Revision as of 20:45, 10 June 2012 editFrederico1234 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,190 edits →Foreign volunteers: modify statement← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:17, 23 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,938 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War/Archive 22) (bot | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header |
{{Skip to talk}} | ||
{{Talk header|search=yes }} | |||
{{contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|a-i}} | |||
{{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=B |vital=yes |collapsed=yes |1= | |||
{{sanctions|<br>'''See ] for details'''}} | |||
{{WikiProject Military history |B-Class-1=yes |B-Class-2=yes |B-Class-3=yes |B-Class-4=yes |B-Class-5=yes |Middle-Eastern-task-force=yes |Cold-War=yes }} | |||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Arab world |importance=High }} | |||
{{WPMILHIST |class=B |B-Class-1=yes |B-Class-2=yes |B-Class-3=yes |B-Class-4=yes|B-Class-5=yes |old-peer-review=yes |Middle-Eastern-task-force=yes }} | |||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Syria |importance=High }} | ||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Saudi Arabia |importance=Mid }} | ||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Egypt |importance=Mid }} | ||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Israel |importance=top }} | ||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Palestine |importance=Top }} | ||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Lebanon |importance=Mid}} | ||
{{WikiProject Lebanon|class=B|importance=Mid}} | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{On this day|date1=2019-05-15|oldid1=897129872}} | |||
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=25 |units=days }} | |||
<!-- Metadata: see ] --> | <!-- Metadata: see ] --> | ||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} | |archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
|maxarchivesize = 150K | |maxarchivesize = 150K | ||
|counter = |
|counter = 22 | ||
|minthreadsleft = |
|minthreadsleft = 2 | ||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
|algo = old( |
|algo = old(60d) | ||
|archive = Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War/Archive %(counter)d | ||
}} | }} | ||
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{User:WildBot/m04|sect={{User:WildBot/m03|2|1948 Arab–Israeli War#Gelber|Yoav Gelber (2006)|#Gelber}}, {{User:WildBot/m03|3|1948 Arab–Israeli War#lapierre collins|Dominique Lapierre et Larry Collins (1971)|#lapierre collins}}, {{User:WildBot/m03|2|1948 Arab–Israeli War#laurens|Henry Laurens (2005)|#laurens}}, {{User:WildBot/m03|2|1948 Arab–Israeli War#morris victimes fr|Benny Morris, ''Victimes : histoire revisitée du conflit arabo-sioniste'', 2003|#morris victimes fr}}, {{User:WildBot/m03|1|1948 Arab–Israeli War#rapport special|Special UN commission (16 April 1948)|#rapport special}}, {{User:WildBot/m03|1|1948 Arab–Israeli War#stearns|Stearns, 2001, p. 966.|#stearns}}|m04}} | |||
== |
== RFC for Jewish exodus == | ||
{{Closure review talk banner|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus}} | |||
{{Closed rfc top|result=Based on the sources provided here, there seems to be a consensus among scholars that hostile pressures from the war were a contributing factor to Jewish emigration from Arab countries; many sources were provided here that expressed that position, and only one that cast doubt on it. Whether the war's contribution to that emigration is an important enough aspect of the conflict to mention in the lead is the subject of '''no consensus'''; some editors consider a mention in the lead proportional to scholars' treatment of the topic, others don't. When this question is discussed again (as I'm sure it will be sooner or later), editors should consider paying special attention to how ] handle the matter. <small>(])</small> <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 14:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
Should the lead section of 1948 Arab-Israeli War mention the ]? ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
===Survey=== | |||
This article is replete with several severe issues that are in need of attention. To elaborate: | |||
{{Not a ballot}} | |||
*'''No''' - as the discussion and the sourcing makes clear at ] about the parent article of this makes clear, the Jewish exodus from Muslim countries is not a major aspect of the topic of this war. Since apparently we need to have this same discussion over and over, I’ll just quote myself from that RFC. certainly it was an important event, but it was not an event that is a subtopic of this war. At most a small portion of the emigration was even indirectly related to this war, and the argument that we should include decades of immigration from a large number of countries not even involved in this war makes no sense. And the claim that reliable sources agree that it was a major consequence of the war is just not true. Morris says "The war indirectly created a second, major refugee problem", Schindler says ''In Arab countries, the defeat of the Arab armies and the exodus of the Palestinian Arabs exacerbated an already difficult situation. In December 1947, a pogrom and the destruction of synagogues in Aleppo persuaded half the city’s Jewish population to leave. In Egypt, arrests, killings and confiscations catalyzed the flight of nearly 40 per cent of the Jewis hcommunity by 1950. In Kuwait, the minuscule number of Jews were expelled. In Iraq, the Criminal Code was amended in July 1948 such that Zionists were lumped together with Anarchists and Communists. The death penalty could be meted out to adherents or they could be sentenced to many years’ imprisonment. Enforced emigration to Israel became the officially permitted route out of Iraq for an increasingly oppressed Jewish community. Israel ironically became the unlikely destination for many Jewish Communists despite their opposition to Zionism. In Libya, Algeria and Morocco, there were periodic outbreaks of anti-Jewish violence. Over 37 per cent of Jews in Islamic countries – the Arab world, Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan – left for Israel between May 1948 and the beginning of 1952. This amounted to 56 per cent of the total immigration.'' And he says that in a chapter on Jewish emigration, not in coverage of this war. It is an attempt at trying to balance what actually was a direct major consequence of this war, the expulsion and flight of 80-90% of the Palestinians from the territory Israel would come to control in this war, with an entirely different topic that was not a part of this war. And a ton of it was from countries not involved in this war at all. There are no sources that treat this as a major consequence of this war, and the claim that there is rests on the assumption that nobody will actually check, as it is so plainly not true, and been shown untrue on this talk page previously. Beyond that, there is no definition of immediately after that includes years and years later ''']''' - 22:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''No''', there was ] which established "consensus against inclusion in the lede" at the article ]. ] (]) 22:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Yes''', discussed extensively by the best sources on the war. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:Which sources are you referring to? ] (]) 00:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::Küntzel 2023, Benny Morris ''1948: A History'', as mentioned by ] in the previous section, Shabi 2009, Shlaim/Rogan 2001, Benoussan, Beinin, and Gat. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 00:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:'''Strong oppose''' to its inclusion in the lede as the Jewish exodus is completely irrelevant to the war in a direct way for the following reasons: | |||
*] is not being respected by the inclusion of material relating to the Nazis, the Holocaust, and antisemitism. The most recent offense has been the insertion of the flag of Nazi Germany in the belligerents section due to a handful of ex-Nazis fighting on the Arab side. It also emphasizes that out of several hundred Yugoslavs a few dozen were members of pro-Axis fascist groups. However, this is far from the only NPOV issue involved. | |||
:1- Geographic irrelevance: The 1948 Arab-Israeli war took place in Mandatory Palestine, and not in any regional Arab country with sizable Jewish communities that later mostly left for Israel such as Iraq, unlike the expulsion of Palestinians which occurred in Palestine. | |||
:2- Temporal irrelevance: The exodus of Jewish Arabs from their home countries mostly occurred after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war had ended, unlike the expulsion of Palestinians which occurred mostly during the war. | |||
:3- Indirect relevance: The exodus of Jews from Arab countries such as Iraq was not directly related to the war, but rather indirectly, unlike the mostly direct expulsion and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. | |||
:Therefore, the inclusion of this disputed content would also give a misleading false equivalence between two completely unrelated and dissimilar issues. ] (]) 11:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
::One can't really establish lack of a causal connection through arguments like this. A similar argument would suggest that the Holocaust wasn't connected to the creation is Israel. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 18:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Morris said it was indirect. Idk what the Holocaust has to do with this discussion. ] (]) 18:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
* '''No'''. Unlike the exodus of the Palestinians, which was part of the war and to a large extent a war aim, the exodus of Jews from Arab countries was a result of the foundation of Israel and the consequent implementation of Israeli policy. It was part of the demographic development over the following 3-10 years, not an aspect of the war. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''No''', The same arguments are valid here, as ], the exodus of Jews from Arab contries happened ''after'' the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, and was at leat partly due the the actions of the new Israeli state, (], anyone?) ] (]) 23:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''No''' per reasoning by Nableezy and Huldra. ] (]) 04:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''No''' Nableezy has explained quite well why this is out of place here, and also that there has already been consensus established on this. ] (]) 05:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''No''' per reasoning by Nableezy and Zero. ] (]) 14:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
* '''No'''. ]. Again, I quote Tessler 2009 (), , which covers this in depth: {{tq2|Supporters of Israel have frequently sought to buttress the case for Palestinian resettlement by emphasizing that roughly 450,000 Jewish "refugees" from the Arab world were resettled in Israel in the decade after 1948. More than half of these individuals arrived in the Jewish state between 1949 and 1951 ... <p>While the arrival of these Jews from the Arab world played a critical role in shaping the character and evolution of Israeli society after 1948, the argument that their dislocation was comparable to that of the Palestinians is controversial and problematic. Israeli propagandists stressed the difficulties that confronted Jews in Arab lands and suggested that they had been forced to leave their homes. ... In fact, however, such statements give a distorted impression of the complex and varied situation of the Jews in Arab countries and of the diverse reasons that led most to leave. <p>Scholarly Israeli and Jewish sources, as well as others, offer a more realistic appraisal. ... In these cases, and undoubtedly some others, it was the attraction of Israel, rather than a desire to flee persecution, that led Jews to leave the Arab countries in which they lived. <p>Socioeconomic factors may have been an even more important consideration. ... <p>In some instances, cultural factors provided yet another stimulus to Jewish emigration. ... <p>Finally, post-1948 Zionist efforts to promote Jewish emigration appear to have been an important factor in at least a few instances. ... In any event, when Zionist involvement is added to the socioeconomic, cultural, and other factors that helped to stimulate Jewish departures, it becomes clear that it is highly oversimplified, and in many ways misleading, to equate the flight of Palestine's Arabs with the immigration to Israel of Jews from Arab countries.}} Nowhere on Misplaced Pages should we be stating in Wikivoice this widely-debunked "population exchange" or "Jewish Nakba" theory. ] (]) 15:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
* '''Yes''', per sources which make the connection clear and treat it as a consequence of the war, including Benny Morris ({{tquote|The war indirectly created a second, major refugee problem. Partly because of the clash of Jewish and Arab arms in Palestine, some five to six hundred thousand Jews who lived in the Arab world emigrated, were intimidated into flight, or were expelled from their native countries}}) and others, please see more in the discussion thread. It's certainly true that there were other reasons for the migration but the sources make it clear that the war was one of the major ones. ]<sub>]</sub> 22:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''No''' Apart from sources such as Tessler as quoted by Levivich, the ] makes it clear that encouraging Jewish immigration from Arab countries was a priority for the new Israeli government.] (]) 11:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
*<s>'''Yes''', clearly a result of the hostilities, and per Alaexis and Andrevan. ] (]) 14:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)</s><small>Blocked sock] (]) 11:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
*<s>'''Yes''', per what Alaexis shows below. ] (]) 08:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)</s><small> Striking blocked sock - ] (]) 18:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
*'''Yes''', the actions of Arab states who invaded Israel against Jewish citizens in those states is very relevant to the war. ] (]) 13:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Yes''' Per WP:LEAD, summarize article's content. Jewish mass immigration, particularly from the Arab world, was an important consequence of the war. No serious source on the topic disputes that. ] (]) 09:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''No''' as stated by others it was not a result of the war, but of further colonialisation following the establishment of the Israel state. No mention of it belongs in the article let alone the lead. '']''<sup>]</sup> 10:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Yes''', per Andre, BePrepared1907 and others. With regards, ] (]) 01:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Yes''', 100% yes. So obviously yes that I'm surprised that we need a survey for this. ] (]) 11:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
* '''No''', 100% no. The Jewish exodus was more caused by the existence of Israel, not by the war as such. Many Israeli leaders wanted the exodus (-> they wanted Jewish immigrants to Israel). That Mossad created Jewish ] in Egypt (the ]) didn't help Egyptian Jews, to put it mildly. Similar in ], (read ]'s (2023): "Three Worlds: Memoirs of an Arab-Jew". ] (]) 22:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:It seems that plenty of sources ''on'' the 1948 war specify its impact on the exodus. Questions of relative weight in what caused the Jewish exodus are probably best answered on the ] page. Unless Shlaim's claim (or other RS's claim) is that Mossad/Israeli govt. actions caused the exodus to the exclusion of the 1948 war, I don't think your reasoning amounts to a no !vote - even if there are sources like that, at most it would mean that the the claim that the war contributed/led to the exodus should be attributed, not that the claim should be omitted. ] (]) 11:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
