Talk:1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine article.
Article policies
1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
B 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.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia.
Israel Portal
1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine is part of 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):
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.


Contents

[edit] 1947-48 Palestinian civil war

I have noticed no article on the 1947-48 Palestinian civil war, though the French Wikipedia has a featured article on the subject. Anyone think they would be up to the task of beginning the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Twas Now (talk • contribs) 06:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Does this article (1948 Arab-Israeli War) cover it? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Someone did create such an article recently. See 1947-48 Palestinian civil war. It was just turned into a redirect because of its lack of development. I have just done some searches and found a few references and listed them here: Talk:1947-48 Palestinian civil war#Sources. Also Ian Pitchford rated the article as being of High importance, thus it may be something worth revisiting. --Abnn 22:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

The article, which was just turned into a redirect, was very poor.

Not sure if there are enough sources for such an article, but there does seem to be an indication that the 1947-1948 civil war differs from the later 1948 Arab-Israeli war.

Here is a source from the Jewish Virtual Library:

"The Jewish-Palestinian civil war, December 1947 – May 1948
The outbreak of hostilities and their expansion; the Palestinians'organization for war; the intervention of the Arab League; shaping theJews' war policy; the nature of the civil war and its outcomes."[www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/isdf/syl/IsraelWars_YoavGelber.pdf]

From FindArticles:

"The `Haifa Turning Point': The British Administration and the Civil War in Palestine, December 1947-May 1948.
On 14 May 1948, the mandate which had been awarded to Britain by the League of Nations to govern Palestine expired. The run-up to the end of British rule was marked by long months of a Palestinian civil war between Jews and Arabs, which significantly affected the manner in which Britain concluded its mission in Palestine. The war, which lasted from December 1947 until May 1948, was inevitably influenced by the fact that British rule, including the civil administration, the police, and the army, continued to exist formally until the middle of May. The prevailing argument in the ..." [1]

From Zeitgerchichtische:

"For the most part, Arab territorial aspirations eyed the territory designated by the 1947 UN partition plan as part of the future Palestinian Arab state. This pursuance of limited aims was the result of the belief held by the heads of the Arab regimes and their armies at a time when they were not capable, as individual combatants or as a coalition, of defeating Israel’s mili-tary, which had demonstrated its effectiveness during the civil war of 1947/48." [2]

--Abnn 22:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conversations copied from elsewhere

[edit] Palestine-related noticeboard

I have noticed no article on the 1947-48 Palestinian civil war, though the French Wikipedia has a featured article on the subject. Anyone think they would be up to the task of beginning the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Twas Now (talk • contribs) 06:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Does this article (1948 Arab-Israeli War) cover it? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Someone did create such an article recently. See 1947-48 Palestinian civil war. It was just turned into a redirect because of its lack of development. I have just done some searches and found a few references and listed them here: Talk:1947-48 Palestinian civil war#Sources. Also Ian Pitchford rated the article as being of High importance, thus it may be something worth revisiting. --Abnn 22:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello gentlemen,
I wrote most of the french version of this article.
The article 1948 Arab-Israeli War on the english wikipedia covers indeed that period but there is a pertinence disagreement around this.
From my understanding, the
1948 Palestine war is divided into 2 phases:
That sounds quite logical : Israel only existed after May 14, 1948 and the conflit started on Nov 30, 1947. Former israeli historiography had forgotten the period in-between and main historians specialized on the subject and (with different sensitivities) name this conflict that way today (eg. Efraim Karsh, Avi Shlaim, fr:Henry Laurens, Ilan Pappe, Eugene Rogan and most palestinian ones. Others such as Benny Morris talks about the 1948 War and Yoav Gelber who used the usual version of 1948 Arab-Israeli War even if the title of his book is Palestine 1948...
All of them nevertheless cleary cut the war into 2 periods : a civil war (sic) and a regular war
On the French wp, the current compromise is the following :
I am not confident that this solution could gather consensus here on the english wikipedia where there is some opposition to that (see talk page of 1948 Arab-Israeli war
Alithien 19:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you can try to write the article in userspace and bring it up here. Many times even legitimate articles are deleted because they are underdeveloped and in a contentious area. People tend to assume the worst. The way to counteract that bias against new articles in contentious areas is to create a relatively fully developed article that makes it blindingly obvious to all that an article on that subject is justified. It is only the short poorly referenced articles that can easily be deleted or turned into redirects. Often you don't have time to create a well developed article in mainspace thus you can start in userspace. Lots of references is key to success. --Abnn 21:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abnn talk page

