Talk:1948 Arab-Israeli War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Echo has identified 1948 Arab-Israeli War as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Hebrew language Wikipedia.

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information:

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:

Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked

To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call:

|B-Class-1=yes/no

|B-Class-2=yes/no

|B-Class-3=yes/no

|B-Class-4=yes/no

|B-Class-5=yes/no

Syria Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.

After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Egypt Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.

After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Israel Portal

1948 Arab-Israeli War is part of the WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.

Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):

This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale.

Top

This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

This article is part of WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to Arab-Israeli conflict. For guidelines see the project page and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

1 Bias
2 Maps...
3 please correct title of article
4 WP:MilHist Assessment
5 The article was ignorant about Wingate
6 Bias against Israel
7 Casus belli?
8 Title of the article
- 8.1 I permit to insist
9 Casus Belli as expressed by contemporary belligerents
10 UN
11 Bias in casus of belli
12 Other militias

[edit] Bias

I am writing a study guide for our annual Harvard National Model United Nations conference, in which I will direct the Security Council's discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I took a course in Middle Eastern politics in which we used Ian Bickerton and Carla Klausner's "A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict" which I, along with the vast majority of students, happened to find very well-organized and well-balanced in views. However, upon surfing the net and finding this article, I regret to inform that it appears to be rather biased on the Israeli/Jewish side. I hope you will take this into consideration when editing. Note: I am neither Muslim nor Jewish.

213.175.169.4 18:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you like to provide any reasoning or examples?

Without claiming expertise at all here, I think the section entitled 'Demographic Outcome' is substantially irrelevant (what do Yemeni policies towards Jews have to do with the 1948 war?) and biased in its focus (the most significant immediate demographic outcome is surely the creation of a large Palestinian refugee population, but this isn't discussed in any detail, and nor are the reasons for emigration). But I'm afraid someone more expert than I will have to alter this... --Marginalistrev 17:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC) (not the original poster on this topic).

[edit] Maps...

I wish there were some better maps than these, everything is too small and it's hard to read the labels.

[edit] please correct title of article

It should read "1948 Arab-Israeli War: A Jewish Perspective." This is the most POV article on a topic of importance that I've ever encountered on Wikipedia. 69.71.166.93 08:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MilHist Assessment

I have not read through the whole article, but I would not be surprised if there are tons of neutrality issues lurking throughout the text. I feel extremely strongly on this issue, and I am in no mood to get into an editwar or flamewar over these things. Thus, I leave my comments on the neutrality at that.

(1) There are obviously some sections that need expansion in a major way. There are at least four or five sections labeled as such by the section stub template, but the inclusion of those sections shows potential for an even more thorough and informative article. The Aftermath section needs help, as it seems to totally ignore the elephant in the room - namely, the creation of the State of Israel.

(2) I love the inclusion of the sections for the political objectives of the main participants. However, I do not think "protagonists" is the best word for this. And there is the glaring omission of the Yishuv. Yes, it is true that Israel was not a state until after the 1948 war, and so perhaps they were omitted for that reason. But the political objectives of the British Palestinian Jews living on that land were decidedly different from that of the governments back in London, Washington, etc. This deserves at least some mention. It's like discussing the American Revolution, and mentioning the interests or goals of Britain and France and leaving out that of the colonists because they count as British subjects.

There are obviously some major issues with this article, but overall, it undoubtedly deserves at least a B-class assessment for length, details, images, charts and maps. I have seen very few articles with this amount of well-organized, relevant, and clearly written content. LordAmeth 16:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am confused by writers who allege an anti-Israel bias in this article. If anything I see a pro-Israel and pro-Jewish bias in the early history sections.. for example, the British are accused of wanting to please Arabs and using their national fervor to British advantage, at the expense of Jews.. and Arab killing of Israelis are given prominence. Come to think of it, my impression being opposite to some others' means that the article is probably neutral. [SCG, 07:31 UTC 5 August 2006. The author is a US resident and Canadian citizen born in India]

[edit] The article was ignorant about Wingate

Anita Shapira's book Land and Power is inaccurate and misleading about Orde Wingate and the Special Night Squads, and should not be used as an authoritative source about either. Consequently, the section of this article dealing with the same has been changed so as not to be misleading. Citing it while ignoring the mounds of documented information about Wingate is selective historiography and does not serve any scholarly purpose.