* '''Yes''' per sources that ] compiled below. By consensus and crossing partisan lines, one of the <s>major</s> outcomes of the war was the Jewish exodus. ] (]) 10:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:There are no sources that claim this was a major outcome of the war, that is just made up. ''']''' - 11:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::I'll strike major, I suppose that word is applying my own interpretation to the sources below. (Provisionally, if I find the time to find sources myself I'll update my !vote again). ] (]) 11:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::As far as Edward Said, unless I’m missing something, and Alaexis provides no quote or page number so if I’m wrong he can do that, the only thing Said says about this is {{xt|Along with the militarization went the wholesale persecution of communities, preeminently but not exclusively the Jewish ones, whose presence in our midst for generations was suddenly thought to be dangerous. I know that there was an active Zionist role in stimulating unrest between the Jews of Iraq, Egypt, and elsewhere on the one hand, and the governments of those Arab countries were scarcely democratic, on the other, but it seems to me to be incontestable that there was a xenophobic enthusiasm officially decreeing that these and other designated “alien” communities had to be extracted by force from our midst. Nor was this all. In the name of military security in countries like Egypt there was a bloody minded, imponderably wasteful campaign against dissenters, mostly on the left, but independent-minded people too whose vocation as critics and skilled men and women was brutally terminated in prisons, by fatal torture and summary executions. As one looks back at these things in the context of 1948, it is the immense panorama of waste and cruelty that stands out as the immediate result of the war itself.}} I’m not quite sure how that is claimed to be Said calling this a consequence, major or otherwise, of the war. The part on the Egypt isn’t a chapter on the Jews of Egypt, and I may be missing something again as my copy has the chapter on Egypt beginning on page 150 but having read it I don’t see where it discusses the exodus as a consequence of the war. A vague wave to a book and saying it’s there doesn’t really help anybody check if this actually true. Now page 140 *does* have material on the Iraqi Jewish community, but it doesn’t support the claim here. What it says is {{xt|The relative inactivity of Iraq during 1948 had suited many in the political elite, but it had clearly not suited all. In particular, Sadiq al-Bassam, the minister of defense in Pachachi’s government, found that there was little for him to do, other than to administer martial law. He used this opportunity, therefore, to prosecute his own war-time strategy, targeting the Jewish community in Iraq itself. This may partly have been due to his own formation in the pan-Arabism of the 1930s which had portrayed Iraqi Jews as a potential fifth column. However, Bassam was merely the most powerful representative for a time of the trend within Iraq that made the position of Jewish Iraqis increasingly untenable. In this sense, he represented the Iraqi side of an equation in which there was less and less space for the existence of a Jewish Arab Iraqi identity. The other side of the equation, which exerted a correspondingly powerful force on the Iraqi Jews, was the Zionist movement itself which set out not simply to protect, but also to “save” them by encouraging their mass immigration to Israel. The mass exodus of Iraqi Jews was not to take place until 1950–51 when about 120,000 arrived in Israel. However, in 1948 it was becoming clear that their position as a community had become precarious}}. It then discusses the acts of the Iraqi government but not as a consequence of the war, given next to no Iraqi involvement in it. Again, if quotes can be provided to back up the claims here that would be helpful, but I don’t see where in those chapters the book supports the idea that this was a consequence of the war rather than a consequence of the foundation of Israel and the political turmoil that followed across the Middle East. ''']''' - 13:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::Re: {{tq|I don’t see where in those chapters the book supports the idea that this was a consequence of the war rather than a consequence of the foundation of Israel and the political turmoil that followed across the Middle East.}} I don't think the war and the foundation of Israel are separable. In the case of Said's afterword, he frames it around consequences of the war: The title of the chapter is "Afterword: the consequences of l948". In any case, the terms of the conclusion of the war - with Israel existing as a "putative danger to the Arab world" make it hard to draw that distinction. I think Said describes how Arab societies were militarised and in a "perpetual state of emergency" as a result of the way the war ended, contributing to the "xenophobic enthusiasm officially decreeing that these and other designated “alien” communities had to be extracted by force from our midst". | |||
*::::As for the Iraq chapter, I think, again, that you've found the right quote, but I don't agree with your conclusion. The quote spells out that the Iraqi defense minister used the wartime imposition of martial law to target the Jewish community, and that this (as part of a wider Iraqi trend) was a significant part of the "equation" in which Iraqi Jewish life became untenable leading to their exodus in 1951-2. At least the specific example Said cites seems firmly tied to the war, even if the broader trend might not be. | |||
*::::None of this is to specifically dispute Said's (or anyone's) contention that Zionist actions also drove the exodus, or to assign relative weight to different factors. Nor does it say that there's a simple causal relationship between the war and the exodus - I wouldn't argue that at all. But I think the source does make a clear connection between the war and the exodus. ] (]) 14:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::::Even if there is such a connection, it still isn't at all due for the lead. ] (]) 14:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::::I think there is such a connection. I (partly relying on Alaexis' compilation of sources below, but having specifically checked the one disputed above) think that the connection is significant enough and backed up by sources enough to be due. ] (]) 08:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::::The foundation of Israel was a consequence of the war. What followed from that is not. As far as Iraq, what happened in a country not even involved in the war is being offered as a direct and major consequence of the war, which I think is self-evidently incorrect, but either way the source does not say that it was a consequence of the war, much less a major one. ''']''' - 15:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::::I think it's the other way around. Israel was founded and then the war started. And, the rising tensions and the war absolutely affected Jews in Egypt and other Arab nations, even those not directly involved. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::::::The sources don’t support any part of that interpretation and the ones you’ve cited in your vote do not support the idea that this was a direct consequence of the war. ''']''' - 22:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::::::This is covered extensively in the sources mentioned, and more detail for example in Beinin and Benoussan ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::::::::Pages and quotes supporting the contention that the exodus was a direct consequence of the war and a significant aspect of it. ''']''' - 23:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::::::::The war is frequently mentioned in any serious discussion. I think it's a little more complex than a simple sentence that says "the exodus was a direct consequence of the war" because the exodus was gradual and was brought on by various forms of domestic persecution. The war caused most of these things to accelerate. For example p.417 of Benoussan mentioned, "{{tq|war of 1948-1949 resulted in a wave of dispossessions... Apartments were confiscated, with their inhabitants given only a few hours to pack their bags and take shelter..."}} Now, you can argue that this itself is somehow indirect because a caused b caused c, but I read that as the fact that the war accelerated and subsequently, there was an acceleration of the dispossessions of their apartments, which is a de facto expulsion or at the very least proximate cause of flight. I'd say this meets the burden, but let me know your objection to it, ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::::::::::It isn’t my argument, Morris directly says it is an indirect effect. ''']''' - 02:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::::{{tq|The foundation of Israel was a consequence of the war. What followed from that is not.}} I think we'll simply have to agree to disagree on this point. I suppose we could try and separate them with the counter-factual of what if the Arab states - or at least Egypt, Syria and Iraq - had not declared war on Israel, but I doubt that there would be any sources to back up the analysis of what the prognosis for the Jewish communities would have been in that case. ] (]) 08:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
* '''No''' - per nableezy, makeandtoss, and others. We've already had this discussion and resolved not to do it. Obviously it was an important event on its own, but it's not a subtopic of the 1948 war. The ] does not make this suggestion (with the exception of an unsourced comment in the lead that I've gone ahead and removed), mostly citing the creation of Israel as motivation. As obnoxious as it is to pull up a fallacy, making this change would be a classic '']'' situation, where we assume that because the war happened before emigration happened, the two must be directly related. They are at best indirectly related, as you can see in many of the RS that have already been cited at length. ] (]) 11:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
===Discussion=== | |||
:The political objectives section starts out by describing the Yishuv "fearing a repeat of the Holocaust" and simply looking to survive without making mention of any other objectives. In a subsection about Husseini it starts out by mentioning his collaboration with the Nazis and adding an allusion to the Holocaust, without providing any context as to why he was collaborating with the Nazis and what he actually ''knew'' of the Holocaust at the time. This, mind you, in the "political objectives" section. Even more significantly there is no mention in the background section or political objectives about the history of Jewish settlement or Arab opposition to the way in which it lead to their expulsion from certain areas of the territory as well as widespread discrimination against them by the settlers. | |||
*Notified ], ], ], ]. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 19:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
*{{u|Andrevan}} and {{u|Alaexis}} there are a two components to this debate. Yes, you should show that (1) the Jewish exodus was caused by the 1948 war. You also need to show that (2) among the war's many effects, the Jewish exodus was one of the most significant outcomes. Showing (1) alone would merit mention of the war in the lead of ], but not here. Indeed, we have no mention of the Jewish exodus in the lead of the ], even though that revolution did lead to many Jews leaving Iran, because the Iranian revolution had far more significant outcomes (according to RS).''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 10:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:The two first sources from the list below are books about the war and they describe this as one of the effects of the war (in Conclusion and Afterword respectively). It's called a *major* refugee problem. Other sources which deal with the history of Israel also stress the importance of this migration. ]<sub>]</sub> 22:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::In the entirety of 1948 by Morris he even mentions Jewish refugees, according to the index, over a total of 4 pages, one page discussing internal Jewish refugees (where he says {{xt|During the following months, abandoned urban houses were often settled by Jewish refugees from Palestine’s war zone}}) and three pages of the conclusion of the book. This in a book 420 pages long. Thats 3 pages about an indirect effect out of 420 pages, so about .7% of the pages of the book even mention this supposedly major subtopic. Giving that even a sentence in the lead is wildly undue even if one ignores that Morris himself doesn’t even say that this was a consequence of the war itself. ''']''' - 23:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::Importance of a historical event or concept is really not best judged using a math formula. This would be mentioned in any serious undergraduate textbook as a major series of events in the introduction or overview. Wars cause refugee crises and there is both a Palestinian and a Jewish refugee crisis that accelerates after 1948. To say that there is the former and not the latter is imbalanced. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::Weight is. When the source that is about this topic entirely that is being offered for claiming this was a major consequence discusses it for approximately 0% of the book, and never in anything but the afterword, that is proof that it is not a major part of this topic. ''']''' - 02:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
The RfC template was just removed as expired. Can we agree this resulted in no consensus to include?, or do we need this to be formally closed? If the latter how can that be achieved? ] (]) 01:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Further down in a section on British diplomacy there are references to the British thinking all Jews are communists, wanting to cut Israel down to size, and evacuating without considering the consequences. Again comments without context, like the fact the leading Zionists were self-described socialists or the fact the Soviets thought Israel would be a major ally for the same reason. | |||
:It resulted in no consensus, which would mean it would remain, per status quo. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 01:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Then you have the section for the demographic outcome. In the second paragraph it falsely asserts that "Arab nations refused to absorb Palestinian refugees" when it is widely-known that Jordan gave every refugee citizenship in its territory and it is also known that Lebanon gave some of the refugees citizenship as well. On the Jewish exodus the section claims "many of these immigrants were forcibly expelled" despite evidence suggesting a significant amount left voluntarily, something that is mentioned after that in a manner that implies it is not significant. What follows from there is a rather butchered run-on sentence that starts out by mentioning antisemitic violence and pogroms. It then mentions government persecution due to the war or "political instability" without elaborating and only after mentioning this does it point out the rather significant matter of many just wanting to settle in Israel or the West. Obviously, it does not go into any of the unique details related to the flight of Jews from each of these countries. Even more problematic is the sentence starts out without clarifying whether this applies just to immigrants from Arab and Muslim countries or whether it also includes European Jews who are mentioned earlier in the paragraph. | |||
::<s>You can't be serious...</s> ] (]) 01:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::What do you mean by that? Request an uninvolved closer, then, please. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 01:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::I see where you're coming from actually, ]. It just seems very odd to me that content can remain without consensus for its inclusion. ] (]) 01:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::There seems to be a contradiction between ]'s "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." and ]'s "When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." ] (]) 01:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*All of the above come together to violate ] by pushing a propaganda notion that the enemies of Israel do not have any legitimate reason for opposing it, but instead just hate Jews with some even wanting to have a redo of the Holocaust. Context is rarely given for the sides opposing/not supporting Israel, while the context given for Israelis ignores the less high-minded reasons for their actions. Honestly, this reads like something you would get from CAMERA or Arutz Sheva. The political objectives section heavily implies with the bit about Husseini that the Palestinians only wanted to kill the Jews and that the Yishuv were just stoically trying to survive. Throwing in the ex-Naxis mention and the Nazi flag in the belligerents section adds on to that little association game being played with the article. Amazingly the source provided for Husseini is a book ''about'' antisemitism written by an Israeli. With all the issues in the section about the British and the demographic outcome included, the obscenely incendiary and propagandistic nature of the resulting synthesis of material stands out plainly. I would say it easily reaches ] proportions. | |||
::::Consensus isn't a vote, so if both sides are at a standstill, with roughly equal support, and roughly equally strong arguments, that'd be nocon, and then the status quo would remain. Particularly as this was long-standing, not recently added content. But if you wish a closer to close it you can go to ], since we are both involved and not impartial to close the discussion or read its consensus. However, personally, if someone closed the discussion as not-nocon, I would be surprised, and potentially send it for a close review, since discussions like this one are typically closed no-consensus absent some irregularities or discretionary interpretation that weighs more heavily, such as BLP, copyright, etc. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 01:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Nocon, should that be the result, simply means more discussion until there is a consensus, regardless whether the material is in or out, including discussion of whether it should be in or out. ] (]) 10:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