Hell Abnn,
I have just seen your message dated May 10 on Talk:1947-48 Palestinian civil war.
Efraim Karsh and Yoav Gelber in books dedicated to this war used the words "civil war" to describe the period from Nov 30 to May 14. Benny Morris, in Victims (...) uses them too.
I will report them on the talk page. I think with what you got yourself, we have enough material to source the title 1947-48 Palestinian civil war.
Regards, Alithien 06:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

NB: I fully agree with your comments about sources and the idea of expanding this article in a dedicated area before to introduce it. The French version is sourced and well developed (fr:Guerre civile en Palestine de 1947-1948) but unfortunately my English is too poor so that I can translate this.
Regards, Alithien 06:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

I will be adding to this soon. I will have the entire french article translated into english soon.--James, La gloria è a dio 14:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Alithien 07:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Requested move

1947-48 Palestinian Civil War → 1947-1948 civil war in the British Mandate of Palestine — The title should be made less confusing, especially in the light of Palestinian Civil War and other Palestinian topics. — ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support: Sure; I don't oppose it! It's a bit of a long-winded title, but I agree with the points that you make about differentiating modern Palestine with the Palestinian mandate. If we're changing it, though, one might want to make it '1947-1948 Civil War in the British Mandate of Palestine,' so that it would be in line with the other civil war articles, all of which capitalise civil war. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 07:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: We can discuss between "1947-48" or "1947-1948" or "1948" and about the capitals or not but I think this is indeed better on the accuracy point of view. Alithien 17:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments: ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I would then suggest : 1948 Civil War in the British Mandate of Palestine and we "forget" the month of december like the year 1949 is "forgotten" for the 1948 Arab-Israeli war Alithien 14:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Why not 1947-1948 Civil War in Palestine? - the same as the name in the French wiki. (Or 1947-48 Palestine Civil War?) Much less long-winded. I think forgetting the year is not as good as for the other war, because the starting year is more important and serves to distinguish the two. John Z 21:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
A remark : I have just noticed all articles about civil wars (in the list given here above by it is just a genitive) have the form "somewherean civil war"... Maybe a dysambiguitation page should be justified. I am aware of 3 civil wars in Palestine : the great arab revolt of 1936-1939; this one discussed in this article and the recent one... Alithien 06:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I just came to this page and I'm truly shocked. For once, a genuinely dispassionte, NPOV introduction to an article on the Is-Pal conflict!

Don't know who is responsible for this, but they have my congratulations :) Gatoclass 02:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Alithien is the culprit who wrote most of the French article. It's not a genitive translated it. Eventually everybody should work hard to bring it down to the usual food-fight edit war. There's nothing about how the other side hatched an evil plot in Antarctica in the 3rd millennium BCE. It's just no fun as it is, it is definitely the wrong version, and makes everybody else look bad, grrrr.  :-)John Z 07:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the acknowledgement. It was indeed Althien who put a lot of effort and research into the original French article. Mine was a comparatively minor role, of giving up a few days to translate a large document that had repelled other translators, but which I rather enjoyed! --It's-is-not-a-genitive 13:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC).
As for its being the wrong version, I'm right ahead of you. I'll misattribute claims that [one of the sides] intended to take over Liechtenstein or something to start getting it back on track. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 13:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict ongoing?

