Wikipedia

Talk:1948 Palestine war/Archive 3

< Talk:1948 Palestine war
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Vanjagenije in topic Propose new names for the article
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Propose new names for the article

Latest comment: 6 years ago107 comments22 people in discussion
NO CONSENSUS FOR MOVE
WP:COMMONNAME is relevant here. Most participants in this discussion didn't even try to prove what is the most common title, but wrote about their preferences, opinions, their own analysis of names etc. Most of those comments can be disregarded. Only a few participants tried to show which name is the most common in English literature. But, they did not succeed to prove that any name prevails sufficiently to warrant the change of title. I think the way this discussion was held is totally wrong. I recommend new discussion where participants would concentrate only on reliable sources and their usage, instead of endless debates about personal preferences and "who was right, who was wrong" in this war. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Calling other users: Huldra, Nishidani, Ynhockey, TrickyH, RolandR, Onceinawhile, IRISZOOM, Arminden, Greyshark09, Zero0000, Pluto2012,WarKosign.

I think an RFC will be a good way to solve the issue raise in the thread above. I don't see how this will turn into a bloody debate, since all of the options I can think of are not based on different ideologies or world views our users have here. So I suggest a discussion about what options are good by involved editors before we make an RFC for both involved and uninvolved editors. Just in case someone will have another proposal.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The options so far are:

It was not complied with the usual process here. Keep had to be an option too and suggested at the beginning of this vote! given it has been the title of this article during years. I add that there is no link to all the discussions about this issue, that was already adressed numerous time with the final decision/option to keep the current name. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments

  • I support option 3 the most. I think option 3 might be better because many people remember the wars by their years, i.e. "the war in 1948", "the war in 1967", "the war in 1973". 1948 is also a celebrated number. Users have raised the issue that the war started in late November 1947 and ended officially in July 1949 (with the last armistice) and the last battle took place in March 1949, but the war is best known as the war that happend in 1948, as most of the fightings, and the majority of the main events took place in that year (as well as the Nakba). I personally like option 1, but I think many readers will not like it becuase indeed, Israel's independence is illegitimate to many. I want Muslim readers to read the article and I fear the use of this name will intimidate them to think Wikipedia is "pro-Israeli" or whatever. Option 2 is possible, as it is a common name given to the war, but it lacks the "1948" element, and the "Second Arab–Israeli War" is better known as the "Suez Crisis" and "Sinai War", while the third as "Six Day War".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support either 1 or 3. Both are commonly used and thought to refer to the entire war, not just the part that started in May 1948. Leaning a bit more toward 1 because it's both more descriptive, and more common. To some it sounds less neutral, but wars recognized as independence wars are generally called that on Wikipedia too, regardless of what the other side thought at the time, again because it's more descriptive. —Ynhockey (Talk) 14:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Referring to this period as the Israeli war of independence is pure poved given it is the way Israeli former historiography named this period. It is a proposal equivalent to Naqba. See eg Yoav Gelber, Komemiut u-Nakba: Yisrael, Hapalestinayim Umedinot Arav, 1948' ('Independence and Nakba: Israel, the Palestinians and the Arab Countries, 1948'. I assume you don't have this book or you are not aware of this. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Although I tend to agree, I would suggest a much more respectful tone. Judging by Ynhockey's user page, he does have that book, at least in the English version.--Bolter21(talk to me) 06:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
        • I am respectful in assuming he didn't read this book given this book explains there are 2 points of view among protagonists (independence vs Nakba). So whether he didn't read it or he does not want to comply with NPoV in suggesting only one of them, the "good" one. Pluto2012 (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 2 as option 3 is factually incorrect (the conflict was 1947-49). Option 1 is obviously unacceptable; the name is propanganda nonsense intended to draw a parallel with American history (Israel was not in a war for independence against a colonial power, but in a civil war which drew in neighbouring countries to support the weaker side). Onceinawhile (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
There appears to be consensus that the top-level article and the two “child” articles (per diagram in section below) should be more consistent in their naming. As to changing “Palestine war” to “Arab-Israeli war”, I am now less confident, given the feedback from many here. If we could fix the consistency between the three articles first, and then have a cleaner debate on the single topic of Arab-Israeli vs Palestine, we should be able to make progress. It’s the 70th anniversary this year, so media attention is starting to pick up. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think this should be split at all. But if it is split, it should be with article titles of XXX, XXX (Nov 1947-May 1948), XXX (May 1948 - March 1949) - which make the relationship between the articles clear (text inside the parenthesis could be descriptive as well). XXX being whatever name is decided here.Icewhiz (talk) 12:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Option1. Liking or not liking the name is not up to Wikipedia editors - we follow WP:COMMONNAME, and in this case this is clearly it.Icewhiz (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 2, I could also live with 3 (even if it is not factually quite correct). Option 1 is obviously completely unaccepatable, we could just as well call it the Israeli War of Ethnic Cleansing. Huldra (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the present title, From the sources that Pluto have brought: the present name are used by a great varity of scholars. I could also live with version 2, or 3. Huldra (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the present title, or a variation such as "1948 war in Palestine". Previously I was not paying attention and Pluto has set me straight in two respects. One is that there is