After communicating with Dr. Shapira, she stated that her inclusion of the rumors was not intended to be an assertation of fact, and that she did not have actual evidence of Wingate having performed any such atrocities as rumored. See the upcoming English version of her biography on Yigal Allon for clarification. As stated previously, citing her earlier book as authority on Wingate is highly inaccurate and poor scholarship.

There are plenty of other sources available in Google Books. Martin van Creveld makes the same comments about Wingate. --Ian Pitchford 11:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Those books are similarly based upon rumors, and are not factually-based. In contrast, see Akavia, Royle, Oren, et al who provide substantiated refutation. The fact that the myths are widespread doesn't bestow credibility on the,.

[edit] Bias against Israel

Bias against Israel (and so ?) and Maghreb Jews

>These entries are biased against Israel.

How is this a reason to reject them ?

>In the 1948 war, approximately 600,000 Jewish refugees were persecuted and expelled from Arab lands including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco -- leaving behind an >estimated $30 billion in assets.

This is for sure nonsense as far as Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco are concerned which were still under French control in 1948 and where Jews were often very well treated (and even granted French citizenship in Algeria, contrarily to abiding Muslims, those respecting the Sharia).

The indigenous people of the earth are the people of the earth. The indigenous life of the earth is the life on Earth. The indigenous essence of the earth is the earth itself.

We are Earth.

abe.wickham@gmail.com

---

About the reliability of “From Time Immemorial” see this:

“Who were the indigenous people of Palestine?

Pro-lsrael propaganda has argued that most Palestinians entered Palestine after 1917, drawn to the economic dynamism of the growing Jewish community, and thus have no rights to Palestine. This argument has been elaborated in Joan Peters's widely promoted book, From Time lmmemorial. However, the book has been shown to be fraudulent and its claim false. The indigenous population was mostly Muslim, with a Christian and a smaller Jewish minority. As Zionists arrived from Europe, the Muslims and Christians began to adopt a distinctly Palestinian national identity.”

This is a quote from an article by Stephen S. Shalom, which teaches political science at the William Paterson University. You can find the whole article here: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Israel/Background_I_P_Crisis.html MichaelTheWise 10:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

These entries are biased against Israel. The problem is, the only solid historical evidence we have for the refugee problem, is what the Arab media said at the time.

In the 1948 war, approximately 600,000 Jewish refugees were persecuted and expelled from Arab lands including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco -- leaving behind an estimated $30 billion in assets. These Jewish refugees were welcomed by Israel, and with their descendants, now comprise a majority population of the State of Israel.

In the same war, according to the UN, approximately 720,000 Palestinians refugees fled to Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, and the West Bank and Gaza. The UN estimates that they and their descendents now number about 3.7 million.

The Arab League forbade any Arab country from accepting these refugees or settling them in normal housing, preferring to leave them in squalid camps. Former UNRWA Director Ralph Galloway stated in 1958: "The Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders do not give a damn whether Arab refugees live or die."

Again, it was Arabs who resisted efforts by Israel to settle the refugees in normal housing from 1967-95, when Israel administered the lands.

And again in the late-1990s, when 97 percent of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza lived under full jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, the refugees continued to be confined to camps -- despite the millions of UNWRA and international relief dollars which poured into PA coffers specifically for this purpose.

It is important to note, as Joan Peters documents in her seminal work, "From Time Immemorial," that the vast majority of these refugees did not live for generations on the land, but rather came from Egypt, Syria and Iraq as economic opportunities increased during the first half of the 20th century, the formative years of Jewish aliyah.

The United Nations' standard definition of a "refugee" is one who was forced to leave a "permanent" or "habitual" home. In the case of Arab refugees however, the UN broadened the definition of refugee to include anyone who lived in "Palestine" for only two years prior to Israel's statehood in 1948.

The number of 3.7 million refugees is further inflated, given that the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees does not include descendents in its definition of refugees, nor does it apply to a person who "has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality." Under this definition, the number of Palestinians qualifying for refugee status would be well below half a million. Yet the UN has created a new set of rules for Palestinian refugees.

