![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I have noticed no article on the 1947-48 Palestinian civil war, though the French Wikipedia has a featured article on the subject. Anyone think they would be up to the task of beginning the article? âThe preceding unsigned comment was added by Twas Now ( talk ⢠contribs) 06:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
The article, which was just turned into a redirect, was very poor.
Not sure if there are enough sources for such an article, but there does seem to be an indication that the 1947-1948 civil war differs from the later 1948 Arab-Israeli war.
Here is a source from the Jewish Virtual Library:
From FindArticles:
From Zeitgerchichtische:
-- Abnn 22:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed no article on the 1947-48 Palestinian civil war, though the French Wikipedia has a featured article on the subject. Anyone think they would be up to the task of beginning the article? âThe preceding unsigned comment was added by Twas Now ( talk ⢠contribs) 06:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
Hell Abnn,
I have just seen your message dated May 10 on
Talk:1947-48 Palestinian civil war.
Efraim Karsh and
Yoav Gelber in books dedicated to this war used the words "civil war" to describe the period from Nov 30 to May 14.
Benny Morris, in Victims (...) uses them too.
I will report them on the talk page. I think with what you got yourself, we have enough material to source the title
1947-48 Palestinian civil war.
Regards,
Alithien
06:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I will be adding to this soon. I will have the entire french article translated into english soon.-- James, La gloria è a dio 14:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
1947-48 Palestinian Civil War â 1947-1948 civil war in the British Mandate of Palestine â The title should be made less confusing, especially in the light of Palestinian Civil War and other Palestinian topics. â â Humus sapiens Đ˝Ń ? 04:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.I just came to this page and I'm truly shocked. For once, a genuinely dispassionte, NPOV introduction to an article on the Is-Pal conflict!
Don't know who is responsible for this, but they have my congratulations :) Gatoclass 02:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The infobox says that the conflict is ongoing, while the article contradicts it by saying that the conflict ended on May 14, 1948. The latter is true, because this article talks about the war between the Jewish Yishuv and several Arab 'liberation' armies in Palestine, which merged into the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Therefore, I propose putting 'Merged into 1948 Arab-Israeli War' into the result instead. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 11:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Just realized that the infobox talked about the Arab-Israeli conflict in general. In that case, we should change the entire infobox, to focus on the conflict that this article is about, and not something entirely different. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 11:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems there is a disagreement on the title.
Humus, after some discussion modified this to 1948 Civil War in the British Mandate of Palestine. Main reason was that it avoided misunderstanding with the current meaning of the word Palestine and with the current civil war.
Ian reverted to 1947-48 Civil War in Palestine, arguing that the British Mandate of Palestine is not a pertinent name for the region and that Palestine is the most pertinent one.
I don't have a final mind about that but to keep some logical, we should take a decision because I mind changing the title of all the links related to this article :-(
I think -indeed- that for many people, the use of the word Palestine here is strange because its meaning has changed. On the other hand, it was named Palestine at that time. See eg
Palestine Post but on the other hand see
British Mandate of Palestine.
Your mind ?
Alithien
10:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The term British Mandate is an historical one. Obviously the region is now called Palestine. Bear in mind also that "Palestine" and "Palestinian" most often refer to the Palestinian Authority (PA) and PA citizens.
A pro-Arab Wikipedian and I (a pro-Israel Wikipedian) worked together to create Definitions of Palestine a few years back. -- Uncle Ed 04:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I suggest this Alithien 07:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Â :
This sections was written so that none is pictured guilty or responsible.
The reason is that historians don't agree on this matter and nobody can fin the truth about that.
Theses sentences :
where they were added picture the scene as if Arab *defended themselves*, which is a controversed point of view.
If we want to keep this article neutral or even improve its neutrality (which is feasible), I suggest to add a section "controverses" where we could detail this (but not starting to pov-push the article step by step as if it where part of the Palestine).
Regards,
Alithien
07:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The fact Irgun started a campain of placing a bomb is correct but if you start considering who started first and who acted in retaliation of what, you start the infernal spiral of pov-push. Everybody justified his acts by retaliation of former acts.
It is impossible and unrelevant to try to state who would have started first and who would have been more responsible than the other. Read eg : PappÊ, The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1947-1951. There were numerous acts of violences, and the spiral grew. The spiral is a word of PappÊ !
Gelber describes the event exactly the same way.
In the article, there are currently 2 exemples, one where each side where the agressor and that lead to numerous deads.
I will check the global idea of Morris but I am quite sure he shares PappĂŠ and Gelber's minds.
Alithien
07:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This article is not about Plan Dalet or operation Nachshon. All historians but one Among scholars only one states that Deir Yassin was part of Plan Dalet. And more, it is recent. He didn't state this in his former book about the 1948 war. Pappe also stated theyre were 200 victims at Deir Yassin. And [in] his last recent book, he states [there were] 97 massacred people + dozens of victims during the battle while all(*) scholars still consider around 100 victims at for the full total.
(*)even Palestinian scholars
These controversies can be introduced in wikipedia in the main article about Pappe. Not in this summary.
Ceedjee (
talk)
18:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I can see that there's been some debate about the name of this page in the recent past, and so I apologize to stir things up again, but "Mandate Palestine" is, as far as I am aware, not an appropriate term. Mandate is a noun, not an adjective, and so it really needs to be "the British Mandate of Palestine" or "the Mandate of Palestine". "Mandatory Palestine", while it seems good, having turned Mandate into an adjective, is also no good as far as I am concerned; it raises the question of what is mandatory. You wouldn't write Obligatory Palestine or Compulsory Palestine, so I don't think we should use Mandatory either. LordAmeth ( talk) 22:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The whole of this article is badly distorted by the impression given by statements such as: during the British mandate, the authorities always prohibited the possession of weapons, and confiscated all that they found.
Disarmament of the native population seems to have been consistent and effective since the capture of Jerusalem by the British in Dec 1918 (and they were only lightly armed before that). However, the settlements had been arming themselves since their inception over 30 years earlier - eg Ro'i, Yakov. "The Zionist Attitude to the Arabs 1908-1914." Middle Eastern Studies 4:3 (1968), p206 (cited Morris, Righteous Victims, p56): On June 24 [1891] a group of Jerusalem Arab notables sent a telegram to the grand Vizier of Constantinople asking that the government halt Russian Jewish immigration and bar Jews from purchasing land. "The Jews are taking all the lands out of the hands of the Muslims, taking all the commerce into their hands and bringing arms into the country,"
Here is what Huneidi says of the first disturbances in 1920, p.40 of "A Broken Trust": a secret telegram from General Headquarters in Egypt to the War Office on 18 April 1920 indicated that 'no doubt Jews possessed large numbers of firearms', and that inspection of casualties bore this out. ... [71.FO 371/5- 118 E 3478 20 April 1920. Secret.]
Still in 1920, Ibid., p.138 Following the disturbances, the Muslim-Christian Association of Jaffa wrote to the military governor complaining that 'the Zionist Committee [sic, Zionist Commission] was training their young on military grounds, which fact was observed on the same day when thousands of them demonstrated in a military way, carrying arms and sticks of every description.'[64. FO 371/5114 E 6982/61/44, Allenby to Lord Curzon, l0 June 1920. The letter was signed by Taher About Seoud, Aref El Rigali [sic], and Ibrahim El Schakassi [sic]. The letter also alleged that the Zionist Committee, 'composed chiefly of Russian, American and German members, accustomed to revolutions, have jointly planned this programme so that news may reach Europe of the tyranny and bloodshed caused by the Arabs to the so called innocent Jews, and thus attaining their devilish aim'. The Muslim-Christian Association also asked that a commission be appointed to investigate the killing of Jews and Arabs in the riots since the Arabs claimed that 'most of the wounded Jews had wounded themselves to increase the number of the wounded'. This letter was among copies of protests presented by four Palestinian societies to the military governor of Jaffa, which Allenby was transmitting to the Foreign Office. Allenby had received them from the Comite Central [sic] du Parti de l'Union Syrienne in Cairo, relative to the British government's policy towards Zionism. In replying, Allenby confined himself to 'a bare acknowledgement of the receipt of these protests' and that he was communicating them to HMG 'as desired'.] They pointed out that the government had collected all arms and ammunition from Christians and Muslims but 'the said law was never put in force on the Jews'.[65.The document merely mentions the 'said law' and gives no more details. It probably refers to martial law which was still in force at the time.] The letter claimed that the British authorities had recruited an army 'all composed of Jews and these have misused the confidence placed in them and used their arms against the Moslems and Christians', adding that several complaints had previously been made against Jewish soldiers at Jaffa, Ludd and Ramleh. The Muslim-Christian Association therefore called on the government, in the interest of peace and to safeguard their 'lives' and 'property', to initiate the 'immediate expulsion' of all Jewish soldiers from the country, 'retaking their arms' as well as those found in the possession of other Jews. It called for a thorough search for arms in Zionist institutions, confiscation of the same and 'severe punishment' of the Jews, who were the cause of the trouble. Should the government not wish to expel Jewish soldiers, 'an army of Arabs under the British flag should be recruited to defend the Moslems and Christians against the Jews'. [66.FO 371/5114 E 37-1/51I4 E 6982/61/44, Allenby to Lord Curzon, l0 June 1920.]
