Talk:1948 Palestine war/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Reverts

As far as I can see the series of edits all involve both removal and addition of material so DovidRoth claim that this is " Undiscussed removal of properly sourced and balanced content" is misleading because their edit both restores removed material AND removes "properly sourced and balanced content" at the same time, notably this material (added by Meteoritekid):

Arab and modern Western sources, however, suggest that the Israeli army had approximate numerical parity with the intervening Arab forces, had been well-trained in modern military practice by the occupying the British, and had significant logistical advantages over the poorly-coordinated Arab coalition.

Tombah merely continues this misrepresentation with their revert of a revert. The removed material may need tidying up ("by the occupying the British") but that's not an excuse for removing the whole thing.

Please discuss this here.

References

Selfstudier (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

 Note: Please note that Davidroth was recently caught canvassing Tombah here and they did it again here. إيان (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

For starters, while I haven't read Collins & Lapierre in a few years, I've read it two or three times in the past and I am pretty sure that A) they didn't make the claim that is attributed to them, and B) if there was a citation somewhere in their text supporting Meteoritekid's claim then it is using the source out of context, because C & L were definitely making the opposite point in O Jerusalem! -- to wit, the whole book is full of examples of how the Jews / Israelis were outnumbered and did not have "numerical parity", nor were they "well-trained ... by the occupying the[sic] British". In fact the book includes several anecdotes about Jews having to steal supplies from the British. Also C) that citation just references the book and doesn't try to pinpoint a passage in support of Meteoritekid's claims. On top of that Wikipedia's own O Jerusalem! page refs this NYT review which states the opposite of what Meteoritekid claims that the book says.

Contrast that with the fact that a distinguished British officer, John Bagot Glubb, commanded the Arab Legion with several British officers as adjutants, while there was not a single ranking British person in the Israeli command, and this tale of equivalence and "parity" is not very plausible. Further the tale of how the Tilhas Tizig Gesheften pretended to be a British military unit while it was actually a rogue (pre-)Israeli operation is well known; the claim that the British "trained" Israeli troops when in fact self-trained Israeli troops masqueraded as British is yet another strike against Meteoritekid's claims.

When I see a dubious claim with I am sure at least one misuse of a citation, and another claim in that same edit that I know for a fact to be historically incorrect, as several other WP pages all testify, then my hackles go up and my bull stink-o-meter gauge starts quivering in the red.

Then when I see that this edit is also removing long-standing consensus materials and replacing that with {{dubious}} claims to the opposite then I want to see some real serious WP:BURDEN citations to overturn that article.

And I don't.

I am opposed to Meteoritekid's edit both because his new additions are probably complete BS, and also because he arbitrarily removed the paragraph beginning Palestinian and Arab historians have also provided context.... which was properly sourced and also well wikilinked to integrate the page with other content.

-- Eliyahu S ^Talk 21:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Meteoritekid: The Hughes paper is available on the web here. Please point me to the parts of it that support:

Arab and modern Western sources, however, suggest that the Israeli army had approximate numerical parity with the intervening Arab forces, had been well-trained in modern military practice by the occupying the British, and had significant logistical advantages over the poorly-coordinated Arab coalition.

Selfstudier (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Meteoritekid: With the latest revert, the same sin I referred to above is being committed, of course you may dispute material and remove it but at the same time you are adding material which is currently being disputed. Please self revert and reply here, thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The prior text for the historiography section did not agree with the content of the article. It did not make sense to claim that, for example, Israeli forces were vastly outnumbered, when the article itself included cited figures that proved otherwise. From the summary in the sidebar:

Israel: c. 10,000 initially, rising to 115,000 by March 1949

Arabs: c. 2,000 initially, rising to 70,000

So, Israeli soldiers outnumbered Arabs. Yet the Historiography section said:

"In Western historiography, the majority view was that the vastly outnumbered and ill-equipped Jews fended off the massed strength of the invading Arab armies..."

That's objectively wrong. Thankfully, many of the more obvious errors have since been resolved. Meteoritekid (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Eliyahu S: this tale of equivalence and "parity" is not very plausible. This particular set of of sources may not support the claim but there are many sources on the subject, notably but not only Shlaim. Or https://pij.org/articles/107/the-myth-of-the-few-against-the-many-in-1948. Dowty is another.