====Sources discussing the effect on Jewish communities==== | |||
*There is also a somewhat less serious issue for fixing, merely by comparison, and that is the poor referencing in the article. Paragraphs and sometimes entire sections go without a citation at times. It is not strictly a case of minor or uncontroversial material either. A section on Operation Shoter mentions accusations of '''massacres''' without providing a ''single reference'' either way. Another paragraph in the section "Anglo-Israeli air clashes" is a huge block of text, it could easily be split into two or three paragraphs, with two citations tacked on at the end. The first two paragraphs of the background section have no citations either, though someone has at least added some citation tags there. | |||
1. ], 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War. The exodus of the Jewish population is discussed at length (pp. 412-416) in the chapter ''Some conclusions''. {{cquote|The war indirectly created a second, major refugee problem. Partly because of the clash of Jewish and Arab arms in Palestine, some five to six hundred thousand Jews who lived in the Arab world emigrated, were intimidated into flight, or were expelled from their native countries, most of them reaching Israel, with a minority resettling in France, Britain, and the other Western countries. The immediate propellants to flight were the popular Arab hostility, including pogroms, triggered by the war in Palestine and specific governmental measures, amounting to institutionalized discrimination against and oppression of the Jewish minority communities.}} | |||
Looking over all this I am perplexed at how this article can still have a B-class ranking. This article is in need of some serious work to even be worthy of a C-class ranking, in my opinion.--] (]) 01:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Some of the things you mention have merit, some I disagree with. It was very difficult to get anything done with this article for a while (you can see why if you check the archives). If you have any specific changes you want to make please either bring them up here or just go ahead and edit. Worse case you'll get reverted and then we can discuss. ] (]) 01:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
:(1) I think there was a clear consensus that the addition of Nazi Germany to the combatant list was not appropriate. Its a recent change that has been reverted, so I don't think it has any bearing on your argument. (2) Your statement that "The political objectives section starts out by describing the Yishuv "fearing a repeat of the Holocaust" and simply looking to survive without making mention of any other objectives" is simply false - this section, which cites a highly-respected source, lists three additional war aims beyond survival. (3) The text appears to imply that the quote "to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy" is from a statement by Husseyni. Searching for the quote in Google Books, the earlier reference that I found was to a 1970 book by ], who was known as a critic of Israel. There are some later uses of the quote by dubious sources. I think that the quote does need to be tracked down and verified. The general point that Husseyni sided with the Nazis during the war is frequently made in secondary sources about the period and it was crucially important in 1948. I am sure that we could do a better job of presenting this. (4) I'm not opposed to adding some context to the statement that the Foreign Office thought that the Jews were communists. This is, however, a complex and nuanced subject - plenty of leading Britons in 1948 would have considered themselves socialists and a great many leftists in the West had not yet broken with Stalin. (5) I agree that a reference is needed for the section on Operation Shoter. The article ] has a discussion of the allegations of massacres that appears to be well sourced. I will have to read through some of your other points carefully. I'm not convinced that the article is making the implicit point that you believe it is making - for instance the article makes it quite clear that King Hussein was willing to make a deal with the Yishuv to avert war and that the motivation of several Arab leaders was not hatred of Jews but a desire to expand their own territory and influence. ] (]) 01:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
::Point 1 is a nice sentiment, but that edit is symptomatic of the broader issue with this article. The second point is not really addressing what I said. It does mention other goals, but that is what it starts with so what I said was not false. Also, the parts after that are not any more respectful of NPOV. WP:V does not circumvent other policies. Can you honestly say that it is universally agreed by all major historians that the Yishuv were just looking to establish "defensible borders" and "reduce the size" of an Arab fifth column? Points three and four are welcome responses, though on the fourth point I think you are overlooking the recurring theme of antisemitism in this article. In fact, that is the main problem with your response. You do not see the obvious picture being painted. I have read enough on the conflict over the years and had enough debates about it to recognize that many of these points I am mentioning are very common claims amongst those who try to paint Israel's opponents or non-advocates as antisemitic or blind to antisemitism.--] (]) 04:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::@TDA, when your neighbor is raped, robbed or killed in a pogrom as part of official government policy and because of your status as a Jew, you are arbitrarily denied employment, the ability to conduct a livelihood, are subject to random beatings, robbery, imprisonment or worse, leaving under those conditions is certainly not voluntary. Arab pogroms against their respective Jewish communities, some of which had been in existence for 2,500 years is a well documented fact as is the Arab connection to Nazi Germany during WW2.--] (]) 18:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::Fleeing oppression is voluntary, even if that may seem horrible to say. That Jews were oppressed by these governments does not mean you can claim in the article that the governments expelled them, unless they did just that. Certainly there were cases where Arab governments expelled their Jewish population (Egypt is the only definitive example I can think of at the moment) and we can back that up with sources. Sources also back up that there were just as many, if not considerably more, who made Aliyah out of nationalistic fervor following Israel's declaration of statehood. In certain cases sources back up that it was due to unique political circumstances like in Algeria, where Jews had been given French citizenship and were for over a hundred years essentially equal in status to French colonists. There is also the fact that the Arab League explicitly forbid emigration of Jews by member states, with countries like Iraq and Yemen seeing sudden mass emigration soon after the war mainly because Israel and Zionist groups conducted military-scale evacuations. Morocco is particularly unique in that leaders have even called on the Jewish population that fled to come back and there is still a sizable Jewish minority there. All these nuances are lost in the current wording that downplays the voluntary parts as well as the very long period of time over which it elapsed. Compared to the Nakba, which happened over a year or two, the Jewish exodus was like a dripping faucet. Your insistence on keeping things like this, together with your attempt to make associations with the Nazis is exactly the problem with this article.--] (]) 00:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::You have quite a few factual errors in the above statement, but never mind. I don't think many sources claim that most Jews decided voluntarily to emigrate from Arab countries without any pressure from the government and locals. ] (]) 00:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::Quite a few would back up that a sizable amount that left for Israel did so for ideological reasons as much as anything else. After all, various Jewish organizations around the world actively encouraged Jews to make Aliyah so that the Jewish population could grow in Israel. The impression created by the current wording is that the Jewish community was being forced out of the Arab world because the Arab leaders were Nazi-loving Jewhaters. It really is a horrifically butchered spin on the actual history.--] (]) 06:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::::If you have a source that says most Jews left the Arab countries for ideological reasons, I'd like to see it. Not all the Arab leaders were Nazi-loving Jew-haters, but some certainly were and I don't agree that the article creates the impression they all were. Can you quote the exact text you think gives that impression? ] (]) 06:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
{{out}}There is no one quote that lays it out. As I said, it is the material sprinkled across the article when taken as a whole. For instance, in the political objectives section this quote by itself is biased but does not imply a lot: | |||
{{quote|text=Initially, the aim was "simple and modest": to survive the assaults of the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab states. "The Zionist leaders deeply, genuinely, feared a Middle Eastern reenactment of the Holocaust, which had just ended; the Arabs' public rhetoric reinforced these fears". }} | |||
However, when you take that and combine it with the first paragraph on Husseini a little further down in the section it takes on new meaning: | |||
{{quote|text=In 1940, he asked the Axis Powers to acknowledge the Arab right "to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy."}} | |||
While I was looking over the British diplomacy section I also noticed that all the material in ''that section'' is backed by '''a single book from Karsh.''' That section includes some choice quotes: | |||
{{quote|text=Moreover, it was an article of faith for most British policy-makers that most Jews were Communists . . . General Sir Alan Cunningham wrote to Creech Jones at this time to complain "It appears to me that H.M.G.'s policy is now simply to get out of Palestine as quickly as possible '''without regard to the consequences in Palestine'''" . . . British officials regarded the prospect of an Arab invasion favorably as offering an excellent chance to overturn the UN partition resolution and cut Israel "down to size".}} | |||
After that you have the demographic outcome section that makes sure to first assign antisemitic violence and pogroms as causes for the Jewish exodus and then mentioning government persecution as another before getting to the fact that there were people who actually left for socioeconomic or ideological reasons. You also have various omissions about the actual motivations of the Palestinian Arabs and what the Yishuv had been doing that incited so much hostility. Separated these bits of information say very little, together they paint a picture of the innocent Jewish population being beset and threatened at every turn by vile antisemites who seek their destruction.--] (]) 08:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Antisemitic violence and pogroms were indeed a major factors in the Jewish exodus from Arab countries. I can recommend a few books on the subject if you're not familiar. It's also true that British policy was to get out of Palestine without regard to the consequences, and that's being generous and not taking into account their subtle and not so subtle sabotage of the Partition Plan. We had a discussion about that which included other sources such as Pappe. Like I said, it was hard to improve this article for a while. | |||
:You can always add information to balance things you think are too one sided. ] (]) 17:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
2. Shlaim & Rogan, The War for Palestine. Rewriting the History of 1948. ] (!) who wrote the Afterword mentions it as one of the effects of the war on the Arab world, and there is a chapter about the Jews in Egypt (pp. 140-142). | |||
::Bevin, the British foreign secretary, did think that the partition plan was fundamentally unfair and refused to involve the British government and armed forces in implementing it. Prior to the partition plan, attempts had been made to get the Jewish and Arab leaders to make peace agreements. Bevin said that if they didn't reach an agreement, the problem would be handed to the United Nations and the British would withdraw from Palestine. No agreement was reached; the Jewish leaders thought that Bevin was bluffing and the Arab leaders were quite happy that the problem be referred to the United Nations, where they thought that they would prevail. Bevin wasn't bluffing, so what he said would be done was done. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%"> ← ] </span> 14:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::That's a bit simplistic. The British deliberately did not cooperate with the UN in the implementation of the Partition Plan, including now allowing the UN Palestine Commission to enter the area to do its work of marking borders and trying to set up temporary governments. They also refused to transfer any functions of government (like the police, the post, the railway authority, etc) to anyone. ] (]) 18:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::As I wrote, British Government policy was to refuse to involve the British government and armed forces in implementing the partition resolution. That included refusing to allow various UN bodies involved in implementing partition to enter Palestine. It also included, rather than a refusal to hand over power (as far as I know, no bodies were demanding that power be handed to them), a refusal to organise a transferral of power. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%"> ← ] </span> 19:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
3. Colin Schindler. A history of modern Israel, pp. 63-64. The exodus is explicitly linked to the war: {{cquote|In Arab countries, the defeat of the Arab armies and the exodus of the Palestinian Arabs exacerbated an already difficult situation . Over 37 percent of Jews in Islamic countries ... left for Israel between May 1948 and the beginning of 1952}} | |||
:So, part of the problem looks to be that sections of the article are sourced to single texts so that things which should be presented as viewpoints, if they are presented at all, are being presented as facts? I broadly support what you've written. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%"> ← ] </span> 14:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
::I'll try to find the discussion we had about this. Pappe and Karsh say basically the same thing about the British. ] (]) 18:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
::OK, it is. It's long and meandering but you'll see there are several sources, from both sides (although we didn't find one describing the British POV) that support what currently only Karsh is used for in the article. ] (]) 18:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::From what I can tell that was a discussion about one point of possible agreement with Karsh on the British role at the UN Partition Plan article talk page, the section on British diplomacy in this article has a much broader scope than the material that was the focus of the discussion you mentioned. Please, do not misrepresent a discussion in another article to try and sway discussion in this one.--] (]) 23:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::Excuse me? You said you had a problem with a section of the article because it was sourced only to Karsh, then bolded part of a quote to show what you had a problem with. I pointed you to another discussion that has another source from someone with opposing views to those of Karsh, that supports the part you bolded. Now I'm "misrepresenting" another discussion to "try and sway" this one? You've gotta be kidding me. ] (]) 00:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::You were responding to someone else who objected to the section being sourced to one book and I was clearly not raising the material about them not "considering the consequences" of evacuating as my ''only'' objection to the material, which actually isn't addressed in that discussion anyway. By saying that the various sources "say basically the same thing about the British" and "support what currently only Karsh is used for" you are implying that all of my objections, as well those of other editors, were addressed by that discussion when they were not. So, yes, you were misrepresenting that discussion to try and sway this one. Anyway, focusing on the British diplomacy section in general I think a source like this should be considered: http://books.google.com/books?id=UcSUgrDsD_sC&pg=PA10&dq=Israel+British+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KqoTT7z9PNLogAek6ODAAw&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Israel%20British%201948&f=false. It is still a partisan source, but that makes the implication of British inaction actually serving to harm the Palestinian Arabs more significant. Similarly, the British pressuring Arab countries against taking Jerusalem provides yet another example of how this section currently presents only one very biased side of the question. | |||