The Palin Report appears to think that (perhaps in Jerusalem only), there had even been collusion with the military government eg pp. 52,68: It seems scarcely credible that the fact that these men had been got together and were openly drilling at the back of Lemel School and on Mount Scopas [sic] should have been known as it undoubtedly was, to the population during the month of March - it was organised after the demonstration of the 8th - and yet no word of it reached either the Governorate or the Administration until after the riots.
Immediately after the 1920 disturbances, action was taken by the military forces against these armed groups, with Jabotinsky sentenced to a term of 15 years. (Husseini was simlarily convicted in absentia by a secret court, the proceedings of which have never been divulged and may be lost). The policy of the military administration on disarmament of the settlers was thrown into reverse on the arrival in June 1920 of the new Zionist High Commissioner, Hubert Samuel, who released Jabotinsky (and pardoned Husseini).
In 1921 (Ibid., p.138) Immediately following the May 1921 riots, Samuel initiated a scheme for the defence of Jewish colonies. In order to 'provide for the possible contingency of attacks upon Jewish Colonies' the high commissioner deemed it necessary to 'draw up a general defence scheme' as well as special schemes for different districts, 'in conjunction with the Military Authorities'. ... In his 'Political Report' for June 1921, Samuel reported the details of this scheme to the colonial secretary Winston Churchill. He wrote that, since his speech of 3 June, the Jewish population had been 'very nervous and apprehensive' and considered the speech a 'severe set-back' to their aspirations. He maintained, however, that this feeling had been 'a good deal modified' since Jewish colonies had been 'provided with Arms (under conditions strictly limiting their use to self-defence)'.53 On 22 June, Samuel despatched a 'top secret' telegram clarifying his proposals: 'a small number of Jewish special constables, provided with police uniforms and rifles, have already been enrolled'; additional rifles and ammunition 'have been or are being placed in sealed armouries in Colonies'; 'bonds' were being taken against misuse. District governors would 'in the event of disturbances authorise opening of armouries and arming reliable colonists named in lists previously prepared', but that the head of a colony could also give 'necessary authority' in case a sudden attack took place.
Meanwhile, large numbers of guns were being smuggled by the Zionists - and it's not even clear that the government was really trying to stop it happening. eg: Ibid., p.140 In December 1921, the 'Political Report' stated that an event which had caused a 'considerable amount of adverse comment' in the press was the seizure of 300 revolvers and a quantity of ammunition at Haifa consigned to Isaac Rosenberg from an Austrian individual named G. Fleikheer. The revolvers were concealed in beehives and steel cylinders, and one of the consignees according to the report, had been arrested while the other absconded.[69. C0 733/8, Deedes to Churchill, Political Report for December 1921, Secret Despatch.]
In it's present condition, the article reads like propaganda, as if this problem blew up suddenly, or came about as a result of WWII, and that any "blame" could probably be apportioned equally. The easily ascertainable facts show that one party (only) was arming itself against the other. Obviously, we don't say that, but we must indicate that the Zionists had never been disarmed, far from it. They'd been heavily armed virtually since their arrival, and had been well-trained for at least 28 years. PR talk 12:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nudve,
In fact,
Yaakov Dori (chief of staff) was ill during the war and
Yigal Yadin (chief of operations) was the commander of the Haganah.
Yigal Alon was under his orders and "only" commanded the Yiftah brigade in East-Galilea.
Menachem Begin, as independent chief or Irgun could indeed be added but it is not clear if he was a military leader or a political leader.
Ceedjee (
talk)
08:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
These groups are listed as belligerents in the infobox, yet they're not mentioned in the article. If they're contribution is too insignificant to be mentioned in the text prose, I think they should be removed from the box. -- Nudve ( talk) 11:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
First up, following is the definition of Civil War as per wiktionay: "A war fought between members of a single nation or similar political entity" ( Civil war definition from wiktionary).
Now having a holistic view on this article we will come up with the following main points:
Taking the above points into consideration and comparing them to the defintion of the civil war make it unreasonalbe to call this conflict "Civil War in Mandaroty Palestine" how would u like it if it was called "Palestinian Self-Defence War". I am suggesting a new title: United Nations Partition Plan War. Yamanam ( talk) 14:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I moved the article to the new title after a day of adding my argument to the talk page. Back to the title issue, I agree that I might have chose the wrong title, but still, I think the previous title is not 100% neutral, I mean, Jewish troops that participated in the war were mainly from Eurpoe, Arabs who participated were mainly from other Arab countries, nevertheless, the article is named Civil War and the main both belligerents are from outside Palestine. I am not sure if any of you can suggest a more suitable title. Yamanam ( talk) 15:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to come after the "battle". I only find the discussion right now.
You can find in the archives there have been long and huge discussion about the title !
For what I remember, among the historians I have read (neutral, biased, pro-Israeli or Pro-Palestinian)Â :
But civil war remains the most widely used.
Ceedjee (
talk)
08:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
See also the discussions
here and in the following sections nb: Alithien=ceedjee...
Ceedjee (
talk)
08:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi All
Sorry but,...
a bit about our history here
The war of independence for the state of Israel started immediately after the vote of November 29th 1947 for the partition in the UN. The war of independence has two main stages
1- During the British mandate where Arab gangs started to attack main roads in Palestine-Israel as well as attacking Jewish people by terroristic activities. During those period British authorities did all they could to fail Jewish defenders.
2- After termination of the mandate in 14 of May when Arab regular Army invaded Israel.
a. Jordanian Army Legion from the east commanded by a British general John Bagot Glubb known as Glubb Pasha
b. Egyptian Army from the south
c. Lebanese Army from the north
d. Iraqi Army from the north east
e. Syrian Army the north east
Calling the war of independence early stages civil war is incorrect historically as well as misleading. Civil war is between the civilians of the same nation. That is not the case. First stage of war of independence is by Arabs characterized attacks on the roads with the encouragement that as soon the British evacuates Palestine they will invade and destroy the Jewish entity in Israel.
See http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/1948_War.html
Dier Yassin story has two sides http://www.etzel.org.il/
I posed a stamp that this paper requires a through review and corrections.
BR
Fttxguru ( talk) 16:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes indeed
With your permission I return the stamp
Issue should go to Academic vote.
I sent it for review in Haifa University too.
Fttxguru ( talk) 11:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The page has a major error in referring to only Palestinian arabs as palastinians, technically the name of the whole land was called palastine since the roman times even so the name should apply to all inhabitants who lived there for centuries whether Arabic or Jewish âPreceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.172.121 ( talk) 11:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Disclaimer: This is not a GA review.
Having said that, I have just noticed that this article is up for GA. I have a few concerns which IMO need to be addressed and will be raised in the review anyway:
All in all, the article is a very good effort, but sometimes it seems like no one gave it a full read-through. I hope that the GA reviewer will do this, but urge the primary authors (too bad Ceedjee is gone) to re-read and re-evaluate it. â Ynhockey ( Talk) 09:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Review started |08:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)| Vinay84 ( talk) 08:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Synthesis section is too Verbose.