A key question is the issue of responsibility: Since five Arab armies launched the 1948 war, logic dictates that they are responsible for the outcome. Yet it is still instructive to know: Did Israel forcibly evict these Arabs in 1948, or did they leave voluntarily?

Though historical sources vary, many statements from Arab leaders and the media support the contention that Arabs created the refugee problem:

The Beirut Daily Telegraph (September 6, 1948) quoted Emil Ghory, secretary of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee:

The fact that there are those refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously...

The London Economist (October 2, 1948) reported an eyewitness account of the flight of Haifa's Arabs:

There is little doubt that the most potent of the factors [in the flight] were the announcements made over the air by the Arab Higher Executive urging all Arabs in Haifa to quit... And it was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades.

Habib Issa, secretary-general of the Arab League, wrote in the New York Lebanese daily "al-Hoda" (June 8, 1951):

[Azzam Pasha, Arab League secretary,] assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and of Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade... Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property, and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states.

Former Prime Minister of Syria, Khaled al-Azem, wrote in his memoirs, published in 1973 in Beirut:

We brought destruction upon a million Arab refugees by calling on them and pleading with them to leave their land.

The PA's current prime minister, Mahmud Abbas ("Abu Mazen") wrote in the PLO journal "Palestine a-Thaura" (March 1976):

The Arab armies, who invaded the country in '48, forced the Palestinians to emigrate and leave their homeland and forced a political and ideological siege on them.

—The idea of Arab responsibility for the Palestinian flight has been pretty definitively refuted by Israeli historians such as Benny Morris who have extensively documented the attrocities and forced evictions committed against Arab villages, especially by radical Zionists such as the Stern Gang. In particular, it is impossible to underestimate the importance of the massacre at Deir Yassin, an Arab village within the territory the UN had partitioned for Palestinians, and which happened before the declaration of independence and before the intervention of other Arab forces. This event inflamed Arab public opinion and had a major influence on the subesequent decision to intervene by the Arab governments.--Karma432 12:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a common misconception regarding UN General Assembly Resolution 194 of December 1948. The resolution does not recognize any "right" of return for refugees, but recommends that they "should" be "permitted" to return, subject to two conditions: that the refugee wishes to return, and that he wishes to live at peace with his neighbors.

Even though the Arab states originally rejected Resolution 194, they now misquote it to back the demand of an unlimited right of return to within the borders of the State of Israel. In Yasser Arafat's January 1, 2001, letter to President Clinton, he declared:

"Recognizing the Right of Return and allowing the refugees' freedom of choice are a prerequisite for ending the conflict."

In the summer of 2000, Palestinian negotiators submitted an official document at Camp David, demanding that the refugees automatically be granted Israeli citizenship, and that the right of return should have no time limit. Additionally, the PA demanded that Israel provide compensation amounting to $500 billion dollars. Abu Mazen said that compensation payments should be made by Israel alone, and not from any international funds.

Israel maintains that settling refugees in Israel is a crude political move to destroy the Jewish state through demographics. If the whole point of a Palestinian state is to provide an independent home for their people, why do they insist on going to Israel?

While the political outcome remains uncertain, one thing is tragically clear: Thousands of Palestinians remain in squalid camps, used as political pawns in the ongoing war against Israel.

As Jordan's King Hussein stated in 1960:

Since 1948, Arab leaders have approached the Palestine problem in an irresponsible manner. They have used the Palestine people for selfish political purposes. This is ridiculous and I could say even criminal (Sources: MEMRI, Ha'Aretz, Joan Peters, Moshe Kohn, Prof. Shlomo Slonim, Prof. Ruth Lapidoth) .

The right of refugees to return to their homes is a common sense right, no matter what legal nicities are brought to bear. The only other examples of refugees being refused the right to return to their homes involve Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, not admirable examples.

It is clear from the writings of Isreal's founders that the denial of the right of return stemmed from the opportunity it afforded to have a majority Jewish state. In short, it was an example of what would today be called ethnic clensing. For this reason, israeli historian Benni Morris has said that Israel was born in a state of original sin. --Karma432 22:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

I wonder why everything that deals with Israel/Arab conflict has to be written from the ultraorthodox/zionist point of view?

