Line 777: | Line 777: | ||
[[user:Heptor | <font color = "#000040"><b>H</b></font><font color = "#400000">eptor</font>]] [[User_talk:Heptor | <sub><small><font color = "#400000">talk</font></small></sub>]] 12:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC) |
[[user:Heptor | <font color = "#000040"><b>H</b></font><font color = "#400000">eptor</font>]] [[User_talk:Heptor | <sub><small><font color = "#400000">talk</font></small></sub>]] 12:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC) |
||
For record, here is what is on the next page of Pearlman: "among a Moslem people. I theorefore attribute to the Mufti a greater share in the responsibility for the disturbance than is attributed to him in the report. I am of the opinion that the Mufti must bear the blame for his failure to make any effort to control the character of an agitation conducted in the name of a religion of which in Palestine he was the head." Then the next chapter starts on a different topic. So, as well as eliding a crucial sentence of the minority report, Pearlman entirely fails to mention that the majority report wrote "no connection has been established between the Mufti and the work of those who either are known or are thought to have engaged in agitation or incitement. ... After the disturbances had broken out the Mufti co-operated with the Government in their efforts both to restore peace and to prevent the extension of disorder." Ergo, Pearlman was a propagandist. --[[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 12:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
===Shaw Commission=== |
===Shaw Commission=== |
||
The Shaw Commission found that the attacks were not premeditated, but Pearlman claims that "there was unanimity in the findings of the Commission that the attacks were planned"; hence he's lying. What are you not following here? --[[User:Ian Pitchford|Ian Pitchford]] 15:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC) |
The Shaw Commission found that the attacks were not premeditated, but Pearlman claims that "there was unanimity in the findings of the Commission that the attacks were planned"; hence he's lying. What are you not following here? --[[User:Ian Pitchford|Ian Pitchford]] 15:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:24, 20 March 2006
Due to their length, previous discussions have been archived
- /Archive 1 - to October 28 2005
- /Archive 2 - to November 28 2005
- /Archive 3 - to January 1 2006
Other problems with this article
I noticed something very strange, I couldn't see anywhere the line that says all those arab nations declared war on Israel. Its weird that an article about a war doesn't say who started it, especially since the "6 days war" which was started by Israel, it says so right at the top. Its either unsaid or burried somewhere in the article, so i am adding it up.
In the circularity of egg and hen, what comes first? who is right? Just a question of punctuation.
Some items that should be dealt with once the page becomes unlocked.
- As Christophe has pointed out, the background section is way too long, almost a third of the article. We don't need long sections on the Arab Revolt and World War II. All that material should be moved into a different article, perhaps the most appropriate now is History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
- Villayets in the Ottoman system and mandates under the League of Nations were utterly different political structures. The article conflates them.
- The country that existed between 1922 and 1948 was not officially called "British Mandate of Palestine". It was simply called Palestine, a "provisionally independent" country that Britain was administering on behalf of its citizens under the authority of the League of Nations. Citizens of Palestine were not subjects of the British crown.
- In First phase: November 29, 1947 - April 1, 1948 heading, there is the sentence Right after the UN partition plan was approved, joint Jordanian, Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese and Iraqi troops invaded Palestine. Putting aside the implict POV in the term "invaded", the event being described happened in May 1948, well after both the indicated timeline and approval of the UN partition plan.
- The first sentence under the Demographic Outcome heading leaves the impression that the Jewish exodus from Arab countries happened during this war, though it doesn't actually say so. In fact the exodus happened over the course of several years, 98% of it after the 1949 Armistice was signed, and was not completed until the mid 1960s.
Brian Tvedt 14:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
As I pointed out earlier, I agree that the background section needs to be shortened, with usefull information salvaged to other articles.
As for point 5, it should be made clear that the Jewish refugees fled in time after the war, even if the event had strong connection to the war and israeli declaration of independence.
Unsigned comment by Heptor, 14:25 31 December 2005
- I am not aware about point 2 but I agree with all other points.Christophe Greffe 13:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- This is linked indirectly with point 5. I have been very surprized when I learned that jewish refugee in Europe were taken into account by UNSCOP as "future inhabitants of the jewish state" to decide if a jewish state should be created or not. Christophe Greffe 13:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Brian, I don't think that this article gives that impression, I am quite sure that everyone even remotely involved in this debate knows when the Jewish emigration occured, however I would agree that this article may give the impression that the Jewish exodus occured at least in part because of this conflict which I don't believe is that controversial.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
New background
Discussion for the redaction of a new background Christophe Greffe 11:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the background section should begin after the end of World War II, and should deal with postwar plans for Palestine starting with the Anglo-American Committee and the various factors that led to the end of the Mandate and the partition plan. UNSCOP, the formation of the Arab League and the closeness of the vote in the UN should definitely be mentioned. Brian Tvedt 14:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- This is not what I had in mind but that deserves to be thought about. It would start in 1922 to remind British were there. I would add violence of 1929 and 1936 to illustrate communities didn't like each other. I would remind massive immgration to explain where come jews in Palestine. I would remind Shoah because it is one of the key point why Israel were created. I agree
- UNSCOP should be mentionned.
- Christophe Greffe 13:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I mostly agree with Christopher, but I would advocate including a brief description of the life under Ottoman rule, and an even briefer sentence or two summing up the most important events of the last two thousand years. This might sound like a lot but I'm only talking about an extra paragraph at most.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Why the Great Revolt and the Second World War are relevant
In my view the sections on the Great Revolt and the Second World War – and the United Kingdom’s reliance on Jewish forces to quell the revolt and to defend Palestine during WWII – are important because without them it is impossible to explain the key differences in leadership and military capabilities that helped to determine the outcome of the 1948 War. I have just received James Gelvin’s new volume The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War (Cambridge University Press, 2005, ISBN 0521618045) in which he writes:
- Whatever the role the Great Revolt has played in the construction of a Palestinian identity and national narrative, any ledger recording its effect must also include entries on the debit side of the balance sheet. These entries are substantial. The revolt resulted in upwards of 3,000 rebel casualties and the exile or imprisonment of much of the nationalist leadership. Large swathes of the Palestinian countryside lay in ruins, from both rebel actions and British retaliation. Many of the best and brightest of Palestinian society, including a disproportionate number of the educated and wealthy, fled Palestine, some to escape the fighting, others to escape the exactions of the rebels. In all, the Great Revolt might be considered the first nakba of modern Palestinian history. Certainly, it paved the way for the one that followed, and it may even have been the primary reason why 1948 turned out to be the disaster for the Palestinian community that it was. (p. 114-115).
He also writes of the importance of the changes in the Zionist leadership and of the Biltmore Program, which should be included in the background:
- Many historians view the Biltmore Program as evidence of a virtual coup d’etat within the Zionist movement: The Young Turks, represented by David Ben-Gurion of the Yishuv-based Jewish Agency Executive, replaced their more moderate elders, represented by the London-based Chaim Weizmann, at the head of the World Zionist Organization. Weizmann had advocated gradualism, the partition of Palestine between Jews and Palestinians, and negotiations with Britain. Ben-Gurion championed immediate statehood, the establishment of a Jewish state in all of Palestine, and armed resistance, if necessary, to achieve Zionist goals. (p. 122).
Of the mufti he writes:
- The Hajj Amin’s opportunistic wartime residence and propaganda activities in Nazi Germany certainly was not the proudest moment in the history of Palestinian nationalism. And, certainly, opponents of Palestinian nationalism have made good use of those activities to associate the Palestinian national movement with European-style anti-Semitism and the genocidal program of the Nazis. But it should be remembered that that the Hajj Amin was not the only non-European nationalist leader to find refuge and succor in Berlin at this time. While in Berlin, the Hajj might have rubbed shoulders with Subhas Chandra Bose, a leader of the nationalist Congress Party of India, who believed that Germany might prove to be an effective ally in the struggle against British imperialism… Or the Hajj Amin might have bumped into Pierre Gemayel, the leader of a Lebanese Christian group called the Phalange, who believed that Nazi Germany represented the wave of the future… Members of the Stern Gang also sought a tactical partnership with Nazi Germany and even opened negotiations with Hitler’s government. (pp. 119-120).
By coincidence I was looking through the archives of The Times earlier today in search of material for another artilce when I came across this contemporary assessment of Arab prospects:
- Many people now regard the Arabs as being in the same situation as the Russians against Napoleon and Hitler, and if the issue remains a military one the comparison is apt. The Arabs have by nature a long view; it remains to be seen whether they have the tenacity of purpose and the ability to find civilian and military leaders, now lacking, to turn their fortunes… Leaders must emerge, or else the independent Arab Palestine will disintegrate. (‘Last Days In Palestine Planning The Departure, Zionist Prospects’, From Our Own Correspondent, The Times, Thursday, May 13, 1948; pg. 4; Issue 51070; col D).
Finally, the article should include a section on the plans, capabilities and aspirations of each of the Arab states involved and then the body of the article should explain how the plans of Arab states fared in the War. --Ian Pitchford 15:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Whoah, I'm not saying the Revolt and World War II should not be mentioned. I'm just saying the amount of space devoted to them in this article can be made considerably shorter; we should of course have links to the relevant articles (Palestine in World War II certainly merits an article by itself). What you're saying is true, but it's also true that a complete understanding of World War II requires an understanding of World War I and before that, the Franco-Prussian War. Yet the World War II article does not start with synopses of those, it gets to 1939 pretty quickly. Brian Tvedt 22:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Could both of you please sign the pertinent passages above; I'm a bit unclear on the comment attribution. Thanks in advance. El_C 12:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- I edited Ian's comment so that the long quotations appear in italics, which will hopefully clarify matters. Brian Tvedt 17:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
---
- Hello Ian. I agree that this information has importance. But there are much important information. The question is if it must be placed in the background or not. I think that a background must introduce (but not explain the context) the context (see [Main ideas to introduce in the background]). Both paragraphs should be placed somewhere else in the article but not in the background.
- A good article must go step by step in the development of ideas. First the context. Then the facts. Then the analysis (if any). What you write is relevant is from an deep analysis. It must be considered as so and must be placed after the facts in an appropriate paragraph. This is my mind about the place where to develop this information.