Eg: the explosions of joy amongst the Jewish community were counterbalanced by the expression of discontent amongst the Arab community
can be sinmplified to: say ; "Jews became happy and/though Arabs were left discontent".
Also, it can be merged with the background section
Reference in Footnote no 3 is an invalid link. IT supposedly refers to the UN resolution
Too many Duplicate statements. "...joy of the Jewish community were counterbalanced by ..." statement appears again in "Beginning of the Civil War" section in a modified form.
Vinay84 ( talk) 09:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The Review is now Finished, Important points of the conflict are well covered, but there are some strong statements which need sourcing.They possibly came about during Translation from French.
Sections/topics with separate articles like the various individual operations can have smaller Summaries.
I have put the nomination on Hold for a week till 1 October 2009 0500 GMT.
Vinay84 ( talk) 12:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Lot of time given for the article to be improved. Not much change seen. Failing the article
Vinay84 (
talk)
04:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The recent edit recording "the first casualties of the war" is only correct if one ignores everything that occured prior the date of the UN resolution. On August 15, 1947, in the Haganah's first major post-WWII attack against Palestinians, they blew up the house of the Abu Laban family, prosperous Palestinian orange growers, near Petah Tikva. Twelve occupants, including a woman and six children, were killed. (Walid Khalidi. "Before their Diaspora." IPS 1984. ISBNÂ 0 88728 143 5. Page 253. Benny Morris, "The Birth of the Palestinian refugee problem, 1947-1949", 1987, ISBNÂ 0 521 33028 9. Page 156. Morris gives no precise date or number of casualties but describes the house as "suspected of being an Arab terrorist headquarters.") Morris also states that on 20 May 1947 the Palamach blew up a coffee house in Fajja after the murder of two Jews in Petah Tikva. I have no doubt there were other events of inter-comminal violence prior to Nov 1947. This article gives the impression that Plan D was put together in response to the violence in November 1947. My understanding is that why it is called Plan D is that there was Plan A, Plan B and Plan C before it. Surely the UN resolution was only the spark which unleased an armed conflict that both side had been preparing for for months, if not years. Why I would like the Abu Laban event recorded somewhere is that I have had it deleted from the Haganah and the Petah Tikva articles. Padres Hana ( talk) 19:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 16:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 16:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Golda43.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 23 September 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 18:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC) |
There are numerous other exemples.
If all these 4 agree on that, that proves it is even not controversial !
I require that the recent edits from Gilabrand are reverted and that sanctions are taken against her given her inappropriate and anti-collaborative behaviour on wikipedia.
At best, she doens't know the topic and should be topic-banned.
91.180.137.10 ( talk) 07:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Gilabrand completely removed that section from the article. That is of course not acceptable. I cannot even understand who except the worst far right settlers deny this : more than half of the 1948 Palestinian exodus occured during that civil war. The only controversy is about the causes. That is one of the main event of that civi war.
Gilabrand, could you clarify your motivations to remove this. 91.180.110.219 ( talk) 08:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Gilabrand wonders who she is to upset an IP : [7]. She'd better wonder who she is :
Whether she doesn't know the topic (and should have refrained to edit the article) or she is a pov-pusher and should be prevented to edit in the topic. If there is another explanation in accordance with WP:AGF, it is welcome. 91.180.110.219 ( talk) 12:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Why such a synopsis ? It should be removed from the article. 81.247.206.134 ( talk) 16:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I am a little frustrated that this has been deleted. I have already had it deleted from the Haganah article and (if I remember correctly) from the Petah Tikva article. Can anyone suggest where the killing of 12 Palestinians (Arabs) would fit in Wikipedia?
The Haganah was initially involved in the post-war attacks against the British in Palestine but withdrew following the outrage caused by the 1946 Irgun bombing of the British Army Headquarters in the King David Hotel. In 1947 the Haganah began operations against Palestinian Arabs. On August 15, 1947, they blew up the house of the Abu Laban family, prosperous Palestinian orange growers, near Petah Tikva. Twelve occupants, including a woman and six children, were killed. [1] Padres Hana ( talk) 12:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:NPoV, no thesis should be discredited or minimized in comparison with another given there is no consensus among historians. Reader who needs the nuances can go and read the main articles 1948 Palestinian exodus or even more specialized : Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus.
The summary that is given fits perfectly the situation of the debate in giving roughly main 3 thesis in chronological order and without going to deep into details.
In other words than those used in the article :
There are many nuances but that is not the topic of this article that talks about the civil war, not the exodus.
91.180.121.51 ( talk) 07:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
you deleted my added text, and reasoned it by: "the Arms Problem: delete poorly sourced or not sourced at all. let's stick to serious sources, folks, no fairy stories". since those sources are used here and in other wikipedia articles, there is no suspect it. Will it be possible for you to elaborate? Ykantor ( talk) 17:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
(1) The ship "nora" arrived to Tel Aviv with thousands of rifles at 1.4.48 , and this is an exception to the blockade. The Hagana situation was so bad at that date, that they decided to risk losing the whole shipment (because of the British blockade) and send it earlier. http://www.palyam.org/English/ArmsShips/Nora
Here is what Ilan (cited above) says about the ALA weaponry: "Their equipment was the poorest amongst all the Arab armies in Palestine: non-standard small arms (the men were owners of their own arms), a few medium mortars and four to five 70-mm and 105-mm guns received from Syria. The amount of ammunition at the disposal of this artillery was very limited" (p56). Of the Jewish forces at the end of the Mandate he writes "six 20-mm guns, 25 odd AFVs of all sorts and approximately a dozen serviceable light aircraft" (p58). The Jewish side was very short of rifles, but only in relation to the number of soldiers, which was much greater than the number of ALA soldiers. Regarding British actions: since the UN resolution, the policy was to disengage from Arab-Jewish conflict. Of course there were more arms searches against Jews than against Arabs, but that was because Jewish forces were attacking the British forces causing a large number of casualties. Zero talk 09:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
to Pluto and Zero0000 :some of the arms paragraph (3.7) content , isn't relevant to chapter 3 (up to 1.4.48) but to chapter 4 (after 1.4.48). isn't it better to move this content to the correct chapter?
While I wrote about the arms situation at the time frame of chapter 3, some of your notes are relevant to chapter 4 (after 1.4.48). Ykantor ( talk) 12:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
to pluto: you deleted a sentence concerning food supply, but this sentence refers to the previous one. Thus, if in your opinion, food supply should not be specified in this paragraph, one has to delete the previous sentence as well, or lo allow both sentences to stay.
1 according to the rules, I have to give you a notice: If you do not restore the sentence, I will have to open a dispute.
It is typical for you to give an excuse it is already in the article, although it is not there.
You have done it again: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia Ykantor ( talk) 19:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
2 :I introduced the information in the article at the right place and in a neutral way. Pluto2012 ( talk) 08:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
3Â :: You have done it again: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia
4Â :::That's the last time that I will answer to you if you don't comply with WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Next time, I will proceed to my modifications without comments in referring to this message. Enough is enough.
5Â :::: I am fed up with you. You do not bother to read the quotations. Ykantor ( talk) 17:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
About your Third Opinion request: The guidelines of the Third Opinion project say: "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill." The foregoing, with only one objection and one response, does not constitute a thorough discussion, so the request has been removed. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 13:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
The narrative in the Ramat Yohanan section needs improvement. In the first sentence of the second paragraph, which summarizes the entire episode, no citation was used to support the claim that Druze attacks were forced back "with ease." The second sentence, on the other hand, which claims that Israelis burned down two villages from which the attacks were launched got two citations.
To provide a more accurate narrative, the article would benefit from one or two additional points of views to complement Morris', Gelber's and the author's.
