![]() | 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 |
"At meeting in mid January 1948 with kirkbride" kirkbride told Abdullah that: "nor could Britain agree to legionnaires not under its command operating in Palestine- especially in view of the fact that in the majority of recent cases [of violence in Palestine] the Arabs were the aggressors</ref>
the Palestinians and the Arab League â not the Yishuv â promptly rejected the UN resolution on partition following the vote in the General Assembly on 29 November 1947. Immediately and intentionally they embarked on frustrating implementation of partition by violence. At first, they instigated disturbances and gradually escalated them to a lull- scale war. The Arab League backed the Palestinians' campaign from the beginning and the Arab states joined in the fighting upon termination of the British mandate, invading the newly established Jewish state. The Arabs stubbornly repudiated any compromise that provided for a Jewish state, no matter what its borders were to be. Only in the wake of their military defeat did the Arabs make UN resolutions a cornerstone of their case and demand their strict fulfillment. Any study describing solely Palestinian suffering is one-sided and incomplete without properly weighing this plain truth: As victims of war, the Palestinians' own conduct gives adequate cause to deny them the adjective "innocent". Truly, they have paid a heavy price in this and ever since. They have been victims. But to a large extent they are the victims of their own follies and pugnacity, as well as the incompetence of their Arab allies.</ref>
ref name="AlexanderBogdanor2011">Edward Alexander; Paul Bogdanor (31 December 2011).
The Jewish Divide Over Israel: Accusers and Defenders. Transaction Publishers. pp. 82, 107.
ISBNÂ
978-1-4128-0933-7. Retrieved 13 August 2013. p. 82
</ref>
when the united nations voted for a two state solution in 1947, the jewish community under british mandate overwhelmingly accepted the plan, while the arab world unanimously rejected it. fighting immediatelly erupted, with arab leaders frankly admitting that they were the aggressors (35)
p. 107 (35) jamal husseini, of the higher arab committee of palestine, informed the united nations:"The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight". Security Council Official Records, April 16, 1948.
The same Jamal Husseini quote, appears in http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/1948_War.html citing: Security Council Official Records, S/Agenda/58, (April 16, 1948), p. 19. Ykantor ( talk) 14:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Ykantor,
Moti Golani is indeed a reliable source. But not because you downloaded a file from the Haifa website but rather because this paper can be found on JSTOR : [1]. He writes that the Arab triggered the war. Morris remains a much better source for this claim anyway and all in all this doesn't contradict what I explained you in reporting other historians analysis : this is controversed.
Anyway and much more important. You keep pursueing me and many others on several places on wikipedia because you don't agree with what we explained to you about the British position in the '48 war... I explained you that googling to get quote was not a right way of work too. Did you notice that the source that you bring here states what we told you at many times :
This is what we told you many times...
More strangely is that this source, the source that you refer to, supports Avi Shlaim, a source that you state no farther than here above you don't want to be used because he would be biased... Refering to former sentence, Golani states that "Avi Shlaim is right when he says [so]"...
Your technique of googling for quotes is not a right way of working, particularly when working on contextual issues. As explained to you and proved here above with the article of Moti Golani, you miss the global picture, you miss and cannot (and therefore cannot comply with) wp:undue problems with wp:npov issues.
Pluto2012 ( talk) 08:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
then I continued with another forum, and so on. During one of them, [[user:pluto2012] just ignored the dispute although he was invited. Is that a proper behavior?
Please note that I did not abandon the dispute out of neglect; I just think that this dispute is just too difficult to resolve due to extremely strong beliefs on either side. smileguy91 talk 04:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I want to underline that I patiently explained the WP:NPoV and WP:Undue issues to Ykantor more than 2 months ago and he refused to confirm he understood and accept to comply with these principles a constructive way : Wikipedia principles on Ykantor's talk page.
Ykantor has difficulties in listeting to others advices. He was explained on the help desk it is not a good idea to add (long) quotes to references ; it was explained him again : on his talk page but he keep doing so : no latter than today. This "quote attitude" is even more a problem than the fact it would support the material that he adds is not agreed.
Pluto2012 ( talk) 09:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
you recycle the same false claims e.g. long quotes,"You keep pursueing me", "you miss the global picture". I do not see why I should reply again and again to these false claims.
Concerning "who started the war" , according to you I miss the global picture. However, This is the view of Benni Morris, Gelber, Golani and also Kirkbride (usually anti Yishuv) and Cunningham. Apparently all of them miss the global picture too.
Anyway, as you know I have asked for a 3rd opinion. Let us see what is their opinion. Ykantor ( talk) 17:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Just in case: (Benny Morris, refugees revisited, p. 81) "Haganah operations were usually authorised and effectively controlled by the general staff. Moreover, notwithstanding the British view of Haganah operations, the HGS, through December 1947 â March 1948, attempted to keep its unitsâ operations as âcleanâ as possible. While coming to accept the general premise that retaliatory strikes against traffic and villages would inevitably involve the death and injury of innocent people, orders were repeatedly sent out to all Haganah units to avoid killing women, children and old people. In its specific orders for each operation, the HGS almost always included instructions not to harm noncombatants, as, for example, in the attack on the village of Salama, outside Jaffa, in early January 1948, when Galili specifically forbade the use of mortars because they might cause casualties among non-combatants.73
On 8 January, Ben-Gurion said that so far, the Arab countryside, despite efforts to incite it, had remained largely quiescent. It was in the Yishuvâs interest that the countryside remain quiet, and this depended in large measure on the Yishuvâs own actions. âWe [must avoid] mistakes which would make it easier for the Muftiâ to stir up the villages, he said.74 Regarding the countryside, the Haganahâs policy throughout February and March was ânot to extend the fire to areas where we have not yet been attackedâ while at the same time vigorously attacking known bases of attacks on Jews and, in various areas, Arab traffic.75
This policy also applied to the Negev. The JNFâs YosefWeitz, the chairman of the Negev Committee (the Yishuvâs regional supervisory body), put it this way: âAs to the Arabs, a policy has been determined: We extend our hand to peace. Every beduin who wants peace, will be satisfied. But if anyone dares to act contrariwise â his end will be bitter.â76 A few weeks earlier, on 12 February, the commander of the Negev Brigade, Nahum Sarig, instructed his officers:
Cheers, Îuα ( Operibus anteire) 19:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Generally, you claim that according to some sources ( e.g. Walid Khalidi , Nur Masalha, Rosemarie Esber) it is not true that the Arabs initiated the war and kept attacking. Thus you conclude that the issue is controversial.