already a different article on the war between Israel and the Arab states that began after Israel declared independence. Second, contrary to what is claimed above, "Palestine war" is a common name used by a wide variety of historians from right to left. Search at Google Scholar for a large number of examples. If Whalid Khalidi and Efraim Karsh can both use it, arguments against it on the basis of neutrality look pretty weak. Zerotalk 07:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 2. I would also support #1, since that is how it is traditionally called here in Israel, but since there seems to be developing a consensus here for #2, I'll go along with it. Anyway, a "Redirect" will take care of issue #1. The current title is definitely somewhat misleading, as it has no sense of direction.Davidbena (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 2 sounds the best option to me.GreyShark (dibra) 06:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 1 AND 2 both are needed for neutrality's sake. 1 because it's the most common name in English, 2 because it's more neutral. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 07:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the present title; would accept change to 3, or 2 if necessary In Israel, the war is usually referred to as "Milhemet Tashach" ("The War of '48") or "Milhemet ha-Atzmaut" ("The War of Independence") - though many of my friends referred to it as "Milhemet ha-Atzamot" (""The War of Bones"). 1 would be POV and contentious, and would probably be repeatedly challenged. 3, although inaccurate, is more widely used and recognised. Nobody calls 1956 "the second Arab-Israeli war" or 1967 "the third", so 2 would seem both clunky and unusual. It's not inaccurate, so I could live with it; but on balance I think 3 is better. RolandR (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Based on comments by Pluto, Zero and Huldra, I see little need to change the current title. RolandR (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I also heard Israelis calling it "Milhemet ha-Tzomot" ("The War of Fasting") and "Milhemet ha-Tzamot" ("The War of Braids").GreyShark (dibra) 17:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
"Nobody calls 1956 "the second Arab-Israeli war" or 1967 "the third". That's not true. Second Arab-Israeli War. Third Arab-Israeli War. Zekelayla (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
These are both redirects, which rather proves my point. RolandR (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
These names are used by some scholars.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • None of them None of the titles seem appropriate, largely because they infringe on 1948 Arab–Israeli War, which is the best title for that article. The current title of this article is not great, but none of these are an improvement. It might be worth just renaming it 1947–1949 Palestine war to reflect the actual timespan. Number 57 13:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I didn't realize that there was another article with nearly the same title, and treating on the same war. If so, after we get a consensus on a "change of name," perhaps we can then discuss the possibility of whether or not to merge these two articles.Davidbena (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I've long proposed to merge 1948 Palestine War with 1948 Arab-Israeli War, but the majority was against. The logic is that the overall war (whatever we call it) lasted from 1947 to 1949, with two distinct phases - the 1947-48 civil sectarian war in Mandatory Palestine and 1948-49 phase of war between Israel and the Arab League.GreyShark (dibra) 17:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Disconnecting the two is really ORish - most serious sources do not - one is a continuation of the other. (if at all, in the post May 1948 phase - there were two major truce periods - which are more distinct that the flow from April to May which was uninterrupted fighting up to 15 may (e.g. Operation Barak, Kafr Saba, Operation Gideon, Operation Ben-Ami). Icewhiz (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
That's what historians do and they explain why. See eg Yoav Gelber, in Palestine, 1948: war, escape and the emergence of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, Sussex Academic Press, 2d rev ed. 2004, p.4. or here: Based on new or newly interpreted Israeli, British and Arab documents, this book attempts to integrate present controversies concerning the development of the Jewish-Palestinian war from December 1947 to mid-May 1948 and the consecutive Israeli-Arab war Pluto2012 (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • None of them and Keep. (ok also with 1947-1949 Palestine War). We have to follow the reliable sources and the reliable sources refer to this period in terms of 1948 Palestine war. (Note this is a panel of Palestinian, Israeli (New and tradionnal ones) as well as "Foreign" historians) Pluto2012 (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948, Sussex Academic Press, Brighton, 2006, ISBN 978-1-84519-075-0
    • Saleh Abdel Jawad, The Arab and Palestinian Narratives of the 1948 War, in Robert I. Rotberg, Israeli and Palestinian Narratives of Conflict, Indiana University Press, 2006, ISBN 978-0-253-21857-5.
    • Efraim Karsh, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: The Palestine War 1948, Osprey publishing, 2002.
    • Walid Khalidi, Selected Documents on the 1948 Palestine War, Journal of Palestine Studies, 27(3), 79, 1998.
    • Benny Morris, 1948, Yale University Press, 2008, ISBN 978-0-300-12696-9
    • Eugene Rogan & Avi Shlaim, The War for Palestine — Rewriting the history of 1948, Cambridge University Press, 2001.
    • David Tal, War in Palestine, 1948. Strategy and Diplomacy, Routledge, 2004.
    • Henry Laurens, Palestine, 1948. Les limites de l'interprétation historique, Revue Esprit, 2000.
  • The 1948 Arab Israeli War refers to something else ie the period that stared on 14 May, after the proclamation of Independence Pluto2012 (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Stav. I hope you don't mind me adding Pluto above. It's not stacking numbers, but in deference to the fact of editors on this particular theme he has done the most detailed studies. I've also added User:WarKosign. Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I totally disagree with our friend User:Pluto2012. Anyone reading these two articles, 1948 Palestine War and the 1948 Arab Israeli War will see quickly by their content that we're talking about the same war. The current title of this page is too broad in scope, while it is only true that the war was fought over the control of Palestine. Honestly, I think that we should rather be discussing whether or not to merge these two articles into one.Davidbena (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
That's maybe your mind but that's not what historians say. The sources are there !
