m moved Talk:1948 Palestine war to Talk:1947-1949 Palestine war: According to dates given by Nableezy, it is not a 1948 war. |
m moved Talk:1947-1949 Palestine war to Talk:1948 Palestine war over redirect: Historians refer to that period with the name "1948 Palestine War" |
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 19:53, 2 October 2010
Palestine Stub‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
This article is a POV fork and should be deleted or merged
I was surprized to see this article. This edit [1] alerted me to it's existense. If there ever was a POV fork this is it. Zeq (talk) 05:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- This article is not a pov-forked.
- (And there is absolutely no pov in here given it just takes back summaries of others)
- The reason is that the 1948 Palestine war gathers 6 months of civil war followed by the 1948 Arab-Israeli War that started on May15, 1948 (with the birth and declaration of independence of ISrael).
- Here are numerous sources about this name : [2].
- I add that the "name" is used by scholars from all opinions : Efraim Karsh, Yoav Gelber, David Tal, Avi Shlaim and/or Ilan Pappé. It was used at least in the '50s.
- Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Knowledged and sciences are the motors. If people doesn't know something, it doesn't prevent from discussing this.
- Ceedjee (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I also think this article should be deleted. in particular because it assumes the position that the arab-israeli war was bound to the palestinian matter, which is the subject of hot debate. two articles, one for each seperate war, should suffice in covering the matter of encyclopedic interest in this, at least imho. MiS-Saath (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hello MiS-Saath,
- When you write the article "assumes" something, I think you are wrong.
- There are numerous historians, from the most pro-Israeli to the most pro-Palestinian who refer to these events as the Palestine War.
- Ceedjee (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this is POV. The fact that the name is used by some for the war of 1948 doesn't mean that a separate article about it is motivated. Various names of the war may be mentioned in the article, if Wikipedians agree that it is needed. --Jonund (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- The problem with this article, and its two 'sub-articles' (1947 civil war and 1948 Arab-Israeli War) is that they all encompass similar things - in fact, the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article has exactly the same scope as this one. If its scope was reduced to just May 15 and later, I'd support keeping this article, but in its current form, I completely agree with you. If no one opposes on this talk page, you should consider AfD. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 16:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- This has been discussed several times and at different places but you never brought the answers to the comments.
- There are numerous sources from numerous scholars from different sensitivities who talked about 1948 Palestine Wars.
- Ceedjee (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- You missed my point. The point is that, in fact, the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article is supposed to deal with the post-May 15 war, but it actually deals with the 1948 Palestine War, therefore the two articles have an identical scope and one of them is redundant. Because 1948 Arab-Israeli War is clearly a more recognizable name, it should be kept, and this article should be merged. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't miss any point.
- The article about the 1948 Arab-Israeli war don't refer to the events before 15 May except in the context.
- And this has only be done to keep the article (1948 Arab-Israeli War) because the big majority of scholars refer to this war as the 1948 [Palestine] War.
- If you don't like it find good references to balance the ones given in the link here above.
- Ceedjee (talk) 07:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- The above comment is further proof that you missed my point. I wasn't arguing about references or the validity of the term '1948 Palestine War', which I'm sure is valid for the event in question. I was arguing about the current situation on Wikipedia, which has two articles covering the same topic. In the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article, the 1947 civil war is indeed covered only in the background section, but it is extremely in-depth for a section which has a main article. Indeed it is more in-depth than the information we have at the 1948 Palestine War article.
- Again, I am not opposing the existence of the 1948 Palestine War article in principle - I am opposing based on the current balance of information between the two articles. I will support your view 100% if the 1948 Palestine War article is written sufficiently well, and the in-depth 1947-May 48 info is taken out of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article.