My opinion is that Morris, Gelber, Golani are correct, and the Arabs constantly attacked the Jews and kept the war rolling on. It is clear that it is not a 100% case, and the Yishuv was not always perfect. In my opinion, Khalidi ,Masalha, Esber writings are a fringe view.
It might be better to call someone else to decide whether it is controversial or fringe views.
Your writing make it difficult to reply to your claims. e.g. You take Morris sentence and try to show that the plural "s" make it other view, you quote 1 Gelber sentence for a specific case and extend it to the general case.
Each side should accept his wrong doings. Wikipedia should be correct. The Arabs has attacked the Jews at 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936-1939 and at 1948 too. Ykantor ( talk) 04:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
As I added above (section:The Arabs Has initiated the 1948 Arab Israeli war) Mr Husseini told the security council in 16 April 1948Â :"The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight". In my opinion that undoubtedly prove who willingly started the war. Ykantor ( talk) 14:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Removed File:Qawuqjis armored vehicle.jpg. It has been suggested by Graphics Lab editors that the dagger and star emblem in the photo was added at some point after the photo was taken. It is likely doctored image. â JBarta ( talk) 08:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
your reason:"Poor grammar is an eyesore; "they had set in motion a shifting of a strategy- from a defense to offensive operations." Reads like POV to me with WEASEL words"
"By late March, Jewish Jerusalem, despite occasional British intervention, was under siege, its 100,000 inhabitants sorely pressed for food, fuel and munitions. On the night of 31 March â 1 April, Ben-Gurion and the HGS decided that the Haganah's first priority was to relieve the pressure on Jerusalem. Representatives of Jerusalem's Jews had appealed to the JA for 'real action'. The community was 'already hungry and if, heaven forbid, their morale should break there was a danger of a general collapse of the Haganah front line'.531 At Ben-Gurion's insistence, a force of 1,500 troops was mobilised for the largest Jewish offensive to date. The objective was to push several large convoys through to Jerusalem. Strategically speaking, as a senior Haganah officer later put it, Nahshon marked the transitional stage between the prior, defensive, 'policing' approach of safeguarding Jewish convoys by manning them with guards and the 'military' approach of protecting the convoys by conquering and holding the routes themselves and the heights dominating them"</ref>
Pov pushing with the use of images is well known. There is even an article dedicated to this issue (but in the media) related to the I-P conflict... Media coverage of the ArabâIsraeli conflict.
The same issues was already exposed on the article about the Six day war.
It is not a question of having an image "for each side". Images must be equilibrated, not introduce bias or useless emotions (ex. pictures of snipers who shot at civils or children around a armoured car...). The notoriaty and the reliability of the picture is also important...
Pluto2012 ( talk) 15:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Someone deleted a lot of content from the intro section of the article. Can it be added back? Lightsmiles ( talk) 20:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
The article states that the British did not intervene. This is factually incorrect. Morris is cited, but, if my memory is correct, Morris actually says that it is untrue that the British did not intervene and that, on different occasions, they intervened against both sides. I'd take a guess that their biggest intervention was at Jaffa, where they stopped the Zionist attacks until the mandate expired. It's often stated in Zionist-oriented sources that British troops stood by while the Mount Scopus convoy was butchered. Actually, members of the convoy were offered shelter in British armoured cars, but, preferring to wait for rescue by Jewish forces, they turned the offer down.     â  ZScarpia  00:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Just as a quick reminder to everyone (and especially one editor pushing a certain POV here) that this article is under ArbCom. It's 1RR. Ykantor, you broke that today with the addition of the photo (twice). Pluto makes a good case above and I'd recommend discussing with him/her above first before adding. As it's been pointed out to you, it's not an issue of each side having a picture.
Second, how did the last paragraph in the lead change? In October of last year, it looked like this. Now, it has some POV nonsense masquerading as sourced information. Amusingly, Iraq is now a "surrounding" nation re: Palestine/Israel. We should probably go back to the old one. A mention of the Palestinian refugee crisis is warranted in the lead as well, seeing as it was one of the major consequences of the war.
Cheers, Îuα ( Operibus anteire) 00:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
* Concerning the end of the lead section, the previous lead end is rather vague since it does not state that the Arab states invaded. There was a discussion whether the Arab states invaded Israel (too) or ex-Palestine territory. In my opinion the name Israel should be used as it was declared, but name is not so important , hence I accepted the other term. However, it is important that the Arab armies immediately attacked Jewish settlements.
* I agree with you that the Palestinian refugee crisis should be amended to the lead as well.