The 1948 Arab-Isareli War started the next day of the Independence Declaration of Israel (don't you think so ?). The 1948 Palestine War started the day after the UNO vote. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
No, that is incorrect. There have been cessations of hostilities and renewed hostilities, but it is all one and the same war over the control of Palestine.Davidbena (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Once more. Read what the sources say, eg Yoav Gelber and Efraim Karsh writes as well as the source. WP:IDONTLIKEIT, without Wikipedia:Citing sources is not an argument. Pluto2012 (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Pluto2012 (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
The facts, again, say otherwise. The article entitled 1948 Arab–Israeli War details many of the same battles mentioned here, in this article. That is because it covers the same war. There was only one Arab-Israeli war in 1948, where the British fought on the side of the Jordanians and tried to secure part of the country for its Arab inhabitants. The war continued late into October 1948, as we all know. "Beating around the bush" may, indeed, be a ploy by some to confuse the ordinary reader (who may be unfamiliar with events of 1948), but the bare and banal truth is that both articles are referring to the same conflict.Davidbena (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
You don't read what is written and haven't even have read the lead.
The 1948 Palestine War covers both the Civil War and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. That's therefore quite logical that battles of the civil war or the conventional war are talked about here.
We should stop here by the way: stating that the British fought on the side of the Jordanians shows that you no idea of what happened in 1948 and that you don't know the topic. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you are the one who seems to be uninformed. Still, perhaps I should have clarified myself. The British provided arms for the Jordanian resistance. See: Sir John Bagot Glubb, A Soldier with the Arabs, London 1957, p. 200. This British officer was directing nearly all Jordanian maneuvers in the war of 1948, in hopes of securing the land for its Arab inhabitants. The lede paragraph does NOT take away from the fact that the two articles are treating on the same war.Davidbena (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Only one of the sources you cite (Khalidi 1998) actually uses the term "1948 Palestine War". It is not a term in wide use. Even "1948 War (Palestine)" would be better than "1948 Palestine War". Zekelayla (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep and Don't alter what we have No alteration required. To the contrary the proposals go against the best scholarly usage, as Pluto has shown. The proposals are WP:OR, since there was a civil war in Mandatory Palestine (1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine) and it is anachronistic to speak of Israel before the second war 1948 Arab Israeli War, which started with Israel's independence declaration. The proposed titles making these two distinct phases, an independence battle between two populations on one terrain, and a general war between a new state and several neighbours beyond those borders, more or less an 'Arab-Israeli' continuum despoliates history of its crucial differences. Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
A "Civil War" is NOT the same as the Arab-Israeli War over the control of Palestine, with external military forces entering into the conflict. The two articles are dealing with the very same topic, as any person can see. There is no such thing as "Original Research" to suggest a new title. The suggestion is at best absurd!Davidbena (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
There's is nothing 'absurd' about insisting on our adoption of what is the most common and current scholarly usage for describing places and periods. Pluto provided evidence. Going beyond the evidence to invent names that don't reflect scholarly usage is WP:OR.Nishidani (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
There is plenty of "scholarly usage" for the title Israeli War of Independence, but since our main aim was to strike-up an agreeable chord whereby the article is immediately understood for what it is, we suggested # 2, which still seems to be the majority view (consensus). All those suggesting # 2 will disagree with your view of infringement of WP:OR. The title has nothing to do with "original research," but rather a simpler title for a well-known conflict, to which no one is in disagreement. My real area of concern, however, is not with the title, but with maintaining two separate articles describing basically the same conflict.Davidbena (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
The Israeli war of independence is a misnomer, since there was another party fighting for independence, and such a title merely orientates the reader, and editors, to outline the Israeli path to victory, and not simply describe, neutrally, the clash of two claims for national independence in Palestine, as Wikipedia protocols oblige us to. It's rather tiresome, writing Israel's history forever with an American readership in mind, so that Israel is merely doing its version of the 'American War of Independence'. It's bad enough that we have the Palestinians invariably depicted as renegade Comanches and Apaches disturbing decent folks settling the East, along the time-hallowed ways of Hollywood westerns.Nishidani (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
That's simply not true. While the claim that Israel was fighting for independence is factual/non-controversial, the claim that any other side was fighting for independence (and there was more than one side fighting against Israel) is at best one of many opinions. This is backed by every source I've seen here on Wikipedia, even those not favorable to Israel (where it's mentioned of course). There were obviously multiple competing claims to the same land as you said (and indeed as happened in the American War of Independence), but this in itself does not amount to competing claims for independence. —Ynhockey (Talk) 11:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
These are elementary facts, Ynhockey. Both Israel and Palestine had their rights to independence established by the UN resolution of 29 November 1947. Both sides thereafter fought for their respective notions of what independence meant in Palestine through to May 1948, both with Israel and the Palestinians claiming more than what the UN plan envisaged, from the outset. The Israeli title is how Israel, in terms that appeal to the dominant power, America, likes to perceive its war. That's Israeli usage, like Judea and Samaria, and as with the latter term, we should not, given our neutrality, precondition readers' perceptions by stressing language that suggests one partisan interpretation of what was going on, namely that there was just one struggle for independence, while the 'other side' was devoid of a desire for a state and simply opposed the Jews. It is factual and non-controversial that the Palestinians were fighting for their notion of a state, which, like Israel's case, was set forth in the UN plan. This is so starkly obvious I have difficulty is understanding why one can object to it. Nishidani (talk) 11:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Casting 1948 in terms of an Israeli and Palestinian side makes a disservice to history. While the Israeli side was united in its aim for independence (despite some inner factional squabbles), the Arab side was divided between multiple factions. The local Arabs were disorganized, some fought on a local level, some were pan-Arabists, and some perhaps fought for independence of an entire entity. As for the Arab states and proxies (i.e. Arab Liberation Army) - casting their intervention in terms of "Palestinian independence" is not supported by most historians. It is not that the " the 'other side' was devoid of a desire for a state" - the "other side" in this case was pushing for a multitude of different ends some of which conflicted with a notion of Palestinian independence.Icewhiz (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Close to agree except for small nuances: "the Israeli side was united in its aim for independence"... You forget a word. In "war of independence", there is also "war". And the point is that if Israeli side was united in its aim for independence (ie sovereignty and self-determination rather than independence from a dictator or an occupying power...), it was as well united in its resolution of making "war"... And the war made the [potential] victim become the [factual] executioner, as in 100 % of cases. Pluto2012 (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