I suggest the following narrative as appropriate material for the article's editors to use as a means of improving the section. It comes from a book by Laila Parsons, titled, The Druze Between Palestine and Israel, 1947-49, Oxford, 2000. The section of the book dedicated to the battle of Ramat Yohanan spans from page 65 to 69. The following account of the battle is taken from page 46:
The battle that followed [Shakib Wahab's] initial attack lasted five days, and was very fierce [emphasis mine]. The Jewish forces were surprised by the tenacity and discipline with which the Druze fought. On 14 April, the two sides met in hand-to-hand combat after a unit of company size (formed from Battalion 21 of the Carmeli Brigade) attempted to attack Druze positions north of Ramat Yohanan. The Jewish forces were pushed back and 12 Jewish soldiers were killed, most of them platoon commanders. Moshe Carmel, the commander of the Carmeli Brigade wrote:
"I saw retreating units returning one after the other without their commanders...the brigade for the first time had hit upon an enemy whose ability was much superior to the Arab fighter and which had inflicted defeat upon it. The spirits of the brigade were down and its faith in its own ability had been undermined." (42)
Endnote (42): Carmel, Ma'arachot Tzafon, p. 63. For the graphic account of this battle by the sergeant of the first platoon to attempt to storm the Druze position, see Eshel, Hativat Carmeli, p. 111. According to this account Moshe Dayan's brother Zorik, commander of the first platoon, died in this initial attack while providing covering fire for his retreating platoon. â Preceding unsigned comment added by Raja.hass ( talk ⢠contribs) 20:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Ykantor ( talk) 06:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Ykantor, thank you for adding the sentence describing the nine attacks. However, the first sentence of the second paragraph sets the tone of your narration of the battle. I believe that the sentence and its implications are inaccurate - it even contradicts the opinion of the Haganah's commanding officer on the ground.
I am advocating for a more balanced (?) approach on your part regarding this subject. The account I cited above and the one below are specifically meant to highlight the inaccuracy of your claim that "The Kibbutznikim and the Haganah soldiers that supported them forced back [the Druze] attacks with ease."
Regarding the Druze counterattack, for example, I would like to add the following account from page 68 of the same source I used above:
"The Druze counterattacked and charged the villages several times. At one point the battle in Husha was reduced to hand-to-hand combat, and two Druze soldiers managed to penetrate the village only to be killed inside. According to Jewish accounts the 'Druze charged ferociously with large knives - glistening in the sun-light - held between their teeth.' (49)
At the same time the Jewish forces were running low on ammunition and attempts to bring in reinforcements had failed. The company commander continued to send urgent requests for more ammunition back to Ramat Yohanan, until finally, in the middle of the afternoon, he asked to be allowed to give up the fight: 'Every man has four bullets. There is no more ammunition for the machine guns. Request permission to retreat.' But the reply from command headquarters in Ramat Yohanan insisted: 'You must hold on even if the bullets run out. If you retreat you will all be wiped out. Fight with knives and anything that is at hand.' (50) At 16:30, however, an armored car arrived carrying ammunition and a machine gun. The Druze were pushed back and retreated to Shafa'amr. The Jews held both villages, Husha and Kasayr, and the battle for Ramat Yohanan was effectively over." (51)
Endnote (49): Carmel, Ma'arachot Tzafon, p. 65. The fact that the Druze charged with knives between their teeth is also mentioned in Eshel, Hativat Carmeli, p. 116
Endnote (50): Carmel, Ma'arachot Tzafon, p. 69. Moshe Carmel was the brigade comander in April and May 1948, and is recounting events from memory
Endnote (51): There are conflicting reports on the number of casualties. Approximate numbers are 25 Jewish soldiers killed, 42 wounded; 110 Druze killed, 100 wounded: 16-19 April 1948, 132/105, HA; 20 April 1948, 195/105, HA. Based on an interview conducted with 'Abd al-Latif al-Fahum (whom he describes as 'one of the leaders of the fighters in that region') 'Arif al 'Arif claims that only 30 Druze were killed: al-Nakba, p.224. Abu Salih states that 'During the battle the Druze lost 100 dead and many wounded' (Tarikh al-Muwahhidin al Duruz, p.374). â Preceding unsigned comment added by Raja.hass ( talk ⢠contribs) 20:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Could you please say what is the deletion reason? Ykantor ( talk) 20:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
There is a controversy among historians about who started the war. That may be seen as a childish problem but as in all quarrels, it is better to blame the other side for the beginning of 'hostilities'. The events are better described as a "spiral of violence" that lead to the war, as Benny Morris, The Birth... revisited (2003), p.138 or Ellen Fleischman (2003), University of Californian Press, p.201 writes.
The problem is that Benny Morris enters that "quarrel" and he is a wp:rs source. As Ykantor reports here above, he wrote :
Note this is just a quote with an annex comment... Without a "s" at Arab and without a coma, that means that [some] Arabs initiated the fighting but it doesn't mean all the Arabs did so. More, it doesn't mean there were no Jewish initiators... (And everybody knows that the terrorist campaign of IZL and LHI started much before :
King David Hotel bombing,
The Sergeants affair,
Acre Prison break, ...)
Anyway, it is not the only place where he does so. In his conclusions, Benny Morris blames the Arabs to have started the war and conclude that as a consequence their bear the responsibility of the results. In 1948 (2008), p.396 of his conclusions, he writes :
Reading the detailled account of Gelber (who dedicated a chapter on the Outbreak and extensions of the hostilities) we can conclude he doesn't "blame" anybody to have started the war. On the contrary, regarding the facts, we can read p.20Â :
I am far away from my books but we (maybe not Ykantor) know that Walid Khalidi and Nur Masalha, Palestinian historians, claim that the war (and the expulsion) was inherent to Zionism and planned for long. (See the article of the former about Plan Daleth and the book of the latter about the "expulsions of the Palestinians".) Whether we think their thesis true or not, the war was expected for long by everybody (Haganah was created in 1920 after the Jerusalem riots because nobody believed all this would not end by a war)...
(edit) now that I am closer of these, here is the description of the events of December and January in Expulsion of the Palestinians, 1992, p.176Â :
-> The conclusion for wikipedia is that Palestinian historians think that Zionism started the war and even more that it was planned.
Note that Rosemarie Esber goes a step farther : in Under the cover of war (2008), she defends the idea (as others did before her) that the war (initiated by the Yishuv) was used to expell Palestinians from their land. (This is not just a "quote". That's the thesis of the full book...). Regarding the events of December, p.148 she writes :
P.151-5, she describes the events from mid-December to mi-January and [some] bombings of IZL and LHI in a chapter that she calls the "reign of terror in Palestine" and she writes to conclude :
Palestitian historian Saleh Abdel Jawad, in Zionist Massacres: the Creation of the Palestinian Refugee Problem in the 1948 War (published in a Benvenisti book) addresses Morris (and others) thesis about the "they brought it on themselves" arguments. He writes :
This is so not just a quote picked from a book, this is a full article about this topic... And in this article, he of course talks about the LHI and IZL terror campaign. He does so too at the beginning for the article about the massacres. (I don't have access by googlebook to it).
Regarding some facts (primary sources), they can be found here :
Pluto2012 ( talk) 08:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that the topic of "who shot first" is not developed in the article because :
In wikipedian vocabulary :
-> wp:npov compliance requires so much details and material to present this controversy properly that it should not be mentionned per wp:undue.
My proposal (in the synopsis)Â :
Pluto2012 ( talk) 08:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
You have to obey the Wikipedia rules. There is no reason to delete such an important, well supported and concise (just 19 words in line). Please obey the rules and return this sentence. Ykantor ( talk) 02:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
to Pluto: You deleted again this content: "For four months, under continuous Arab provocation and attack, the Yishuv was usually on the defensive while occasionally retaliating".
Your reason is: "undue weight is not a question of number of words but the information itself regarding all other information".
In my opinion it is important to add it to the article header.
Please re-install it, otherwise I'll have to open a dispute. Ykantor ( talk) 11:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
I'm providing some 3O input even though this discussion is fairly old. (Indeed, the WP:DRN link related to this dispute does not have a relevant listing.) Also, other edits may have (not necessarily do) overcome the particular section you are concerned about. Even so, I looked at the edits which concern you. User Aua's is the better version and Aua's comments are the more persuasive in this discussion. You also have User:Pluto barking up a few pertinent comments, which I endorse. Please keep in mind we are all pushing on a WP:POLE, and the ultimate objective will be a good article. â S. Rich ( talk) 06:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC) |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I have noticed no article on the 1947-48 Palestinian civil war, though the French Wikipedia has a featured article on the subject. Anyone think they would be up to the task of beginning the article? âThe preceding unsigned comment was added by Twas Now ( talk ⢠contribs) 06:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
The article, which was just turned into a redirect, was very poor.