It is of course a subject of dispute like everything else but since the historiography specifically mentions the DavidGoliath thing at the outset, then it might be as well to spell out the later counterarguments to this rather than just having a vague reference to new "insights" as to "the balance of force" Selfstudier (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

O Jerusalem! contains troop figures referenced in this article and this one: 1948 Arab–Israeli War. The figures in each article state that the Israeli army outnumbered Arab forces intially by 5:1, shifting to just 1.6:1 by the end of the conflict. Those are the figures taken from that source and others, in this Wikipedia article.

If what I'm saying is "complete BS," then this article is "complete BS." Meteoritekid (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Three comments:

• WP:ONUS says "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." It doesn't say that consensus is required to remove content.
• Collins&Lapierre and Kurzman are dated and should be replaced by more modern sources.
• During WWII, many Palestinian Jews were trained by the British army. Thousands served in the regular army and others in specialised units in preparation for a predicted Nazi overrun of the Levant. So that statement is entirely true and nothing to do with Israeli soldiers pretending to be British. In contrast, the suppression of the 1936–1939 revolt caused the almost total collapse of Palestinian Arab military capability. Of course that wasn't true of the armies of the Arab states. All of this needs a good source, of course.

Zero^talk 09:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The British pursued the Jewish forces, imprisoned them and even executed them. Among the well-known violent confrontations between the Jews and the British, we can mention the explosion of the British headquarters in the King David Hotel, the Sergeants affair and the Night of the Beatings as well as Olei Hagardom affair. If anything, the British militarily trained the Transjordanian Arab Legion. ℬ𝒜ℛ (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

This discussion atm is only about the balance of forces during the war and the effect on the outcome. Then how did those events mentioned (plus all the others not mentioned) affect the balance of forces, that's the question? Selfstudier (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Nothing ℬ𝒜ℛ wrote disproves what I wrote. Zero^talk 01:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Non-neutral Historiography

I can see that prior discussions about the "Historiography" section have been archived. Other users have pointed out that it appears to be biased. Right now, it states that Palestinian historians are "apologists," while suggesting that Israeli historians' assessments are accurate and align with prevailing Western historians' views. That assessment clearly suggests that historians of one nationality have more credibility than another. Several similar statements made in this section clearly violate Wikipedia's policy on neutrality.

It is also problematic to say that Palestinian leaders willingly ordered citizens to leave their homes, as many did so under the threat of death. Per the parent article, 1948 Palestine War, 5,000-15,000 Arab civilians were killed in the conflict. Also, see Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine war. The statement as it is written is a political one: suggesting that Palestinian Arabs left the region willingly gives Israel a "more legitimate" claim to the land. It is at best controversial, and is not a neutral statement.

In general, the suggestion that the conflict relates to Israel's "legitimacy" is problematic. This is an article detailing an armed conflict. I.e. in an article about a WW2 battle or Civil War battle, it makes sense to include strategic implications of the battle, but the topic of the political "legitimacy" of the Third Reich or of the Confederate States of America would not be applicable. If anything, it belongs here: Legitimacy of the State of Israel.

Finally, a statement like the following one does not make sense given the cited figures in the parent article: "In Western historiography, the majority view was that the vastly outnumbered and ill-equipped Jews fended off the massed strength of the invading Arab armies." However, the parent article notes that the combined Arab forces totaled 2,000, which then increased to 70,000 through the course of the conflict. Per the article, Israeli forces initially numbered 10,000, which grew to 115,000. The cited figures show that Israel had numerical superiority: it is confusing to present a historical misconception as a fact without explaining that it is wrong.

The section either needs significant revision or removal. I would propose its removal, as it does not add any novel information pertaining to the conflict and contains many statements that violate Wikipedia's policy relating to neutrality. Meteoritekid (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Very good, it may even be all true but you do know that sources are necessary, right? Selfstudier (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I cited my edits to the page - which you reverted. Citing obviously biased statements does not mean that they conform with Wikipedia's requirement for neutrality. You do not address my comments above. Meteoritekid (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't revert you, someone else did, I asked you to self revert and I also asked a question (up above) about one of the sources you provided (Hughes) and you didn't answer me. I may agree with you, doesn't matter, we still need sources. Selfstudier (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Here is the current Historiography section at 1948 Arab–Israeli War:

See also: New Historians

After the war, Israeli and Palestinian historiographies differed on the interpretation of the events of 1948: in the West the majority view was of a tiny group of vastly outnumbered and ill-equipped Jews fighting off the massed strength of the invading Arab armies; it was also widely believed that the Palestinian Arabs left their homes on the instruction of their leaders.

