Talk:1948 Arab-Israeli War/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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


Contents

So, Why no section on the Siege of Jerusalem?

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, ISBN 0-521-61804-5) in which he writes:

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 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).
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 (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)
Agree with Christophe. 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 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
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 ?

Image:Times05051948.jpg

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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../1/9/4/Talk%7E1948_Arab-Israeli_War_Archive_6_df6b.html"