What has that blather got to do with the price of fish? (the POVs implicit in titles). Nishidani (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
A mere explanation as to why there are more English book titles with "Israeli war of Independence" as opposed to "1948 Palestine war".Icewhiz (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
That is not what any competent observer would call an 'explanation'. I might just as well blather back about (a) the Jordanian-Israeli entente to deprive Palestinians of autonomy in 1947, or of Yigal Yadin's operation, underway since summer 1947, to decapitate the Palestinian leadership by assassinating its command structure, and thus depriving the latter, at the crucial time, of a unified and coordinated approach to the coming war, in the best traditions of divide et impera. But that too is irrelevant. The point is, our most neutral historian, perhaps the major contemporary historian of the I/P conlict, Henry Laurens, who has no ethnic card to play for one side or another, simply terms it la guerre civile palestinienne, which is as neutral as you can get. Nishidani (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
There may well be more books titled "1948 Arab-Israeli War" than "1948 Palestine War". But these books (if they were written by historian which is not always the case) state the war started on 15 May, "just after the independence of the young State when 7(*) Arab armies invaded it"... This article start reporting the events 6 months sooner, as do all contemporary historians who deal with that (global war) and talk about the 1948 War in Palestine. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
One indication of Henry Laurens being "our most neutral historian" is the fact that the France-Palestine Friendship Association awarded him the Palestine Prize for his work [1]. I'm sure they give the prize only to the most neutral of the neutral historians. What a joke. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
He didn't get the prize...
And you should read his books about the topic before assessing his [non-]neutrality.
You may be amazed. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ynhockey and Icewhiz: can you tell me who you perceive the 1948 Israelis were fighting for “independence” from? The British had already given up their claim, such that the Israeli Declaration of Independence was actually about establishment. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

What I think matters little, COMMONNAME matters more. But specifically independence from the British Mandate whose retreat was far from certain despite the November 1947 decision (and events leading to it), including securing handover of territory as they were leaving. And subsequently beating back the Arab League who were attempting to foil the independence of Israel by invading on the day the mandate ended. We can list many "countries" whose declared existence spanned a few days, weeks, or months and who were crushed by external forces - Israel (in very tenous borders) was perhaps de jure independent in May 1948, however this was not secured until the invading armoes were beaten back. The declaration of independence was a piece of papaer and a speech (as was 1776, October 1917, and any number of similar declarations through the ages) - actuallly securing independence required beating back opposing forces) Icewhiz (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
S top talking off the top of your head ('retreat far from certain' etc-.etc.etc). Israel had a UN backed guarantee of independence when the mandate expired, something which in the circumstances of the immediate post-war period, had extremely powerful international backing. On May 1948, when independence was declared, the Palmach and Haganah were present all over the place, way beyond the frontiers the UN defined, some units even in Lebanon. So both the Arab League entry and Israel's entry were to contest land assigned to either party. The rest is a fairy tale.Nishidani (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
UN backed declarations are of little importance on the ground. In November 1947 and in May 1948 the existence of Israel was far from certain.Icewhiz (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
You haven’t read the research then. The two main Arab armies - Jordanian and Egyptian - were both financed by Britain, and tacit understandings are known to have existed as to the extent of the conflict. Now we’re 70 years on, surely it’s time to face reality. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
That's a complex stuff and talking about what didn't happen is some sort of alternative history. If Israel had not organized herself to prepare the civil and then the conventional wars (with massive circonscription and the different deals to bring weapons despite the embargos) she would have lost the 2nd one. But Egyptians would not have intervened if Jordans would not have tried to capture the country and if Yishuv had not crushed Arab Palestinian forces in April... More, the Arab armies would (probably) have won the war if their government had decided to participate to it sooner (eg in December) and if they had organised themselves (and collaborated). So what was sure at that time ???
But it was clearly not a war of independence from the British and historians do not describe the events as if they were only a "war of independence": Israel get rid of the Arab Palestinians and conquered Palestine as it was planned if the opportunity was given even if not really expected.... It was a war, not a neighbours's dispute. Pluto2012 (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
"[The fact it was a war of independence] is backed by every source I've seen here on Wikipedia, even those not favorable to Israel (where it's mentioned of course)." -> There are no source that would be "not favorable to Israel" as if historians had agendas. You should once for all remove this axiom from you head. And of course it was not just a war of independence for Israel, as most sources that could be seen here on Wikipedia explain ! Pluto2012 (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The truth of the matter is that both sides were fighting for their independence, AND for the control of Palestine. Prior to 1948, the country had been governed by a host of colonial powers: the British > the Ottoman Turks > the Mamluks > the Ayubbids (of Egypt) > the Seljuk Turks > the Egyptian Fatimids, etc. etc.Davidbena (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Fully agreed. 2 sides fought for their "self-determinantion" and the control of as much Palestine as possible. And after 15 May, 1 other sides fought for the control of as much as Palestine as possible : Jordan. Other Arab forces fought to counter this latter and Israeli's. That was the "1948 War for [the control of] Palestine" or the "1948 Palestine war". That's exactly what historians state. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion.