* Concerning images I do not agree with you. Added photos are beneficial since the article is more attractive. Photos are much more influential that words. Some people can not concentrate and do not like to read much, hence photos are very important. e.g. During the war for liberation of Kuwait, (Occupied by Sadam Hussein) The American president assistants noted that he did not read the updates but rather preferred to watch the CNN news. Hence his next updates were a TV news styled as the CNN news, prepared especially for one person only- the president of the U.S
I am the only one that added photos (of both sides) during the last half a year, since starting editing these articles. I welcome any photos edition, and emotional photos are better since the article become more attractive. I am sure that there sufficient emotional photos of the Arab side, but I do not read Arabic so I cannot access them, Why won't you look for such photos?
to be continued Ykantor ( talk) 17:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
* An accurate and neutral article does not necessarily means a boring article. It can be both accurate and neutral with an added attraction of interesting photos. Instead of deleting a relevant and interesting image, why won't we add an emotional image that shows the other side? Ykantor ( talk) 20:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
It is a pity that you have opened a pandora box by questioning the copyright status of the Fekete photo. If accepted, it may result in deleting this article Arab refugees photo as well. A very short minded thinking. Ykantor ( talk) 14:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Any objections if I convert to [ [7]]? I wasn't familiar with the current style, so I checked on the Helpdesk, and apparently it is an old template. Itsmejudith ( talk) 10:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
At the moment we have a "beginning" phase from November to April, and a later phase from April to May and onwards. It seems a bit odd that the "beginning" should last so long. Itsmejudith ( talk) 11:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Not a good structure for a history article. I suggest that this material be worked into appropriate sections in the article. Itsmejudith ( talk) 21:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
There is disagreement between Ykantor and I. He insists to state that the Arabs started the war. I said him that it was controversed and complex but he doesn't agree.
concerning this Diff , Pluto added to this article text: "The villages were plundered by some kibbutznikim and razed to the ground with explosives with accordance to Plan Dalet", the citation of Morris 2003 p. 242-243.
The text of Morris 2008 p. 133 is:"both, retrospectively, were seen as stages in the implementation of Plan D" , which is not the same as "with accordance to Plan Dalet". Will it be possible to verify that Morris 2003 text, supports the article text (unlike the Morris 2008 sentence)Â ? Ykantor ( talk) 20:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
-If Morris and Khalidi has opposing views, both views could be cited. e.g. According to Khalidi... but according to Morris ....
- The Plan D planners assumed that the plan would be applied after the British evacuation but before the expected Arab states invasion. Hence, it was not applied at early April 1948.
- it is not a coincident that the "Haganah brigades unleashed offensives and counter-offensives in the spirit of Plan D without quite realising that this was what they were doing' . (e.g. operation Nachshon). Any military planner , anywhere would have use the same guidelines e.g. "The strategy called for the fortification and stabilization of a continuous Jewish-controlled line within the areas of the designated Jewish State and along its putative borders, and for the harassment of, and interference with, the Arab forces as they moved in. The success of this strategy depended on three elements: cleansing the area along the Jewish States's borders of an Arab presence; fortifying the Jewish settlements along the line of advance of the Arab column; and hit-and-run raids against the Arab troops as they advanced" (Tal 2004 p. 65). For instance, Jewish Jerusalem was besieged, starved and on the verge of collapse. The Convoys supply system failed. The Haganah had to destroy the blocking Arab villages in order to save Jewish Jerusalem. Ykantor ( talk) 19:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I propose to add following text as a new section to the article
I will appreciate it if the comments will be added to the next "Comments" sub-section, and not to this one.
- United Nations Security Council Resolution 44 at 1 Apr 1948 requested the Secretary-General convoke a special session of the General Assembly to consider further the question of the future government of Palestine. [1] [2] The Arabs demanded immediate independence and sovereignty over all of Palestine, not a prolongation of international rule, as embodied in an open-ended trusteeship. the Zionists insisted on declaring statehood on the termination of the Mandate, according to the November 1947 partition resolution. [3]
- The Assembly adopted resolution 185 (S-2) of 26 April 1948, asking the Trusteeship Council to study measures for the protection of Jerusalem, . [11]
-United Nations General Assembly Resolution 187, 6 May 1948 - PROTECTION OF THE CITY OF JERUSALEM AND ITS INHABITANTS: APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER. [12] United Nations representatives tried to negotiate a truce throughout Palestine or at least in Jerusalem, but did not succeeded, despite Jewish and Arab agreement to many of the proposed clauses. The truce proposals included a cessation of fighting, prohibition of entry of foreign troops into Palestine, and a limitation of Jewish immigration. [13]
- General Assembly Resolution 186 on May 14, 1948 called for an appointment a Mediator in order to secure a ceasefire in Palestine; [14]
on 17 April the Security Council accepted a resolution calling the Palestinians and the Jews to accept a cease-fire. Jamal al-Husayni rejected the decision, claiming that as the cease-fire would he based on the Partition Resolution, and as the Jews continued their preparation toward the establishment of their own government, the Palestinians could not accept the Resolution. Shertok accepted the military terms of the Resolution, but rejected its political term⊠neither side respected the truceâŠ
Please post here your comments.
The Arabs started the war. This sentence is wrong: Soon after, violence broke out from both sides and became more and more prevalent.. This sentence erroneously imply that both sides, the Arabs and the Jews, are equally responsible for the war eruption. This is not true, as the Arabs started the war and continuously attacked the Jews (e.g. Blocking Jerusalem), While the Yishuv was interested to calm the situation , in order to maximize the chance of the partition.
see The Arabs started the war. some sources:
- Added by Ykantor without signature ( Pluto2012 ( talk) 07:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)).
Why are the words "Civil War" capitalised? Zero talk 22:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
This seems problematic as a matter of english usage "Arab snipers skirmished Jewish buses". I'm not sure how buses skirmish. In fact, I think it's a physical impossibility. I would suggest replacing the word skirmished with attacked, fired upon, or assaulted as likely more accurate characterizations. I don't have access to the cited source and there seems to be no online link. TMLutas ( talk) 01:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa ( talk) 01:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
It is proposed to rename Jewish insurgency in Palestine â Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine.