- About what the information you underline :
- - I think the information brought is important but it will be biaised if it isn't developed next to all that where made by Zionists to win that war. As currently written it gives the feeling Zionists received support from British. This is false. We cannot delete the way the gathered funds, supports and arms. We cannot delete that if they were organised that also means that they build this organisation... The fact there is much to explain also justifies it cannot be developed in the background.
- - I agree this is important information but I also underline the reasons why it is an important information are not in the article. I think that in that case, the reason why the information is important is a more important information than the information itself. What I mean is that it is very important to write why this information is important. If not this can be considered as propaganda.
- - Concerning Al-Husseini, I think there is unanimity to talk about him in another article (and not just in another paragraph). About him I think we should only stick to facts of what he did and leave people appreciate alone what excuses he could deserve or not. I don't think the pov to find him excuses is a good pov...
- About your suggestion to develop plans aspirations and capabilites of arab leaders I fully agree.
- Christophe Greffe 13:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Main ideas to introduce in the background
suggestion : we could gather here main *facts* that can be considered important to write in a *background* of the *1948 war* but that cannot be developed there. Later we can select the more important to write the background.
I think none would deserve more that 2-3 lines (in a background).
Feel free to edit :
- - British mandate on Palestine (1922)
- - Zionist massive immigration
- - violence between jews and arabs : 1929 massacres and 1936-39 revolt (with number of deaths).
- - Shoah
- - End of British mandate
- - Vote of UNO.
New backgrounds
first proposal
- Since the end of 19th century Palestine has seen a growing immigration of Jews coming from the whole world and gathered in Zionist movement. These militate for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. Movement justifies its claims notably with the Balfour Declaration but majority Palestinian society doesn’t appreciate that massive arrival of immigrants.
- In 1922 League of Nations gives British a mandate over Palestine (current Israel, occupied Palestine and Jordan).
- As of the end of twenties Palestine sees an important immigration of Jews fleeing persecution in Europe. Numerous conflits arise between Jews and Arabs. Among them riots of 1929 that made 133 deaths of the jewish side and 116 on the arab side and the Great Uprising of 1936-39 that will show the deaths of more than 5000 Arabs and 400 Jews and by the adoption of the White Paper that will limit drastically jewish immigration to Palestine.
- In 1945, there are 600,000 Jewish for 1,200,000 Arabs in Palestine while in Europe 250,000 Jews who escaped Holocaust are waiting in the camps.
- In 1947, unable to find a solution to troubles in the country British announce their will to abandon their mandate on Palestine (current Israel and occupied Palestine - Hachemite Kingdom of Jordan being meanwhile created west of Jordan River).
- UNO entrusts special commission UNSCOP the study of the matter and on 29 november 1947, the United Nations General Assembly approves a plan which partitions Palestine into two states : one Jewish and one Arab. Each state would be composed of three major sections, linked by extraterritorial crossroads, plus an Arab enclave at Jaffa. The Greater Jerusalem area would fall under international control. Both Jews and Arabs criticize aspects of the plan. However, the Jewish population and most of their leaders largely welcome the plan, while the Arab leadership rejects it.
- Christophe Greffe 17:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
comments on first proposal
(1)
- I don't know how to deal simply the fact that Palestine "evoluated" during the British mandate. I don't think they are precise unambiguous and simple way of naming the territories where these events took place.
- Much information is not there but I think main points needed for a background are present and not biaised and all important doors to be open are there for a reader interested to go deeper in the topic.
- I started sooner than Brian suggested but I think these events are important to fix the background.
- I didn't develop Great Uprising and WWII because I think this is not pertinent to do so for a background. Again I underline I understand and agree with Ian's comments that they are important and relevent due to consequences they had on the weakening (destruction ?) of the palestinian political tissue and on the training and development of Zionist forces but I think that this would deserve 2 seperate paragraphs treating these aspects. For the second one all the aspects of the creation of these forces should be treated.
- I don't mention Mufti who deserves a place in the story of that war but not in the background and I think : whether in a separate article or in a paragraph introducing *all* the "great" political protagonists of these events.
Christophe Greffe 13:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
(2)
- League of Nations gives Mandate to British in April and these latter created Hachemite Kingdom in September. I think that we can remove the information concerning the partition of the Mandate in an article concerning this for clarity. Christophe Greffe 11:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
(3)
This is generally good introduction. Still, it needs to be edited a while before stabilizing, just like any other article. As far as I see, following should be changed:
- Zionists justified Jewish immigration to Palestine with the fact that the ancient homeland of Jews was in Palestine. Balfour Declaration came at a later point. The text should be:
- Zionists considered creation of Israel as a national home for Jews as the only viable option for Jews in living in diaspora. The British supported the movement, issuing in 1917 the Balfour Declaration. Jewish immigration did however meet resistence from Arabs.
- Mufti and his cooperation with the nazis does not deserve the huge amounts of space it was attributed in previous version, but neither should it be totally avoided. I don't want to waste time composing the text until ArbCom makes a decision, but it need to be there.
There are also some minor objections, for example that it should be UN and not UNO. Otherwise, it is good.
-- Heptor talk 16:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hello Heptor. Thank you for your comments :)
- It is true that Zionist considered Palestine as the appropriate land for a jewish state because it was their homeland. They didn't wait for Balfour to consider this. The problem is that there is "Uganda" solution that were finally rejected but nevertheless suggested. Whatever you are right. This must be changed.
- I prefer not writing that the "British supported the movement, issuing in 1917..." for 2 reasons. First, it depends when and I don't want to discuss the "white papers" in details and the British policy in Palestine in that background. Second academicians underline much that when negociating with UNSCOM Zionists "justified" their claims on the legal point of view and didn't just claim for their point of view being the good one. That is why I think my version is better.
- I don't like the word "however" in the sentence "Jewish immigration did meet resistance from Arabs." The facts that British recognized the right for a Jewish state in Palestine doesn't mean Arab living there had to accept. This "however" could mean that they should have agreed... or that it was "justice". I think the sentence must translate that they didn't approve the growing arrival of immigrants which is the reason why they fighted this.
- Concerning the Mufti I agree it is better to wait for ArbCom.
- Thank your for the information about UN. In French we say ONU and not often NU... :)
- Christophe Greffe 17:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
second proposal
(...)
- In 1922 League of Nations gives British a mandate over territories known as British Mandate on Palestine.
(...)
- In 1947, unable to find a solution to troubles in the country British announce their will to abandon their mandate on Palestine.
(...)
Christophe Greffe 11:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
3rd proposal
- Since the end of 19th century Palestine saw an immigration of Jews from the diaspora gathered in Zionist movement. They considered their ancestral homeland was the place where Jewish nation could self determinate and protect itself from antisemitism. Arab Palestinians who were in a majority in Palestine nevertheless didn't accept that growing immigration and resisted to it.
- In 1917, Balfour Declaration stated that British Government supported Zionist plans for a Jewish "national home" in Palestine. The same year they took control of it following the capture of Jerusalem by Gen. Allenby and later the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I.
- In April 1922 (to be checked), League of Nations gave British a mandate over Palestine and in september (to be checked) British founded the Hachemite Kingdom of Transjordan on the territories at the East of the Jordan river.
- As of the end of twenties Palestine saw an important immigration of Jews fleeing persecution in Europe. Numerous conflits bursted between Jews and Arabs. Among them riots of 1929 that made 133 deaths of the Jewish side and 116 on the Arab side and the Great Uprising of 1936-39 that showed the deaths of more than 5000 Arabs and 400 Jews.
- This lead to the adoption of the White Paper that abandoned the idea of partitioning the British Mandate of Palestine in favour of an independant Palestine governed by Arabs and Jews and that limited drastically Jewish immigration to Palestine.
- In 1945, there were 600,000 Jews for 1,200,000 Arabs in Palestine while in Europe 250,000 Jews who had escaped Holocaust were waiting in the camps.
- In 1947, unable to find a solution to troubles in the country British announced their will to abandon their mandate on Palestine.
- UN entrusted special commission UNSCOP the study of the matter and on 29 november 1947, the United Nations General Assembly approved a plan which partitioned Palestine into two states : one Jewish and one Arab. The Greater Jerusalem area would fall under international control. Both Jews and Arabs criticized aspects of the plan. However, the Jewish population and their leaders largely welcomed the plan while the Arabs rejected it.
Christophe Greffe 11:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
comments on 3rd proposal
NPOV
- Is this NPOV ? Christophe Greffe 11:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
revelant information
- I am looking for a NPOV statement to add at the end of the 4th paragraph to summarize in a few words the revelent consequences of the uprising (other than the White Paper) Christophe Greffe 11:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Israel's Declaration of independence
Declaration of Israel's Independence 1948
Issued at Tel Aviv on May 14, 1948 (5th of Iyar, 5708)
ERETZ-ISRAEL [(Hebrew) - The Land of Israel] was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.
After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people remained faithful to it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom.
Impelled by this historic and traditional attachment, Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland. In recent decades they returned in their masses. Pioneers, ma'pilim [(Hebrew) - immigrants coming to Eretz-Israel in defiance of restrictive legislation] and defenders, they made deserts bloom, revived the Hebrew language, built villages and towns, and created a thriving community controlling its own economy and culture, loving peace but knowing how to defend itself, bringing the blessings of progress to all the country's inhabitants, and aspiring towards independent nationhood.
In the year 5657 (1897), at the summons of the spiritual father of the Jewish State, Theodore Herzl, the First Zionist Congress convened and proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country.
This right was recognized in the Balfour Declaration of the 2nd November, 1917, and re-affirmed in the Mandate of the League of Nations which, in particular, gave international sanction to the historic connection between the Jewish people and Eretz-Israel and to the right of the Jewish people to rebuild its National Home.
The catastrophe which recently befell the Jewish people - the massacre of millions of Jews in Europe - was another clear demonstration of the urgency of solving the problem of its homelessness by re-establishing in Eretz-Israel the Jewish State, which would open the gates of the homeland wide to every Jew and confer upon the Jewish people the status of a fully privileged member of the comity of nations.
Survivors of the Nazi holocaust in Europe, as well as Jews from other parts of the world, continued to migrate to Eretz-Israel, undaunted by difficulties, restrictions and dangers, and never ceased to assert their right to a life of dignity, freedom and honest toil in their national homeland.