Not sure if there are enough sources for such an article, but there does seem to be an indication that the 1947-1948 civil war differs from the later 1948 Arab-Israeli war.
Here is a source from the Jewish Virtual Library:
From FindArticles:
From Zeitgerchichtische:
-- Abnn 22:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed no article on the 1947-48 Palestinian civil war, though the French Wikipedia has a featured article on the subject. Anyone think they would be up to the task of beginning the article? âThe preceding unsigned comment was added by Twas Now ( talk ⢠contribs) 06:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
Hell Abnn,
I have just seen your message dated May 10 on
Talk:1947-48 Palestinian civil war.
Efraim Karsh and
Yoav Gelber in books dedicated to this war used the words "civil war" to describe the period from Nov 30 to May 14.
Benny Morris, in Victims (...) uses them too.
I will report them on the talk page. I think with what you got yourself, we have enough material to source the title
1947-48 Palestinian civil war.
Regards,
Alithien
06:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I will be adding to this soon. I will have the entire french article translated into english soon.-- James, La gloria è a dio 14:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
1947-48 Palestinian Civil War â 1947-1948 civil war in the British Mandate of Palestine â The title should be made less confusing, especially in the light of Palestinian Civil War and other Palestinian topics. â â Humus sapiens Đ˝Ń ? 04:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.I just came to this page and I'm truly shocked. For once, a genuinely dispassionte, NPOV introduction to an article on the Is-Pal conflict!
Don't know who is responsible for this, but they have my congratulations :) Gatoclass 02:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The infobox says that the conflict is ongoing, while the article contradicts it by saying that the conflict ended on May 14, 1948. The latter is true, because this article talks about the war between the Jewish Yishuv and several Arab 'liberation' armies in Palestine, which merged into the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Therefore, I propose putting 'Merged into 1948 Arab-Israeli War' into the result instead. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 11:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Just realized that the infobox talked about the Arab-Israeli conflict in general. In that case, we should change the entire infobox, to focus on the conflict that this article is about, and not something entirely different. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 11:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems there is a disagreement on the title.
Humus, after some discussion modified this to 1948 Civil War in the British Mandate of Palestine. Main reason was that it avoided misunderstanding with the current meaning of the word Palestine and with the current civil war.
Ian reverted to 1947-48 Civil War in Palestine, arguing that the British Mandate of Palestine is not a pertinent name for the region and that Palestine is the most pertinent one.
I don't have a final mind about that but to keep some logical, we should take a decision because I mind changing the title of all the links related to this article :-(
I think -indeed- that for many people, the use of the word Palestine here is strange because its meaning has changed. On the other hand, it was named Palestine at that time. See eg
Palestine Post but on the other hand see
British Mandate of Palestine.
Your mind ?
Alithien
10:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The term British Mandate is an historical one. Obviously the region is now called Palestine. Bear in mind also that "Palestine" and "Palestinian" most often refer to the Palestinian Authority (PA) and PA citizens.
A pro-Arab Wikipedian and I (a pro-Israel Wikipedian) worked together to create Definitions of Palestine a few years back. -- Uncle Ed 04:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I suggest this Alithien 07:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Â :
This sections was written so that none is pictured guilty or responsible.
The reason is that historians don't agree on this matter and nobody can fin the truth about that.
Theses sentences :
where they were added picture the scene as if Arab *defended themselves*, which is a controversed point of view.
If we want to keep this article neutral or even improve its neutrality (which is feasible), I suggest to add a section "controverses" where we could detail this (but not starting to pov-push the article step by step as if it where part of the Palestine).
Regards,
Alithien
07:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The fact Irgun started a campain of placing a bomb is correct but if you start considering who started first and who acted in retaliation of what, you start the infernal spiral of pov-push. Everybody justified his acts by retaliation of former acts.
It is impossible and unrelevant to try to state who would have started first and who would have been more responsible than the other. Read eg : PappÊ, The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1947-1951. There were numerous acts of violences, and the spiral grew. The spiral is a word of PappÊ !
Gelber describes the event exactly the same way.
In the article, there are currently 2 exemples, one where each side where the agressor and that lead to numerous deads.
I will check the global idea of Morris but I am quite sure he shares PappĂŠ and Gelber's minds.
Alithien
07:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This article is not about Plan Dalet or operation Nachshon. All historians but one Among scholars only one states that Deir Yassin was part of Plan Dalet. And more, it is recent. He didn't state this in his former book about the 1948 war. Pappe also stated theyre were 200 victims at Deir Yassin. And [in] his last recent book, he states [there were] 97 massacred people + dozens of victims during the battle while all(*) scholars still consider around 100 victims at for the full total.
(*)even Palestinian scholars
These controversies can be introduced in wikipedia in the main article about Pappe. Not in this summary.
Ceedjee (
talk)
18:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I can see that there's been some debate about the name of this page in the recent past, and so I apologize to stir things up again, but "Mandate Palestine" is, as far as I am aware, not an appropriate term. Mandate is a noun, not an adjective, and so it really needs to be "the British Mandate of Palestine" or "the Mandate of Palestine". "Mandatory Palestine", while it seems good, having turned Mandate into an adjective, is also no good as far as I am concerned; it raises the question of what is mandatory. You wouldn't write Obligatory Palestine or Compulsory Palestine, so I don't think we should use Mandatory either. LordAmeth ( talk) 22:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The whole of this article is badly distorted by the impression given by statements such as: during the British mandate, the authorities always prohibited the possession of weapons, and confiscated all that they found.
Disarmament of the native population seems to have been consistent and effective since the capture of Jerusalem by the British in Dec 1918 (and they were only lightly armed before that). However, the settlements had been arming themselves since their inception over 30 years earlier - eg Ro'i, Yakov. "The Zionist Attitude to the Arabs 1908-1914." Middle Eastern Studies 4:3 (1968), p206 (cited Morris, Righteous Victims, p56): On June 24 [1891] a group of Jerusalem Arab notables sent a telegram to the grand Vizier of Constantinople asking that the government halt Russian Jewish immigration and bar Jews from purchasing land. "The Jews are taking all the lands out of the hands of the Muslims, taking all the commerce into their hands and bringing arms into the country,"
Here is what Huneidi says of the first disturbances in 1920, p.40 of "A Broken Trust": a secret telegram from General Headquarters in Egypt to the War Office on 18 April 1920 indicated that 'no doubt Jews possessed large numbers of firearms', and that inspection of casualties bore this out. ... [71.FO 371/5- 118 E 3478 20 April 1920. Secret.]
Still in 1920, Ibid., p.138 Following the disturbances, the Muslim-Christian Association of Jaffa wrote to the military governor complaining that 'the Zionist Committee [sic, Zionist Commission] was training their young on military grounds, which fact was observed on the same day when thousands of them demonstrated in a military way, carrying arms and sticks of every description.'[64. FO 371/5114 E 6982/61/44, Allenby to Lord Curzon, l0 June 1920. The letter was signed by Taher About Seoud, Aref El Rigali [sic], and Ibrahim El Schakassi [sic]. The letter also alleged that the Zionist Committee, 'composed chiefly of Russian, American and German members, accustomed to revolutions, have jointly planned this programme so that news may reach Europe of the tyranny and bloodshed caused by the Arabs to the so called innocent Jews, and thus attaining their devilish aim'. The Muslim-Christian Association also asked that a commission be appointed to investigate the killing of Jews and Arabs in the riots since the Arabs claimed that 'most of the wounded Jews had wounded themselves to increase the number of the wounded'. This letter was among copies of protests presented by four Palestinian societies to the military governor of Jaffa, which Allenby was transmitting to the Foreign Office. Allenby had received them from the Comite Central [sic] du Parti de l'Union Syrienne in Cairo, relative to the British government's policy towards Zionism. In replying, Allenby confined himself to 'a bare acknowledgement of the receipt of these protests' and that he was communicating them to HMG 'as desired'.] They pointed out that the government had collected all arms and ammunition from Christians and Muslims but 'the said law was never put in force on the Jews'.[65.The document merely mentions the 'said law' and gives no more details. It probably refers to martial law which was still in force at the time.] The letter claimed that the British authorities had recruited an army 'all composed of Jews and these have misused the confidence placed in them and used their arms against the Moslems and Christians', adding that several complaints had previously been made against Jewish soldiers at Jaffa, Ludd and Ramleh. The Muslim-Christian Association therefore called on the government, in the interest of peace and to safeguard their 'lives' and 'property', to initiate the 'immediate expulsion' of all Jewish soldiers from the country, 'retaking their arms' as well as those found in the possession of other Jews. It called for a thorough search for arms in Zionist institutions, confiscation of the same and 'severe punishment' of the Jews, who were the cause of the trouble. Should the government not wish to expel Jewish soldiers, 'an army of Arabs under the British flag should be recruited to defend the Moslems and Christians against the Jews'. [66.FO 371/5114 E 37-1/51I4 E 6982/61/44, Allenby to Lord Curzon, l0 June 1920.]