Karma432 states "Since five Arab armies launched the 1948 war ..." as a matter of fact. The problem is, that's a very subjective opinion/assessment. Are Britain and France generally seen as having launched WWII because they declared war on Germany at Poland's defence? The conflict was effectively started through the unilateral declaration of the state of Israel. Yes, Israelis "accepted" the 1947 UN partition plan - only to significantly expand its borders later. The Arabs rejected the plan because, well, why should they have accepted Jews taking 55% of a territory in which the latter comprised but 10% of the population at the time of the 1917 Balfour Delcation?

pretzelberg

[edit] Casus belli?

The casus belli of this conflict is specified as "Arab rejection of the existence of the State of Israel". This issue is obviously subject to debate, but the above phrase is surely a very one-sided summary. Many would argue that the casus belli was the creation of Israel in itself. Is it not possible to have a more neutral explanation, e.g. "dispute over the territory of Palestine"? (I deliberately chose not to write "Palestinan territory")

A dispute is not a casus belli of war. The rejection of the state and the aim of destroying it were the casus belli. —Aiden 23:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"Casus belli" is a legal phrase that refers to an action. I don't think that rejections or aims can be examples. --Zero^talk 01:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well the war certainly didn't spawn out of thin air. Rejection of the UN partion plan on the part of the Arab states was the casus belli. —Aiden 04:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

A casus belli is an act which legally justifies war. An act that causes a war is not necessarily a casus belli. If your neighbors violently attack you, that makes it legal to wage war on them so it is a casus belli. Refusing to recognise you might lead to a war but it is not a casus belli. I think we should only use the phrase in its strict legal meaning. --Zero^talk 13:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What would you propose? —Aiden 14:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any possibility of getting an accurate and npov item into the panel. As it stands "casus belli" is incorrect usage and "Arab rejection of the existence of the State of Israel" is the Israeli point of view only. The Arab point of view would be that the creation of Israel was the cause. We aren't supposed to choose one. --Zero^talk 16:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

this argument is irrelevant... obviously the Casus belli in the Arab states' eyes was the creation of Israel. Israel didn't have any Casus belli because it was on the defense - Israel had no aspiration for a war whatsoever which is why they accepted the UN Partition and planned to start establishing their state according to the UN resolution. The Arab states' Casus belli was illegal, since they had no justficiation starting a war according to the International Law rules of justified Casus belli. Therefore the correct definition is that the unjustified and illegal Casus belli of the war was Israel's creation , because the Arab states denied Israel's right to exist. Amoruso 17:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

in other words, there's simply no casus belli to this war. the war is an example to when starting the war itself, not concerning the rules of the conflict after the war started, is completely illegal and can't be justifed in any way. These are two different doctrines in Internatioal Law. Amoruso 17:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title of the article

Hello. I noticed recently that few historians used "1948 arab-israeli war" to title the subject but refers much to : the "Palestine War", the first of the arab-israeli conflicts. Here are some recently published :

Y. Gelber, Palestine 1948 : etc, Sussex University Press, 2006
A. Shlaim, The War for Palestine : etc, Cambridge University Press, 2001
Milner, Ending the war of 1948 : etc, 2005
T. Reinhart, Israel/Palestine: How to End the War of 1948, 2004
E. Karsh, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: The Palestine War 1948 , 2002
D. Tal, War in Palestine, 1948 (Israeli History, Politics, and Society), 2003
I. Pappe, The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948, Cambridge University Press, 2001.