Please discuss it on Jewish insurgency in Palestine talk page. GreyShark ( dibra) 14:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is a numerical majority against this move, and nobody has supplied references that contradict those of User:Pluto2012. We would need a scholarly consensus this was not a civil war. To conclude otherwise risks being WP:OR. A sentence like "I cannot see that the UN or others would have regarded the ensuing conflict as being a civil war.." cries out for sources to establish what UN members actually thought. EdJohnston ( talk) 16:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
1947â48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine â 1947â48 War in Mandatory Palestine â At the stage of history of the war the UK government had dropped any concept of a British Mandate for Palestine.
The new UN mandate was for there to be two states and this was not a civil war. The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine had very clearly proscribed areas of land allocation which are indicated in the map shown. The partition plan clearly specified separate areas for both an Arab State and for a Jewish State with no support being given for a continuation of Mandatory Palestine. No faction within the war advocated a continuation in the existence of Mandatory Palestine and this was basically a territorial war with ethnic cleansing motivations being existent on both sides.
Greg Kaye 06:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. DrKiernan ( talk) 12:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
... the majority of the Special Committee, ... Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future Government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;"
This whole subject is a bit confusing. Could someone merge a few articles to clear up the redundant mess?
These are obviously the exact same war. There's no sane reason to have redundant articles that only increse confusion. I realize that would result in a relatively long article, but as long as the information would be in chronological order, it would be a major improvement. GMRE ( talk) 16:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to add a small bit of information from Gelber's book (2004) that close to 300 British personal were injured during the evactuation but I couldn't understand what are the 1/4 and 5/15 in the casualty figures. Are those supposed to be dates? 1 April and 15 May? I think whatever it may be, it should be changed cause I am not sure if it's only me or it is hard to understand if you are an avarage reader.-- Bolter21 ( talk to me) 11:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 1947â48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.â InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on 1947â48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.â InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1947â48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ee.bgu.ac.il/~censor/katz-directory/05-12-14gelber-palestine-1948-appendix-II-what-happened-in-deir-ypssin-english.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.â InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Please see the RFC discussion at Talk:1948 Palestine war, the outcome of which may impact the name of 1947â48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and 1948 ArabâIsraeli War as well. Onceinawhile ( talk) 12:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Propose to merge Barrel bombs in Palestine and Israel into 1947â48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine due to the fact that the source article may fail to pass WP:NOTABLE guideline of Wikipedia, though does contain some valuable information about weaponry used during the war. Currently this article is 111kb, while the Barrel bombs in Palestine and Israel article is 21kb. If merged, would suggest it would be under "Weapons" section to be developed with more information. GreyShark ( dibra) 14:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Please comment here on a bipartisan proposal to help fix the long-running structure/title issue on our articles covering the 1948 war. Onceinawhile ( talk) 13:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1947â1949 Palestine war which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. â RMCD bot 12:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
1947â1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to propose a modification to 2.4 Death toll section because the estimations of the death not are not in a chronological order. I think having the different sources for the death toll in chronological order and then by sources ease the understanding of the paragraph.
From:
Morris says that by the end of March 1948, the Yishuv had suffered about a thousand dead. [1] Ilan Pappé estimates that 400 Jews and 1,500 Arabs were killed by January 1948. [2] In December the Jewish death toll was estimated over 200 and, according to Alec Kirkbride, by 18 January 333 Jews and 345 Arabs were killed while 643 Jews and 877 Arabs were injured. [3] The overall death toll between December 1947 and January 1948 (including British personnel) was estimated at around 1,000 people, with 2,000 injured. [4] According to Yoav Gelber, by the end of March there was a total of 2,000 dead and 4,000 wounded. [5] These figures correspond to an average of more than 100 deaths and 200 casualties per week in a population of 2,000,000.
To:
In December the Jewish death toll was estimated over 200 and, according to Alec Kirkbride, by 18 January 333 Jews and 345 Arabs were killed while 643 Jews and 877 Arabs were injured. [6] The overall death toll between December 1947 and January 1948 (including British personnel) was estimated at around 1,000 people, with 2,000 injured. [7] Ilan Pappé estimates that 400 Jews and 1,500 Arabs were killed by January 1948. [2] Morris says that by the end of March 1948, the Yishuv had suffered about a thousand dead. [1] According to Yoav Gelber, by the end of March there was a total of 2,000 dead and 4,000 wounded. [5] These figures correspond to an average of more than 100 deaths and 200 casualties per week in a population of 2,000,000. LordPompidou ( talk) 17:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
References
gelber85
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page)."This situation's changing was due to the contacts made in November 1947 and afterwards." - What contacts where made and how did these "unknown" subjects result in the massive and mysteriously military advantage towards israel? Saltviking ( talk) 20:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
What is/was it? It's mentioned over thirty times in the article, but never explained! 104.153.40.58 ( talk) 21:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Is "civil war" the best term? -- Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii ( talk) 21:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
"Civil war" does not seem to be a correct term, as it was rather an anticolonial war, fought by the guerrillas issued from within the native Palestinian Arabs, against both the British military occupiers and the Zionist settlers militias. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.161.118.125 ( talk) 15:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
As no states were at war against each other, it can be called an "intrastate war". But the terms "intrastate war" and "civil war" are being used interchangeably, so it might be acceptable to keep it. Toterkal ( talk) 08:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Such a big fault. British forces, which resemble the british state, fought against the jewish and the arab in the state of palestine. So neither "intrastate war" nor "civil war" describes the case. Toterkal ( talk) 08:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
1947â1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change (According to Benny Morris, ) to (According to Benny Morris, an israeli historian, ) As adding this fact can help the reader in understanding the historian's background. Toterkal ( talk) 08:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
The day after the UN decision of two states, the arabs of the mandate still held by Britain, started the war against Israel 2A02:14F:1F6:5471:50DE:666A:D331:C7C8 ( talk) 03:17, 19 October 2023 (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 |
"At meeting in mid January 1948 with kirkbride" kirkbride told Abdullah that: "nor could Britain agree to legionnaires not under its command operating in Palestine- especially in view of the fact that in the majority of recent cases [of violence in Palestine] the Arabs were the aggressors</ref>
the Palestinians and the Arab League â not the Yishuv â promptly rejected the UN resolution on partition following the vote in the General Assembly on 29 November 1947. Immediately and intentionally they embarked on frustrating implementation of partition by violence. At first, they instigated disturbances and gradually escalated them to a lull- scale war. The Arab League backed the Palestinians' campaign from the beginning and the Arab states joined in the fighting upon termination of the British mandate, invading the newly established Jewish state. The Arabs stubbornly repudiated any compromise that provided for a Jewish state, no matter what its borders were to be. Only in the wake of their military defeat did the Arabs make UN resolutions a cornerstone of their case and demand their strict fulfillment. Any study describing solely Palestinian suffering is one-sided and incomplete without properly weighing this plain truth: As victims of war, the Palestinians' own conduct gives adequate cause to deny them the adjective "innocent". Truly, they have paid a heavy price in this and ever since. They have been victims. But to a large extent they are the victims of their own follies and pugnacity, as well as the incompetence of their Arab allies.</ref>
ref name="AlexanderBogdanor2011">Edward Alexander; Paul Bogdanor (31 December 2011).