The Palin Report appears to think that (perhaps in Jerusalem only), there had even been collusion with the military government eg pp. 52,68: It seems scarcely credible that the fact that these men had been got together and were openly drilling at the back of Lemel School and on Mount Scopas [sic] should have been known as it undoubtedly was, to the population during the month of March - it was organised after the demonstration of the 8th - and yet no word of it reached either the Governorate or the Administration until after the riots.
Immediately after the 1920 disturbances, action was taken by the military forces against these armed groups, with Jabotinsky sentenced to a term of 15 years. (Husseini was simlarily convicted in absentia by a secret court, the proceedings of which have never been divulged and may be lost). The policy of the military administration on disarmament of the settlers was thrown into reverse on the arrival in June 1920 of the new Zionist High Commissioner, Hubert Samuel, who released Jabotinsky (and pardoned Husseini).
In 1921 (Ibid., p.138) Immediately following the May 1921 riots, Samuel initiated a scheme for the defence of Jewish colonies. In order to 'provide for the possible contingency of attacks upon Jewish Colonies' the high commissioner deemed it necessary to 'draw up a general defence scheme' as well as special schemes for different districts, 'in conjunction with the Military Authorities'. ... In his 'Political Report' for June 1921, Samuel reported the details of this scheme to the colonial secretary Winston Churchill. He wrote that, since his speech of 3 June, the Jewish population had been 'very nervous and apprehensive' and considered the speech a 'severe set-back' to their aspirations. He maintained, however, that this feeling had been 'a good deal modified' since Jewish colonies had been 'provided with Arms (under conditions strictly limiting their use to self-defence)'.53 On 22 June, Samuel despatched a 'top secret' telegram clarifying his proposals: 'a small number of Jewish special constables, provided with police uniforms and rifles, have already been enrolled'; additional rifles and ammunition 'have been or are being placed in sealed armouries in Colonies'; 'bonds' were being taken against misuse. District governors would 'in the event of disturbances authorise opening of armouries and arming reliable colonists named in lists previously prepared', but that the head of a colony could also give 'necessary authority' in case a sudden attack took place.
Meanwhile, large numbers of guns were being smuggled by the Zionists - and it's not even clear that the government was really trying to stop it happening. eg: Ibid., p.140 In December 1921, the 'Political Report' stated that an event which had caused a 'considerable amount of adverse comment' in the press was the seizure of 300 revolvers and a quantity of ammunition at Haifa consigned to Isaac Rosenberg from an Austrian individual named G. Fleikheer. The revolvers were concealed in beehives and steel cylinders, and one of the consignees according to the report, had been arrested while the other absconded.[69. C0 733/8, Deedes to Churchill, Political Report for December 1921, Secret Despatch.]
In it's present condition, the article reads like propaganda, as if this problem blew up suddenly, or came about as a result of WWII, and that any "blame" could probably be apportioned equally. The easily ascertainable facts show that one party (only) was arming itself against the other. Obviously, we don't say that, but we must indicate that the Zionists had never been disarmed, far from it. They'd been heavily armed virtually since their arrival, and had been well-trained for at least 28 years. PR talk 12:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nudve,
In fact,
Yaakov Dori (chief of staff) was ill during the war and
Yigal Yadin (chief of operations) was the commander of the Haganah.
Yigal Alon was under his orders and "only" commanded the Yiftah brigade in East-Galilea.
Menachem Begin, as independent chief or Irgun could indeed be added but it is not clear if he was a military leader or a political leader.
Ceedjee (
talk)
08:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
These groups are listed as belligerents in the infobox, yet they're not mentioned in the article. If they're contribution is too insignificant to be mentioned in the text prose, I think they should be removed from the box. -- Nudve ( talk) 11:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
First up, following is the definition of Civil War as per wiktionay: "A war fought between members of a single nation or similar political entity" ( Civil war definition from wiktionary).
Now having a holistic view on this article we will come up with the following main points:
Taking the above points into consideration and comparing them to the defintion of the civil war make it unreasonalbe to call this conflict "Civil War in Mandaroty Palestine" how would u like it if it was called "Palestinian Self-Defence War". I am suggesting a new title: United Nations Partition Plan War. Yamanam ( talk) 14:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I moved the article to the new title after a day of adding my argument to the talk page. Back to the title issue, I agree that I might have chose the wrong title, but still, I think the previous title is not 100% neutral, I mean, Jewish troops that participated in the war were mainly from Eurpoe, Arabs who participated were mainly from other Arab countries, nevertheless, the article is named Civil War and the main both belligerents are from outside Palestine. I am not sure if any of you can suggest a more suitable title. Yamanam ( talk) 15:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to come after the "battle". I only find the discussion right now.
You can find in the archives there have been long and huge discussion about the title !
For what I remember, among the historians I have read (neutral, biased, pro-Israeli or Pro-Palestinian)Â :
But civil war remains the most widely used.
Ceedjee (
talk)
08:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
See also the discussions
here and in the following sections nb: Alithien=ceedjee...
Ceedjee (
talk)
08:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi All
Sorry but,...
a bit about our history here
The war of independence for the state of Israel started immediately after the vote of November 29th 1947 for the partition in the UN. The war of independence has two main stages
1- During the British mandate where Arab gangs started to attack main roads in Palestine-Israel as well as attacking Jewish people by terroristic activities. During those period British authorities did all they could to fail Jewish defenders.
2- After termination of the mandate in 14 of May when Arab regular Army invaded Israel.
a. Jordanian Army Legion from the east commanded by a British general John Bagot Glubb known as Glubb Pasha
b. Egyptian Army from the south
c. Lebanese Army from the north
d. Iraqi Army from the north east
e. Syrian Army the north east
Calling the war of independence early stages civil war is incorrect historically as well as misleading. Civil war is between the civilians of the same nation. That is not the case. First stage of war of independence is by Arabs characterized attacks on the roads with the encouragement that as soon the British evacuates Palestine they will invade and destroy the Jewish entity in Israel.
See http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/1948_War.html
Dier Yassin story has two sides http://www.etzel.org.il/
I posed a stamp that this paper requires a through review and corrections.
BR
Fttxguru ( talk) 16:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes indeed
With your permission I return the stamp
Issue should go to Academic vote.
I sent it for review in Haifa University too.
Fttxguru ( talk) 11:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The page has a major error in referring to only Palestinian arabs as palastinians, technically the name of the whole land was called palastine since the roman times even so the name should apply to all inhabitants who lived there for centuries whether Arabic or Jewish âPreceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.172.121 ( talk) 11:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Disclaimer: This is not a GA review.
Having said that, I have just noticed that this article is up for GA. I have a few concerns which IMO need to be addressed and will be raised in the review anyway:
All in all, the article is a very good effort, but sometimes it seems like no one gave it a full read-through. I hope that the GA reviewer will do this, but urge the primary authors (too bad Ceedjee is gone) to re-read and re-evaluate it. â Ynhockey ( Talk) 09:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Review started |08:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)| Vinay84 ( talk) 08:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Synthesis section is too Verbose.