In the Second World War, the Jewish community of this country contributed its full share to the struggle of the freedom- and peace-loving nations against the forces of Nazi wickedness and, by the blood of its soldiers and its war effort, gained the right to be reckoned among the peoples who founded the United Nations.
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.
This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State.
ACCORDINGLY WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE'S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL AND, BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT 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.
WE DECLARE that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948), until the establishment of the elected, regular authorities of the State in accordance with the Constitution which shall be adopted by the Elected Constituent Assembly not later than the 1st October 1948, the People's Council shall act as a Provisional Council of State, and its executive organ, the People's Administration, shall be the Provisional Government of the Jewish State, to be called "Israel".
THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
THE STATE OF ISRAEL is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel.
WE APPEAL to the United Nations to assist the Jewish people in the building-up of its State and to receive the State of Israel into the comity of nations.
WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.
WE EXTEND our hand to all neighboring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighborliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.
WE APPEAL to the Jewish people throughout the Diaspora to rally round the Jews of Eretz-Israel in the tasks of immigration and upbuilding and to stand by them in the great struggle for the realization of the age-old dream - the redemption of Israel.
PLACING OUR TRUST IN THE ALMIGHTY, WE AFFIX OUR SIGNATURES TO THIS PROCLAMATION AT THIS SESSION OF THE PROVISIONAL COUNCIL OF STATE, ON THE SOIL OF THE HOMELAND, IN THE CITY OF TEL-AVIV, ON THIS SABBATH EVE, THE 5TH DAY OF IYAR, 5708 (14TH MAY, 1948). David Ben-Gurion Daniel Auster Mordekhai Bentov Yitzchak Ben Zvi Eliyahu Berligne Fritz Bernstein Rabbi Wolf Gold Meir Grabovsky Yitzchak Gruenbaum Dr. Abraham Granovsky Eliyahu Dobkin Meir Wilner-Kovner Zerach Wahrhaftig Herzl Vardi Rachel Cohen Rabbi Kalman Kahana Saadia Kobashi Rabbi Yitzchak Meir Levin Meir David Loewenstein Zvi Luria Golda Myerson Nachum Nir Zvi Segal Rabbi Yehuda Leib Hacohen Fishman David Zvi Pinkas Aharon Zisling Moshe Kolodny Eliezer Kaplan Abraham Katznelson Felix Rosenblueth David Remez Berl Repetur Mordekhai Shattner Ben Zion Sternberg Bekhor Shitreet Moshe Shapira Moshe Shertok
Takima 18:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
First phase
Subjects to treat
I found the first phase very poor and not obvious to understand to someone who would read this article as first source of information on the conflit. There are also information that should be put somewhere else as these British soldiers that fought for Hagannah. This is anecdotic.
I think before this paragraph all military forces that will intervene in the conflit should be described. To come back on a former Ian comment I think political motivations or intentions should also be precised.
We could organise this that way :
what they wanted - what they had to do this - what they did.
- Intentions - plans and declarations (for 1st phase).
- zionists
- arabs
- Mufti
- Abdullah
- Arab League
- Arab countries
- British
- Others (eg USA ?)
- Description of force
- Zionist forces
- Hagannah
- Palmach
- Stern - Lehi
- Arab and palestinian
- irregulars
- Arab liberation army
- Arab Legion
- British
- Zionist forces
- Events
- by chronological order. The description of forces and of real intentions will help the reader to understand what events really mean without anybody among us needs to explain and therefore gives a POV.
- intentions could be a source of conflit but I don't think that will really cause problem because this is well known and documented by historians and also if we cut this phase by phase.
- I think arab countries forces and intentions should be discussed when phase 3 is described with eventual short come back that will not harm the understanding of the chronology given they didn't really prepare
Christophe Greffe 11:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Comments
jewish or zionist adjectives ?
The mere use of the term "Zionist forces" give me the feeling that the meaning of NPOV has been already lost. Zeq 13:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Academic writers almost all write "Jewish forces" until May 15, 1948, and then either "Jewish forces" or "Israeli forces" after that. In my opinion we should do the same. --
- I agree with the last comment (whoever you are) Zeq 16:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hello Zeq and Zero. Most academicians talk about zionist / jewish forces until May 15 and talk about jewish / israeli forces after. I think they are wrong but this is indeed a POV. I think the way they talk reflect more their POV. I think the only NPOV way is to talk about zionist forces before and israéli forces just after.
- I don't think it is critical and we can talk about "jewish/israeli forces". What is important is to be consistent. Christophe Greffe 16:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Where did you find "zionist forces" ? Zeq 19:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hello Zeq. I didn't find specifically the words "zionist forces" but eg Pappé and Morris refer to Zionists that did this or that everytime. To proove you that this is not a pro palestinian POV you can find expressions such as "zionist groups", "zionist flag", "zionist organisation", "zionist leader", "zionist settlement", "zionist point of view" :), "zionist objective", "zionist cause", "zionist views", "zionist representatives", "zionist commission", "zionist movement", ... As a consequence I don't see where there could not be a "zionist army", "zionist troops" or "zionist fighters", ... in www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org that is pro-israeli.
- Nevertheless I perfectly understand your reluctancy to use these words. I assume that this is due to the fact that the term is misused and has been denaturated in the propaganda war today. So, that is particularly badly chosen. In that sense these words indeed can be a POV. Not in my ears maybe but certainly in some ears.
- In fact, from my *POV* it would be better to replace "Jews" by "Zionists" or "Israeli" everytime this can be done because if we make abstraction of the anti-israeli propaganda that abuses of the word "zionist" that would be the best NPOV way of introducing information rather than to referring with Jews. All Zionists were in Israel/Palestine in 1948 but not all Jews.
- So conclusion is that we use "jewish forces" and "israli forces" after and before 15 Mai 1948. Christophe Greffe 21:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Unprotection & suggestion for a rule of good practice
I have just unprotected this article after a long period of protection. Discussion here had considerably slowed in the last few days, and I believe El C decided to leave protection in place for the arbitration case, which is currently languishing. This is not an invitation to return to edit warring, however (especially if your now under the scrutiny of ArbCom) and I urge you to continue to try to reach consensus. I'm keeping an eye on the article, and will reprotect or block, whatever the case may be, if it proves necessary. Dmcdevit·t 03:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Let's try. I just restored the POV flag removed by an IP.
- May I suggest that we don't start a warring ? (good answer is "yes of course" ;-)
- The only solution I see today is the following :
- Deleting, modifying or adding could only be done at the condition no editor disagrees with this delete, modification or add.
- This means we should explain modification on this page and wait for some days before proceeding to this.
- The editor who disagrees wouldn't have to justify (even if of course this would be better) in order not to start a warring.
- We can stick to this if it works and try to make it evolves if not.
- It a warring starts again, we will just have to protect the article and come back to wikipedia's offical rules.
- Christophe Greffe 07:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the important thing is to make our changes slowly, as you have been doing. In particular, everyone should avoid making simultaneous changes to several parts of the article in one edit. That way, when issues do crop up, we can deal with them one at a time. Giving every editor a veto over any change, as you seem to be proposing, is in my opinion not workable. Brian Tvedt 14:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
List of asked deletes/modifications/adds
- 1. Can we delete this from first phase : "Right after the UN partition plan was approved, joint Jordanian, Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese and Iraqi troops invaded Palestine, which Israel, the United States, the Soviet Union, and UN Secretary-General Trygve Lie called illegal aggression" ? Christophe Greffe 07:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- 2. Can we replace the whole background by suggested background#3 ?Christophe Greffe 07:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Since #1 is a minor change that was clearly needed, all we really need to discuss is #2. I strongly agree with replacing the Background section as you recommend. The removed material can be moved to a new article, Jewish-Arab conflict in Palestine, devoted to the period from the late 19th century to the end of the Mandate. Much of the material in History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be moved there also. Brian Tvedt 14:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- I've no objection in principle provided that good sources are used and cited. --Ian Pitchford 14:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- I generally agree with Brian and Christophe about moving the background section to other article but we need to first agree on a short and concise (few words) about th conditions prior to May 15 invasion. Maybe we can start from Nov 29, 1947 and the bus bombings on Nov 30 - that seem to be the start of the actual 1948 war. Zeq 05:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- I would start a little earlier - we should at least include UNSCOP, the debate over the Partition plan, and the UN vote, as these set the stage for the confrontation. Brian Tvedt 01:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
First phase: November 29, 1947 - April 1, 1948
Kriegman and Heptor have added "Right after the UN partition plan was approved, joint Jordanian, Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese and Iraqi troops invaded Palestine, which Israel, the United States, the Soviet Union, and UN Secretary-General Trygve Lie called illegal aggression." The whole of this is factually inaccurate and should not appear in the article. --Ian Pitchford 16:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Ian is correct. I added what DID took place right after the Nov 29 decision. Heptor : the invasion took place after May 15, 1948 (hence the hesitation of BG to declare independence: He was afraid of the invasion. The Jordenian forces invaded few days before May 15. Zeq 17:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I see. -- Heptor talk 10:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- BG did not at all hesitate to declare independence but did so to exactly coincide with the end of the Mandate. Furthermore, Jordan did not invade two days before. In fact, Jordan did not attack the Jewish part of the UN partition at all in the entire war. --Zero 03:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
BG did hesitate to declare independence. A Critical vote if the accept the american offer to delay decalring independence was out voted just days before the declaration (I think it was 6:4 or 5:4). The vote was 2-3 days before the British had left and once th american decision was refused the declaration went ahead at the end of the Mandate.
The state of Israel was declared independent on May 15 1948, The Arab states, in particular Egypt, Syria and Transjordan, promptly declared war, and those three countries, with reinforcements from Saudi Arabia and Iraq, invaded both the territory allotted to the Palestinian state to be and territory allotted to Israel. The open participation of regular Arab armies in the war after May 15, 1948 changed the equation of forces. The Jews were no longer fighting irregulars like themselves, but real armies with trained soldiers, tanks, artillery and aircraft. The departure of the British made it possible to draft and train soldiers in the open and to bring arms shipments and immigrants into the country. However, the army could not possibly be organized in a week or two, and the land was small enough to be completely occupied in a few days if resistance collapsed. The first period of the war following independence was therefore crucial. Zeq 04:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- The Arab Legion was under explicit instructions to not attack the Jewish part of the UN partition, and they didn't. Egypt did, Syria did, Lebanon did, but Jordan did not. That's a fact. --Zero 03:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- The maps linked at the end of the article indicate that Arab forces did not invade the territory allocated to the Jews by the UN ... this contradicts what is written above. Which is correct? --Russell E 20:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
To Ian
You are interducing masive changes to this article while we are discussing how this article should look like. Please dicuss these changes here on talk before interducing them in to the article. Than k You !