From 1980, with the opening of the Israeli and British archives, some Israeli historians have developed a different account of the period. In particular, the role played by Abdullah I of Jordan, the British government, the Arab aims during the war, the balance of force and the events related to the Palestinian exodus have been nuanced or given new interpretations. Some of them are still hotly debated among historians and commentators of the conflict today.

Selfstudier (talk) 09:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

When I saw this wiki text, citing ostensibly Shlaim, I knew instinctively he could not have written anything like the paraphrase we have on the two pages. Shlaim mentions that the Zionists were more succesffuly in propagatingf their narrative of a David and Goliath struggle between an undermanned and underarmed Israel and the '5' Arab army hordes, and Arab leaders telling Paleastinians to flee (that died on its feet with Childers' analysis in 1961) 20 years before the New Historians. Look, lads and lasses, it is not hard to paraphrase accurately, and I hope this old rewrite workdog can trust that this happens here.Nishidani (talk) 11:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Working on it, it's not a very good historiography, pretty sure we can do better than this once we round up some sourcing. Selfstudier (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The Palestinians in the 1948 War and recent historiography in Israel Selfstudier (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence in the section of both articles presents a dichotomy that isn't properly introduced. The first paragraph should give a quick intro to each narrative.

For Palestinian historiography, Lisa Anderson describes Rashid Khalidi's The Hundred Years' War on Palestine as "the most cogent, comprehensive, and compelling account yet of this struggle from the Palestinian vantage point." The relevant chapter of that book for 1948 is "The Second Declaration of War, 1947–1948". إيان (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there are many good sources for the narratives of both sides, for the historiography, what we want is sources that critically discuss, contrast and compare those narratives. History of the histories if you like. Selfstudier (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Example (from the Nakba dyk)

Motti Golani; Adel Manna (2011). Two Sides of the Coin: Independence and Nakba 1948. Institute for Historical Justice and Reconciliation. p. 14. ISBN 9789089790811. The Palestinians regard the Nakba and its repercussions as a formative trauma defining their identity and their national, moral, and political aspirations. As a result of the 1948 war, the Palestinian people, which to a large degree lost their country to the establishment of a Jewish state for the survivors of the Holocaust, developed a victimized national identity. From their perspective, the Palestinians have been forced to pay for the Jewish Holocaust with their bodies, their property, and their freedom instead of those who were truly responsible. Jewish Israelis, in contrast, see the war and its outcome not merely as an act of historical justice that changed the historical course of the Jewish people, which until that point had been filled with suffering and hardship, but also as a birth – the birth of Israel as an independent Jewish state after two thousand years of exile. As such, it must be pure and untainted, because if a person, a nation, or a state is born in sin, its entire essence is tainted. In this sense, discourse on the war is not at all historical but rather current and extremely sensitive. Its power and intensity is directly influenced by present day events. In the Israeli and the Palestinian cases, therefore, the 1948 war plays a pivotal role in two simple, clear, unequivocal, and harmonious narratives, with both peoples continuing to see the war as a formative event in their respective histories. Selfstudier (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Just for the record, all sources agree that the Arab side had the advantage at the beginning of the war regarding number of troops and military equipment. It was only from July onwards that the tide gradually turned in the Israelis' favor as more immigrants and heavy weapons came in. I just wanted to clarify that. Dovidroth (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

all sources agree Please provide the list of sources that you checked in order to make this statement. Selfstudier (talk) 07:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Selfstudier: Yes, pretty much any serious work of history is going to situate itself within the conversation with regard to previous sources, narratives, and arguments and provide at least something in the way of historiography in the literature review in the introduction. It's not necessary to try to find sources that endeavor or pretend to just present a balanced account of historiographies without making some sort of claim; we should be synthesizing what the most current peer-reviewed and supported scholarship—from all over—is saying with regard to the history of knowledge about the topic because they all do that.

We also desperately need to get beyond this "two sides" paradigm of speaking of a monolithic "Israeli side" and a monolithic "Palestinian side" as if it were that simple. There are multiple pertinent stakeholders and perspectives to consider and discuss—not just Palestinian and Israeli but also Western, Soviet, Arab, Diaspora, Christian, popular, official etc. إيان (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

1948 Arab–Israeli War appears to be afflicted by the same tired text. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