Eg: the explosions of joy amongst the Jewish community were counterbalanced by the expression of discontent amongst the Arab community
can be sinmplified to: say ; "Jews became happy and/though Arabs were left discontent".
Also, it can be merged with the background section
Reference in Footnote no 3 is an invalid link. IT supposedly refers to the UN resolution
Too many Duplicate statements. "...joy of the Jewish community were counterbalanced by ..." statement appears again in "Beginning of the Civil War" section in a modified form.
Vinay84 ( talk) 09:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The Review is now Finished, Important points of the conflict are well covered, but there are some strong statements which need sourcing.They possibly came about during Translation from French.
Sections/topics with separate articles like the various individual operations can have smaller Summaries.
I have put the nomination on Hold for a week till 1 October 2009 0500 GMT.
Vinay84 ( talk) 12:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Lot of time given for the article to be improved. Not much change seen. Failing the article
Vinay84 (
talk)
04:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The recent edit recording "the first casualties of the war" is only correct if one ignores everything that occured prior the date of the UN resolution. On August 15, 1947, in the Haganah's first major post-WWII attack against Palestinians, they blew up the house of the Abu Laban family, prosperous Palestinian orange growers, near Petah Tikva. Twelve occupants, including a woman and six children, were killed. (Walid Khalidi. "Before their Diaspora." IPS 1984. ISBNÂ 0 88728 143 5. Page 253. Benny Morris, "The Birth of the Palestinian refugee problem, 1947-1949", 1987, ISBNÂ 0 521 33028 9. Page 156. Morris gives no precise date or number of casualties but describes the house as "suspected of being an Arab terrorist headquarters.") Morris also states that on 20 May 1947 the Palamach blew up a coffee house in Fajja after the murder of two Jews in Petah Tikva. I have no doubt there were other events of inter-comminal violence prior to Nov 1947. This article gives the impression that Plan D was put together in response to the violence in November 1947. My understanding is that why it is called Plan D is that there was Plan A, Plan B and Plan C before it. Surely the UN resolution was only the spark which unleased an armed conflict that both side had been preparing for for months, if not years. Why I would like the Abu Laban event recorded somewhere is that I have had it deleted from the Haganah and the Petah Tikva articles. Padres Hana ( talk) 19:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 16:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 16:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Golda43.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 23 September 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 18:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC) |
There are numerous other exemples.
If all these 4 agree on that, that proves it is even not controversial !
I require that the recent edits from Gilabrand are reverted and that sanctions are taken against her given her inappropriate and anti-collaborative behaviour on wikipedia.
At best, she doens't know the topic and should be topic-banned.
91.180.137.10 ( talk) 07:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Gilabrand completely removed that section from the article. That is of course not acceptable. I cannot even understand who except the worst far right settlers deny this : more than half of the 1948 Palestinian exodus occured during that civil war. The only controversy is about the causes. That is one of the main event of that civi war.
Gilabrand, could you clarify your motivations to remove this. 91.180.110.219 ( talk) 08:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Gilabrand wonders who she is to upset an IP : [7]. She'd better wonder who she is :
Whether she doesn't know the topic (and should have refrained to edit the article) or she is a pov-pusher and should be prevented to edit in the topic. If there is another explanation in accordance with WP:AGF, it is welcome. 91.180.110.219 ( talk) 12:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Why such a synopsis ? It should be removed from the article. 81.247.206.134 ( talk) 16:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I am a little frustrated that this has been deleted. I have already had it deleted from the Haganah article and (if I remember correctly) from the Petah Tikva article. Can anyone suggest where the killing of 12 Palestinians (Arabs) would fit in Wikipedia?
The Haganah was initially involved in the post-war attacks against the British in Palestine but withdrew following the outrage caused by the 1946 Irgun bombing of the British Army Headquarters in the King David Hotel. In 1947 the Haganah began operations against Palestinian Arabs. On August 15, 1947, they blew up the house of the Abu Laban family, prosperous Palestinian orange growers, near Petah Tikva. Twelve occupants, including a woman and six children, were killed. [1] Padres Hana ( talk) 12:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:NPoV, no thesis should be discredited or minimized in comparison with another given there is no consensus among historians. Reader who needs the nuances can go and read the main articles 1948 Palestinian exodus or even more specialized : Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus.
The summary that is given fits perfectly the situation of the debate in giving roughly main 3 thesis in chronological order and without going to deep into details.
In other words than those used in the article :
There are many nuances but that is not the topic of this article that talks about the civil war, not the exodus.
91.180.121.51 ( talk) 07:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
you deleted my added text, and reasoned it by: "the Arms Problem: delete poorly sourced or not sourced at all. let's stick to serious sources, folks, no fairy stories". since those sources are used here and in other wikipedia articles, there is no suspect it. Will it be possible for you to elaborate? Ykantor ( talk) 17:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
(1) The ship "nora" arrived to Tel Aviv with thousands of rifles at 1.4.48 , and this is an exception to the blockade. The Hagana situation was so bad at that date, that they decided to risk losing the whole shipment (because of the British blockade) and send it earlier. http://www.palyam.org/English/ArmsShips/Nora
Here is what Ilan (cited above) says about the ALA weaponry: "Their equipment was the poorest amongst all the Arab armies in Palestine: non-standard small arms (the men were owners of their own arms), a few medium mortars and four to five 70-mm and 105-mm guns received from Syria. The amount of ammunition at the disposal of this artillery was very limited" (p56). Of the Jewish forces at the end of the Mandate he writes "six 20-mm guns, 25 odd AFVs of all sorts and approximately a dozen serviceable light aircraft" (p58). The Jewish side was very short of rifles, but only in relation to the number of soldiers, which was much greater than the number of ALA soldiers. Regarding British actions: since the UN resolution, the policy was to disengage from Arab-Jewish conflict. Of course there were more arms searches against Jews than against Arabs, but that was because Jewish forces were attacking the British forces causing a large number of casualties. Zero talk 09:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
to Pluto and Zero0000 :some of the arms paragraph (3.7) content , isn't relevant to chapter 3 (up to 1.4.48) but to chapter 4 (after 1.4.48). isn't it better to move this content to the correct chapter?
While I wrote about the arms situation at the time frame of chapter 3, some of your notes are relevant to chapter 4 (after 1.4.48). Ykantor ( talk) 12:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
to pluto: you deleted a sentence concerning food supply, but this sentence refers to the previous one. Thus, if in your opinion, food supply should not be specified in this paragraph, one has to delete the previous sentence as well, or lo allow both sentences to stay.
1 according to the rules, I have to give you a notice: If you do not restore the sentence, I will have to open a dispute.
It is typical for you to give an excuse it is already in the article, although it is not there.
You have done it again: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia Ykantor ( talk) 19:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
2 :I introduced the information in the article at the right place and in a neutral way. Pluto2012 ( talk) 08:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
3Â :: You have done it again: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia
4Â :::That's the last time that I will answer to you if you don't comply with WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Next time, I will proceed to my modifications without comments in referring to this message. Enough is enough.
5Â :::: I am fed up with you. You do not bother to read the quotations. Ykantor ( talk) 17:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
About your Third Opinion request: The guidelines of the Third Opinion project say: "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill." The foregoing, with only one objection and one response, does not constitute a thorough discussion, so the request has been removed. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 13:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
The narrative in the Ramat Yohanan section needs improvement. In the first sentence of the second paragraph, which summarizes the entire episode, no citation was used to support the claim that Druze attacks were forced back "with ease." The second sentence, on the other hand, which claims that Israelis burned down two villages from which the attacks were launched got two citations.
To provide a more accurate narrative, the article would benefit from one or two additional points of views to complement Morris', Gelber's and the author's.