The Jewish Divide Over Israel: Accusers and Defenders. Transaction Publishers. pp. 82, 107.
ISBNÂ
978-1-4128-0933-7. Retrieved 13 August 2013. p. 82
</ref>
when the united nations voted for a two state solution in 1947, the jewish community under british mandate overwhelmingly accepted the plan, while the arab world unanimously rejected it. fighting immediatelly erupted, with arab leaders frankly admitting that they were the aggressors (35)
p. 107 (35) jamal husseini, of the higher arab committee of palestine, informed the united nations:"The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight". Security Council Official Records, April 16, 1948.
The same Jamal Husseini quote, appears in http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/1948_War.html citing: Security Council Official Records, S/Agenda/58, (April 16, 1948), p. 19. Ykantor ( talk) 14:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Ykantor,
Moti Golani is indeed a reliable source. But not because you downloaded a file from the Haifa website but rather because this paper can be found on JSTOR : [1]. He writes that the Arab triggered the war. Morris remains a much better source for this claim anyway and all in all this doesn't contradict what I explained you in reporting other historians analysis : this is controversed.
Anyway and much more important. You keep pursueing me and many others on several places on wikipedia because you don't agree with what we explained to you about the British position in the '48 war... I explained you that googling to get quote was not a right way of work too. Did you notice that the source that you bring here states what we told you at many times :
This is what we told you many times...
More strangely is that this source, the source that you refer to, supports Avi Shlaim, a source that you state no farther than here above you don't want to be used because he would be biased... Refering to former sentence, Golani states that "Avi Shlaim is right when he says [so]"...
Your technique of googling for quotes is not a right way of working, particularly when working on contextual issues. As explained to you and proved here above with the article of Moti Golani, you miss the global picture, you miss and cannot (and therefore cannot comply with) wp:undue problems with wp:npov issues.
Pluto2012 ( talk) 08:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
then I continued with another forum, and so on. During one of them, [[user:pluto2012] just ignored the dispute although he was invited. Is that a proper behavior?
Please note that I did not abandon the dispute out of neglect; I just think that this dispute is just too difficult to resolve due to extremely strong beliefs on either side. smileguy91 talk 04:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I want to underline that I patiently explained the WP:NPoV and WP:Undue issues to Ykantor more than 2 months ago and he refused to confirm he understood and accept to comply with these principles a constructive way : Wikipedia principles on Ykantor's talk page.
Ykantor has difficulties in listeting to others advices. He was explained on the help desk it is not a good idea to add (long) quotes to references ; it was explained him again : on his talk page but he keep doing so : no latter than today. This "quote attitude" is even more a problem than the fact it would support the material that he adds is not agreed.
Pluto2012 ( talk) 09:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
you recycle the same false claims e.g. long quotes,"You keep pursueing me", "you miss the global picture". I do not see why I should reply again and again to these false claims.
Concerning "who started the war" , according to you I miss the global picture. However, This is the view of Benni Morris, Gelber, Golani and also Kirkbride (usually anti Yishuv) and Cunningham. Apparently all of them miss the global picture too.
Anyway, as you know I have asked for a 3rd opinion. Let us see what is their opinion. Ykantor ( talk) 17:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Just in case: (Benny Morris, refugees revisited, p. 81) "Haganah operations were usually authorised and effectively controlled by the general staff. Moreover, notwithstanding the British view of Haganah operations, the HGS, through December 1947 â March 1948, attempted to keep its unitsâ operations as âcleanâ as possible. While coming to accept the general premise that retaliatory strikes against traffic and villages would inevitably involve the death and injury of innocent people, orders were repeatedly sent out to all Haganah units to avoid killing women, children and old people. In its specific orders for each operation, the HGS almost always included instructions not to harm noncombatants, as, for example, in the attack on the village of Salama, outside Jaffa, in early January 1948, when Galili specifically forbade the use of mortars because they might cause casualties among non-combatants.73
On 8 January, Ben-Gurion said that so far, the Arab countryside, despite efforts to incite it, had remained largely quiescent. It was in the Yishuvâs interest that the countryside remain quiet, and this depended in large measure on the Yishuvâs own actions. âWe [must avoid] mistakes which would make it easier for the Muftiâ to stir up the villages, he said.74 Regarding the countryside, the Haganahâs policy throughout February and March was ânot to extend the fire to areas where we have not yet been attackedâ while at the same time vigorously attacking known bases of attacks on Jews and, in various areas, Arab traffic.75
This policy also applied to the Negev. The JNFâs YosefWeitz, the chairman of the Negev Committee (the Yishuvâs regional supervisory body), put it this way: âAs to the Arabs, a policy has been determined: We extend our hand to peace. Every beduin who wants peace, will be satisfied. But if anyone dares to act contrariwise â his end will be bitter.â76 A few weeks earlier, on 12 February, the commander of the Negev Brigade, Nahum Sarig, instructed his officers:
Cheers, Îuα ( Operibus anteire) 19:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Generally, you claim that according to some sources ( e.g. Walid Khalidi , Nur Masalha, Rosemarie Esber) it is not true that the Arabs initiated the war and kept attacking. Thus you conclude that the issue is controversial.