:::::That source goes to another point that I haven't raised. The background section at the top of the article says "Jews would get 56% of the land, of which most was in the Negev Desert" implying that somehow they were getting stiffed by mostly receiving a barren wasteland for a state, a typical claim from pro-Israeli propagandists. Of course, the Zionist leadership and President Harry Truman made the Negev's inclusion in the Jewish state a redline for their support despite it having little to no Jewish population. They were so insistent on it the Yishuv established small settlements in the territory during the negotiations so as to lay some claim to the Negev. Only after the Negev was included did the Yishuv finally support the U.N. Partition. This point comes up with the 1948 War when Gelber notes the British were pushing this idea of having the Negev included in the Arab state, which would then be included in Transjordan, and describes motives that are clearly more about geopolitical maneuvering to build up its biggest ally in the region as opposed to being motivated out of any desire to oppose Israel as the current wording implies.--] (]) 05:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::You have clearly either not read that discussion or not read the sources. Also, in the future, perhaps you shouldn't bold stuff if you don't want people to address it specifically. | |||
::::::Anyway, I'm starting to see a pattern here. You think certain things "imply" all kinds of stuff which you personally object to or that you have "had enough debates about" or whatever. How about you add whatever it is you think would balance what's currently in the article (none of which you seem to object to as not being reliably sourced) and we can go on from there? This kind of forumesque back and forth isn't really helping if you don't say what exactly you want to change and how. | |||
::::::For example, the fact that most of the land was in the Negev is noted in many if not most sources that discuss this topic. So the way to fix whatever "implication" you think this has (other than the fact that a large chunk of the proposed state was not arable land) is to go ahead and add more information and spare us your opinion about "pro-Israeli propagandists" or whatever. ] (]) 05:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
{{out}}I object to bias on Misplaced Pages in general and beyond that my opinion on the subject itself only serves to inform my edits in the sense that it is a result of sympathetically reviewing the information and arguments from both sides. What I can say is that the material included in this article and the information omitted make this article fit the classic pro-Israeli narrative of the war. As for suggestions, I just provided one in my previous comment on a possible second source to use in the British diplomacy section. My intention is to make changes to the article, but I would prefer some input first.--] (]) 06:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
:What page is Negev stuff on? | |||
:What kind of text do you want to add regarding British diplomacy? ] (]) 07:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
::The bit about the British push for Jordan annexing the Negev should be on the page that pops up when you click the link. It does not mention there what I said about the Zionist leadership seeking the Negev, so that might need a different source, though I think one is provided on another article. As far as text, my ultimate desire would be a change so significant that suggesting it would be more complicated than just making the change. However, any ideas about how to bring material in from the source above or any source you may find would be helpful. If can think of ways to make the changes yourself that would also be good.--] (]) 08:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::I don't think it would hurt if we summarize the Karsh stuff and move some of the quotes from British officials to the footnotes, for example. Then you can add other sources that elaborate on the British support to Transjordan (not that I think it really changes the essence of what Karsh is saying). I don't think anyone contests the fact the the British supported the Arabs diplomatically and to some extent also militarily (for example the Arab Legion). The reasons they did so are open to some debate which we can elaborate on. ] (]) 23:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::Perhaps Karsh's viewpoint is and it would be a good idea to balance it with that given in other sources. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%"> ← ] </span> 11:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
---------------- | |||
To be still quoting from the 'academic' Pappe as though his anti-Israel propaganda had any historical or scholarly merit, is beyond parody. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
4.The Jews of the Middle East and North Africa in Modern Times, p. 150 | |||
== 15 May 1948 - Invade or intervene: description of where Arab forces invaded or intervened. == | |||
{{cquote|The Arab-Israeli War greatly accelerated the process whereby the Jewish minorities in the Arab countries were being alienated and isolated}} | |||
p. 177 | |||
Books have been written on which side caused the fighting starting on 15 May 1948. My immediate concern or rather hope is to see that the lanquage is neutral. | |||
{{cquote|The Arab-Israeli war may have been the catalyst for the mass exodus of Jews from most of the Arab countries}} | |||
To describe it as ''invaded Israel'', without specifying exactly where in the former Mandate the troops entered, is to assume two things:- | |||
:1 The Declaration of the Establishment of Israel of 14 May 1948 was valid; and | |||
:2 Israel's legal boundaries included the whole of the former Mandate. | |||
It also has a chapter ''The mass exodus begins'' about the flight/emigration of Jews from Arab countries between 1948 and the mid-1950s as a result of the war. | |||
At best, the use of invade must be limited to the area set aside for the Jewish State under Resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947. | |||
5. ] also links the exodus and the war in ''Israel. A History''. When discussing the immigration of Jews from the Arab countries she says (p. 223) {{cquote|throughout the Middle East and North Africa relations between Jews and Arabs had been strained, especially since the establishment of the Jewish State and the War of Independence}} | |||
The arguments for the invalidity of the Declaration of 14 May 1948 are as follows:- | |||
:a Resolution 181(II) was only a recommendation. | |||
:b PART I of Resolution 181(II): Future constitution and government of Palestine: Clause: A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE provides:- | |||
: '''3. Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in part III of this plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948.''' | |||
Two months from 14 May 1848 takes you to 14 July 1948. The Declaration of 14 May 1948, being slightly premature. appears to be in breach of the Resolution. | |||
:c Unless it means Eretz Israel, the Declaration did not specify identifiable boundaries. | |||
6. ] considers the defeat one of three main drivers of the exodus (''A History of Israel'', p. 71) | |||
The use of neutral terms such as ''marched into the area of the former Mandate'' avoids these problems.] (]) 06:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
{{cquote|growing numbers of Jews also arrived from Arab lands where their position had become perilous and nearly untenable as a result of growing nationalism reinforced by religion, the humiliating Arab defeat and the creation of Israel on the land of Palestine in 1948}} | |||
:The term invade is used by reliable secondary sources. For instance, the relevant chapter title of Morris' book 1948: The First Arab-Israeli War is "The Pan-Arab Invasion, 15 May - 11 June 1948". The meaning of the term "intervene" is less clear. Invading means entering a place in large numbers, often in a military context. Intervene means to try to prevent something. When you say "intervened in" a country, it isn't clear what the purpose of the intervention was. I also don't think that the term "invade" implies that the entity being invaded has a legal right to that territory. The hatnote at ] says: "This article is about the first day of the Invasion of Normandy..." I don't think that implies that Germany had a legal right to France. I think your objection can be dealt with by saying that they invaded the territory of the former mandate.] (]) 07:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
:: Something like "entered Palestine and engaged the Israeli forces" would correctly summarize both where they were and what they did. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
7. Avi Bekker, | |||
Zero0000 | |||
{{cquote|In a few years, Jewish communities that had existed in the Middle East for more than 2,500 years were brutally expelled or had to run | |||
If the Declaration were valid, part would no longer be Palestine. If the Declatation were invalid, they really should still be Jewish forces. I prefer as I suggested.] (]) 09:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
for their lives... Following the Partition Resolution of November 1947... Middle Eastern Jews were the targets of official and popular incitement, state-legislated discrimination, and pogroms}} ]<sub>]</sub> 22:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{Closed rfc bottom}} | |||
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 January 2025 == | |||
GabrielF | |||
:In the context of what happened on 6 June 1944, no-one today would suggest that the Allies were not enttled to take on the Germans on the beaches of Normandy, whatever word is used. In the context of 15 May 1948, where it is stll debated, which word to be used is still important. '''intervened''' is the word used in the Arab League Cablegram of 15 May. | |||
:I prefer not to use '''Palestine''' because it suggest the invalidity of the Declaration of 14 May, particularly if they entered what was included in the proposed Jewish State. Perhps '''invaded/intervened in the area of the former Mandate'''. | |||
The ''Jewish Virtual Library'' tries to have it both ways. It talks about '''invaded the tiny new country''' but the map shows them entering areas some of which at least were set aside for the Arab State. ] (]) 21:49, 12 May 2012 UTC) | |||
:http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/invade48.html ] (]) 22:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
{{edit extended-protected|1948 Arab–Israeli War|answered=yes}} | |||
::Excuse me, but the map clearly shows the invasion of Arab armies into Jewish populations. For example... Arab Legion bombardment of West Jerusalem, Syrian advance over Degania, Egyptian attack on Yad Mordechai, etc--] (]) 23:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
<!-- State UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes below this line, preferably in a "change X to Y" format. Other editors need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests will be declined. --> | |||
Why is it called the 1948 Palestine war. This was after the mandate given to construct Israel. The name of the region, Palestine was not used anymore. It named "the war of liberation" or in Hebrew - milchemet hashicheoor (מלחמת השחרור). | |||
Jabotito48 | |||
This terminology is important and writing it as it is written is misleading and twist the course of history. | |||
: 1 If you say that the Arab forces attacked Degania and Yad Mordechai, and the Arab Legion bombarded West Jerusalem, I bow to your superior knowledge. Until I read your post, I had heard of neither Degania nor Yad Mordechai. The map on the Jewish Virtual Library website mentions neither place nor that West Jerusalem was bombarded. I have now worked out where both of the first two places are and concede that they appear to have been in areas under Israeli control. | |||
: 2 The map only indicates the movement of Arab forces, not what they attacked. | |||
: 3 Other than showing isolated Jewish settlements, the map makes no mention whether areas were populated by Arabs or by Jews. It shows areas held by Israel | |||
:3 My post did not suggest that the Arab forces did not enter areas populated by Jews: it talked about areas set aside for the Arab State. | |||
:{{Not done}} The present title is our best attempt at neutrality, as it does not reflect the preference of either the Israeli or Palestinian side. This has been discussed here many times; check out the archives of this talk page. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
You are confusing three things, areas populated by either Arabs or Jews, areas set aside by the plan of partition for the two states, and areas occupied by each state. | |||
Unfortunately, at critical times they never coincided. ] (]) 03:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
::What is your damn point, professor? Arab armies INVADED Israel one day after declaring independence (yes, including those areas to be part of the Jewish State according to Resolution 181). The JVL map clearly shows it and this evidences it. And this is a matter of historical facts, not political opinions.--] (]) 04:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::There are numerous reliable secondary sources that describe the Arab attack as an invasion. I don't think that anyone can seriously dispute that. To describe it as anything other is revisionist in the extreme. I voice my concurrence with Jabotito48 and GabrielF.--] (]) 04:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Jabotito48 | |||
:GabrielF | |||
:Jiujitsuguy | |||
: I have no problem with the proposition that the Arab armies invaded that part of the former Mandate to be included in the Jewish State and which contained a majority of Jews. However a comparison of the JVL map and the map of the proposed partition in the article on Resolution 181(II). http://en.wikipedia.org/Resolution_181 suggests that on 15 May 1948 Jewish forces had occupied the area between Jerusalem and the coast. The JVL map suggests that part of the Jordanian army moving south of Ramallah and north of Jerusalem never entered any of the area set aside for the Jewish state. On any test it did not invade Israel but engaged Jewish forces on the road to Jerusalem which was either part of the proposed Arab State or the City of Jerusalem. That was rather an intervention in the proposed Arab State and East Jerusalem and an invasion of the West Jerusalem rather than an invasion of Israel. | |||
:That is why the words ''invaded/intervened in the area of the former Mandate'' are neutral. | |||
:I might add that the Declaration of the Establishment of Israel of 14 May does not make clear exactly where Israel's boundaries were. | |||
::Could you provide me with a list of some of these reliable sources. ] (]) 07:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
::"''http://en.wikipedia.org/Resolution_181 suggests that on 15 May 1948 Jewish forces had occupied the area between Jerusalem and the coast.''" That's because the war didn't start on 15 May 1948, but in ]. Regarding Israel's boundaries, the declaration of independence itself doesn't say anything about it (just "Jewish State in Eretz Israel, named State of Israel"). Obviously Ben Gurion knew Resolution 181 concerning borders was dead since November 30 because of Arab aggression and Israel could expand some defensible territory in the war to come. Israel, like many countries in the world, delimited its boundaries fighting in wars. 1949 Armistice Lines + Golan Heights + East Jerusalem were annexed after being conquered and are under Israeli law, so we can assume these are Israel's current boundaries (despite international community doesn't recognize last two), but Resolution 181 has no validity since December 1947. The West Bank, on the other hand, has never been annexed by Israel and is under partial military occupation and partial control by the Palestinian Authority.--] (]) 07:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
Jabotito48 | |||
: 1 If Ben-Gurion considered Resolution 181(II) dead ''concerning boundaries'' since 30 November 1947, I fail to understand how ELIAHU EPSTEIN, Agent, Provisional Government of Israel could say in his letter to President Truman seeking recognition from the U.S government, sent immediately after the Declaration of 14 May 1948, ''that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947.'' Indeed in the Declaration itself at the end of the critical paragraph, the following phrase is used:- AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL. | |||