We should distinguish between sources used to develop the article and sources concerned with the historiography. I am not saying that historiographical sources are not biased as well, they likely are but at least they help to narrow down the most relevant sources and the direction being taken by scholars in current research. Selfstudier (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Another example Selfstudier (talk) 07:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Note that the Sela/Kadish book says that its scope is "studies of Israeli representations, both Jewish and Palestinian, of memory and historical narratives of the 1948 War. The chapters map and explain the ongoing evolution of Israeli-Jewish and Israeli-Palestinian perspectives of the 1948 War as represented in literature, museums, art, visual and landscape, as well as in competing official and societal narratives" so there's a bit of a problem there, the PCoI views only ie excluding the Palestinians anywhere else. It's not a terrible book (the epilogue with Caplan is better than the rest of it) but since atm it and a 1995 Shlaim source is all we have for historiography, either we need more or we might as well do away with a historiography section altogether and just select major POV's like Shlaim, Morris, Khalidi and so on. Selfstudier (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The historiography section is essential and should not be dispensed with. Sela & Kadish seems like a good source for bringing complexity and nuance to coverage of Israeli narratives. It can have a place in our synthesis, which will also cover narratives outside that source's scope.

I still don't understand the view that it's necessary to "distinguish between sources used to develop the article and sources concerned with the historiography." Where consequential sources discuss historiography, even if just in the literature review, they can be used for this section with careful attribution where appropriate. إيان (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

One of the glaring issues with the section as it stands is that it does not address the difference in narratives with regard to the Nakba, which is generally inextricable from 1948 in Palestinian narratives and "forgotten" in Israeli narratives. إيان (talk) 05:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems that it is quite difficult to locate proper historiography (the same problem for history articles) so yes, I think we will have to pick out well known sources that mention other sources within them and rely on those. That this is also Nakba and 1948 Palestinian exodus is a valid point. Selfstudier (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I've put up a new draft of the section. Iskandar323, if there is consensus for it, a modified version of it can replace the tired text at 1948 Arab–Israeli War. إيان (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@إيان: Thanks for your work, and finding fresh sourcing for this content. A few pointers for the future would be to avoid an abundance of red links to works with no articles (as we now have here), and consider using shorter quotes or paraphrased prose in place of the likes of, for example, that rather long Avi Shlaim quote that you've added. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Iskandar323; those are some sound suggestions. I find redlinking useful for mapping out knowledge gaps, but I've removed the red links that aren't interlanguage links. If you have an idea about how to pare down that Shlaim quotation and have the time for it, feel free to do so. إيان (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

UNGAR 181

The UN General Assembly Resolution 181 was passed and recommended a partition of Palestine. The Israelis accepted this, the Arabs rejected this and shortly attacked Israel. 76.71.246.149 (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 June 2023

I wish to change the map showing Israel after 1949 Armistice Agreements to this one:

Israel after 1949 Armistice Agreements

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Projectwaw.org_Israel_in_1949.png LUKA1283 (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Although this map is a little easier to digest than the one currently in use, it omits some important information: The CIA map shows the exact locations of key cities with dots, whereas this one only gives general locations with text. This is particularly relevant in the case of Jerusalem, since the new map is not clear on its position relative to the border. I personally really like the look of this new design, but this information needs to be communicated clearly. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2023

I would like to suggest the removal of the word "indigenous". in the line from the article

"focusing on Palestinians' indigenous rights to Palestine"

based on the UN definition, https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/5session_factsheet1.pdf, Palestinians are not indigenous to Israel/palestine. If anyone is, it is the Jews that fit the criteria. Perhaps the phrase should be "focusing on Palestinians' desire for Palestine"

Thank you. 79.181.178.150 (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2023

Hi , pleae edit the title as this war official name is Israel independance war. Also there are few other corrections to be made. Ab box (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. "Official name" is not the only factor in deciding article names on Wikipedia, see WP:COMMONNAME Cannolis (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

section "The Arab states"

"Following World War II, the surrounding Arab states" is at least a typo. Wiki works better when users can edit it. 2003:C2:8F45:7C01:74FD:A8EC:F2BD:2086 (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

What's the typo? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Biological warfare

This section seems to me to be only deceptively referenced. It offers no footnote and only links out to two wiki articles on scholars who are alleged to have substantiated biological warfare, but the linked articles make no obvious mention of such research or finding. 75.164.18.126 (talk) 06:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

There is indeed a footnote, leading to an article in a major peer-reviewed journal, by one of the pre-eminent historians of this war. More could be added, but this alone is pretty solid. RolandR (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Distinction from 1948 Arab-Israeli War

There is another article called the 1948 Palestine War which appears to be about the exact same conflict, with the same belligerents and containing more or less the same information. It appears as though there are two articles on the same topic, what is the distinction? Shaked13 (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

There are articles on the phases before and after the involvement of the regular Arab armies, as well as an article on both combined. The partition (pardon the pun) is not perfect but this is what was decided after a long discussion. Zero^talk 01:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 23 December 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Per consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 05:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

---

1948 Palestine war → 1948 Palestine War – Like 1948 Arab–Israeli War, Korean War, Iraq War Lucjim (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). – robertsky (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - doesn't meet the "consistently capitalized in a significant majority of sources" bar of MOS:CAPS - see ngram.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per Amakuru. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:19, 24 December 2023 (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.