My opinion is that Morris, Gelber, Golani are correct, and the Arabs constantly attacked the Jews and kept the war rolling on. It is clear that it is not a 100% case, and the Yishuv was not always perfect. In my opinion, Khalidi ,Masalha, Esber writings are a fringe view.
It might be better to call someone else to decide whether it is controversial or fringe views.
Your writing make it difficult to reply to your claims. e.g. You take Morris sentence and try to show that the plural "s" make it other view, you quote 1 Gelber sentence for a specific case and extend it to the general case.
Each side should accept his wrong doings. Wikipedia should be correct. The Arabs has attacked the Jews at 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936-1939 and at 1948 too. Ykantor ( talk) 04:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
As I added above (section:The Arabs Has initiated the 1948 Arab Israeli war) Mr Husseini told the security council in 16 April 1948Â :"The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight". In my opinion that undoubtedly prove who willingly started the war. Ykantor ( talk) 14:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Removed File:Qawuqjis armored vehicle.jpg. It has been suggested by Graphics Lab editors that the dagger and star emblem in the photo was added at some point after the photo was taken. It is likely doctored image. â JBarta ( talk) 08:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
your reason:"Poor grammar is an eyesore; "they had set in motion a shifting of a strategy- from a defense to offensive operations." Reads like POV to me with WEASEL words"
"By late March, Jewish Jerusalem, despite occasional British intervention, was under siege, its 100,000 inhabitants sorely pressed for food, fuel and munitions. On the night of 31 March â 1 April, Ben-Gurion and the HGS decided that the Haganah's first priority was to relieve the pressure on Jerusalem. Representatives of Jerusalem's Jews had appealed to the JA for 'real action'. The community was 'already hungry and if, heaven forbid, their morale should break there was a danger of a general collapse of the Haganah front line'.531 At Ben-Gurion's insistence, a force of 1,500 troops was mobilised for the largest Jewish offensive to date. The objective was to push several large convoys through to Jerusalem. Strategically speaking, as a senior Haganah officer later put it, Nahshon marked the transitional stage between the prior, defensive, 'policing' approach of safeguarding Jewish convoys by manning them with guards and the 'military' approach of protecting the convoys by conquering and holding the routes themselves and the heights dominating them"</ref>
Pov pushing with the use of images is well known. There is even an article dedicated to this issue (but in the media) related to the I-P conflict... Media coverage of the ArabâIsraeli conflict.
The same issues was already exposed on the article about the Six day war.
It is not a question of having an image "for each side". Images must be equilibrated, not introduce bias or useless emotions (ex. pictures of snipers who shot at civils or children around a armoured car...). The notoriaty and the reliability of the picture is also important...
Pluto2012 ( talk) 15:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Someone deleted a lot of content from the intro section of the article. Can it be added back? Lightsmiles ( talk) 20:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
The article states that the British did not intervene. This is factually incorrect. Morris is cited, but, if my memory is correct, Morris actually says that it is untrue that the British did not intervene and that, on different occasions, they intervened against both sides. I'd take a guess that their biggest intervention was at Jaffa, where they stopped the Zionist attacks until the mandate expired. It's often stated in Zionist-oriented sources that British troops stood by while the Mount Scopus convoy was butchered. Actually, members of the convoy were offered shelter in British armoured cars, but, preferring to wait for rescue by Jewish forces, they turned the offer down.     â  ZScarpia  00:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Just as a quick reminder to everyone (and especially one editor pushing a certain POV here) that this article is under ArbCom. It's 1RR. Ykantor, you broke that today with the addition of the photo (twice). Pluto makes a good case above and I'd recommend discussing with him/her above first before adding. As it's been pointed out to you, it's not an issue of each side having a picture.
Second, how did the last paragraph in the lead change? In October of last year, it looked like this. Now, it has some POV nonsense masquerading as sourced information. Amusingly, Iraq is now a "surrounding" nation re: Palestine/Israel. We should probably go back to the old one. A mention of the Palestinian refugee crisis is warranted in the lead as well, seeing as it was one of the major consequences of the war.
Cheers, Îuα ( Operibus anteire) 00:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
* Concerning the end of the lead section, the previous lead end is rather vague since it does not state that the Arab states invaded. There was a discussion whether the Arab states invaded Israel (too) or ex-Palestine territory. In my opinion the name Israel should be used as it was declared, but name is not so important , hence I accepted the other term. However, it is important that the Arab armies immediately attacked Jewish settlements.
* I agree with you that the Palestinian refugee crisis should be amended to the lead as well.