Israel did indeed later expand its boundaries at various later dates, but on 15 May 1948, the boundaries were those of the Resolution of 29 November 1947. Any action by nations of the Arab League outside those boundaries cannot be considered ''invading Israel''. | |||
:2 As to which of the two sides was the most the aggressive is still a matter of dispute. I draw your attention to the Cablegram from the Secretary of the Arab League to the UN on 15 May 1948. ] (]) 04:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
All | |||
In the article it says:- | |||
:''Four of the seven countries of the Arab League at that time, namely Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Syria, backed by Saudi Arabian and Yemenite contingents invaded territory in the former British Mandate of Palestine on the night of 14–15 May 1948.'' | |||
Did they '''INVADE''' the area set aside for the Jewish State and the City of Jerusalem or did they just '''INTERVENE''' in the area set aside for the Arab State? As written it is not clear. ] (]) 01:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
: Although I agree with a lot of what you say, your use of Epstein's memorandum violates the ] about interpretation of primary sources. There are a number of possible reasons why Epstein might have written what he did, but you can't just assume that it was the real position of the Provisional Government. In fact, as verified by multiple secondary sources of high quality, the Provisional Government explicitly decided to not specify boundaries. The minutes of their meetings have been available for years and worked over by historians. I don't recall any argument that those minutes were wrong and Epstein's exceptional version was right. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
::The issue is very complex. | |||
::As Zero0000 pointed here above, stating that "Arab forces entered Palestine and engaged the Israeli forces" is what reflects the best what most of the reliable sources would agree on and the facts. | |||
::Palestinian historians, most New Historians but even some traditionnal historians have underlined for long that in April 1948, Arab States didn't want to participate in the war between Jews and Palestinians Arabs but Haganah/Palmah/IZL operations inside but also outside... the area allocated to the Jewish State (at Acre, Jaffa or on the Jerusalem road), the Palestinian exodus from these areas and the pressure of their own populations forced them to intervene. | |||
::Their intentions are not well known. Arabs States were not united but 5 (or 4 : Lebanon resigned decided not to participate only a few hours before 15 May) and their goals were different. Jordan clearly wanted to leave Israelis alone and just take as much as possible as the Arab State and Egypt wanted to prevent this plan or the part of this plan that was known... | |||
::] (]) 15:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::About this : | |||
:::"Israel did indeed later expand its boundaries at various later dates, but on 15 May 1948, the boundaries were those of the Resolution of 29 November 1947. Any action by nations of the Arab League outside those boundaries cannot be considered invading Israel." | |||
:::Stricto censu, it is true that after 15 May : | |||
:::* Egyptian aircrafts bombed Tel-Aviv | |||
:::* Iraqis forces tried to invade Yezreel valley without success | |||
:::* Syrian forces tried to invade Israel by south and norht but failed completely and just established a 2 km bridgehead on north | |||
:::But what about the fact that : | |||
:::* On 13 May, Acre the whole costal plain west of Galile and out of the area allocated by the UN partition plan was attacked and captured during operation by Hagannah Ben Ami ? | |||
:::* On 27 April, Jaffa (Arab according to the Partition Plan) was attacked even if it failed due to intervention of the British forces | |||
:::* the road from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem was attacked and controlled by Palmach forces starting April 5 | |||
:::] (]) 15:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
Trahelliven | |||
:Israel's declaration of independence doesn't say the country is based on boundaries defined by UN resolution 181. It only says this UN resolution '''recognizes''' (not "invents") the Jewish People's right to his homeland in Eretz Israel. : | |||
"''On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable...''" | |||
:Anyway, Arabs also invaded territories assigned to the Jewish State by resolution 181, so further discussion is useless.--] (]) 21:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
All | |||
:The point I made about Epstein's Letter to Truman is indeed OR and I would not put it in the article itself. In the article on ], I included the corresponcence between Epstein and Truman after the key words of the Declaration. I made no comment on it. Perhaps I should not have included the following sentence as being OR:- | |||
''The phrase in Eretz-Israel is the only place in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel containing any reference to the location of the new State.'' | |||
A phrase like '''the Arabs marched their forces into the former Mandate (or Palestine)''' is a neutral way of putting it. ] (]) 22:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
::No, I think the current sentence is enough neutral and precise: | |||
::''Four of the seven countries of the Arab League at that time, namely Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Syria, backed by Saudi Arabian and Yemenite contingents invaded territory in the former British Mandate of Palestine on the night of 14–15 May 1948. The forces of Syria and Egypt launched attacks outside of the proposed Arab section of the Partition Plan.''--] (]) 01:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
::: No, that's not neutral. The word "invaded" is indeed a problem, as one cannot invade a party that invites participation. The last part is correct but misleading since there were far more Jewish forces than Arab forces outside their respective UN-nominated regions. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::Zero, your claim that there were "far more Jewish forces than Arab forces outside their respective UN-nominated regions" is utter gibberish and contrary to the body of mainstream scholarship. Jewish forces were outnumbered and outgunned by their Arab adversaries. The Arabs later attempted to rationalize their defeat by blaming it on inferior numbers and arms, a laughable charge. This pattern of excuses repeated itself in the Arab defeats of 1956, 1967 and 1973. Moreover, the body of mainstream scholarship regards the combined Arab assault as an invasion and they classify it as such.--] (]) 04:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
*From Simon Innes: "It was at a meeting in Damascus during the first week of May 1948 that the Chiefs of Staff of the Arab armies formulated a plan for the '''invasion''' of Palestine." ME Conflicts p.22 | |||
*From J.N. Westwood: "The war may be divided into six periods. The period of the civil war in fact began with skirmishes before the British left and continued to 15 May 1948 when the Arab forces '''invaded'''". History of the Mid East Wars, p.14 | |||
*From <s>Hamlyn</s> Ivan V. Hogg: "On the following day the infant state of Israel was '''invaded''' simultaneously by armies from Egypt, TransJordan, Syria and Lebanon....with an overwhelming superiority in firepower." And "The tenacity of the Israeli defense shocked the '''invaders'''." Israeli War Machine p.19-20 | |||
*From Schiff: "Five Arab armies '''invaded''' Israel: The Syrians, the Arab Legion, Lebanese, Iraqis and Egyptians." Page 38, History of the Israeli Army 1874-1974 | |||
*From Herzog: "On the night of 14/15 May, the armies of five Arab states (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq) crossed the borders and began the '''invasion''' of Palestine." The Arab-Israeli Wars, p. 47 | |||
*From Leslie Stein: "The very next day, the fledgling state was '''invaded''' by the Arab armies of Syria, Iraq Transjordan and Egypt plus a small contingent from Saudi Arabia," The Making of Modern Israel 1948-1967, Page 16 | |||
:This debate represents an attempt to insert highly revisionist non-mainstream views into an encyclopedia. The above-noted sources reflect the mainstream consensus. I don't think there's anything more to be discussed on this subject.--] (]) 05:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::"far more Jewish forces than Arab forces outside their respective UN-nominated regions"... yeah, sure, that's because Arab armies were repelled and DEFEATED before reaching Tel Aviv, but they performed an authentic invasion, no doubt.--] (]) 06:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Jiujitsuguy | |||
:'''J N Westwood''': What did the Arab forces invade? | |||
:'''Hamlyn''' and '''Schiff''' talk about the invasion of '''Israel'''. The discussion is about the invasion of/intervention in '''Palestine''' . How do you describe that? The emotive wording of '''Hamlyn''' suggests he is pro-Israeli. ] (]) 06:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
::"He is pro-Israel"... is that an argument? How many "pro-Palestinian" sources are in this article? (Tom Segev, Illan Pappe, Arab scholarships are clear examples). It's irrelevant whether they are pro-something, the only important thing in this case is if they are reliable sources or not. Arab invasion of Israel on 15 May 1948 is a matter of historical fact. Period. | |||
::By the way, it isn't hard to feel sympathy for a little nation – rebuilt after Holocaust – when its invaded by seven feudal armies committed to its destruction. It's a natural feeling, just like journalists and historians feeling sympathy for Republicans during the Spanish Civil War. However, neutrality, historical truth and rigor among encyclopedias and historians should be possible despite personal opinions (with all do respect, I don't think is your case). But it has nothing to do with this discussion, so I won't say anything else about it.--] (]) 06:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
To Jiujitsuguy, you can call it gibberish all you like, but it is still true. The largest Arab force (Arab Legion) had orders to not enter the Jewish part of the UN partition and never did. The battles with them were all in the Arab part or in Jerusalem. The main battlefields (Ramle/Lydda, Latrun, Etzion) were in the Arab part. To say that the Jordanian army invaded Israel would be an objective falsehood. The main bulk of the Egyptian army and most of the battles with them were in the Gaza district, again in the Arab part. The evidence is that the Egyptian army would have continued northwards into the Jewish part, but they were stopped at Isdud (in the Arab part) so they didn't. The Jewish operations in the western Galilee were of course in the Arab part. The Jewish forces in Jaffa already in April were in the Arab part. The only important exception to this was in eastern Galilee, where Syrian forces certainly did invade the Jewish part and occupy a small region for a short time. In contrast to this, a large fraction all of Mandatory Palestine was already under effective control of Jewish forces before May 15 except for the parts (all in the Arab part) that the Arab Legion controlled. I don't know why you brought up the total size of all forces, as that is irrelevant to this particular issue. As for your list of sources, of course if you include the word "invade" in your search terms you will find what you want, but if you use other terms instead, like "intervene" you will find other sources. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
::Wait a minute, are you saying Arab armies invading areas assigned to be part of another Arab State is not "invading"? Because we could also say many Iraqis wanted the US to enter their territory to liberate them from Saddam, but everybody knows what happened in 2003 was an invasion.--] (]) 07:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::Arab forces were welcome by the Arab population and were called by local leaders to participate to the the war. At the time, Yishuv armies outnumbered Arab Palestinian forces by a factor 3 (30,000 vs 10,000) and the Arab population was living an exodus of 350,000 people from all the villages located to the Jewish State (out of 450,000 in these areas !). All mixed cities had been attacked by Yishuv forces (Haifa, Tiberiade, Beit Shean, Safed and Acre), Jaffa was under siege and despite the Arab siege of Jerusalem, the city was close to collapse under Jewish control... Please, check. ] (]) 17:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::@Trahelliven, I forgot to mention Leslie Stein, "The very next day, the fledgling state was '''invaded''' by the Arab armies of Syria, Iraq Transjordan and Egypt plus a small contingent from Saudi Arabia," The Making of Modern Israel 1948-1967, Page 16. Westwood refers to the invasion of Mandatory Palestine including the area allocated to the Jewish State under the Partition Plan. As for "Hamlyn," That's the publisher. The author is Ivan V. Hogg and your inference as to whether he's pro Israeli, pro Egyptian or pro Chinese is irrelevant. He's an RS and his scholarly work on the subject satisfies all the criteria for RS.--] (]) 07:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::According to ], Yishuv invaded the future Arab state in April 1948... ] (]) 17:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::@Zero, I didn't "include the word 'invade' in search terms." I have all the books in my library and if you want to see the relevant pages, give me your email address and I'll send them to you. Your erroneous assumptions about how I conduct my research says volumes about how you conduct yours. Also, You've been here long enough to know that we have an obligation to cite what the Reliable Sources say and not what we think they should say based on our own Original Research. I've given you six such sources with no effort.--] (]) 07:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::The problem is that you don't read New Historians or Palestinian historians. Leslie Stein is just a little biaised and he doesn't have the goal to summurize the global know-how from a global point of view, as[REDACTED] must. ] (]) 17:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::: I take it back about your search methods, sorry. Of course I know that many sources use the word "invade". But it remains true that is one of the povs about the event and that there are other povs in reliable sources too. We are supposed to present multiple viewpoints. When we introduce a topic we should either try to represent the main povs at once, or we can be vague at the start and leave the details for later paragraphs. An example of the latter would be "entered the territory of the former mandate and engaged the Israeli forces", which is precise, does not contradict either the Israeli or Arab viewpoints, and leaves for later questions about motives and justifications. The only thing I'm arguing against is starting off with a statement matching the perspective of only one side. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::You forget who accepted the UN Partition Plan and who rejected it. You forget who started this war and who defended themselves. You forget Palestinian Arabs started this war in 1947 by attacking traffic, perpetrating bombings, pogroms... blocking routes and isolating communities. Only then Jewish forces took Jaffa (from where Tel Aviv population suffered sniper shootings), conquered towns to unify their communities, etc.--] (]) 07:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::It can be fairly said that Irgoun started that war at the end of 1945. The Partition plan was a step in the Israeli war of independence. And again in 1947, it is not the Arab who started the war in attacking the traffic : that was a terrible civil war resulting from madness attacks from both sides. Jewish forces took Jaffa, the Jerusalem road and the coastal plain while outnumbering Palestininan Arab forces by a factor 3. ] (]) 17:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::Irgun started this war in 1945?? lol. Sure, and Arabs started in ], ], ] or ]... individual attacks against British, Jews and Arabs is not a war. This war started after Arabs (both Palestinians and ]) rejected UN Partition Plan and begun attacking the Yishuv in 1947. Every historian knows that.--] (]) 22:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::The 1936-39 Arab revolt is the Palestinian Arab unfructuous independence war. After this, they were definitely defeated on the military point of view. Then WWII occured. The Yishuv independence war started just after WWII. This was lead by the Irgun and Lehi. Mapai and Mapam hesitated to join it because they prefered the political fight. But they joined it at some time anyway or fought it (as during the ''hunting season''). During this period numerous political solutions were proposed to parties but all failed. Finally, due to the cost of staying in Palestine, British decided to leave. The UN voted the partition plan. A terrible civil war immediately erupted between the Palestinian Arabs and the Yishuv. In less than 1 month in April 1948, the Palestinian Arabs were defeated and the neighbouring Arab armies intervened in the war with Israel. On 15 May they engaged Israeli forces and except at Latrun and Jesuralem were totally defeated. | |||
