except Abdullah just wanted to satisfy their own population and to keep it quiet but they didn't really want to intervene in the Palestine conflit. A simple proof is the very few funds and troops they send.

For NPOV I think it is also important to make the parallel with "feelings" of Palestinians. I think writing about what "people's mind at the time" is very hard and to avoid criticisms of taking party, I think introducing both minds should be better. What do you think about this ? Christophe Greffe 10:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection

I hope the protection period proved productive. I am prepared to unprotect now. Any objections? El_C 02:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It has been brought to my attention that the dispute has been brought before the Committee and was requested to leave the page protected for the duration of the case. I am inclined to accept this and prolonge the protection accordingly (within reason, though). Thanks everyone. El_C 01:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

HOW IS IT BIASED TO STATE THE FACTS OF THE MATTER? The entire conflict is a religiously and politically motivated land grab, and it is as simple as that. The editor who called this biased is nothing but a stickler.

TSK TSK@HIM.