* Concerning images I do not agree with you. Added photos are beneficial since the article is more attractive. Photos are much more influential that words. Some people can not concentrate and do not like to read much, hence photos are very important. e.g. During the war for liberation of Kuwait, (Occupied by Sadam Hussein) The American president assistants noted that he did not read the updates but rather preferred to watch the CNN news. Hence his next updates were a TV news styled as the CNN news, prepared especially for one person only- the president of the U.S
I am the only one that added photos (of both sides) during the last half a year, since starting editing these articles. I welcome any photos edition, and emotional photos are better since the article become more attractive. I am sure that there sufficient emotional photos of the Arab side, but I do not read Arabic so I cannot access them, Why won't you look for such photos?
to be continued Ykantor ( talk) 17:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
* An accurate and neutral article does not necessarily means a boring article. It can be both accurate and neutral with an added attraction of interesting photos. Instead of deleting a relevant and interesting image, why won't we add an emotional image that shows the other side? Ykantor ( talk) 20:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
It is a pity that you have opened a pandora box by questioning the copyright status of the Fekete photo. If accepted, it may result in deleting this article Arab refugees photo as well. A very short minded thinking. Ykantor ( talk) 14:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Any objections if I convert to [ [7]]? I wasn't familiar with the current style, so I checked on the Helpdesk, and apparently it is an old template. Itsmejudith ( talk) 10:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
At the moment we have a "beginning" phase from November to April, and a later phase from April to May and onwards. It seems a bit odd that the "beginning" should last so long. Itsmejudith ( talk) 11:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Not a good structure for a history article. I suggest that this material be worked into appropriate sections in the article. Itsmejudith ( talk) 21:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
There is disagreement between Ykantor and I. He insists to state that the Arabs started the war. I said him that it was controversed and complex but he doesn't agree.
concerning this Diff , Pluto added to this article text: "The villages were plundered by some kibbutznikim and razed to the ground with explosives with accordance to Plan Dalet", the citation of Morris 2003 p. 242-243.
The text of Morris 2008 p. 133 is:"both, retrospectively, were seen as stages in the implementation of Plan D" , which is not the same as "with accordance to Plan Dalet". Will it be possible to verify that Morris 2003 text, supports the article text (unlike the Morris 2008 sentence)Â ? Ykantor ( talk) 20:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
-If Morris and Khalidi has opposing views, both views could be cited. e.g. According to Khalidi... but according to Morris ....
- The Plan D planners assumed that the plan would be applied after the British evacuation but before the expected Arab states invasion. Hence, it was not applied at early April 1948.
- it is not a coincident that the "Haganah brigades unleashed offensives and counter-offensives in the spirit of Plan D without quite realising that this was what they were doing' . (e.g. operation Nachshon). Any military planner , anywhere would have use the same guidelines e.g. "The strategy called for the fortification and stabilization of a continuous Jewish-controlled line within the areas of the designated Jewish State and along its putative borders, and for the harassment of, and interference with, the Arab forces as they moved in. The success of this strategy depended on three elements: cleansing the area along the Jewish States's borders of an Arab presence; fortifying the Jewish settlements along the line of advance of the Arab column; and hit-and-run raids against the Arab troops as they advanced" (Tal 2004 p. 65). For instance, Jewish Jerusalem was besieged, starved and on the verge of collapse. The Convoys supply system failed. The Haganah had to destroy the blocking Arab villages in order to save Jewish Jerusalem. Ykantor ( talk) 19:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I propose to add following text as a new section to the article
I will appreciate it if the comments will be added to the next "Comments" sub-section, and not to this one.
- United Nations Security Council Resolution 44 at 1 Apr 1948 requested the Secretary-General convoke a special session of the General Assembly to consider further the question of the future government of Palestine. [1] [2] The Arabs demanded immediate independence and sovereignty over all of Palestine, not a prolongation of international rule, as embodied in an open-ended trusteeship. the Zionists insisted on declaring statehood on the termination of the Mandate, according to the November 1947 partition resolution. [3]
- The Assembly adopted resolution 185 (S-2) of 26 April 1948, asking the Trusteeship Council to study measures for the protection of Jerusalem, . [11]
-United Nations General Assembly Resolution 187, 6 May 1948 - PROTECTION OF THE CITY OF JERUSALEM AND ITS INHABITANTS: APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER. [12] United Nations representatives tried to negotiate a truce throughout Palestine or at least in Jerusalem, but did not succeeded, despite Jewish and Arab agreement to many of the proposed clauses. The truce proposals included a cessation of fighting, prohibition of entry of foreign troops into Palestine, and a limitation of Jewish immigration. [13]
- General Assembly Resolution 186 on May 14, 1948 called for an appointment a Mediator in order to secure a ceasefire in Palestine; [14]
on 17 April the Security Council accepted a resolution calling the Palestinians and the Jews to accept a cease-fire. Jamal al-Husayni rejected the decision, claiming that as the cease-fire would he based on the Partition Resolution, and as the Jews continued their preparation toward the establishment of their own government, the Palestinians could not accept the Resolution. Shertok accepted the military terms of the Resolution, but rejected its political term⊠neither side respected the truceâŠ
Please post here your comments.
The Arabs started the war. This sentence is wrong: Soon after, violence broke out from both sides and became more and more prevalent.. This sentence erroneously imply that both sides, the Arabs and the Jews, are equally responsible for the war eruption. This is not true, as the Arabs started the war and continuously attacked the Jews (e.g. Blocking Jerusalem), While the Yishuv was interested to calm the situation , in order to maximize the chance of the partition.
see The Arabs started the war. some sources:
- Added by Ykantor without signature ( Pluto2012 ( talk) 07:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)).
Why are the words "Civil War" capitalised? Zero talk 22:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
This seems problematic as a matter of english usage "Arab snipers skirmished Jewish buses". I'm not sure how buses skirmish. In fact, I think it's a physical impossibility. I would suggest replacing the word skirmished with attacked, fired upon, or assaulted as likely more accurate characterizations. I don't have access to the cited source and there seems to be no online link. TMLutas ( talk) 01:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa ( talk) 01:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
It is proposed to rename Jewish insurgency in Palestine â Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine.