::::::That is history. What you refer to is the Israeli Mapai collective memory. | |||
::::::] (]) 06:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
Jiujitsuguy | |||
:Leslie Stein: I refer you to the review of Leslie Stein's book which considerw him good on factual detail - '''But the passages where Stein is ready to have a critical look at Israeli history are rather rare. Very often Stein is apologetic on disputed issues of Israel’s history. Though found throughout the book, this becomes most apparent on the issue of the Palestinian refugees (chapter 2).'''. | |||
It may or may not be correct to say that the Arab armies invaded Israel, but they intervened in the part allocated for the Arab State. If anyone can be said to have invaded the parts allocated for the Arab State, it was Israel. ] (]) 07:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
:@Trahelliven, First, you've linked me to a site in German and that's not a language that I'm familiar with. Second, Stein's book was published by Polity a leading and well-respected international publishing company. The book has undergone a vetting process and subjected to peer review. It meets or exceeds all criteria for RS. Your personal opinion, while valued as a colleague, is truly irrelevant to the building of an encyclopedia. What is relevant is reliable sources of which I've provided in abundance.--] (]) 07:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
Jiujitsuguy | |||
:I apologise for linking you to the wrong website, but I used the wrong bracket at the end of the reference, now fixed. I will not comment myself on the book by Stein but I note that all the reviews in the Willey article are from Jewish or Israeli reviewers, with the exception of the review from '''History Today'''. Do you know who wrote that review? Of course when advertising a book, it is not customary to give uncomplimentary reviews. ] (]) 09:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
::Another quote from the review ''"If one is interested in a summary of the classical Zionist narrative and some answers to the New Historians, the book is worth reading it. But on the other hand, if one looks for an account taking both sides into consideration it is hardly recommendable"''. Our task here is not to explain the classic Zionist narrative, but to detail all significant views and opinions that have been published in a balanced way. Thus Stein can be used, but it should be remembered that he only represents one of a number of views that should be included in the article. ] (]) 09:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::@Trahelliven: Concerning your comment (emphasis added); First, that's not true. Second, are you implying that because someone is of a particlar ethnicity, it precludes him or her from rendering an impatial opinion? If that's the way you feel, I think we're done here.--] (]) 16:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::On 15 May 8:00 | |||
::::* Carmeli brigade had taken Acre and the whole Western coast of Galilea (allocated to the Arab State by the UN Partition Plan) | |||
::::* Irgoun and Kyriati brigades was besieging Jaffa and had taken control of all Arab villages around the city | |||
::::* Harel brigades had taken the control of the road from Bad al Oued to Jerusalem in the aera allocated to the Arab State by the UN Partition Plan | |||
::::* Etzioni and Harel brigades with the support of Irgoun had attacked East Jerusalem in the corpus separatum | |||
::::This represents much more squared km than those the Arab had ever conotrolled of Israeli territory during the '48 war. | |||
::::On the other side Iraki and Syrian armies '''''tried''''' to invade Israel, Egyptian army had planned to do so by never really reached the borders and the Arab Legion had no ambition to attack Israel at all. More, all were welcome by Arab population. | |||
::::So who invaded what ? That is quite complex. ] (]) 17:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
Jiujitsuguy | |||
:My apologies agaim. I made the classice mistake of not scrolling to the bottom of the page. | |||
:When one reads on a contraversial topic, one must first look at the background of the writer. A writer may give an excellent narrative but beware of remarks beyond the strict narrative. I always think that the classic case is the events of 1975 in Vietnam: '''The fall of Saigon''' or '''The liberation of Saigon'''. ] (]) 21:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
:: Why don't we just agree to use both invasion/intervention everywhere this issue occurs? There is a solid basis for the use of intervention. See http://www.mideastweb.org/arableague1948.htm ] (]) 14:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
::: secondary sources for use of intervention. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=nyl9BoCABEsC&pg=PA49&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mSHJT6qWFc7B8gOsnNzKDw&ved=0CEoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false Pg 49 http://books.google.com.au/books?id=CC7381HrLqcC&pg=SA4-PA4&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mSHJT6qWFc7B8gOsnNzKDw&ved=0CGcQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false pg 456. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Z-f0IjwPFi4C&pg=PA129&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mSHJT6qWFc7B8gOsnNzKDw&ved=0CG0Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false pg 129. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=gWt2Sx5UUtwC&pg=PA93&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0yTJT53_BMil8QOrpYz-Dw&ved=0CDwQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false pg 93 http://books.google.com.au/books?id=_kArEWMDT18C&pg=PA169&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0yTJT53_BMil8QOrpYz-Dw&ved=0CEcQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false Pg 169 http://books.google.com.au/books?id=GX8jX9dJXIAC&pg=PA80&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EybJT9nBL8jA8gOH_ZnIDw&ved=0CF4Q6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false pg 30 http://books.google.com.au/books?id=K378ypOnH1oC&pg=PA594&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_SbJT-_LFcjX8QOb3unfDw&ved=0CEIQ6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false Pg 596 http://books.google.com.au/books?id=ghf_OBksgykC&pg=PA92&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XifJT-bjF8fi8QP0kvX9Dw&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAjgU#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false Pg 92 http://books.google.com.au/books?id=qm9kiTbtSWgC&pg=PA65&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5yfJT-CkOIXV8gOY0qnfDw&ved=0CGYQ6AEwCDgU#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false Pg 65 http://books.google.com.au/books?id=dCModlUjqMQC&pg=PA187&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lyjJT5jIJI3J8gO1k_z_Dw&ved=0CEEQ6AEwATge#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false pg 187 | |||
[[http://books.google.com.au/books?id=hz42_ifdVkoC&pg=PA119&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lyjJT5jIJI3J8gO1k_z_Dw&ved=0CE0Q6AEwAzge#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false Pg 119 http://books.google.com.au/books?id=u0sD-8r7I5QC&pg=PA49&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NCnJT7fGFtP-8QOipKTLDw&ved=0CFwQ6AEwBTgo#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false pg 49 | |||
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=LQcOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA55&dq=Arab+intervention+in+israel+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=winJT8TVGoPF8gPYz_jJDw&ved=0CF4Q6AEwBzgy#v=onepage&q=Arab%20intervention%20in%20israel%201948&f=false pg 55 ] (]) 20:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
== Intervention by Arab League countries == | |||
Because of various edits, this section contains material elsewhere in the article. | |||
:Paragraph 1 is in the next section (though not ''verbatim''). | |||
:Paragraph 2, 4 and 5 are in the section ''The Arab League as a whole'' (though 2 not verbatim). | |||
:Paragraph 3 is nowhere else but needs to go into the section, ''The Arab League as a whole''. | |||
I shall move paragraph 3 into the section ''The Arab League as a whole''. I shall then delete the section, ''Intervention by Arab League countries''. ] (]) 00:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
== Foreign volunteers == | |||
This war was mainly between : | |||
* 4 armies of the Arab League (Egypt, Transjordan, Irak, Syria) | |||
and | |||
* Israel | |||
No other official army participated to this war. (For what concerns Lebanon, it was recently established by historian Yoav Gelber). | |||
The distinction has to be made between there armies and volunteers. Else, we should add Britain for both side and the USA and France for the Israeli side. That would be a biased pov. Exactly as it is a biased pov to state to list all the Arab states in the list of combattants ] (]) 07:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
<s>:Not true. For example, ] sent a contingent of 800<ref>Gelber, p.55</ref>–1,200<ref>Uthman Hasan Salih, ''DAWR AL-MAMLAKA AL-`ARABIYYA AL-SA`UDIYYA FI HARB FILASIN 1367H/1948'' (The role of Saudi Arabia in the Palestine war of 1948), Revue d'Histoire Maghrébine 1986 13(43–44): 201–221. ISSN: 0330-8987.</ref><ref>Morris, 2008, p. 205. Morris cites British diplomatic communications.</ref> men. If the Saudi government sent them, they weren't "volunteers".--] (]) 12:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)</s>'<small>'(sock of indef-blocked user)''</small> | |||
::Nor Gelber p.55 or Morris p.205 writes that these were sent by the Saudi governement. | |||
::More Gelber points out that they were "tribesmen" and Morris points out that these forces joined Arabs armies (and so were not part of the main 4 ones he refer to in the same page) : "The invading forces consisted, on 15 May, of about 20,000 combat troops : some 5500 Egyptians , 4500 to 6500 Arab Legionnaires, 2750 from Syria , and 2700 from Iraq . He reminds also that Lebanese forces never enter or try to invade Palestine, which is used by Morris and Gelber. | |||
::Instead of ''foreign volunteers'', we can also write ''irregulars''. | |||
::] (]) 13:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
===== Lebanon ===== | |||
Lebanon didn't participate to the war. See eg : Benny Morris, '1948. A History of the First Arab-Israeli War', p.258 : | |||
:"But at the last moment, Lebanon (...) opted out of the invasion. On 14 May President (...) and his army chief of staff, (...), decided against Lebanese participation; (...) commander of the army's First Regiment (battalion), designated to cross into Israel, apparently refused to march. The Lebanese parliament, after bitter debate, ratified the decision the same day." | |||
That should be taken into account in the caption. ] (]) 18:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
: They attack and occupied al-Malikiya in June (Morris p. 257). So they did enter Palestine, although in a very limited way and not on May 15. --] (]) 19:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
===== Flags in caption ===== | |||
David Markus and Glubb Pacha were Foreign volunteers of US and British nationality. If we don't use US and British flags for them because, as an editor pointed this out, they didn't represent USA and British, they we should remove the flags of Lebanon, Saudi-Arabi, Pakistan etc because these volunteers didn't represent these countries either. What do you think about this ? ] (]) 18:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
== Spyflight == | |||
The spyflight source, which is the primary one with regards to the Anglo-Israeli dogfights, notes that there have been rumors, though unconfirmed, that RAF pilots from the squadron that lost 5 planes and 2 pilots to the IAF privately took their revenge by shooting down any Israeli planes they encountered, including transports. I put it in twice, and each time I later found it gone. I would like to know why it isn't suitable to put it in there, as it's too late for me to dig up an explanation (if there ever was one) in the history.--] <small>(])</small> 03:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 12:17, 23 January 2025
Skip to table of contents |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1948 Arab–Israeli War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 2 months |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. |
This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on May 15, 2019. |
RFC for Jewish exodus
The closure of this discussion is currently being reviewed to assess whether or not it reflects the consensus of participants. It might be modified or overturned when the review concludes. |
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Should the lead section of 1948 Arab-Israeli War mention the Jewish exodus from the Muslim world? Andre🚐 21:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Survey
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- No - as the discussion and the sourcing makes clear at the exact same RFC about the parent article of this makes clear, the Jewish exodus from Muslim countries is not a major aspect of the topic of this war. Since apparently we need to have this same discussion over and over, I’ll just quote myself from that RFC. certainly it was an important event, but it was not an event that is a subtopic of this war. At most a small portion of the emigration was even indirectly related to this war, and the argument that we should include decades of immigration from a large number of countries not even involved in this war makes no sense. And the claim that reliable sources agree that it was a major consequence of the war is just not true. Morris says "The war indirectly created a second, major refugee problem", Schindler says In Arab countries, the defeat of the Arab armies and the exodus of the Palestinian Arabs exacerbated an already difficult situation. In December 1947, a pogrom and the destruction of synagogues in Aleppo persuaded half the city’s Jewish population to leave. In Egypt, arrests, killings and confiscations catalyzed the flight of nearly 40 per cent of the Jewis hcommunity by 1950. In Kuwait, the minuscule number of Jews were expelled. In Iraq, the Criminal Code was amended in July 1948 such that Zionists were lumped together with Anarchists and Communists. The death penalty could be meted out to adherents or they could be sentenced to many years’ imprisonment. Enforced emigration to Israel became the officially permitted route out of Iraq for an increasingly oppressed Jewish community. Israel ironically became the unlikely destination for many Jewish Communists despite their opposition to Zionism. In Libya, Algeria and Morocco, there were periodic outbreaks of anti-Jewish violence. Over 37 per cent of Jews in Islamic countries – the Arab world, Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan – left for Israel between May 1948 and the beginning of 1952. This amounted to 56 per cent of the total immigration. And he says that in a chapter on Jewish emigration, not in coverage of this war. It is an attempt at trying to balance what actually was a direct major consequence of this war, the expulsion and flight of 80-90% of the Palestinians from the territory Israel would come to control in this war, with an entirely different topic that was not a part of this war. And a ton of it was from countries not involved in this war at all. There are no sources that treat this as a major consequence of this war, and the claim that there is rests on the assumption that nobody will actually check, as it is so plainly not true, and been shown untrue on this talk page previously. Beyond that, there is no definition of immediately after that includes years and years later nableezy - 22:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- No, there was an RFC about this same question which established "consensus against inclusion in the lede" at the article 1948 Palestine war. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, discussed extensively by the best sources on the war. Andre🚐 22:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Which sources are you referring to? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Küntzel 2023, Benny Morris 1948: A History, as mentioned by Alaexis in the previous section, Shabi 2009, Shlaim/Rogan 2001, Benoussan, Beinin, and Gat. Andre🚐 00:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Which sources are you referring to? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Strong oppose to its inclusion in the lede as the Jewish exodus is completely irrelevant to the war in a direct way for the following reasons:
- 1- Geographic irrelevance: The 1948 Arab-Israeli war took place in Mandatory Palestine, and not in any regional Arab country with sizable Jewish communities that later mostly left for Israel such as Iraq, unlike the expulsion of Palestinians which occurred in Palestine.