Also, you have delted sourcedmaterial that was discussed on talk (the events after the 1947 declaration which are an integral part of this war. You can not delete those (just because they don't fit your POV). If you have another version of events for those days and it is properly sourced discuss it as well. Zeq 07:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- No, I re-wrote the section in English and added five sources, all of which you promptly deleted. --Ian Pitchford 22:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Ian, I note that last edit was very dishonest of you. You summed up your edit with "Restored (and fixed) Zeq's ref deleted in error", while you also deleted content you disputed (the mufti quotation and more), obviously hoping noone would notice. Please don't do that again. -- Heptor talk 10:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Heptor, please learn to read edit summaries. Discussion here does not exempt editors from following Wikipedia policies on citing reliable sources; it does not allow sourced material to be excised, and it does not allow original research to be included in this article. After months of asking you, Zeq and Kriegman have still not produced any evidence on the accuracy of old statements attributed to the mufti or any evidence for the relevance of that material to this article. The material can go in the article as soon as reputable sources by historians or other scholars are cited , but not until then. --Ian Pitchford 22:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have protected this article until all sides stop reverting. Please discuss here first. Since sources are the problem here please list them and discuss them on this page. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- You are abusing your Admin rights since while we are in discussions Ian had nade massaive changes and you were quick to freeze the article to his version of the events. Please unprotect or revert Ian and re-protect. There is a discussion going on which you have now interrupted. This is against wp:Point Zeq 04:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Zeq, I am allowed to protect any article with an edit war on it. Also I did not choose any version to protect, I protected as soon as I saw the edit war on the page. The version I protected is not a version I endorse. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- You are abusing your Admin rights since while we are in discussions Ian had nade massaive changes and you were quick to freeze the article to his version of the events. Please unprotect or revert Ian and re-protect. There is a discussion going on which you have now interrupted. This is against wp:Point Zeq 04:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Further to the apparent failure of the arbitration process (at least to date) I've solicited suggestions on how this dispute should be resolved. Perhaps some sort of binding mediation, in which all editors agree on the specific steps to be taken, would be appropriate? --Ian Pitchford 22:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- The only solution I can see is one of these two:
1. People with vested interst in the conflict (pretty much all editors who paryicipatd until now) avoid editing this article and Wikipedia invite a group of real scholars to write this article.
2. Wikipedia avoid having an article on this subject until it's policies and mechanism allow it to deal with such issues. So far, this is totaly not working: it is unstable going from one side to another based on temporaray majority and adamin abuse (freezing to a specific version that will be reverted at some point as well) Zeq 04:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have asked consistently for good sources to be cited for all material added to this article, i.e., I want Wikipedia policy to be upheld. This is a minimum standard and not some special request. I repeat again that I don't care what material you add, or which side you think it favours, provided that scholarly or other reputable sources are cited. Adding fifteen weblinks to stuff on the mufti (a peripheral character in the war who does not deserve a whole section devoted to his lifestory) and links to Amazon in response to a request that a source be provided for claims that genocide was feared is not compliance with policy, it's deliberate provocation and violation of policy. --Ian Pitchford 11:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- This is in ArbCom. You should repect them and await their decision. Zeq 11:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- long ago, as part of mediation, we agreed to remove the "fear of genocide" - still you with another admin have took over this article. You are the last person that has a right to complain about "policy violation" Zeq 11:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Zeq, please abide by Wikipedia policies and no more excuses. --Ian Pitchford 12:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Al your recent behaviour is a vioaltion of policy. You have refused to accept the results of the mediation. Don't accuse othrs of what you do yourself. Zeq 15:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense. You agreed to remove unsourced material from the article and then failed to do so. --Ian Pitchford 15:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
It is true that I have agreed to remove unsourced material from the article. The problem was that even sourced material you wanted to remove and took it to ArbCom. So hav they aproved your request ? Zeq 17:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not aware that you've ever submitted any relevant sourced material to this article. --Ian Pitchford 17:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- There were many like this one: *Gilbert, Martin (1976). The Arab-Israeli Conflict Weidenfeld & Nicholson. ISBN 0297772414 which you removed. Zeq 17:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- That's the only one you've ever cited and it hasn't been deleted. --Ian Pitchford 10:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Ian, just looking over your recent edits, it's pretty apparent you've simply been deleting sections that disagree with your point of view along with cited references. It is not for you to decide that only those sources you consider sound are worth citing, especially when it is so apparent that those just so happen to agree with your point of view. I've seen several such edit wars lately (e.g., "Some countries consider Tel Aviv to be Israel's capital") and Siddiqui's insertions into the article on Palestine, and after a lot of back and forth it turns out those who seek to malign Israel are wrong on the facts, and so it is here too. I'm sorry reality doesn't fit your preconceptions of it, but as someone said "if the map and the landscape don't agree, it's the map that's wrong." --Leifern 19:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Response
- What sources are your referring to? The problem we've had all along is that there are no sources for the disputed claims. As for the specific deletions and additions/fixes here they are:
- Line 39 - Deleted "POV section" added in confusion over role of the Arab Legion.
- Line 44 - fixed wikilink; restored reference to Shertok; restored material on Jewish Brigade and fixed reference to Beckman.
- Line 61 - Linked to main article on Amin al-Husayni; deleted 14 (yes 14!) web links from one sentence, none of which relate to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
- Line 75 - Deleted link to WorldNet Daily article on Yasser Arafat a poor source, which cites another poor source, Joan Peters' From Time Immemorial for a quotation that does not relate to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War; Inserted Benny Morris' report on military assessments from his highly respected 2003 work.
- Line 87 Expanded and re-wrote the section, keeping the original reference and providing five more good sources, three of which are to contemporary reports in The Times, The New York Times and The Palestine Post.
- Line 120 - Clarified the fact that the quotation inserted by Leifern is from Lie's 1954 memoirs and not a statement made at the time dealt with by this section "First phase: November 29, 1947 - April 1, 1948". Deleted material about the mufti's activities in World War II not relevant to this section and unsourced claim that "widespread belief that the Israelis were facing a genocidal enemy".
- Line 318 - Restored 2 footnotes citing published works on the war.
- Line 327 - Restored 9 footnotes citing published works on the war and contemporary newspaper accounts; deleted two references to books that, once again, are about the mufti in World War II and not the 1948 Arab-Israeli War; deleted one reference to quotation that is probably fabricated and does not appear in any scholarly work or contemporary source.
- Line 345 - restored details of four books to the "references" section.
- Comments? --Ian Pitchford 10:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- What sources are your referring to? The problem we've had all along is that there are no sources for the disputed claims. As for the specific deletions and additions/fixes here they are:
- Heptor gave you an answer already Zeq 10:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- No Zeq. As usual there's no response about the relevance of this material to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War; see Zero's comments above my response below. --Ian Pitchford 10:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
From what I can tell, you seem to believe that while the Israelis faced a belligerent enemy, it was not a genocidal one. Any quote attributed to an Arab leader that talks of extermination is either deleted or discredited. This indicates to me a bias. As for Joan Peters, her facts are not disputed; the way she arrived at her conclusion that most of the Arabs dispossessed by the war were immigrants or in-migrants is what people have a problem with. --Leifern 11:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- That's not quite right. I think it's fine to include the claim that that the Jews in Palestine/Israeli's feared they were facing a genocidal enemy if there is a reputable source supporting that claim. You say that "any quote attributed to an Arab leader that talks of extermination is either deleted or discredited", but in fact we've already included in the article the statement "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." attributed to Azzam Pasha, even though a good source has not been found, because there are at least indications that it's probably (partially) accurate. I don't know of any "facts" by Peters that are not disputed (e.g., see Porath's NYRB review online), but in any case she is not cited in the article; the link to the newspaper article in which she is cited is about Arafat, and the quotation in question is about World War II; not the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. --Ian Pitchford 12:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
To Anon editor
- We know what you have tried to do. You were caught. Now, revert yourself and Ian and let the discussion go on from where it was before you abused your admin powers a quick look at Ian edit history shows he was not willing to accept any source that does not meet his POV. This is something for ArbCom to deal with not for you to freeze the article in the vesrion that Ian wanted it (in the middle of discussion) No point in further discussion if you just abuse your power.
I suggest you review wp:point if still do not understand what you have done. Zeq 19:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Summing up available sources
To make it easier to understand the issue, I summed up available sources for mufti's disputed quotation "Arabs, arise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you." Three direct printed soures are found to date:
* Book by Sachar from 1979, p 333. I believe the book is "A History of Israel : From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time".
No, that one is the Azzam Pasha statement. --Zero 03:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Maurice Pearlman, "Mufti of Jerusalem. The story of Haj Amin el Hussein." The book is published in 1947, quite close to the event.
- Schechtman, "The mufti and the fuhrer" http://aval31.free.fr/lemuftietlefuhrer/web/150151.JPG
- Article by Sarah Honning in Jerusalem post, Apr 6, 2001. pg. 08. contains similar quote, the difference is believed to be in translation. Kriegman contacted Sarah Honning per e-mail. She claimed that she translated original documents available in Hebrew and in Arabic.
Web sites
- Working for the Nazis; The Arab/Muslim Nazi Connection Bosnian Moslems recruited the Nazi SS by Yasser Arafat's 'Uncle'
Circumstantial evidence
- The mufti was a known nazi collaborator. He met with Hitler at least once and, among other things, assisted with formation of Muslim Waffen SS in Balkan, who faught Serbian Partisans. So this quotation is not a lamb speaking like a wolf, it is a wolf speaking like a wolf.
- Zero provided a scan of BBC transcription of German radio in 1944, where a "distingquished arab personality" was quoted saying "Inflict heavy damages on his war effort and kill as many as you can of your enemies - Jews and Anglo - Saxons" [1]. This quotation is a touch less murderous, but the message is the same.