I suggest the following narrative as appropriate material for the article's editors to use as a means of improving the section. It comes from a book by Laila Parsons, titled, The Druze Between Palestine and Israel, 1947-49, Oxford, 2000. The section of the book dedicated to the battle of Ramat Yohanan spans from page 65 to 69. The following account of the battle is taken from page 46:
The battle that followed [Shakib Wahab's] initial attack lasted five days, and was very fierce [emphasis mine]. The Jewish forces were surprised by the tenacity and discipline with which the Druze fought. On 14 April, the two sides met in hand-to-hand combat after a unit of company size (formed from Battalion 21 of the Carmeli Brigade) attempted to attack Druze positions north of Ramat Yohanan. The Jewish forces were pushed back and 12 Jewish soldiers were killed, most of them platoon commanders. Moshe Carmel, the commander of the Carmeli Brigade wrote:
"I saw retreating units returning one after the other without their commanders...the brigade for the first time had hit upon an enemy whose ability was much superior to the Arab fighter and which had inflicted defeat upon it. The spirits of the brigade were down and its faith in its own ability had been undermined." (42)
Endnote (42): Carmel, Ma'arachot Tzafon, p. 63. For the graphic account of this battle by the sergeant of the first platoon to attempt to storm the Druze position, see Eshel, Hativat Carmeli, p. 111. According to this account Moshe Dayan's brother Zorik, commander of the first platoon, died in this initial attack while providing covering fire for his retreating platoon. â Preceding unsigned comment added by Raja.hass ( talk ⢠contribs) 20:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Ykantor ( talk) 06:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Ykantor, thank you for adding the sentence describing the nine attacks. However, the first sentence of the second paragraph sets the tone of your narration of the battle. I believe that the sentence and its implications are inaccurate - it even contradicts the opinion of the Haganah's commanding officer on the ground.
I am advocating for a more balanced (?) approach on your part regarding this subject. The account I cited above and the one below are specifically meant to highlight the inaccuracy of your claim that "The Kibbutznikim and the Haganah soldiers that supported them forced back [the Druze] attacks with ease."
Regarding the Druze counterattack, for example, I would like to add the following account from page 68 of the same source I used above:
"The Druze counterattacked and charged the villages several times. At one point the battle in Husha was reduced to hand-to-hand combat, and two Druze soldiers managed to penetrate the village only to be killed inside. According to Jewish accounts the 'Druze charged ferociously with large knives - glistening in the sun-light - held between their teeth.' (49)
At the same time the Jewish forces were running low on ammunition and attempts to bring in reinforcements had failed. The company commander continued to send urgent requests for more ammunition back to Ramat Yohanan, until finally, in the middle of the afternoon, he asked to be allowed to give up the fight: 'Every man has four bullets. There is no more ammunition for the machine guns. Request permission to retreat.' But the reply from command headquarters in Ramat Yohanan insisted: 'You must hold on even if the bullets run out. If you retreat you will all be wiped out. Fight with knives and anything that is at hand.' (50) At 16:30, however, an armored car arrived carrying ammunition and a machine gun. The Druze were pushed back and retreated to Shafa'amr. The Jews held both villages, Husha and Kasayr, and the battle for Ramat Yohanan was effectively over." (51)
Endnote (49): Carmel, Ma'arachot Tzafon, p. 65. The fact that the Druze charged with knives between their teeth is also mentioned in Eshel, Hativat Carmeli, p. 116
Endnote (50): Carmel, Ma'arachot Tzafon, p. 69. Moshe Carmel was the brigade comander in April and May 1948, and is recounting events from memory
Endnote (51): There are conflicting reports on the number of casualties. Approximate numbers are 25 Jewish soldiers killed, 42 wounded; 110 Druze killed, 100 wounded: 16-19 April 1948, 132/105, HA; 20 April 1948, 195/105, HA. Based on an interview conducted with 'Abd al-Latif al-Fahum (whom he describes as 'one of the leaders of the fighters in that region') 'Arif al 'Arif claims that only 30 Druze were killed: al-Nakba, p.224. Abu Salih states that 'During the battle the Druze lost 100 dead and many wounded' (Tarikh al-Muwahhidin al Duruz, p.374). â Preceding unsigned comment added by Raja.hass ( talk ⢠contribs) 20:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Could you please say what is the deletion reason? Ykantor ( talk) 20:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
There is a controversy among historians about who started the war. That may be seen as a childish problem but as in all quarrels, it is better to blame the other side for the beginning of 'hostilities'. The events are better described as a "spiral of violence" that lead to the war, as Benny Morris, The Birth... revisited (2003), p.138 or Ellen Fleischman (2003), University of Californian Press, p.201 writes.
The problem is that Benny Morris enters that "quarrel" and he is a wp:rs source. As Ykantor reports here above, he wrote :
Note this is just a quote with an annex comment... Without a "s" at Arab and without a coma, that means that [some] Arabs initiated the fighting but it doesn't mean all the Arabs did so. More, it doesn't mean there were no Jewish initiators... (And everybody knows that the terrorist campaign of IZL and LHI started much before :
King David Hotel bombing,
The Sergeants affair,
Acre Prison break, ...)
Anyway, it is not the only place where he does so. In his conclusions, Benny Morris blames the Arabs to have started the war and conclude that as a consequence their bear the responsibility of the results. In 1948 (2008), p.396 of his conclusions, he writes :
Reading the detailled account of Gelber (who dedicated a chapter on the Outbreak and extensions of the hostilities) we can conclude he doesn't "blame" anybody to have started the war. On the contrary, regarding the facts, we can read p.20Â :
I am far away from my books but we (maybe not Ykantor) know that Walid Khalidi and Nur Masalha, Palestinian historians, claim that the war (and the expulsion) was inherent to Zionism and planned for long. (See the article of the former about Plan Daleth and the book of the latter about the "expulsions of the Palestinians".) Whether we think their thesis true or not, the war was expected for long by everybody (Haganah was created in 1920 after the Jerusalem riots because nobody believed all this would not end by a war)...
(edit) now that I am closer of these, here is the description of the events of December and January in Expulsion of the Palestinians, 1992, p.176Â :
-> The conclusion for wikipedia is that Palestinian historians think that Zionism started the war and even more that it was planned.
Note that Rosemarie Esber goes a step farther : in Under the cover of war (2008), she defends the idea (as others did before her) that the war (initiated by the Yishuv) was used to expell Palestinians from their land. (This is not just a "quote". That's the thesis of the full book...). Regarding the events of December, p.148 she writes :
P.151-5, she describes the events from mid-December to mi-January and [some] bombings of IZL and LHI in a chapter that she calls the "reign of terror in Palestine" and she writes to conclude :
Palestitian historian Saleh Abdel Jawad, in Zionist Massacres: the Creation of the Palestinian Refugee Problem in the 1948 War (published in a Benvenisti book) addresses Morris (and others) thesis about the "they brought it on themselves" arguments. He writes :
This is so not just a quote picked from a book, this is a full article about this topic... And in this article, he of course talks about the LHI and IZL terror campaign. He does so too at the beginning for the article about the massacres. (I don't have access by googlebook to it).
Regarding some facts (primary sources), they can be found here :
Pluto2012 ( talk) 08:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that the topic of "who shot first" is not developed in the article because :
In wikipedian vocabulary :
-> wp:npov compliance requires so much details and material to present this controversy properly that it should not be mentionned per wp:undue.
My proposal (in the synopsis)Â :
Pluto2012 ( talk) 08:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
You have to obey the Wikipedia rules. There is no reason to delete such an important, well supported and concise (just 19 words in line). Please obey the rules and return this sentence. Ykantor ( talk) 02:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
to Pluto: You deleted again this content: "For four months, under continuous Arab provocation and attack, the Yishuv was usually on the defensive while occasionally retaliating".
Your reason is: "undue weight is not a question of number of words but the information itself regarding all other information".
In my opinion it is important to add it to the article header.
Please re-install it, otherwise I'll have to open a dispute. Ykantor ( talk) 11:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
I'm providing some 3O input even though this discussion is fairly old. (Indeed, the WP:DRN link related to this dispute does not have a relevant listing.) Also, other edits may have (not necessarily do) overcome the particular section you are concerned about. Even so, I looked at the edits which concern you. User Aua's is the better version and Aua's comments are the more persuasive in this discussion. You also have User:Pluto barking up a few pertinent comments, which I endorse. Please keep in mind we are all pushing on a WP:POLE, and the ultimate objective will be a good article. â S. Rich ( talk) 06:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC) |