- 2- Temporal irrelevance: The exodus of Jewish Arabs from their home countries mostly occurred after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war had ended, unlike the expulsion of Palestinians which occurred mostly during the war.
- 3- Indirect relevance: The exodus of Jews from Arab countries such as Iraq was not directly related to the war, but rather indirectly, unlike the mostly direct expulsion and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
- Therefore, the inclusion of this disputed content would also give a misleading false equivalence between two completely unrelated and dissimilar issues. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- One can't really establish lack of a causal connection through arguments like this. A similar argument would suggest that the Holocaust wasn't connected to the creation is Israel. — xDanielx /C\ 18:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Morris said it was indirect. Idk what the Holocaust has to do with this discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- One can't really establish lack of a causal connection through arguments like this. A similar argument would suggest that the Holocaust wasn't connected to the creation is Israel. — xDanielx /C\ 18:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- No. Unlike the exodus of the Palestinians, which was part of the war and to a large extent a war aim, the exodus of Jews from Arab countries was a result of the foundation of Israel and the consequent implementation of Israeli policy. It was part of the demographic development over the following 3-10 years, not an aspect of the war. Zero 12:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- No, The same arguments are valid here, as here, the exodus of Jews from Arab contries happened after the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, and was at leat partly due the the actions of the new Israeli state, (Lavon Affair, anyone?) Huldra (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- No per reasoning by Nableezy and Huldra. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- No Nableezy has explained quite well why this is out of place here, and also that there has already been consensus established on this. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 05:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- No per reasoning by Nableezy and Zero. M.Bitton (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- No. We had this discussion at the 'Jewish exodus' article in February. Again, I quote Tessler 2009 (1,064 Google scholar cites), pp. 308-311, which covers this in depth:
Nowhere on Misplaced Pages should we be stating in Wikivoice this widely-debunked "population exchange" or "Jewish Nakba" theory. Levivich (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Supporters of Israel have frequently sought to buttress the case for Palestinian resettlement by emphasizing that roughly 450,000 Jewish "refugees" from the Arab world were resettled in Israel in the decade after 1948. More than half of these individuals arrived in the Jewish state between 1949 and 1951 ...
While the arrival of these Jews from the Arab world played a critical role in shaping the character and evolution of Israeli society after 1948, the argument that their dislocation was comparable to that of the Palestinians is controversial and problematic. Israeli propagandists stressed the difficulties that confronted Jews in Arab lands and suggested that they had been forced to leave their homes. ... In fact, however, such statements give a distorted impression of the complex and varied situation of the Jews in Arab countries and of the diverse reasons that led most to leave.
Scholarly Israeli and Jewish sources, as well as others, offer a more realistic appraisal. ... In these cases, and undoubtedly some others, it was the attraction of Israel, rather than a desire to flee persecution, that led Jews to leave the Arab countries in which they lived.
Socioeconomic factors may have been an even more important consideration. ...
In some instances, cultural factors provided yet another stimulus to Jewish emigration. ...
Finally, post-1948 Zionist efforts to promote Jewish emigration appear to have been an important factor in at least a few instances. ... In any event, when Zionist involvement is added to the socioeconomic, cultural, and other factors that helped to stimulate Jewish departures, it becomes clear that it is highly oversimplified, and in many ways misleading, to equate the flight of Palestine's Arabs with the immigration to Israel of Jews from Arab countries.
- Yes, per sources which make the connection clear and treat it as a consequence of the war, including Benny Morris (
The war indirectly created a second, major refugee problem. Partly because of the clash of Jewish and Arab arms in Palestine, some five to six hundred thousand Jews who lived in the Arab world emigrated, were intimidated into flight, or were expelled from their native countries
) and others, please see more in the discussion thread. It's certainly true that there were other reasons for the migration but the sources make it clear that the war was one of the major ones. Alaexis¿question? 22:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC) - No Apart from sources such as Tessler as quoted by Levivich, the One Million Plan#Following establishment of Israel makes it clear that encouraging Jewish immigration from Arab countries was a priority for the new Israeli government.Selfstudier (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, clearly a result of the hostilities, and per Alaexis and Andrevan. ABHammad (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Blocked sockSelfstudier (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Yes, per what Alaexis shows below. HaOfa (talk) 08:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Striking blocked sock - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)- Yes, the actions of Arab states who invaded Israel against Jewish citizens in those states is very relevant to the war. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes Per WP:LEAD, summarize article's content. Jewish mass immigration, particularly from the Arab world, was an important consequence of the war. No serious source on the topic disputes that. BePrepared1907 (talk) 09:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- No as stated by others it was not a result of the war, but of further colonialisation following the establishment of the Israel state. No mention of it belongs in the article let alone the lead. TarnishedPath 10:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, per Andre, BePrepared1907 and others. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, 100% yes. So obviously yes that I'm surprised that we need a survey for this. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, 100% no. The Jewish exodus was more caused by the existence of Israel, not by the war as such. Many Israeli leaders wanted the exodus (-> they wanted Jewish immigrants to Israel). That Mossad created Jewish fifth columnist in Egypt (the Lavon Affair) didn't help Egyptian Jews, to put it mildly. Similar in Iraq, (read Avi Shlaim's (2023): "Three Worlds: Memoirs of an Arab-Jew". Huldra (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- It seems that plenty of sources on the 1948 war specify its impact on the exodus. Questions of relative weight in what caused the Jewish exodus are probably best answered on the Jewish exodus from the Muslim world page. Unless Shlaim's claim (or other RS's claim) is that Mossad/Israeli govt. actions caused the exodus to the exclusion of the 1948 war, I don't think your reasoning amounts to a no !vote - even if there are sources like that, at most it would mean that the the claim that the war contributed/led to the exodus should be attributed, not that the claim should be omitted. Samuelshraga (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes per sources that Alaexis compiled below. By consensus and crossing partisan lines, one of the
majoroutcomes of the war was the Jewish exodus. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)- There are no sources that claim this was a major outcome of the war, that is just made up. nableezy - 11:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'll strike major, I suppose that word is applying my own interpretation to the sources below. (Provisionally, if I find the time to find sources myself I'll update my !vote again). Samuelshraga (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- As far as Edward Said, unless I’m missing something, and Alaexis provides no quote or page number so if I’m wrong he can do that, the only thing Said says about this is Along with the militarization went the wholesale persecution of communities, preeminently but not exclusively the Jewish ones, whose presence in our midst for generations was suddenly thought to be dangerous. I know that there was an active Zionist role in stimulating unrest between the Jews of Iraq, Egypt, and elsewhere on the one hand, and the governments of those Arab countries were scarcely democratic, on the other, but it seems to me to be incontestable that there was a xenophobic enthusiasm officially decreeing that these and other designated “alien” communities had to be extracted by force from our midst. Nor was this all. In the name of military security in countries like Egypt there was a bloody minded, imponderably wasteful campaign against dissenters, mostly on the left, but independent-minded people too whose vocation as critics and skilled men and women was brutally terminated in prisons, by fatal torture and summary executions. As one looks back at these things in the context of 1948, it is the immense panorama of waste and cruelty that stands out as the immediate result of the war itself. I’m not quite sure how that is claimed to be Said calling this a consequence, major or otherwise, of the war. The part on the Egypt isn’t a chapter on the Jews of Egypt, and I may be missing something again as my copy has the chapter on Egypt beginning on page 150 but having read it I don’t see where it discusses the exodus as a consequence of the war. A vague wave to a book and saying it’s there doesn’t really help anybody check if this actually true. Now page 140 *does* have material on the Iraqi Jewish community, but it doesn’t support the claim here. What it says is The relative inactivity of Iraq during 1948 had suited many in the political elite, but it had clearly not suited all. In particular, Sadiq al-Bassam, the minister of defense in Pachachi’s government, found that there was little for him to do, other than to administer martial law. He used this opportunity, therefore, to prosecute his own war-time strategy, targeting the Jewish community in Iraq itself. This may partly have been due to his own formation in the pan-Arabism of the 1930s which had portrayed Iraqi Jews as a potential fifth column. However, Bassam was merely the most powerful representative for a time of the trend within Iraq that made the position of Jewish Iraqis increasingly untenable. In this sense, he represented the Iraqi side of an equation in which there was less and less space for the existence of a Jewish Arab Iraqi identity. The other side of the equation, which exerted a correspondingly powerful force on the Iraqi Jews, was the Zionist movement itself which set out not simply to protect, but also to “save” them by encouraging their mass immigration to Israel. The mass exodus of Iraqi Jews was not to take place until 1950–51 when about 120,000 arrived in Israel. However, in 1948 it was becoming clear that their position as a community had become precarious. It then discusses the acts of the Iraqi government but not as a consequence of the war, given next to no Iraqi involvement in it. Again, if quotes can be provided to back up the claims here that would be helpful, but I don’t see where in those chapters the book supports the idea that this was a consequence of the war rather than a consequence of the foundation of Israel and the political turmoil that followed across the Middle East. nableezy - 13:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Re:
I don’t see where in those chapters the book supports the idea that this was a consequence of the war rather than a consequence of the foundation of Israel and the political turmoil that followed across the Middle East.
I don't think the war and the foundation of Israel are separable. In the case of Said's afterword, he frames it around consequences of the war: The title of the chapter is "Afterword: the consequences of l948". In any case, the terms of the conclusion of the war - with Israel existing as a "putative danger to the Arab world" make it hard to draw that distinction. I think Said describes how Arab societies were militarised and in a "perpetual state of emergency" as a result of the way the war ended, contributing to the "xenophobic enthusiasm officially decreeing that these and other designated “alien” communities had to be extracted by force from our midst". - As for the Iraq chapter, I think, again, that you've found the right quote, but I don't agree with your conclusion. The quote spells out that the Iraqi defense minister used the wartime imposition of martial law to target the Jewish community, and that this (as part of a wider Iraqi trend) was a significant part of the "equation" in which Iraqi Jewish life became untenable leading to their exodus in 1951-2. At least the specific example Said cites seems firmly tied to the war, even if the broader trend might not be.
- None of this is to specifically dispute Said's (or anyone's) contention that Zionist actions also drove the exodus, or to assign relative weight to different factors. Nor does it say that there's a simple causal relationship between the war and the exodus - I wouldn't argue that at all. But I think the source does make a clear connection between the war and the exodus. Samuelshraga (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Even if there is such a connection, it still isn't at all due for the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think there is such a connection. I (partly relying on Alaexis' compilation of sources below, but having specifically checked the one disputed above) think that the connection is significant enough and backed up by sources enough to be due. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- The foundation of Israel was a consequence of the war. What followed from that is not. As far as Iraq, what happened in a country not even involved in the war is being offered as a direct and major consequence of the war, which I think is self-evidently incorrect, but either way the source does not say that it was a consequence of the war, much less a major one. nableezy - 15:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's the other way around. Israel was founded and then the war started. And, the rising tensions and the war absolutely affected Jews in Egypt and other Arab nations, even those not directly involved. Andre🚐 22:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- The sources don’t support any part of that interpretation and the ones you’ve cited in your vote do not support the idea that this was a direct consequence of the war. nableezy - 22:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is covered extensively in the sources mentioned, and more detail for example in Beinin and Benoussan Andre🚐 22:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Pages and quotes supporting the contention that the exodus was a direct consequence of the war and a significant aspect of it. nableezy - 23:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- The war is frequently mentioned in any serious discussion. I think it's a little more complex than a simple sentence that says "the exodus was a direct consequence of the war" because the exodus was gradual and was brought on by various forms of domestic persecution. The war caused most of these things to accelerate. For example p.417 of Benoussan mentioned, "
war of 1948-1949 resulted in a wave of dispossessions... Apartments were confiscated, with their inhabitants given only a few hours to pack their bags and take shelter..."
Now, you can argue that this itself is somehow indirect because a caused b caused c, but I read that as the fact that the war accelerated and subsequently, there was an acceleration of the dispossessions of their apartments, which is a de facto expulsion or at the very least proximate cause of flight. I'd say this meets the burden, but let me know your objection to it, Andre🚐 23:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)- It isn’t my argument, Morris directly says it is an indirect effect. nableezy - 02:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- The war is frequently mentioned in any serious discussion. I think it's a little more complex than a simple sentence that says "the exodus was a direct consequence of the war" because the exodus was gradual and was brought on by various forms of domestic persecution. The war caused most of these things to accelerate. For example p.417 of Benoussan mentioned, "
- Pages and quotes supporting the contention that the exodus was a direct consequence of the war and a significant aspect of it. nableezy - 23:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is covered extensively in the sources mentioned, and more detail for example in Beinin and Benoussan Andre🚐 22:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- The sources don’t support any part of that interpretation and the ones you’ve cited in your vote do not support the idea that this was a direct consequence of the war. nableezy - 22:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
The foundation of Israel was a consequence of the war. What followed from that is not.