Henry Laurens (2005)

Does anyone know what book is being referenced in citations 51 and 58? Just says "Henry Laurens (2005)", I can't find what actual work it is referring to. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Apparently this, which I don't have: Henry Laurens, Paix et guerre au Moyen-Orient, Armand Colin, Paris, 2005, ISBN 2-200-26977-3. Nishidani can probably confirm. Zero^talk 11:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Did I do that edit? If so I must have been as pissed as a newt because I haven't a copy of that particular book by Laurens, and can't remember reading it, as opposed to the first three works he wrote on La Question de Palestine. A mystery. I always cite in the bibliography whatever work I utilize though this is screwed up when anybody transfers a datum from one page with the source note, while forgetting to add the reference to the notes. If I'm responsible, notes 51,58 should had the references erased and replaced with citation needed.Nishidani (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, must have been someone else. The problem with the Harvard citation style is that the cite gets separated from the source if bits are moved between articles. That's what apparently happened here; I found that source in another article and just assumed it was you. Maybe it was Pluto. Zero^talk 12:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

And could I ask what the policy is regarding citing non-English sources? Thanks, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found it - WP:NONENG. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Images and NPOV

Is it just me, or are the images in this article rather one-sided? Here is a list of the images in the article right now, from top to bottom:

1. Lead image: Arab fighters in front of burning Israeli vehicle
2. Arab soldiers
3. Map
4. Attack on Israeli civilians (car bombing)
5. Arab roadblock
6. Map
7. Palestinian irregulars
8. Israeli wounded
9. Israeli air-drop
10. Israeli troops
11. Israeli troops
12. Israeli troops
13. Israeli navy
14. Israeli troops
15. Israeli troops
16. Arab armored car captured by Israelis
17. Map

There are significantly more pictures of Israeli stuff than Arab or non-Israeli stuff. No pictures illustrating massacres or expulsions and flight. I may someday come back and switch out pictures but thought I'd mention it in the meantime. (I left a similar message at Talk: 1948 Arab–Israeli War, where the problem is significantly worse.) Levivich (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Well noted, both here and on the other page. Nishidani (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Levivich and Nishidani. For the infobox, the best solution is probably to have a number of images, which seems to be the common choice in major war articles. إيان (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Lev, if you manage to get the time (no hurry), perhaps you're the best hand here to undertake a balancing cull. I noted this kind of imbalance in pics on several pages yonks ago but given my dubious profile, this only lent itself to edit wars and endless discussions. No one, I would imagine, would challenge your commitment to neutrality in matters like this. Nishidani (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I may do that at the other article or at the gallery in this article. This article doesn't really have too many pictures IMO, just not a good mix or balance of pictures, so I'm reluctant to remove rather than replace or just add.

I was hoping I could quickly find some good photos by looking at featured pictures, but the discrepancy is pretty noticable on Commons (c:Category:Featured pictures of Israel, c:Category:Featured pictures of Palestine) and even worse on enwiki (Category:Featured pictures of Israel, Category:Featured pictures of Palestine). Sadly, those categories have no pictures of Palestinians during the 1948 war, as apparently the only two Wikipedia featured pictures of Palestinians are a photo of two people grinding coffee in 1905, and a 1915 photo of camels.

But at least we have a good lead image for whenever Palestinian camels gets written, which may be a notable topic: The last camel in Jerusalem, stationed at the Mount of Olives and available for tourist rides and photos with the Dome of the Rock in the background, met a very Palestinian fate in 2011 when he was detained by the Israeli police for not having the 'proper paperwork.' [1]. (The myth that "there was no such thing as a Palestinian camel"-- that they're actually Egyptian or Jordanian camels or they wandered in from Saudi Arabia -- has long since been debunked.) Levivich (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

- what a fascinating and oddly compelling niche topic. Maybe one day. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

the sources are there [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Levivich (talk) 06:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)