Wars of independence aren't fought in order to declare independence from a previous ruling country (anyone can do that), but to keep another country from taking that independence. Usually these two are the same country, but not always, like in this case. Israel became independent from the British, but was fighting for independence against the Arabs, who explicitly denied said independence and invaded with the explicit goal of ending it. A similar situation almost happened with the Kurds, where they would get independence from Iraq or Syria (or both), but their war of independence could be against Turkey. I'm sure you are aware of these facts though. —Ynhockey (Talk) 11:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
User:Ynhockey, Perhaps with the Kurdish struggle for independence that was indeed the case, but you stand to be corrected with Israel's struggle for independence. Jews living in Palestine (now Israelis) sought independence from Britain, obviously, as did the Palestinian Arabs. They did NOT seek independence from Arab Palestinians, since the Arab Palestinians never controlled the country to begin with. Instead, both Arabs and Jews, prior to 1948, were all called "Palestinians" and these Palestinian Jews who lived also in the area now known as the "West Bank" sought independence from British colonial rule. When Britain decided in 1936 to divide the country between the Jews and the Arabs, and when the Jordanians took over where Britain had left-off in 1948 (i.e. the "West Bank" and East Jerusalem), it was only natural then that Jews who once lived in these regions would also seek their former settlement, without Jordanian hegemony. After all, the Jews had more claim to the country than did the Jordanians. As for the local, Palestinian Arabs, historical records (e.g. in A Survey of Palestine (Prepared in December 1945 and January 1946 for the information of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry), vol. 1, chapter 2, British Mandate Government of Palestine: Jerusalem 1946, p. 24; Zvi Dror, “Har’el: Palmach brigade in Jerusalem,” Ha-kibbutz hameuchad Publishers: Benei Barak 2005) show a long history of hostility between local Jews and Arabs, where the local Arabs prevented land sales unto Jews, and discouraged Jewish immigration to Palestine. Others resorted to violence against Jews. This explains why they were excluded from the government.Davidbena (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

wars of independence (are) fought . .to keep another country from taking that independence.'

Ynhockey. By that formulation you place yourself with those who would limit Israel's 'war of independence' to May 1948-1949. By the same token, you imply that the civil war from December 47 to that declaration was equally a Palestinian war of independence. The Arab reaction had an obvious logic: a people with 6% of land title and 30% of the population were given sovereignty over 56% of the land by Western imperial fiat against the united consensus of all regional powers, and their battle was based on the assumption that Palestine, exited the British, was and should remain an Muslim-majority country, as it had been for 1,200 odd years. The 'war of independence' analogy with America does have a cogency, since the American war of independence was effectively one that ensured the preservation of slavery, since the British offered the Afro-American population liberty, and it took 2 centuries to undo that ethnic discrimination, just as Israel's independence ensured Palestinian dispossession and politicide, which it will take at least a century to undo. Only in that regard does the analogy apply.Nishidani (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Nishidani, can you please try writing that again? It's extraordinarily hard to make any sense of. Some portions of your sentences are literally incomprehensible. (e.g. "by Western imperial fiat against the united consensus of all regional powers, and their battle was based on the assumption that Palestine, exited the British, was and should remain an Muslim-majority country, as it had been for 1,200 odd years.") ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
? Is it the speciously awkward Latin ablative absolute behind 'exited the British' (Britannicis profectis) what tossed ya? I had to write fast, lunch was on the table. Syntactically therefore it looks like I dropped mine.Nishidani (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, could you please just explain - in plain English (what is your native language, may I ask?) - what you meant by that portion I quoted? This is not the place for word games and sophistry. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Let me try again: was your point that neighboring Arab Muslim states opposed partition? And the result of this was the enslavement of the Arabs of Ottoman Palestine equivalent to the slavery of Africans and African-Americans in some of the Thirteen Colonies in the Americans and/or the southern colonies of the United States? That was your, well, "thesis", correct? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Nishidani: Limiting to 1948–49: not really. Israel wasn't fighting other Arab states because the British were still there, you could call this a "technicality" (I don't like this phrasing, but it gets the point across). The Arab states were still the ones against a Jewish state, and the part of them that could fight the Jews in 1947–48 was the one that did (ALA, Jihad army, Muslim Brotherhood militias, etc.).
On the Palestinian war of independence: simply no. Not because they weren't fighting for these or those rights/freedoms, but because they weren't fighting for independence. That would require some kind of declaration of either a plan for future independence or an outright declaration of independence (as in Israel's case). These was no such declaration on any Arab side fighting in this war. Not from the Husseinis, not from Qawuqji, and certainly not from any Arab state (they demonstrably did not want this, as they annexed ostensibly Palestinian territories and never looked back).
—Ynhockey (Talk) 07:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
And what would they have fought for ? There were tenths of declaration by the AHC they expecte independence on the whole Palestine.
eg here
UNSCOP Report:
The Arab case
156. The Arab case as here set forth is based mainly on the contentions made by the representatives of the Arab Higher Committee before the first special session of the General Assembly and by the representatives of the Arab States at that session, at Beirut and Geneva.
The Arab case seeks the immediate creation of an independent Palestine west of the Jordan as an Arab State. It rests on a number of claims and contentions which are summarized below.