In conclusion, I believe this is one of the best references quotation on available on Wikipedia. Naturally, it is possible to dispute its truthfullness until the end of days, no matter how well-refered it is. It is possible to dispute almost any sources in this way, in fact that is exactly why the criterion for inclusion into Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If there are valid sources claiming that he never spoke like that (as is the case with for example the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion), they too should be mentioned. But the quotation can not be just ignored.
-- Heptor talk 20:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Heptor, good show with these sources. Some of them are less reliable, without a doubt. But you have sources.--Sean|Black 22:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Argument of the form "he was a nasty person so any claim about him should be treated as true" has to be rejected out of hand. The issue is of whether a particular quotation is correct and the evidence suggests that it isn't. Heptor's statement about Honnig is not correct and there is no chance that only translation difference is involved since Honnig's (unsupported and exceedingly unlikely) claim is quite different. The only reference to a primary source anyone has found for this quotation was the one I found in Fisk and proved to be false. Moreover, the relevance of it to the article has not been established even if it is true. --Zero 03:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Schechtman's source for this "quotation"
Since it appears that Pearlman and Schechtman were responsible for introducing this "quotation" to the world of polemics, it is worth trying to determine where Pearlman and Schechtman claim to have got it from. Neither of them claim to have heard it themselves or to have a recording. In the case of Pearlman, I don't know what his alleged source is since I don't have his book (can anyone provide this information?). In the case of Schechtman, here is the complete text of his citation as he gives it:
Text in Palestine (London), July 1944.
(italics in Schechtman). This form of citation means that the text can be found in the July 1944 issue of a serial (newspaper, magazine, pamphlet series, etc) called Palestine that was published in London. So what is this serial? By far the most extensive list of serials published in the UK is the catalogue of the British Library. The only serial listed there named "Palestine" was published by the British Palestine Committee from 1917-1924 and again from 1936-1940. No issues in 1944, apparently, and it wasn't published in London. The catalogue of the Library of Congress mentions a periodical "Palestine" published by the American Zionist Emergency Council, published in the USA, not in London. I also tried the catalogue of Oxford University, which holds a large quantity of Palestine-related material. Nothing there either. So what was this source "Palestine"? Can anyone prove it existed? --Zero 12:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe but this is original research. And this is research you are limited by the time and by the means you have for your research. For example I have a contact on the French wikipedia internet who told me the records were in the Library of Congress. So what ??? Christophe Greffe 13:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- You clearly misunderstand what "original research" means. Checking the quality of our sources is something we are supposed to do. The situation regarding this "quotation" is that nobody has come up with evidence that it is genuine. Therefore, we can't use it. --Zero 14:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- I don't agree. I claim you are not qualified to give credit or not to somebody who wrote more than 50 years ago except if you find a scholar reference that claims (don't need to prove, just claim) he had no credit. I agree that you have a lot of knowledge about the topic. I agree that in this quote is useless but I strongly disagree about the way you justify this author has no credit. Christophe Greffe 20:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- You clearly misunderstand what "original research" means. Checking the quality of our sources is something we are supposed to do. The situation regarding this "quotation" is that nobody has come up with evidence that it is genuine. Therefore, we can't use it. --Zero 14:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Schechtman was a card-carrying member of the Revisionist Zionists and not an academic historian. His work should be treated with the same caution as we would treat material that appears on an advocacy web site. He does not automatically get the presumption of integrity that academic historians normally get. (I can bring comments from other historians who regard Schechtman as a propagandist.)
- That would be a good start point. I suggest you write this on your user page and you will just have to refer to this when somebody ask the question...
- Nevertheless, if he claims something that is verifiable (the Wikipedia litmus test) then we can use it if it is appropriate. Is this "quotation" verifiable? Not so far. --Zero 03:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- This is. We simply has to spend much time and money to go through the Congress Library where if have been told broadcast of Mufti were... Christophe Greffe 11:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- I can sympathise with your frustration when the sources of evidence are out of your easy reach, but that can't be helped. Anything in the Library of Congress is a published source and looking at it is not original research. If you can get a precise reference for something in LofC then I will try to get it. (It costs time and money but the procedure is routine if the citation is exact enough.) Remember, we are talking about something supposedly said on the radio; what evidence would you expect there to exist of it? --Zero 12:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- From the from where I am currently the view I have is that this is enough to close the case of Schechtman as a non reliable source. Christophe Greffe 17:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- I can sympathise with your frustration when the sources of evidence are out of your easy reach, but that can't be helped. Anything in the Library of Congress is a published source and looking at it is not original research. If you can get a precise reference for something in LofC then I will try to get it. (It costs time and money but the procedure is routine if the citation is exact enough.) Remember, we are talking about something supposedly said on the radio; what evidence would you expect there to exist of it? --Zero 12:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- This is. We simply has to spend much time and money to go through the Congress Library where if have been told broadcast of Mufti were... Christophe Greffe 11:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Schechtman was a card-carrying member of the Revisionist Zionists and not an academic historian. His work should be treated with the same caution as we would treat material that appears on an advocacy web site. He does not automatically get the presumption of integrity that academic historians normally get. (I can bring comments from other historians who regard Schechtman as a propagandist.)
- More on Schechtman: He was elected as Revisionist representative to the Executive of the Jewish Agency and the World Zionist Organization in 1948, the Zionist General Council in 1963 and to the JA Executive again in 1967. So during the time he was writing and publishing his book he was not only a Revisionist but a very senior one. If none of these things mean that his claims should be checked, then I demand we play fair and also accept on faith claims made by members of the PLO executive. Zero--04:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Or the palestinian studies... Of course this is a major clue for stating he is not reliable. Do you have references for this claim ? and I would suggest you write this too on your user page to refer when needed. Christophe Greffe 11:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- More on Schechtman: He was elected as Revisionist representative to the Executive of the Jewish Agency and the World Zionist Organization in 1948, the Zionist General Council in 1963 and to the JA Executive again in 1967. So during the time he was writing and publishing his book he was not only a Revisionist but a very senior one. If none of these things mean that his claims should be checked, then I demand we play fair and also accept on faith claims made by members of the PLO executive. Zero--04:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- I got that summary from [2]. Incidentally, while I was looking I found the following in the journal American Jewish History (vol 86, page 125): "In 1947, Silver hired Dr. Joseph Schechtman, the longtime aide to Jabotinsky and Revisionist delegate to the AZEC [American Zionist Emergency Committee], to author studies of the Arab refugee issue for the American Section of the Jewish Agency, which Silver also chaired." I knew that Schechtman was one of the leading pushers of the lie that the Palestinians left on the orders of their leaders but I didn't know that he was officially hired for this purpose. On p62-63 of Masalha's "Imperial Israel and the Palestinians", readable at books.google.com, you can find more details of Schechtman's biography and also learn that he was actively involved in plans for expelling the Palestinians in 1948. --Zero 12:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- The issue of Zero's knowledge is irrelevant. If a person is biased and he brings only data that supports one POV his work is not for the better of a Wikipedia article but to turn Wikipedia into a tool for propeganda. So don't let any one intimidate you with their one sided "knowledge" or with claims about you understanding. Zeq 20:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Response
Exactly, what does any of this material summarised by Heptor have to do with the 1948 Arab-Israeli War? --Ian Pitchford 10:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
We are starting with this again / I thouight we are going to deal with validity of sources (your alst argument) BTW, here is line 79 you dleted my sourced content you claimed above was not dleteed: [3] Zeq 10:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
This again, chaps?
Here we go again, eh? Well, it's time to put this dog to bed. We're going to have an actual discussion, and we're going to resolve this guaranteed. The rules:
- Comment on content, not the contributor, WP:NPA, WP:CIV- This is most important.
- Discuss- Hmm, interesting. This is the problem we had last tim. We need to actually discuss the issues.
- Compromise- also important. We are all going to be grumpy if we can't comptomise. So, let's get this ball rolling.
--Sean|Black 22:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I accept. We need a comitment from Ian that he will abide by the decision and will not try to undermine the results of the mediation. We need Anon Editor to restore the content to what was before Ian massive additions so we have a reasonable starting point. Zeq 05:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- As Zeq was the one who failed to implement (or to allow implementation of) the results of mediation last time I don't accept under these terms. It's hardly conciliatory to begin with an opening message insisting that we start by deleting material that cites good historical works and primary sources and reverting to a version that includes:
- Excessive link spam, deliberately inserted by Zeq to provoke an edit war.
- unsourced claims
- original research
- Zeq seems incapable of appreciating that if we accept this low standard of editing, in violation of fundamental Wikipedia policies, then we have no argument against any disruptive behaviour by anyone. A holocaust denier could go ahead and insert fifteen neo-Nazi Weblinks into evey sentence in the article on The Holocaust, or material saying that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz concentration camp, or justifying speculation about anything at all just by sticking into the article a link to Amazon, as Zeq has done in this article in response to a request that he provide a reference supporting the claim of "fears of genocide" - an action I assume was, once again, deliberatey aimed at provoking an edit war. As far as I can see Zeq's edits are not in good faith and his aim is disruption. I'd like to see evidence to the contrary. --Ian Pitchford 09:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- I just want to add that the dsipute is not really with me so Ian is barking up the wrong tree. The dispute was between Ian and Zero and Heptor and I only provided sources to facts that Ian claimed are "unsourced" (later he changed it to "not good sources") In any case, Heptor is the one that should agree and I have said many times that I welcome the mediation and would agree to anything that is acceptable by Heptor.
- All i am asking is that the unilateral changes done by Ian and anon editor (which interduce more issues) will be removed. We will first deal with previos issue and once that is ettled Ian is more than welcome to discuss his new text. Hope this is clear. In general I am a great supporter of wider participation and of mediation toward an NPOV article. Zeq 09:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, User:Zeq seems incapable of editing in a collaborative manner, as pretty much anyone who has been editing articles that have become the object of his attentions will testify. Bulk deletions of sourced material and bulk additions of unsourced material or material lifted from internet sites is this user's preferred method of editing, along with ultimatums and snide personal comments. Palmiro | Talk 19:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- All i am asking is that the unilateral changes done by Ian and anon editor (which interduce more issues) will be removed. We will first deal with previos issue and once that is ettled Ian is more than welcome to discuss his new text. Hope this is clear. In general I am a great supporter of wider participation and of mediation toward an NPOV article. Zeq 09:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- This is simply not true. What you and others say is in this case irrelevent. What matter is the edit record. We can take a look at articles such as Israeli Arabs and the barrier and see exactly how one sided they were before I started to edit them and how now they are more balanced. In the process contribution by myself and by pro-palestinian editors have been merged together. This is clear from the edit history. So perhaps it is a very confrotational colboration but it is working and both POVs are represented together to an NPOV articles. Zeq 05:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Response to criticism
Thank you all for response to my attempt to summarize the available sources for the quotation. I am sorry it took me some time to respond - as I told earlier I chose to limit the time I spend to edit Wikipedia. This sumamrization is of course not complete, so if someone has a valid comments, I will change it. Zero already pointed out the reference of Sachar was in fact to quotation of the Arab League Secretary-General, Abdul Razek Azzam Pasha, who was claimed to have said, "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.". One can perhaps see why I mixed those to up.