- -- Ynhockey (Talk) 14:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- You missed my point. The point is that, in fact, the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article is supposed to deal with the post-May 15 war, but it actually deals with the 1948 Palestine War, therefore the two articles have an identical scope and one of them is redundant. Because 1948 Arab-Israeli War is clearly a more recognizable name, it should be kept, and this article should be merged. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Wiki has sliced the single event into 2 using 15 May 1948 as a convenient point of reference........Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 07:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's not just Wiki. The differentiation between the pre-15 May and the post-15 May period are made in made reputable textbooks on the subject. I think it's a good thing, because the nature of the fighting before this date, and after it, was completely different. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 14:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
They most certainly do, however they normally do so as a page break within the totality of the Palestine conflict....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Jewish refugees
I followed the link that claims that 800,000 to a million Jews became refugees from Arab Lands between 1948 to 1968. It raises a smile. Total number of Jews in the ten countries listed is given as 856,000. And 475,000 were still there in 1958. Which kind of undermines the equivalence argument that seems to be being made here. Is there a better page with a summary of the various "leavings". Something like Yemen (1949 - 60,000), Iraq(1949 - 120,000), Egypt(from 1956) etc. Fascinating though this is it shouldn't be here. Unlike the number of Jewish refugees from Palestine which belongs with estimates of the numbers of their neighbours displaced. 10,000 seems a little high though. Will check. Padres Hana (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Padres Hana,
- This should be checked !
- All the numbers can be found in Benny Morris, 1948 : A History of the First Arab-Israeli War. I am quite sure of them, but maybe the number of refugees from Arab lands. 81.240.123.174 (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Why did the Yeshuv win?
I would to start a section on the various views of why the war ended the way it did. Any suggestions for a section heading? Padres Hana (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- -> Outcome of the war
- What you want to do is not easy at all !
- Be sure you have access to all point of views and to find a way to introduce all of them a neutral way.
- Some new historians and Palestinians tend to defend the thesis that the Yishuv/Israeli were the stronger". That way, they can argue the exodus and in some cases the expulsion of the Palestians can have been planned or organised "under the cover of war" (as Esber titled her book).
- Traditionnal Israeli historians, but also Lapierre and Collins, or Morris -and they are not wrong-, underline they were 600,000 Jews in an "ocean" of more than 45,000,000 Arabs and that respective armies totalised in december 47 10,000 soldiers vs 165,000.
- But then everything must be nuanced :
- Arabs were not Palesitians and until May 48, it was a war between Yishuv and the Palestinians supported by 5000-10000 volunteers of the ALA
- The balance of force evolved extremelly much during the war, ending by a total Israeli superiority
- Arabs didn't suffer arms embargo before 15 May and whereas Yishuv did. But due to that, Israeli organised smugglings of weapons and were supported by Soviet Union. This helped them very much when both Arabs and Israelis were subjected to an arms embargo.
- Until Deir Yassin, the Arabs didn' want to intervene, hoping the ALA and the PAlesitnians could deal the issue alone. And when they decided to intervene, it was too late. But had they decided to intervene 6 months sooner, they would have won.
- Arabs promised support to the Palestinians but never really gave this to them (or not as much as they could have expeced or at least needed)
- After they decided to intervene, they were disorganised and didn't coordinate and even didn't support their allies. Abdallah even played a double game, discussing with the Yishuv and fighting in the side of the Arabs
- In February '48, Abdallah had been given British support to take over the Arab side of Palestine but at the condition that he didn't enter the ISraeli side...
- Globally, Israelis were better organised, had better soliders, had better officeers, had a better morale, had a stronger, more clever and more efficient leadership than Palestinians and certainly Arabs.
- Globally too, Jewish leaders had prepared that war for at least 3 years, whereas the Arabs and the Palestinians never really prepared for this.
- The fact the war started 6 months before the end of the Mandate and that the British didn't intervene in the intercommunal war helped the Yishuv very much. And in fact, if they had not had the opportunity to see the Palestinians flee (or to expel them), with this 5th column on their rear, Israelis may have lost the war if it has started on 15 May. The British attitude must be "nuanced" by the fact they let enter the ALA but prevent the Arab armies to intervene and by the fact they may have helped the Jews to take Haifa.
- All these information must be sourced, organised, and given in respecting wp:npov. That is not an easy job. 81.240.123.174 (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this needs a separate section because as Ceedjee said, there are many different opinions on why the Yishuv/Israel won, including all of the above points. We should state the facts as attributed to reliable sources and let the reader decide. According to Morris (again I believe he is right), the main reason for the Israel's victory was far superior organization and cohesiveness. There was some infighting among Jewish forces, but this was focused around different methods for achieving the same goal. By contrast, the Arab leaders each had their own goals for the war, which were often contradictory with each other. This information is extremely important to any reader, but I don't think it needs its own section, but rather parts of it should go into each relevant section. —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)