The Arabs emphasize the fact of an actual Arab numerical majority, in the ratio of two to one in the present population of Palestine.
157. They postulate the "natural" right of the Arab majority to remain in undisputed possession of the country, since they are and have bean for many centuries in possession of the land. This claim of a "natural" right is based on the contention that the Arab connection with Palestine has continued uninterruptedly from early historical times, since the term "Arab" is to be interpreted as connoting not only the invaders from the Arabian Peninsula in the seventh century, but also the indigenous population which intermarried with the invaders and acquired their speech, customs and modes of thought in becoming permanently Arabized.
158. The Arabs further stress the natural desire of the Arab community to safeguard its national existence from foreign intruders, in order that it may "pursue without interference its own political, economic arid cultural development.
(...)
Pluto2012 (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
That's not even directly relevant to the war, and it doesn't even come from the AHC itself, rather it's a report by a commission of inquiry about what the AHC supposedly said. When a nation is actually fighting for independence, the intent to gain independence is always clear—that's a prerequisite; if none of the individual leaders (not to mention the people doing the fighting) know that they are fighting for independence, then they probably aren't. As it stands, there not only was no declaration of Arab independence west of the Jordan, but there was also no declaration of intent for independence. Moreover, as we all know, there was nothing preventing an independent Arab state west of the Jordan following the 1949 ceasefire (the "immediate" goal of the AHC according to UNSCOP), but the AHC did not even make a mention of this when the war ended.
To answer your question of what they were fighting for: in large part to prevent the creation of a Jewish state. Except Transjordan, which was fighting to annex Arab-inhabited lands west of the river. However, the very fact that we are arguing about this point here is proof that there was no one thing that the Arab states were fighting for.
—Ynhockey (Talk) 08:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
A report of what they supposedly said... Yeah. And maybe the Declaration of Independance of Israel is a fake news ?
As stated. There are tenths of such declarations. Anybody of good faith would have found them.
And by the way, about what happened at the end of year, you never heard either of the "All-Palestine governement" ?
And for sure, Arab Palestnians were fighting to prevent the Jewish state to birth... They had nothing else to do or to care about. Let me guess : when Palestinian will love children as much as we love ours there will be peace ? Reducing these people to animal is just racism. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 2 seems the most neutral while keeping what is obviously the most common name and search ("Arab-Israeli war"). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or Option 1. "Israeli War of Independence" is the common name and in line with the standard naming convention outlined at Wars of Independence. This term has implicit only that Israel is an independent state, and does not imply Israeli independence is a good thing. The appropriate naming conventions are demonstrated at Irish War of Independence: "The Irish War of Independence (Irish: Cogadh na Saoirse) or Anglo-Irish War was a guerrilla war fought from 1919 to 1921 between the Irish Republican Army (IRA, the army of the Irish Republic) and the British security forces in Ireland." That, said, "First Arab-Israeli War" is also in use and more correct than the current name. It works well with the names Second Arab-Israeli War and Third Arab-Israeli War which are alternate names on wikipedia for the Suez Crisis and Six Day War, respectively. Zekelayla (talk) 05:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Is the most WP:COMMONNAME--Shrike (talk) 08:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Users Huldra, Zero0000 Nishidani have called to stick with the current name, based on the argument presented by Pluto2012. Zero0000 summed the claim by saying that ""Palestine war" is a common name used by a wide variety of historians from right to left". Pluto0000 has listed eight books from a wide range of scholars to support the notion (retrieved from the article's "further reading" section), but it seems to me the list doesn't really support this notion. Only two out of the eight use the term "Palestine War": Walid Khalidi's "Selected Documents on the 1948 Palestine War" and Efraim Karsh's The Arab-Israeli Conflict: The Palestine War 1948. These two are strong examples, as the two are respected scholars from both sides, but the six other examples do not help the notion. Yoav Gelber's Palestine 1948 is not an example. He does not call it the "1948 Palestine War" or "Palestine War". The book's page in its publisher's website refers to the war as Jewish–Palestinian war from December 1947 to mid-May 1948 and the consecutive Israeli–Arab war. Saleh Abdel Jawad's The Arab and Palestinian Narratives of the 1948 War calls it the "1948 War", not the "1948 Palestine War". Bonny Morris' book's full name is actually Option 2: 1948: The First Arab-Israeli War". Eugene Rogan & Avi Shlaim's The War for Palestine — Rewriting the history of 1948 is just like the Yoav Gelber example, not a name for the war. It is like calling World War II "the war for Europe", which is a poetic title for a book, not a proper historeographic name for a war. The same goes again for War in Palestine, 1948 by David Tal and Henry Laurens example.
So I can say clrealy that Pluto's argument that "Palestine War" is the proper name for the article based on sources is not supported by the sources he provided.
In that spirit, here is an honest historeogprahical evidence for each option:
First Arab Israeli War
1948 Arab–Israeli War
1948 Palestine War
1948 War
There are probably much more results for "1948 war" but I am spending too much of my time home on this. I think the point is clear, "1948 Palestin War" is not the most common name. Even if I kept searching for sources, still the there would be more results for "1948 Arab–Israeli War" and "First Arab–Israeli War" together, and since they are simmilar, I think they prevail.