- To Sean: indeed, I chose to include all sources I came over, not just those I consider reliable. Your gallant attempt to bring around a real discussion is noted. So is (pardon the gagging) the tremendous effect it had on Ian and Palmiro.
- I maintain that it is completely resonable to include "circumstantial evidences". Naturally they do not stand on their own, but they support the main sources for the quotation. If I were to defend that Albert Einstein really said "Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing [...]", I would do good to show that 1. He was a scientist 2. He indeed believed that quantum mechanics did not provide a basic explanation of the Universe, and that there had to be a more basic theory.
- Zero, if you look at the article about Holocaust_denial. It contains links to sites claiming Holocaust never happened, and links to sites explaining why it did anyway. This is perfectly legitimate material for Wikipedia.
- Ian, there is a consensus here that this quote has to moved to a diffent arcile if approved by Arbitration Committee (either as a fact or as a claim). I believe I made my position clear by supporting Greffe's refactoring.
-- Heptor talk 17:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The issues
- You still misunderstand the nature of the debate. There are at least four separate issues here:
- the accuracy of the quotation(s).
- the relevance of the quotations to this article.
- the lack of sources linking statements by the mufti to "fears of genocide".
- the lack of sources indicating that there was a fear of genocide.
- If original research is tolerated here then it has to be tolerated everywhere. I'm not going to argue further about the appropriateness of adding fourteen completely irrelevant links to a single sentence as surely no one is going to argue seriously in favour. No sentence in the article you refer to has such links. --Ian Pitchford 21:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- You still misunderstand the nature of the debate. There are at least four separate issues here:
- I do not see how this debate is about anything other than the accuracy of the quotation. Others issues you mention, point by point:
- 2. As I mentioned many times earlier, I agree that this quotation should be placed in a different article. Perhaps you didn't read my last post?
- 3. There are now three references for the claim that mufti's call for "Kill[ing] Jews wherever you find them." led to fear of genocide. I, Zeq and Kriegman believe that because mufti was one of the very few indentifiable leaders of the Palestinians at the time, the statement does not need better sources then those provided. After all, this is about how Israelis perceived the situation. The information about this has to come from Israeli sources.
- However, we do aknowledge that sources are not neutral, that is why so we agreed to remove the statement about fear of genocide as a part of compromise during the mediation. I commented out this text here[4]. However, Zero claimed that there has never been any compromise, so Zeq chose to revert the article to a pre-mediation version.
- 4. As in 3. Arafat himself considered mufti to be his hero (I believe this is known to those who participate in the debate, so I will not search for sources unless this is disputed), so it doesn't exactly take a leap of faith to say that his call for killing Jews led to a fear of genocide. But, again, Sean Black suggested it should be removed in compromise, and we agreed (I even removed it myself)[5].
- I cleaned up the "fourteen [...] links" you mention in the same edit where I implemented the compromise, but it got flashed out when the compromise failed. Did you forget that already?
- But to a more general note, do you or do you not dispute that mufti made hate speeches on Nazi radio during the WW2?
Changes
In response to Zeq above: Anon didn't make any changes. You've provided no sources, but were the one who inserted in a single sentence14 web links of no relevance to the article. Heptor and Kriegman (the author of the original research on the mufti and fears-of-genocide claims) have both just started an edit war in order to insert completely fabricated material into the article here and here. My list of improvements and fixes appears above. --Ian Pitchford 10:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Not returning to the fray . . . yet. But just for the record, the "completely fabricated" stuff you are accusing me of inserting (in this particular accusation) was inserted by someone (?) before I got involved. I just put it back because: (1) it had been a long standing part of the article, which led me to assume it had been subject to review and (2) whoever removed it (you?) provided no reason for doing so. Kriegman 02:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- The problem Ian is that there is difference between :
- what was reality (Jews never risked a genocide),
- the reasons why (it is not because threat or wish in arab side never existed but because they were stronger on the military point of view)
- what jewish population and fighters on the field thought at that time (thinking they fight an antisemitic Mufti (10ths of article in Jerusalem Post in 1946 about Mufti links with Nazi's regime) and having heared or read Azzam Pacha's records about what will be war).
- It is as well non neutral to state that :
- jewish were facing a genocide war
- or that :
- jewish didn't face a genocide's threat.
- The problem Ian is that there is difference between :
Israeli commander
The first IDF chief of staff was Yaakov Dori, and he was followed by Yigael Yadin. Yigal Alon was never COS of IDF.--Nitsansh 06:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
"Wish the trash can had a lock on it, this smelly stuff keeps coming back inside"?
Smelly as in doesn't fit your POV? Because if I recall correctly you removed information attributed to four cited sources. —Aiden 01:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Leaving aside the fact that none of those sources are the least bit respectable, material has to be relevant and balanced as well as sourced. This was neither. It was pure propagandising. --Zero 01:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
How? The sections you removed are directly related to the mufti and therefore related to both the Arab Revolt and following conflicts. —Aiden 04:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well, for example, this fake quotation doesn't even make sense: "In 1940, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem, requested 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." Can you explain by what method Italy had "solved the Jewish question" in 1940? Now, if you really want to know what the Mufti wrote to the Axis at that time you can get hold of Zvi Elpeleg's biography and there in an appendix you will find the whole multi-page letter. That is called "finding a respectable source", something we are supposed to do here on Wikipedia. --Zero 19:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Persecution of Jews was well under way in Germany in 1940. Why mufti chose to also include Italy, you should ask him. I didn't investigate the matter of persecution of Jews in Italy prior to 1940 (if there was any), and for what we know neither did der Mufti. Heptor talk 22:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- In other words, you don't know. There is no evidence that this quotation is geniune. Since it contradicts what serious historians like Elpeleg have reported, it is a reasonable assumption that it is fake. --Zero 22:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- In other words, you take davantage of the temoprary ban and continue the edit war. Zeq 22:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, this is rich. While Heptor isn´t? Just like he is not revert warring here? (While I and Palmiro are?) Zeq: having a POV doesn´t give you carte blanche to pursue it 100% of the time. Why on earth do you not clean up the stuff you brought into Israeli Arabs? Where you misrepresented each and every link? (-as I have pointed out to you.) How on earth can you justify such wrong inf. remaining in the article? Regards, Huldra 23:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmyes, I do not know how the the mentioning of Italy in that sentence makes it impossible for the mufti to have said that. Could you please elaborate how this quotation contradicts Elpeleg and other serious historians you speak of? -- Heptor talk 23:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- In other words, you take davantage of the temoprary ban and continue the edit war. Zeq 22:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Protected but no discussion ?
Is anyone just waiting to continue the edit war once the protection is removed ?
Some civility is in order.
Zeq 08:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Refugees for eternity
Even the foreign press, in regular contact with all sides during the conflict of 1948, wrote nothing to suggest that the flight of the Palestinians was not voluntary. Nor did Arab spokesmen, such as the Palestinian representative to the U.N., Jamal Husseini, or the secretary general of the Arab League, blame the Jews contemporaneously with the 1948 war for the flight of Arabs and Palestinians. In fact, those who fled were urged to do so by other Arabs. As then Prime Minister of Iraq Nuri Said put it:
- "[…] the Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down".
One Arab who fled encapsulated this thinking in the Jordanian newspaper Al-Difaa: "The Arab governments told:
- “[…] Get out so that we can get in.' So we got out, but they did not get in. And a bad situation, impossibly, was allowed to get worse”.
Arabs and Palestinians displaced by the 1948 war were resettled in camps administered by the UNRA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency), the only such agency established for any refugee group since the massive dislocations of World War II. The partition of India occurred at the same time as the conflict in Palestine, and millions of Hindus and Muslims were uprooted, but virtually nothing was done for them. Nothing was done in response to the Chinese occupation of Tibet, where a long-standing religious, social, and political culture was virtually destroyed.
Yet 55 years after they were first established, the Arab refugee camps still exist. With the exception of Jordan, the Arab governments home to these camps have refused to grant citizenship to the refugees and opposed their resettlement. In Lebanon, 400,000 stateless Palestinians are not allowed to attend public school, own property, or even improve their housing stock. Three generations later, they continue to serve as political pawns of the Arab states, still hopeful of reversing the events of 1948.
- "[…] The return of the refugees," as President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt said years later, "will mean the end of Israel."
The U.N, through its administration of the camps, has made a complicated problem infinitely more so. How? U.N. officials define refugees in the Middle East to include the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948. In other parts of the world, descendants of refugees are not defined as refugees. The result of this unique treatment has been to increase the numbers of Arab refugees from roughly 700 000 to over 4 million, by including children, grandchildren, even great-grandchildren. As a former prime minister of Syria, Khaled al Azm, wrote in his memoirs,
- "[…] It is we who demanded the return of the refugees while it is we who made them leave. We brought disaster upon them. [We] exploited them in executing crimes of murder and throwing bombs. All this in the service of political purposes."
And so it goes, to this very day. At the time of the founding of the State of Israel, 900, 000 Jewish refugees were forced out of neighboring Arab States in a coordinated effort. These refugees were absorbed into the new Israel. Yet the world was, and still is, untroubled by the plight of Jewish refugees from Arab lands.
Takima 01:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Please restrict yourself to discussing the article. Your political opinions should go on some other venue. --Zero 12:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
_______________________________________________
Validated facts and qotes, not opinions on one of the main political issues: refugees.
Takima 02:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
+pl
can someone add to article : pl:Pierwsza wojna izraelsko-arabska 1948-1949 ?