I think we'll simply have to agree to disagree on this point. I suppose we could try and separate them with the counter-factual of what if the Arab states - or at least Egypt, Syria and Iraq - had not declared war on Israel, but I doubt that there would be any sources to back up the analysis of what the prognosis for the Jewish communities would have been in that case. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's the other way around. Israel was founded and then the war started. And, the rising tensions and the war absolutely affected Jews in Egypt and other Arab nations, even those not directly involved. Andre🚐 22:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Even if there is such a connection, it still isn't at all due for the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Re:
- As far as Edward Said, unless I’m missing something, and Alaexis provides no quote or page number so if I’m wrong he can do that, the only thing Said says about this is Along with the militarization went the wholesale persecution of communities, preeminently but not exclusively the Jewish ones, whose presence in our midst for generations was suddenly thought to be dangerous. I know that there was an active Zionist role in stimulating unrest between the Jews of Iraq, Egypt, and elsewhere on the one hand, and the governments of those Arab countries were scarcely democratic, on the other, but it seems to me to be incontestable that there was a xenophobic enthusiasm officially decreeing that these and other designated “alien” communities had to be extracted by force from our midst. Nor was this all. In the name of military security in countries like Egypt there was a bloody minded, imponderably wasteful campaign against dissenters, mostly on the left, but independent-minded people too whose vocation as critics and skilled men and women was brutally terminated in prisons, by fatal torture and summary executions. As one looks back at these things in the context of 1948, it is the immense panorama of waste and cruelty that stands out as the immediate result of the war itself. I’m not quite sure how that is claimed to be Said calling this a consequence, major or otherwise, of the war. The part on the Egypt isn’t a chapter on the Jews of Egypt, and I may be missing something again as my copy has the chapter on Egypt beginning on page 150 but having read it I don’t see where it discusses the exodus as a consequence of the war. A vague wave to a book and saying it’s there doesn’t really help anybody check if this actually true. Now page 140 *does* have material on the Iraqi Jewish community, but it doesn’t support the claim here. What it says is The relative inactivity of Iraq during 1948 had suited many in the political elite, but it had clearly not suited all. In particular, Sadiq al-Bassam, the minister of defense in Pachachi’s government, found that there was little for him to do, other than to administer martial law. He used this opportunity, therefore, to prosecute his own war-time strategy, targeting the Jewish community in Iraq itself. This may partly have been due to his own formation in the pan-Arabism of the 1930s which had portrayed Iraqi Jews as a potential fifth column. However, Bassam was merely the most powerful representative for a time of the trend within Iraq that made the position of Jewish Iraqis increasingly untenable. In this sense, he represented the Iraqi side of an equation in which there was less and less space for the existence of a Jewish Arab Iraqi identity. The other side of the equation, which exerted a correspondingly powerful force on the Iraqi Jews, was the Zionist movement itself which set out not simply to protect, but also to “save” them by encouraging their mass immigration to Israel. The mass exodus of Iraqi Jews was not to take place until 1950–51 when about 120,000 arrived in Israel. However, in 1948 it was becoming clear that their position as a community had become precarious. It then discusses the acts of the Iraqi government but not as a consequence of the war, given next to no Iraqi involvement in it. Again, if quotes can be provided to back up the claims here that would be helpful, but I don’t see where in those chapters the book supports the idea that this was a consequence of the war rather than a consequence of the foundation of Israel and the political turmoil that followed across the Middle East. nableezy - 13:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'll strike major, I suppose that word is applying my own interpretation to the sources below. (Provisionally, if I find the time to find sources myself I'll update my !vote again). Samuelshraga (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- There are no sources that claim this was a major outcome of the war, that is just made up. nableezy - 11:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- No - per nableezy, makeandtoss, and others. We've already had this discussion and resolved not to do it. Obviously it was an important event on its own, but it's not a subtopic of the 1948 war. The Jewish exodus from the Muslim world does not make this suggestion (with the exception of an unsourced comment in the lead that I've gone ahead and removed), mostly citing the creation of Israel as motivation. As obnoxious as it is to pull up a fallacy, making this change would be a classic post hoc ergo propter hoc situation, where we assume that because the war happened before emigration happened, the two must be directly related. They are at best indirectly related, as you can see in many of the RS that have already been cited at length. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Discussion
- Notified WikiProject Jewish history, WikiProject Arab world, WikiProject Israel, WikiProject Palestine. Andre🚐 19:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Andrevan and Alaexis there are a two components to this debate. Yes, you should show that (1) the Jewish exodus was caused by the 1948 war. You also need to show that (2) among the war's many effects, the Jewish exodus was one of the most significant outcomes. Showing (1) alone would merit mention of the war in the lead of Jewish exodus from the Muslim world, but not here. Indeed, we have no mention of the Jewish exodus in the lead of the Iranian revolution, even though that revolution did lead to many Jews leaving Iran, because the Iranian revolution had far more significant outcomes (according to RS).VR (Please ping on reply) 10:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- The two first sources from the list below are books about the war and they describe this as one of the effects of the war (in Conclusion and Afterword respectively). It's called a *major* refugee problem. Other sources which deal with the history of Israel also stress the importance of this migration. Alaexis¿question? 22:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- In the entirety of 1948 by Morris he even mentions Jewish refugees, according to the index, over a total of 4 pages, one page discussing internal Jewish refugees (where he says During the following months, abandoned urban houses were often settled by Jewish refugees from Palestine’s war zone) and three pages of the conclusion of the book. This in a book 420 pages long. Thats 3 pages about an indirect effect out of 420 pages, so about .7% of the pages of the book even mention this supposedly major subtopic. Giving that even a sentence in the lead is wildly undue even if one ignores that Morris himself doesn’t even say that this was a consequence of the war itself. nableezy - 23:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Importance of a historical event or concept is really not best judged using a math formula. This would be mentioned in any serious undergraduate textbook as a major series of events in the introduction or overview. Wars cause refugee crises and there is both a Palestinian and a Jewish refugee crisis that accelerates after 1948. To say that there is the former and not the latter is imbalanced. Andre🚐 23:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Weight is. When the source that is about this topic entirely that is being offered for claiming this was a major consequence discusses it for approximately 0% of the book, and never in anything but the afterword, that is proof that it is not a major part of this topic. nableezy - 02:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Importance of a historical event or concept is really not best judged using a math formula. This would be mentioned in any serious undergraduate textbook as a major series of events in the introduction or overview. Wars cause refugee crises and there is both a Palestinian and a Jewish refugee crisis that accelerates after 1948. To say that there is the former and not the latter is imbalanced. Andre🚐 23:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- In the entirety of 1948 by Morris he even mentions Jewish refugees, according to the index, over a total of 4 pages, one page discussing internal Jewish refugees (where he says During the following months, abandoned urban houses were often settled by Jewish refugees from Palestine’s war zone) and three pages of the conclusion of the book. This in a book 420 pages long. Thats 3 pages about an indirect effect out of 420 pages, so about .7% of the pages of the book even mention this supposedly major subtopic. Giving that even a sentence in the lead is wildly undue even if one ignores that Morris himself doesn’t even say that this was a consequence of the war itself. nableezy - 23:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- The two first sources from the list below are books about the war and they describe this as one of the effects of the war (in Conclusion and Afterword respectively). It's called a *major* refugee problem. Other sources which deal with the history of Israel also stress the importance of this migration. Alaexis¿question? 22:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
The RfC template was just removed as expired. Can we agree this resulted in no consensus to include?, or do we need this to be formally closed? If the latter how can that be achieved? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- It resulted in no consensus, which would mean it would remain, per status quo. Andre🚐 01:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
You can't be serious...IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)- What do you mean by that? Request an uninvolved closer, then, please. Andre🚐 01:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- I see where you're coming from actually, Misplaced Pages:Consensus#No consensus after discussion. It just seems very odd to me that content can remain without consensus for its inclusion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean by that? Request an uninvolved closer, then, please. Andre🚐 01:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- There seems to be a contradiction between WP:ONUS's "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." and WP:NOCON's "When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Consensus isn't a vote, so if both sides are at a standstill, with roughly equal support, and roughly equally strong arguments, that'd be nocon, and then the status quo would remain. Particularly as this was long-standing, not recently added content. But if you wish a closer to close it you can go to Closure requests, since we are both involved and not impartial to close the discussion or read its consensus. However, personally, if someone closed the discussion as not-nocon, I would be surprised, and potentially send it for a close review, since discussions like this one are typically closed no-consensus absent some irregularities or discretionary interpretation that weighs more heavily, such as BLP, copyright, etc. Andre🚐 01:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Nocon, should that be the result, simply means more discussion until there is a consensus, regardless whether the material is in or out, including discussion of whether it should be in or out. Selfstudier (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- There seems to be a contradiction between WP:ONUS's "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." and WP:NOCON's "When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Sources discussing the effect on Jewish communities
1. Benny Morris, 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War. The exodus of the Jewish population is discussed at length (pp. 412-416) in the chapter Some conclusions.
“ | The war indirectly created a second, major refugee problem. Partly because of the clash of Jewish and Arab arms in Palestine, some five to six hundred thousand Jews who lived in the Arab world emigrated, were intimidated into flight, or were expelled from their native countries, most of them reaching Israel, with a minority resettling in France, Britain, and the other Western countries. The immediate propellants to flight were the popular Arab hostility, including pogroms, triggered by the war in Palestine and specific governmental measures, amounting to institutionalized discrimination against and oppression of the Jewish minority communities. | ” |
2. Shlaim & Rogan, The War for Palestine. Rewriting the History of 1948. Edward Said (!) who wrote the Afterword mentions it as one of the effects of the war on the Arab world, and there is a chapter about the Jews in Egypt (pp. 140-142).
3. Colin Schindler. A history of modern Israel, pp. 63-64. The exodus is explicitly linked to the war:
“ | In Arab countries, the defeat of the Arab armies and the exodus of the Palestinian Arabs exacerbated an already difficult situation . Over 37 percent of Jews in Islamic countries ... left for Israel between May 1948 and the beginning of 1952 | ” |
4.The Jews of the Middle East and North Africa in Modern Times, p. 150
“ | The Arab-Israeli War greatly accelerated the process whereby the Jewish minorities in the Arab countries were being alienated and isolated | ” |
p. 177
“ | The Arab-Israeli war may have been the catalyst for the mass exodus of Jews from most of the Arab countries | ” |
It also has a chapter The mass exodus begins about the flight/emigration of Jews from Arab countries between 1948 and the mid-1950s as a result of the war.
5. Anita Shapira also links the exodus and the war in Israel. A History. When discussing the immigration of Jews from the Arab countries she says (p. 223)
“ | throughout the Middle East and North Africa relations between Jews and Arabs had been strained, especially since the establishment of the Jewish State and the War of Independence | ” |
6. Ahron Bregman considers the defeat one of three main drivers of the exodus (A History of Israel, p. 71)
“ | growing numbers of Jews also arrived from Arab lands where their position had become perilous and nearly untenable as a result of growing nationalism reinforced by religion, the humiliating Arab defeat and the creation of Israel on the land of Palestine in 1948 | ” |
7. Avi Bekker, The Forgotten Narrative: Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries
“ | In a few years, Jewish communities that had existed in the Middle East for more than 2,500 years were brutally expelled or had to run
for their lives... Following the Partition Resolution of November 1947... Middle Eastern Jews were the targets of official and popular incitement, state-legislated discrimination, and pogroms |
” |
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 January 2025
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Why is it called the 1948 Palestine war. This was after the mandate given to construct Israel. The name of the region, Palestine was not used anymore. It named "the war of liberation" or in Hebrew - milchemet hashicheoor (מלחמת השחרור). This terminology is important and writing it as it is written is misleading and twist the course of history.
- Not done The present title is our best attempt at neutrality, as it does not reflect the preference of either the Israeli or Palestinian side. This has been discussed here many times; check out the archives of this talk page. Zero 06:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in History
- B-Class vital articles in History
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
- Middle Eastern military history task force articles
- B-Class Cold War articles
- Cold War task force articles
- B-Class Arab world articles
- High-importance Arab world articles
- WikiProject Arab world articles
- B-Class Syria articles
- High-importance Syria articles
- WikiProject Syria articles
- B-Class Saudi Arabia articles
- Mid-importance Saudi Arabia articles
- WikiProject Saudi Arabia articles
- B-Class Egypt articles
- Mid-importance Egypt articles
- WikiProject Egypt articles
- B-Class Israel-related articles
- Top-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- B-Class Palestine-related articles
- Top-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- B-Class Lebanon articles
- Mid-importance Lebanon articles
- WikiProject Lebanon articles
- Selected anniversaries (May 2019)