I will again explain my reason to support "1948 Arab–Israeli War" for the entire war. It is better than "First Arab–Israeli War" in my opinion because it contains the 1948 element. I don't see a real reason to add "1947" and "1949" to the title. Just like the Hundred Years' war was actually 116 years, the 1948 war lasted one month in 1947 and between one to three months in 1949, the absolute majority of the events took place in 1948.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
"1948 Palestine War" is furthermore a POV title, that is mainly used by one camp - who attempts to avoid usage of "Israel" at all costs.Icewhiz (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Don't be silly. That is the suggestion for events that took place between 29 November 1947 and mid May 1948, when the country was called 'Palestine'. It was a war that took place in Palestine. This is simply to state that Israel did not exist at that time, and has nothing to do with avoidance of the word 'Israel'. One might just as well argue, with perhaps more force, that the overwhelming lockstep vote for 'Arab-Israel' reflects an education where 'Palestine' is a negative term, that is perceived in Zionist thinking as a threat to Israeli national rights. The Israeli-Arab conflict for the whole period is a patent POV, and yes, Bolter, it is the majority form in sources, which reflect the WP:Systemic bias that most works on this period are written by one side to the conflict. Laurens is absolutely correct to use the neutral term (there must be some guideline on how to adopt the proper terminology in ethnic conflicts in such a way that both parties are given their due. As it stands, the proposal is to tilt the naming towards the accepted Israeli usage, which happily dissolves the Palestinians in the first phase of the conflict into the vastly vague 'Arabs'.Nishidani (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
This comment slightly leaves the scope of the discussion, but I would like to reply anyway. The 1948 war (as I like to call it) was a war between Israel and the Arabs (these include both the Palestinians and the Arab nations). The war was fought on Palestine, but mostly against non-Palestinians. The Najjada and Jihad al Muqadas were involved in the early stages of the war, but it was eventually the ALA who fought most of the battles on the Arab side and they were comprised mostly of Syrians. Later it was the Arab armies. Sure Israel didn't exist until May 1948, but World War II wasn't a world war until a later stage, just like World War I, so the Israeli–Arab war became an Israeli–Arab war in a middle stage of the war, but it is still the same conflict. Users brought up the claim the war started officially in 1947 and ended officially in 1949 and therefore 1948 is not good for the title. On that fashion, I could say the "Palestine War" wasn't a "Palestine War" because it also took place in northeastern Sinai and southern Lebanon, which are to Mandatory Palestine, what December 1947 and January-to-March 1949 are to the 12 months of 1948. In the end, I think that the term "Arab–Israeli war" is the most recognizable, and is the best option for a wikipedia article. I think "1948 Palestine War" is causing many readers to miss the article, and I think "Israel War of Independence" will cause many Muslim and pro-Arab readers to refrain from reading the article, just like it would do to Israelis who will see the "Nakba" title.--Bolter21

(talk to me) 14:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The point is B, you have a national historiography which likes David against the mythical Goliath of '5 invading Arab armies', which submerges the specific Palestinian fight for their land in a foreign Arab land denial against Israel. As Pluto showed, the best historians, Israeli or otherwise (Laurens), are comfortable with two phases of an infra-Palestinian civil war between Jews and Palestinians, and then a wider war. It's perhaps pointless arguing since the Israeli school curriculum meme has automatic backing. The fight Nov-May 47-8 was about how much land in Palestine one could grab in defiance of the UN 1947 borders, which in Israel's case meant converting 56% of the adjudicated land for 30% of the population, into 78% from April 48 to early 1949. If our articles are not clear, then the option is to reorganize them along those lines, or submerge them into what remains the standard popular Zionist account, which is what the 'Arab-Israel war' title does. The latter has the numbers, but I don't think it adequately reflects crucial historical distinctions, and flatters one version's favourite construction. But, as I said, at this point, numbers count, not a careful evaluation of NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The war was fought on Palestine, but mostly against non-Palestinians.

Again, I can only note sadly that these arguments just reflect a denialist national history, that of Israel. According to Laurens, some 13,000 Palestinians died, or went unaccounted for by the war's end, more than double Israel's losses against the famous 'five' foreign Arab 'armies'. It's just plain negationism, trying to absorb and 'dissolve' that huge loss as 'Arab' (i.e. foreign to Palestine). Historians know these facts, but they are consistently missed in your national narrative.Nishidani (talk) 11:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
The range of Palestinian KIAs actually varies widely (as to be expected with lack of records and with different accounting of "volunteers") - Laurens is repeating al-Arif's estimate which includes some 7,403 individuals without a name or date (just alleged place). Some estimates place Palestinian dead as low as 3,000 (it also depends on how you attribute fighters between the Arab armies, who losses were not insignificant and locals).Icewhiz (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Your facts are inaccurate, User:Nishidani. There was no such things as "The fight Nov-May 47-8 was about how much land in Palestine one could grab in defiance of the UN 1947 borders," as the UN in 1947 had only made proposals for the envisioned border, although in actuality, it was rejected by the Arabs, who sought to gain control of as much land as possible through the dint of arms. Let us be careful about duplicity.Davidbena (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Sure. I lacked the right educational or indoctrination background, and fucked up things by taking Laurens and Benny Morris seriously, i.e. reading 'stuff' like
This whole debate is memories of high school crib sheets against academic historiography, so it's pointless, since those who grubbed up their 'facts' from the former have the numbers.Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
ps. fix up that edit at Cave of the Patriarchs, by the way. Adam's burial in Hebron is not the only tradition in Jewish thought. It is one of his reputed burial places.Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Are you implying that the majority here are wrong? Sigh. Again, what happened during the civil disturbances in Mandatory Palestine as described by Benny Morris is different from what happened during the Arab-Israeli War in 1948 (1948 Palestine War). As for the Cave of the Patriarchs, add a comment in the Talk-Page there.Davidbena (talk) 03:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