British troops in Palestine during war
British had 100,000 men in Palestine during war but is there a reference stating how many troops to be distinguished from the people working in their administration or for the supply chain.
The israeli governement website underline 100,000 people is more than the whole arab and jewish troops but it doesn't take into account that these last were supplied by the population where British had to organise their supply.
In summary : how many british soldiers, policemen, bureaucrats, physicians, etc ? Christophe Greffe 09:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Zionist terrorist arms smuggling
It's a bit of a mystery how the Jews just happened to have all this military hardware in 1948. Obviously there were some organization(s) who planned and financed the smuggling of arms and terrorists into the Mandate, but it won't be mentioned here. Also, no mention of the Jewish campaign of bombing and assassination against Mandate personnel.24.64.166.191 04:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- See 1948_Arab-Israeli_War#Yishuv.2FBritish_Security_and_Intelligence_Collaboration. You're welcome :)
Heptor talk 19:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's not much of a mystery really when you recall that there was a major war immediately preceeding this period (World War 2, you may have heard of it), and that the Jewish contigent of British Palestine took up arms on the Allied side - despite their long-running dispute with the British Mandate. Joffan 16:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- It is often reminded that people felt too easily in the "trap" of traditionnal historians that David faced 5 armies. Today people fall too easily in the trap that many good soldiers make a good army... The Haganah was composed of course of many good soldiers (see above) but they were not organised to combat involving many soldiers and had no material (whatever is claimed - just think about this !). In fact for field combat coordination they were not whether well trained or badly trainded, ... they were simply not trained because it was a clandestine army and people could not gather and train all together or simulate a war like other armies do regurlarly during manoeuvers. I have some quotes from British officers (and taken from new historians) stating that the Egyptian army was not ready because it was not able to organize the movement of more of 1 brigade (for info : 3000 men) due to the lack of training all together ! what to think about Hagannah ? When they talk about equipment they also exagerate a little bit. This clandestine army equipment cannot be compared to a state army equipment. So the question is real : where come this military "hardware" from ? In fact, as soon as dec 1947, they send agents to USA to gather funds and to Europe to by arms and hopefully for them they never faced real "campaign" before november 1948 when they counter-attack egyptian in the Neguev and for which they prepare. Christophe Greffe 22:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Arab Legion in Palestine before 15 May 1948
Nobody answers my questions but this doesn't prevent me to ask them... :-) I would be very grateful if somebody could answer this one : I have read that Arab Legion had been fordidden by British to enter Palestine before 15 May 1948. But some incidents are related between arab legion and haganah before ! As the some convoys attacks near Hebron in jan48 and the well known attack of Kfar Etzion (from May 4 to May 13) by arab legion. Does someone have some information about that paradox ? Thank you. Christophe Greffe 22:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I forgot to answer your question. Although the Arab Legion was supposed to leave Palestine before the Mandate ended, a few units (don't recall the correct military word) did not. They also started to operate independently of British command. (Officially they were in Palestine on secondment to the British Army.) A good source for this is Benny Morris's book on Glubb Pasha; you can read bits of it at Amazon if you register. --Zero 09:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
You should look at Kaukji's army. Those were "iregulars" who came from Arab countries. They invaded in Januray / Februray.
Their loss at Tirat Tzvi cause the first wave of palestinian vilagers to leave. Until that time they were sure the Arabs would win against the jews. Once the jews won the Arab started fearing that a military loss will cause the jews to massacre the arabs. (I guess they assumed that is "the norm" so they understodd a miliotary loss by kakuji as impending massacre) also Latrun battle took place on May 24-25 but The British led Jordenian forces have been mobelized several days before to invade Israel. The exact date in which they crossed into israel is not known to me currently but they were already deployed insid israel/palestine by May 24. Zeq 07:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Palestinians began leaving in December, not January or February. The Arab Legion wasn't "British led" by May 24, the officers having being recalled by London and even before that they had orders to abandon their posts if the Legion was asked to enter the area allocated to the Jewish state in the partition resolution. At no stage did the Legion invade or cross into Israel. --Ian Pitchford 11:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Unprotected
I see no discussion of disputes here in the past week, so I've unprotected. --Tony Sidaway 01:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Woohookitty restored protection, but has since said that he's bowing out of the page protection business for now. I've applied on WP:RFPP for unprotection again. --Tony Sidaway 12:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
A quick note - I've changed the external link URLs. The links to the BBC had been out of date since 2004, so I've found the new articles and plonked them in. I am currently in the process of citing the stats in the background section. -- Cyril Washbrook 23:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Good Sources
(moved from user talk:Fred Bauder on 22:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC))
Regarding your comment on the proposed fining of fact in the workshop nr 6 (deletion of the quotation by Ian Pitchford).Could you please elaborate a little what you consider "good sources" on the israeli-arab conflict? How do you personally decide what sources are good?
Personally I think that primary sources, publications by acknowledged academics, articles in respected newspapers or books by known authors that can not be reasonably dismissed as dishonest can be trusted as sources. Possibly except primary sources not published in a credible publication. What do you think about such definition?
-- Heptor talk 13:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- What we are discussing is the use of a more or less credible primary source which has been published (numerous times) in less then credible secondary sources. So we can't be that sure he ever said the exact words everyone wants to quote. Fred Bauder 14:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC
- You see, I am trying to exctract a more general principle here. Do you consider any author in some way affiliated with a party in a confict to be "less then credible"? I do not think exact words mufti have used are important anyway, they just illustrated an important historical point. Do you think this book of Hannah Arendt will be usefull as a source instead? [6] -- Heptor talk 01:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
She is generally recognized as a scholar. Fred Bauder 13:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
This book includes following: "The Grand Mufti's connections with the Nazis during the war were not secret; he had hoped they would help him in the implementation of some final solution in the Near East". Zvi Elpeleg writes approximatly the same. But it does seem that they both avoid using any exact quotations. -- Heptor talk 14:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- They had the same problem we have verifying any particular exact words, but his role as a Nazi collaborator and anti-Semite is not at issue. Fred Bauder 16:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting, you present the case in an entirely different manner from Zero an Ian Pitchford, who dismissed Pearlman as a liar, called Kriegman a vandal Talk:1948_Arab-Israeli_War/Archive_2 (page search for vandal) " et cetera. I actually do understand the problem the way you put it.
- I believe the most honest at this point would be to add a footnote that certain claims has been made, that they seem to track back to Pearlman's book and at present time there are no sources on Wikipedia that confirm or deny that he said those particular words (probably needs better wording). What do you think? -- Heptor talk 15:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to find Maurice Pearlman on Amazon right now, no luck so far. But a google search reveals "Maurice Pearlman, Mufti of Jerusalem: The Story of Haj Amin el Husseini (London: V.Gollancz, 1947)" (too old for Amazon). This book isn't even on WorldCat. I did however find The Mufti of Jerusalem by Philip Mattar ISBN 0231064632 published by Columbia University Press. I can't find a copy of Pearlman's book even on ABE. Anyway, I don't know much about the book and can't find out easily over the internet. I don't have any reason to say it is not a reliable source. Fred Bauder 17:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Talk:1948_Arab-Israeli_War/Archive_2#Comment_on_the_Mufti_quotation is quite interesting. Fred Bauder 18:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
A part of his book "Mufti of Jerusalem" is available here [7]. Zero believes he is a liar, see Talk:Amin_al-Husayni/Archive_1#Maurice_Pearlman for his statement. To sum up, the British put down a commission to investigate Riots_in_Palestine_of_1929, which was called "Commission of Enquiry", or "The Shaw Commission". Pearlman provides references to the commision's report, and also large quotations from it. He claimed that "There was unanimity in the findings of the commission that the attacks were planned". The majority report concluded however that "The outbreak was not premeditated." This duely mentioned in the book (At least not on that page, actually... And, of course, the next page is not included. I'll get back to this later), also providing extracts from the minority report, submitted by Mr (Later Lord) Harry Snell, who aparently placed more responsibility on the Mufti. As far as I see, Pearlman just provides his opinion that findings made by the commision suggested that mufti instigated them, while also duely mentioning that the majority report concluded differently, and the minority report which held the Mufti more responsible.
Actually, when I think it over, Zero may have simply been sloppy with the reading and didn't notice that Pearlman did mention the majority report.
-- Heptor talk 21:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- (Fred: sorry to fill up your talk page with this.) The phrase "unanimity in the findings of the commission" (my bold) is completely unambiguous and is obviously a deception if only a minority report made that claim. Another proof that Pearlman was a propagandist appears on the same page [8]. The minority report said "I [minority commissioner Snell] am not satisfied that he [the Mufti] was directly responsible for, or even that he was aware of the character of the anti-Zionist campaign", but Pearlman replaced that by "..." so that his readers would not know. Elsewhere, Pearlman is described as a "Haganah spokesman" - that seems to be about all that anyone knows about him. Given that he misrepresents a very well known published report, I don't see why we have to trust his claim about what someone else supposedly heard on the radio. --Zero 10:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- How is it a deception? It was a comment on the findings of the commision, not its conclusion. For example, I it is perfectly legitimate to write that "findings in the US report on Abu Grahib prisoner abuse strongly suggested that orders came from within the White House, but the report itself concluded that there was no evidence of such orders". It is even more legitimate if there was a minority report claiming that existence of such orders is proven.
- Note that I do not say that we should add the quotation as a fact in Wikipedia; it is indeed strange that no known scholar works were found to date in Wikipedia.
I just had to go back to see the my discussion with Zero. There, I didn't actually claim that I saw that Pearlman mentioned the reports own conclusion, sorry for the mixup. The scan of the book ends on the same page, so this is still unclear. In worst case he didn't mention that his own opinion diverged with the opinion in the majority report, while the minority report of the commision was "more specific"; he included following excerpt of this minority report: "... I [Harry Snell] therefore take a more serious view than do my collegues of the responsibilities of these leaders for the character and conduct of the campaign[...]".
If Pearlman didn't mention the conclusion of majority report on one of the next pages, this would still be an omision, not a falsification; in my opinion not enough for a total character assasination as Zero suggests.
Also, thank you for taking interest in the case.
