Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War/Archive 7

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

And why no entry for it? Or are certain people still maintaining that it never happened?Scott Adler 05:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Why the Great Revolt and the Second World War are relevant

"Great Revolt" Give me a break! That term is hardly NPOV. It sounds like a Moaist term -- as in Great Leap Forward, and Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Why not call it the "Brave Heroic Patriotic Struggle of the Valliant Peoples' Vanguard"? Or from the Israeli POV, the "Petty Three Year Riot Campaign Designed to Force Jewish Refugees Back Into the Death Camps"? In fact, the "Purile Racist Nazi-Financed Terror Campaign" accomplished little more than induce the British to impliment the White Paper Policy, which utterly radicalized the Jews. It's always Scott Adler 05:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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,

There's always an excuse for failure, isn't there? The Jews had better leadership in the Warsaw Ghetto than the Palestinians have ever had. In fact, when have the Palestinians ever developed effective leadership? It's a cultural thing. But when you use terms like "Great Revolt," without a snicker, what does one expect?Scott Adler 05:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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).

The Troubles (hows that for a neutral term?) occured only twenty years after ther British threw out the Turks. Is your thesis that they managed to create a talented leadership during this time, but could come up with nothing during ten more years? Oh, jeez. Ten years is plenty of time. Think of what the Americans came up with from 1766-1776. But then, when one is of a certain ideological mind, there is always an external reason for Arab failure. The Arabs failed because their tibal culture was unable to compete with a secular meritocracy. It still can't Scott Adler 05:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

He also writes of the importance of the changes in the Zionist leadership and of the

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).

Yeah, that's the reason! That's the ticket! Yeah! The Mufti was no worse than anyone else. All of those guys also recruited SS Divisions and twisted Himmler's arm to force Hungarian Jewish children into the gas chambers. Scott Adler 05:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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 (

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.

Alithien

13:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Alithien. If someone want to go that deep into background, he will have to check mulitple articles. All historical events are connected to other events, we could just as well write one single article about everything that ever happened.-- Heptor _talk 15:52, 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

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

White Paper that will limit drastically jewish immigration to Palestine

.

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).

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.

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

-- 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

... :)

Alithien

17:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

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.

(...)

3rd proposal

Since the end of 19th century

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

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

.

As of the end of twenties

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 1947, unable to find a solution to troubles in the country British announced their will to abandon their mandate on Palestine.

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.

Takima 18:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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.

Alithien

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.

Alithien

21:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)