The majority here is Israelocentric, it's as simple as that: there is a refusal to face an alternative narrative that makes the national history of events more complex than one ethnic construction on it. This violates NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 11:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps they're just more inclined to look more carefully at all the facts. Often, the "alternative narrative" takes us down a path of infringement on WP:NPOV.Davidbena (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Even in the first phase - the Arab Liberation Army led by Fawzi al-Qawuqji and setup by the Arab League - "volunteers" from surrounding Arab countries was active, and was the major component of the anti-Zionist forces (arguably, the only really organized one - larger and more organized than the more local Army of the Holy War which also include foreign volunteers). The aspirations of Arab residents inside the dissolving mandate was muddled as well - some fought for a pan-Arabist outcome. So in the Nov 1947-May 1948 phase we have non-Palestinian (but Arab) combatants fighting for various aims (including a pan-Arabist outcome and/or outcomes favoring adjacent Arab states).Icewhiz (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. Many wars have names that are not 100% accurate or are somewhat anachronistic. For example, Bangladesh did not exist before the Bangladesh Liberation War, the Thousand Days War was more than a thousand days, etc, etc. We should use the most common name, which quite obviously includes the term "Arab-Israeli War". If it's "1948" or "first" makes little difference, although looking at the sources above I suspect "1948" is more common. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
As has been pointed out already, many of the differing titles (e.g. 1948 Arab–Israeli War; First Arab Israeli War; 1948 Palestine War; 1948 War) are purely a question of semantics, although we're talking here about the same war over the control of Palestine, fought between Jews and Arabs. The only exception to this may have been the hostilities (1920s–early 1948), otherwise known as civil disturbances in Mandatory Palestine, leading up to the outbreak of the Arab-Israeli war.Davidbena (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Support 1 or merge with 1948 war Israeli war of independence is not a POV title. It simply describes the objective reality that Israel would simply not exist as an independent state if it had lost the war. It is a good title for the same reason we have an article titled Israel and not simply a redirect to Zionist entity. Nor is it anachronistic since the Zionist goal was always an independent state.

The title would also be broad enough to include pre-state terrorism. Alternative this article could simply be deleted as a content fork of the 1948 war.

I also want to say that in wars many times combatants enter and exit the conflict. That fact alone does not create or end the conflict. Artificially dividing the war into sub wars is ludicrous, not to mention it is basically OR, would anyone think of doing this to the world wars?Jonney2000 (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Call the article "War in Palestine 1947-1948" and redirect other name variations to it and then also change the other two pages to "War in Palestine 1947-1948:prior to 15 May 1948" and "War in Palestine 1947-1948:after 15 May 1948" It happened during 1948 and it happened in palestine, so it seems like a good name, but it looks like 3 articles are really covering the same ~2 year conflict. I didn't know what the best name was, but I read the section below on this talk page that shows that wiki-article access is skewed; It made me think, like, what if people are looking up WW2 and they get an article that specifically only covers the war after the pearl harbour bombing. 198.84.171.88 (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep As far as I can see, most academic sources not written by Israelis or Palestinians say 1948 war in Palestine.GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • 1 -- Israeli War of Independence This is the most accurate description of this aspect of the conflict because the result was Israel emerging as an independent state in May 1948, and this is the name most commonly associated with this conflict. There are other parts of this conflict that go under different names, depending on the political situation at the time. For example, the period before the end of the British Mandate is known as the Palestinian Civil War (with the two sides being the Palestinian Jews and the Palestinian Arabs). After Israeli independence, it became the 1948 Arab-Israeli War because the primary fighting is between Israeli forces and the armies of Arab states. To follow the convention most commonly used in books, this article should be given the title I recommend above. OtterAM (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • As it seems we are in a dead end. As I see it, most of the support goes to "Palestine War" and "War of Independence" which are both problematic. The former because it is not so similar to most of the names used by scholars, while the latter is clearly considered POV by many scholars, including pro-zionist ones.
Although there is no consensus about the title, there is a stronger voice in favour of changing the article's name.
Can someone think about a compromise?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Actually "First Arab-Israeli War" has as much support as "Israeli War of Independence" and "Palestine War". "First Arab-Israeli War" also has substantially less opposition than "Israeli War of Independence". What is the argument against "First Arab-Israeli War" (besides "Israeli War of Independence" being possibly better on COMMONNAME grounds)? Zekelayla (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 1 It seems this is the COMMONNAME option but some editors think it violates NPOV. I'm told that facts don't care about your feelings. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
The fact is that most of the world believes there's a country called Palestine and it was an actor in this war.GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Your ignorant comment is not needed here. Most of the world think there is a state called "Germany", but we don't call the Thirty Years' War "Germany War of 1618–1648"--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for reminding me--If its legitimate to name a war after the number 30, it must also be legitimate to name it after the number 1948. Especially when that seems to be the actual COMMONNAME.GPRamirez5 (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: you wrote “It seems this is the COMMONNAME”. Can you provide evidence? The comments above are referring to its prevalence in Hebrew; it is much less common as primary usage in English. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Nope. One thing this RfC doesn't need is more discussion. I was summoned by a bot and I provided my opinion. If you don't like my opinion, bemoan editors like me with our crazy opinions and the fact that I get to be part of the consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1948_Palestine_war/Archive_3&oldid=1112339870"