In practice, the arab-israeli war start on 15 May, 1948. (It could not start before the existence of Israel) but the War (for - of - in) Palestine (ie, the Palestine War ?) started sooner.
What do you think about changing the title ? Alithien 08:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Palestine war could be very confusing, as there were infinite wars on palestine throughout history. 1948 Palestine war could be a good title but people might see it as the local battle taken before the invasion of the arab armies and there's the problem of defining palestine. In my opinion, best title is Israel's "War of Independence" - it's one side definition but so is yom kippur war title. Amoruso 10:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, you are too much :-) Alithien 18:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well my friend I don't think this title is biased. Independence War is the most common name for the country and like mentioned to me by User Gabi S. it's also the name for other countries' independence wars - it also involved more sides - see croatian, irish, scottish, mexican, romanian, greek, turkish, chilean wars of indepedence, and so on. The title should be Israeli War of independence, and taken into account Israel too was invaded, the only other option will be The holy war to obliterate Israel ... ? Amoruso 04:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Have a look here :

War of Independence is generally used to describe a war occurring over a territory that has declared independence. Once the state that previously held the territory sends in military forces to assert its sovereignty or the native population clashes with the former occupier, a separatist rebellion has begun. If a new state is successfully established, the conflict is subsequently known as a war of independence. War of Independence .

New title for page therefore should be ---> Israeli War of Independence. Amoruso 04:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Shalom Amoruso. I think that this little doesn't take into account the arab point of view concerning the events of 1947-1949.

I don't see any other option than using historians title to this article. That was my motivation to change the title.

Let's keep it like today. Alithien 07:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

But historians do treat it as Israeli war of indepedence. No other country was created in the war. The American Independence/revoultionary war also doesn't take into account the British perspective and so on. Amoruso 07:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep the title as it is. It has faults, but everyone knows what it means and it doesn't represent the point of view of any of the parties to the conflict. --Zero^talk 10:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. It clearly negates the palestinian point of view and nationalism revendication. Between 11/1947 and 4/1948 they fought for their independance but lost because the other two adversaries : Yishouv and Abdallah/UK coalition were far stronger.

Arab israeli war officialy started only on May 15th.

But never mind, everobody knows what the arab-israli war of 1948 means : Israel was invaded by 5 armies and they won. Good for me. Alithien 12:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This idea that the palestinians fought for their indepedence is.. let's say... highly disputed... Amoruso 12:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... If they are right it would mean that all the 113 british who were killed in Palestine between november and march 1948 were killed by Zionist Jews... But never mind. Let's keep the article the way it is. Alithien 17:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I permit to insist

Maybe you thought about this during these last 3 months. Maybe you didn't change your mind...
The events that are described in this article talked about the "Palestine war of 1948" and not only about the "1948 arab-israeli war". This latter started on May 15. Check the sources. There is few confusion about this in scholars' writings. Only in encyclopedias or on the internet. Alithien 11:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casus Belli as expressed by contemporary belligerents

A Casus belli need not be correct or accurate. Websters defines it as "an event or action that justifies or allegedly justifies a war or conflict" and the 'pedia article Casus belli notes that "Informal usage varies beyond its technical definition to refer to any "just cause" a nation may claim for entering into a conflict."

Therefore we need make no judgements about the validity of the casus belli. We need only to report what the belligerents claimed.

The "claimed just causes" were expressed on 15 May 1948 by the Arab League in their declaration of war [2]. The major greivance was "the aggressive intentions and the imperialistic designs of the Zionists, including the atrocities committed by them against the peace-loving Arab inhabitants, especially in Dayr Yasin, Tiberias and others". The League further argued that "This state of affairs is threatening to spread to the neighbouring Arab countries", and therefore "the Arab League, a regional organisation [under] Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations" was legally justified to intervene in collective self-defense.

The Declaration re-iterated the Arab rejection of any Jewish state; however this was NOT the "claimed just cause" for war. The Arabs said that "it would not be possible to carry [Partition] out by peaceful means, and that its forcible imposition would constitute a threat to peace and security in this area". In other words the foundation of a Jewish state was not the casus belli; it was the "forcible imposition" of a Jewish state.

The argument here is certainly tenuous, but it was made and should be reported so that wikipedia readers can judge for themselves. I will make appropriate changes.

Eleland 11:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UN

"parts of the resolution were never implemented, resulting in the Palestinian refugee problem."

This is one POV. The other POV is that since the resolution included the provision that "those who wish to live in peace" can come back there was never a way to see if this is implemented or not.