Heptor talk 12:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
For record, here is what is on the next page of Pearlman: "among a Moslem people. I theorefore attribute to the Mufti a greater share in the responsibility for the disturbance than is attributed to him in the report. I am of the opinion that the Mufti must bear the blame for his failure to make any effort to control the character of an agitation conducted in the name of a religion of which in Palestine he was the head." Then the next chapter starts on a different topic. So, as well as eliding a crucial sentence of the minority report, Pearlman entirely fails to mention that the majority report wrote "no connection has been established between the Mufti and the work of those who either are known or are thought to have engaged in agitation or incitement. ... After the disturbances had broken out the Mufti co-operated with the Government in their efforts both to restore peace and to prevent the extension of disorder." Ergo, Pearlman was a propagandist. --Zerotalk 12:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Shaw Commission
The Shaw Commission found that the attacks were not premeditated, but Pearlman claims that "there was unanimity in the findings of the Commission that the attacks were planned"; hence he's lying. What are you not following here? --Ian Pitchford 15:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- hence he is lying or makes a mistake. Christophe Greffe 19:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- You have to read what he actually writes more carefully: he doesn't make a claim on the report's conclusion. He writes that "there was an unanimity in the findings[...]". (my italic) Not that it was the report's conclusion. If he mentioned the conclusion of the majority report, then it is as honest as it could be: he himself thought that findings suggested that attacks were planned, minority report agreed, while the majority report held another opinion. It is perfectly legitimate to disagree with conclusion of a report, as in example I wrote earlier one can claim that "findings in the US report on Abu Grahib prisoner abuse strongly suggested that orders came from within the White House, but the report itself concluded that there was no evidence of such orders". It is even more legitimate if there was a minority report claiming that existence of such orders is proven.
- If he did not mention the conclusion of the majority report, then this is a (serious) omission, but not a direct lie. Unfortunately we do not have next pages available, but the passage from the minority report "I therefore take a more serious view then do my colleagues" does say that the "colleagues" took a less serious view.
I doubt if any reader would understand "findings of the Commission" as meaning anything other than the conclusions that the Commission came to. I think the phrase "findings of the commission/enquiry/court/etc" never means anything else in the English language. This is emphasised by the word "unanimity" which indicates agreement among the commissioners. Even if Pearlman would make an argument like you are making, it does not alter the fact that almost all readers are going to be misled by his words. As for your example, you cheated by using the words "strongly suggested" where Pearlman made a completely unqualified statement. --Zero 23:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Contested Spaces
Full references for Contested Spaces (Bickerton, Hill) added. -- Cyril Washbrook 23:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Removed of sourced material from this article
This was removed [9] by Zero:
- ^ During the 1948 War, the Mufti is also alleged to have said "I declare a holy war, my Moslem brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!" (Leonard J. Davis and M. Decter, Eds., Myths and facts: A Concise Record of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Washington DC: Near East Report, 1982, p. 199).
Zeq 05:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Propagandistic sources with no other support do not meet Wikipedia standards. --Zero 09:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Clearly, this book is not such a source. It was in a recent ArbCom case and they did not rule this source out. If they would have this would be a different ball game. Zeq 10:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- You don't understand the function of the Arbitration Committee. --Zero 10:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe, but that is not the issue. You removed this sourced material based on ArbCom rulling but they never rulled in such way. so this material should be re-inserted. Zeq 05:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- It was you and not me who was cautioned by the AC on the use of propagandistic sources. Apparently you learnt nothing. --Zero 05:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- I guess that is the issue: Is this source valid for Wikipedia or not. BTW< you were warned to use dispute resolutions process and avoid edit war. Hopefully you will comply. Zeq 06:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Great words of advice from Mr. Edit War himself. --Zero 06:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
An anon added following info without any explanation: "The Saudis, contrary to popular belief, did not get involved". Sources, anyone? -- Heptor talk 23:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hi. I have read that when they sent troops toward Palestine, Abdallah refused they cross Tranjordania and sent Arab Legion to prevent them. But this doesn't the information is true. Christophe Greffe 00:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that Saudi Arabia sent a small force that fought with the Egyptians in the south. I think we can revert the anon insertion until a proper citation is provided. Even then it is not worth spending more than a sentence or two on the Saudis as their involvement was tiny compared to the big players. --Zero 01:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree on the revert. Christophe Greffe 15:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yoav Gelber, "Palestine 1948", 2006 clearly specifies there were 800 saudis who participated to the war. They waited at Aqaba and enter the coutry with the column of egyptian volonteers. He also precises Abdallah didn't agree they cross his country. Christophe Greffe 15:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Saudi Arabia
Here's what I can find:
- Riad es.Solh stated here to-night that King Ibn Saud had agreed that the Saudi Arabian army should join in Arab League military action to prevent the establishment of a Zionist state. (Fom Our Correspondent, Bagdhad, May 9. 'King Ibn Saud's Army', The Times, Monday, May 10, 1948; pg. 4; Issue 51067; col B.)
- The five Arab states who joined in the invasion of Palestine were Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq; while the two contingents came from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. All these states, however, only sent an expeditionary force to Palestine, keeping the bulk of their army at home. (p.81) (Shlaim, Avi (2001). Israel and the Arab Coalition. In Eugene Rogan and Avi Shlaim (eds.). The War for Palestine (pp. 79-103). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521794765)
- Saudi Arabia paid 20% of the cost of the Arab Liberation Army. (p. 193) (Landis, Joshua (2003) Syria in the 1948 Palestine War: Fighting King Abdullah’s Greater Syria Plan. In Eugene Rogan and Avi Shlaim (eds.). The War for Palestine (pp. 178-205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521794765)
- Saudi Arabia sent a small contingent, that fought under Egyptian command. (p. 193) (Gilbert, Martin (1998). Israel: A History. Black Swan. ISBN 0552995452)
I can't find anything about actual fighting or casualties. --Ian Pitchford 16:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Here is the abstract of an article I don't have the full text for. Casualties are mentioned.
Author: `Uthman, Hasan Salih.
Title: DAWR AL-MAMLAKA AL-`ARABIYYA AL-SA`UDIYYA FI HARB FILASIN 1367H/1948
Transl/Info: [The role of Saudi Arabia in the Palestine war of 1948].
Citation: Revue d'Histoire Maghrébine [Tunisia] 1986 13(43-44): 201-221. ISSN: 0330-8987
Abstract: During the fighting that followed the UN partition resolution, King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia made representations to the United States, Britain, and other Arab states. The Arab League states decided to invade on 15 May 1948 when the Mandate expired, in order to protect the Palestinian Arabs from further Jewish attacks and to prevent the emergence of a Jewish state. The Saudi king sent 1,200 men to fight with the Egyptian forces, although he originally wished only to send aid to Palestinian fighters. But the Arab states were at odds with each other. Ninety-six Saudis died in the Palestine war.
--Zero 10:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Splendid. These references seem enough to cover the role of Saudi Arabia in this general article. --Ian Pitchford 10:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Nice job Zero ! More precisely about what I wrote above : refering to Levinberg and different IDF documents, Gelber writes : "Another contingent comprised of 800 Saudi tribesmen had assembled near Aqaba, apparently heading for Neguev. (...) Ultimately they moved to Egypt and joined the Egyptian expeditionary force".(Palestine 1948, p.55). You are designed volunteer to introduce all the information in the article. ;-) Christophe Greffe 19:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
in the independece war Israel faught against 6-7 countries: Egypt, Jorda, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and yaman or Sudan. Zeq 10:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Wait a second, 96 casualties out of a total force of 1200, doesn't that seem kinda high?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Actually 96 dead, not casualties, so it is even higher. According to one source quoted here, deaths for other Arab armies were Egypt: 2,000, Syria: 1,000, Jordan: 1,000, Iraq: 500, Lebanon: 500. Comparing these to the total troop counts, 96/1200 is not unreasonably high. --Zero 05:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Think about it, if your numbers our right then some of our current info must be wrong. If lebanon lost 500 troops and we have said they had 2000 overall then a quater of their overall strength would have been lost. I don't pretend to be an expert on military matters but I am pretty sure these casualty rates are unheard of.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sure some of our current info is wrong, because all these statistics are rough estimates and different researchers come up with different values. We won't ever get them to look completely consistent. On Lebanon: recently I saw a detailed analysis of the Lebanese force that used Lebanese sources for the first time. Most early estimates were based on guesses made by Israeli soldiers in the field; obviously that is very difficult. When I remember where it is, I'll report. --Zero 06:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Do you think until then we can use one source for everything, just to be consistent?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Consistency might come at the price of accuracy. An alternative would be to open about the difficulty of the problem and give some examples of disagreements. --Zero 10:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Back to Lebanon. I have Matthew Hughes, Lebanon's armed forces and the Arab-Israeli war, 1948-49, J. Palestine Studies, vol 24 (2005) pp24-41. You are right, a body count of 500 is completely fanciful. The Lebanese Army had 4 infantry battalions of 400-450 soldiers each plus support personnel. Three battalions were positioned along the border but only one of those was engaged in serious battles. They captured the Jewish village of Malikiyya (700 meters inside Palestine) on May 13-14, and lost it again on May 28-29. Apart from that some skirmishes, some inside Lebanon. Hughes does not give a number for total fatalities, but it is clearly impossible for it to have been very high and 500 is out of the question. Lebanon also had some involvement with the ALA irregulars (Qawuqji’s forces). Our figure of 2000 total forces seems within reason, but many never entered Palestine and it's debatable whether those should be counted. --Zero 10:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- I checked this morning before to go to work. Gelbert writes at the first truce there was 1 (one) casuality on the Libanese side and that illustrates how deep they participate. I come back with the exact page. I think the 2000 must be counted of course but their real involvment must be specified. Christophe Greffe 13:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- If some fought skirmishes inside Lebanon then why should we only count the soldiers who were in in Israel?, and even if they didn't I believe it is customary to count non-combat troops, but I agree if it is possible then we should explain their roles.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- It was initially intended that the Lebanese army would not enter Palestine at all but just defend the border. There was a lot of opposition in Lebanon to getting involved in the war. In the end, they had some small involvement. The skirmishes inside Lebanon were due to Jewish forces entering Lebanon. They got as far as the Litani River and some of the Israeli generals wanted to keep going. Anyway, to get back to the point, I agree that forces in support roles get counted as well as those in combat. Within limits, naturally. --Zero 11:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, aren't we sacrificing accuracy even without the consistency?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)