Please discuss it on Jewish insurgency in Palestine talk page. GreyShark ( dibra) 14:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is a numerical majority against this move, and nobody has supplied references that contradict those of User:Pluto2012. We would need a scholarly consensus this was not a civil war. To conclude otherwise risks being WP:OR. A sentence like "I cannot see that the UN or others would have regarded the ensuing conflict as being a civil war.." cries out for sources to establish what UN members actually thought. EdJohnston ( talk) 16:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
1947â48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine â 1947â48 War in Mandatory Palestine â At the stage of history of the war the UK government had dropped any concept of a British Mandate for Palestine.
The new UN mandate was for there to be two states and this was not a civil war. The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine had very clearly proscribed areas of land allocation which are indicated in the map shown. The partition plan clearly specified separate areas for both an Arab State and for a Jewish State with no support being given for a continuation of Mandatory Palestine. No faction within the war advocated a continuation in the existence of Mandatory Palestine and this was basically a territorial war with ethnic cleansing motivations being existent on both sides.
Greg Kaye 06:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. DrKiernan ( talk) 12:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
... the majority of the Special Committee, ... Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future Government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;"
This whole subject is a bit confusing. Could someone merge a few articles to clear up the redundant mess?
These are obviously the exact same war. There's no sane reason to have redundant articles that only increse confusion. I realize that would result in a relatively long article, but as long as the information would be in chronological order, it would be a major improvement. GMRE ( talk) 16:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to add a small bit of information from Gelber's book (2004) that close to 300 British personal were injured during the evactuation but I couldn't understand what are the 1/4 and 5/15 in the casualty figures. Are those supposed to be dates? 1 April and 15 May? I think whatever it may be, it should be changed cause I am not sure if it's only me or it is hard to understand if you are an avarage reader.-- Bolter21 ( talk to me) 11:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 1947â48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.â InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on 1947â48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.â InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1947â48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ee.bgu.ac.il/~censor/katz-directory/05-12-14gelber-palestine-1948-appendix-II-what-happened-in-deir-ypssin-english.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.â InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Please see the RFC discussion at Talk:1948 Palestine war, the outcome of which may impact the name of 1947â48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and 1948 ArabâIsraeli War as well. Onceinawhile ( talk) 12:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Propose to merge Barrel bombs in Palestine and Israel into 1947â48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine due to the fact that the source article may fail to pass WP:NOTABLE guideline of Wikipedia, though does contain some valuable information about weaponry used during the war. Currently this article is 111kb, while the Barrel bombs in Palestine and Israel article is 21kb. If merged, would suggest it would be under "Weapons" section to be developed with more information. GreyShark ( dibra) 14:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Please comment here on a bipartisan proposal to help fix the long-running structure/title issue on our articles covering the 1948 war. Onceinawhile ( talk) 13:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1947â1949 Palestine war which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. â RMCD bot 12:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
1947â1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to propose a modification to 2.4 Death toll section because the estimations of the death not are not in a chronological order. I think having the different sources for the death toll in chronological order and then by sources ease the understanding of the paragraph.
From:
Morris says that by the end of March 1948, the Yishuv had suffered about a thousand dead. [1] Ilan Pappé estimates that 400 Jews and 1,500 Arabs were killed by January 1948. [2] In December the Jewish death toll was estimated over 200 and, according to Alec Kirkbride, by 18 January 333 Jews and 345 Arabs were killed while 643 Jews and 877 Arabs were injured. [3] The overall death toll between December 1947 and January 1948 (including British personnel) was estimated at around 1,000 people, with 2,000 injured. [4] According to Yoav Gelber, by the end of March there was a total of 2,000 dead and 4,000 wounded. [5] These figures correspond to an average of more than 100 deaths and 200 casualties per week in a population of 2,000,000.
To:
In December the Jewish death toll was estimated over 200 and, according to Alec Kirkbride, by 18 January 333 Jews and 345 Arabs were killed while 643 Jews and 877 Arabs were injured. [6] The overall death toll between December 1947 and January 1948 (including British personnel) was estimated at around 1,000 people, with 2,000 injured. [7] Ilan Pappé estimates that 400 Jews and 1,500 Arabs were killed by January 1948. [2] Morris says that by the end of March 1948, the Yishuv had suffered about a thousand dead. [1] According to Yoav Gelber, by the end of March there was a total of 2,000 dead and 4,000 wounded. [5] These figures correspond to an average of more than 100 deaths and 200 casualties per week in a population of 2,000,000. LordPompidou ( talk) 17:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
References
gelber85
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page)."This situation's changing was due to the contacts made in November 1947 and afterwards." - What contacts where made and how did these "unknown" subjects result in the massive and mysteriously military advantage towards israel? Saltviking ( talk) 20:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
What is/was it? It's mentioned over thirty times in the article, but never explained! 104.153.40.58 ( talk) 21:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Is "civil war" the best term? -- Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii ( talk) 21:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
"Civil war" does not seem to be a correct term, as it was rather an anticolonial war, fought by the guerrillas issued from within the native Palestinian Arabs, against both the British military occupiers and the Zionist settlers militias. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.161.118.125 ( talk) 15:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
As no states were at war against each other, it can be called an "intrastate war". But the terms "intrastate war" and "civil war" are being used interchangeably, so it might be acceptable to keep it. Toterkal ( talk) 08:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Such a big fault. British forces, which resemble the british state, fought against the jewish and the arab in the state of palestine. So neither "intrastate war" nor "civil war" describes the case. Toterkal ( talk) 08:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
1947â1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change (According to Benny Morris, ) to (According to Benny Morris, an israeli historian, ) As adding this fact can help the reader in understanding the historian's background. Toterkal ( talk) 08:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
The day after the UN decision of two states, the arabs of the mandate still held by Britain, started the war against Israel 2A02:14F:1F6:5471:50DE:666A:D331:C7C8 ( talk) 03:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)