Until the desire to get rid of Israel all tougeter no one would know what could have been. Clearly hundreds f thousands of palestinians remain refugees so that they can claim the "right" to return to israel (and destroy it by their majority) 89.1.173.64 15:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the argument that generations of Palestinians have chosen to live in squalor simply out of a desire to "destroy" Israel is sweepingly paranoid and horribly racist. It is unworthy of serious comment. I should also point out that the right to enter, leave, or remain in one's country is a central plank of international law and does not belong in sarcastic "scare quotes".

Even if one accepts the rest of your argument, the line you quoted remains factual and NPOV. The quoted line doesn't say why the resolution was never implemented, simply that it was not. It ought to stand.

Eleland 18:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias in casus of belli

The existting casus of belli: "Arab rejection of "forcible imposition" of a Jewish state in Palestine" is inaccurate and completely ignores basic historical facts. It does not address numerous factors involved in the Partition plan. It also ignores the fact that there was no imposition as the Ottoman Empire lost the war with Britain and France gaining control of the Middle East (particularly in the western part). It also ignores agreements as well as the fact that the partition plan was devised so that there would be no refugees of either Jews or former Ottomans. However, Arab refusal to accept a tiny country for Jews led to war and Israel would have been far smaller than it is today. The Arab countries in essence violated UN Resolution 181.

If my information is in doubt please take the time to study from a history textbook and please read the ACTUAL TEXT OF THE PARTITION PLAN (UN Resolution 181): http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm

In the future, please prove and document with CREDIBLE ACADEMIC SOURCES: not opinions or articles or websites, but actual documents - that is the only way to minimize bias.

Moreover, there was no Palestine as a country. Palestine was a region under the Ottoman Empire. After World War One, the British took over. Then later the United Nations Mandate took into effect.

68.1.182.215 01:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comment indicates that you think "casus belli" means "the cause of the war". It doesn't. Eleland's description above is correct. Amusingly, to put Israel's position in as the casus belli is an imputation that the war was started by Israel! This whole argument is actually pretty silly, and I have solved it by taking that item out of the "war box" altogether. I hope it stays out. --Zero^talk 12:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have some questions :

Where is it written in that text it is a "declaration of war" ?
Where do they use the words "casus belli". I would have expected a sentence such as "bla bla bla is considered by us as a casus belli.
Who are the scholars who claim the casus belli of that war was UN Partition's vote ?

I think this is the only way to analyse this following NPov (in citing secondary sources and not on performing personnal analysis on (partial) primary sources)

If you claim we can perform personal "fair" analysis, I would claim that they decided to "intervene" only mid of April for some or even later for others after Nachshon, Deir Yassin, the mass palestinian exodus and the defeat of palestinian (and arab volunteers) forces.

Alithien 07:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I underline too that the article start describing events on 1 December 1947 and that the arab forces entered Palestine on 15 May 1948... So, what is the casus belli of the fights that started before ?

This makes me think (once more), there should be 2 articles. One talking about the civil war in Palestine under British Mandate (phase 1 and phase 2) and one about the 1st arab-israeli war (phase 3 to 5 with truces). [as explained above based on scholars' books titles).

The Palestine War of 1948 was divided into two main phase : a civil war (between jewish and arab Palestinians under British rule) and a conventional war (between Israeli and Arabs). Alithien 07:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The text does not say it is a declaration of war, because the Arabs did not want to call it a war -- rather an "intervention". As far as the League was concerned, there was no state to declare war on.

The text does not use the term casus belli, because it is a descriptive term invented by historians. As far as I know, no declaration of war has ever contained 'a sentence such as bla bla bla is our casus belli. The text does clearly argue a justification for the "intervention", which I posted on the page, and which has been constantly altered and reverted, with no justification or citations offered. Blaming this on my "personal analysis on partial primary sources" is a joke, and in any case the alternative versions have had NO citations of ANY kind backing them up.

The only really relevant objection is that the article describes events prior to the Arab invasion, which obviously wouldn't be covered in the casus. On the other hand, the article is called 1948 Arab-Israeli War, which as I understand it refers to the events starting 15 May. If the article is understood to include earlier violence, then there should be no "casus belli" line at all since it's too complex to sum up in a sentence.

Eleland 19:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Eleland. I agree with your final conclusion.

Note that the article doesn't describe "earlier violence". It describes 2 war that are tightly linked. A civil one and a regular one. The first one clearly started due to UN181's vote.

The second one started for many other reasons.

If the question was asked if the casus belli of the second one could be UN181. I would answer :

bellum (-i when genetive) is latine and means war.

You underline they claim for an intervention. So war -> no bellum ; no bellum -> no casus belli.

That is why I really don't think cassu belli is a good thing here.

Alithien 11:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's put this one to bed -- I'm deleting the line.

Eleland 15:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The casus belli would be the first act of war. That would be Egypt/Syria/Lebanon/Iraq/Transjordan's invasion. We cannot not have a casus belli. Nearly all war articles have them. It essentially has to be stated who started the war.--Shamir1 07:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what every history book ever written lists as the casus belli. --GHcool 01:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Again: "casus" does not mean "cause", it means "case". If it is correct that the Arab states started the war, then the casus belli is the action they claimed as justification of it (regardless of whether their claim was correct). Since there is no possibility of ever getting agreement on what to write in that box, the correct solution is to write nothing. --Zero^talk 02:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Excuse my ignorance of Latin, but Websters confirms that you are correct. The Arab states certainly started the war according to every history book ever written. I fear that if we were to list a casus belli, it would have to be Ben-Gurion's Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel and US President Truman's immediate recognition of Israel as an independent state. Phrasing it in this way is a knife that cuts both ways. If one knows the history of the region, it puts the Arabs in a terrible light. If one doesn't know the history, it puts Israel in a terrible light. --GHcool 07:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Once for all, if somebody thinks there is a casus belli for that war, he just has to find an scholar that has written "the casus belli is xxx". That's all.

Alithien 09:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There has to be a casus belli. So how is there a war in the first place? I mean, there has to be a starting point or at least several starting points. Wars don't just happen...there is an agenda and reason behind them and that is the case and cause of war.

Also, the casus of belli would have to be Arab rejection and violation of UN Resolution 181. If the resolution were accepted by both former Ottomans and Jews, then there would have been two states created and thus no refugees. That's right no refugees...the outcome of the 1948 war, which was started by Arab countries by rejecting UN Resolution 181 (among other factors), led to refugees as Israel won the war unexpectedly. The 2 states under the Partition plan would have located the 2 states where the major population centers were. And if the Arab countries had not rejected Resolution 181, there would have been two states and most likely peace and no refugees today in the immediate region. 138.16.27.200 05:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Would it be ok with everyone here if we phrase it something like this: casus belli: Arab states' frustration toward the continuing Jewish presence in the region." --GHcool 20:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No, that would be Original Research. There is nothing that can be put there without being an endless source of edit wars. --Zero^talk 04:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No, as per Zero. I add this is only one (among many) points of view that this is the reason of the arab intervention after 15 mai. So, please, find a scholar quote that states "the casus belli is (...)" Alithien 09:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this passage from Avraham Sela's Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East (copyright 2002) could help: "The failure of the British and American efforts to mediate a truce in Palestine left the Arab leaders with no alternatrive but to take a collective decision to intervene militarily" (pg. 71). --GHcool 19:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If nobody responds by tomorrow, I'll add this to the article as the casus belli. --GHcool 17:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm doing it. --GHcool 18:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That was not a sentence such as "the casus belli is..." so that was not acceptable. I will remove this within a few days if nobody else does it before... Sorry... Alithien 21:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What part of the statement do you disagree with? Perhaps we can use this as a starting point. Don't just delete it because the word "casus belli" isn't in the original quotation. --GHcool 06:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You can summarize this that way. Sorry for that. All the arguments are explained here above... Alithien 14:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other militias

A user added other militias to Israel's side. "Jewish militias: Haganah, Irgun, Lehi" and "Druze militias." The Jewish militias, at least the Haganah, was de facto Israel's army. As far as I know, the Druze did not form separate militias but were a subsect of the IDF. They had their own flag.[3], and you can find that flag pic (and upload it from) here. The Druze sided with Israel and actively fought on their side. I was surprised to see that this was not mentioned. It certainly should be as should the fact that some Bedouin Arabs also joined Israeli forces. --Shamir1 22:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../1/9/4/Talk%7E1948_Arab-Israeli_War_ce6e.html"