The infobox says that the conflict is ongoing, while the article contradicts it by saying that the conflict ended on May 14, 1948. The latter is true, because this article talks about the war between the Jewish Yishuv and several Arab 'liberation' armies in Palestine, which merged into the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Therefore, I propose putting 'Merged into 1948 Arab-Israeli War' into the result instead. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 11:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Just realized that the infobox talked about the Arab-Israeli conflict in general. In that case, we should change the entire infobox, to focus on the conflict that this article is about, and not something entirely different. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 11:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, there! The infobox is about Arab-Israeli conflict and thus is not 'entirely different'... indeed, the French version, from which I translated this article, has a very similar infobox that covers the whole of the Arab-Israeli conflict. You're right though, that it is too general, going by the fact that other episodes of conflict on the English WP each have their own personal userbox, and was put there provisionally until someone a new one was made by someone with better userbox creation skills than I. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 12:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello !
There is an important matter I would like to underline. We cannot merge this in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. In fact, both 1947-48 Palestinian Civil War and 1948 Arab-Israeli War must be merged into 1948 Palestine War.
From my point of view, this is important for accuracy and neutrality. Alithien 13:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
About the current userbox: could one really go so far as to say that the United Kingdom were one of the combatants? Given that their main activity during the war was getting on out of there, I wouldn't say so personally. Also, it strikes me as somewhat reductive to claim that the war was between Jewish people and Arabs, and I feel that it would be better if we provided the individual organisations involved in the war. I can make such changes if you all approve. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 10:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It is a civil war that developed step by step to a regular one. I don't think British should be considered combattants. I would personnally add something like :
  • militias involved on the palestinian jewish side : Haganah, Irgun, Palmach and Lehi (from 10,000 men in december to 30,000 men in May)
  • militias involved in the palestinian arab side : Jidah al-Muqadas, arab volunteers from Arab Liberation Army (no more than 10,000 men)
  • British troops and auxillieres responsible of the order : 1st infantery division, 61st infantery brigade, 8th infantery brigade, 2 mecanised regiments, several artillery regiments, Arab Legion contingents, several RAF squadrons (around 100,000 men leaving the country).
Alithien 13:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
nb: references should be needed.

[edit] Title

It seems there is a disagreement on the title.
Humus, after some discussion modified this to 1948 Civil War in the British Mandate of Palestine. Main reason was that it avoided misunderstanding with the current meaning of the word Palestine and with the current civil war.
Ian reverted to 1947-48 Civil War in Palestine, arguing that the British Mandate of Palestine is not a pertinent name for the region and that Palestine is the most pertinent one.
I don't have a final mind about that but to keep some logical, we should take a decision because I mind changing the title of all the links related to this article :-(
I think -indeed- that for many people, the use of the word Palestine here is strange because its meaning has changed. On the other hand, it was named Palestine at that time. See eg Palestine Post but on the other hand see British Mandate of Palestine.
Your mind ? Alithien 10:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems nobody minds :-(.
I sincerely don't know. From my point of view :
  • 1948 Civil War in Palestine is valuable because it is short and simple even if there could be some misunderstanding with the use of Palestine. Today most of people see behing this word the palestinian state where in this article, it is an geographic area...
  • 1948 Civil War in the British Mandate of Palestine is - I think - more accurate but long, maybe be uselessly long...
user:Ian Pitchford wrote second one is not pertinent but I - sincerely - don't understand why...
There are critics when Palestine is chosen and critics when British Mandate of Palestine is chosen, does somebody have a compromise or comments ? Alithien 18:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It could, with considerable objectivity and historical accuracy, be called Western Palestine (or perhaps, for the most scholarly, "cis-Jordan"). Thanks for your message, and ongoing efforts. Hertz1888 19:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The term British Mandate is an historical one. Obviously the region is now called Palestine. Bear in mind also that "Palestine" and "Palestinian" most often refer to the Palestinian Authority (PA) and PA citizens.

A pro-Arab Wikipedian and I (a pro-Israel Wikipedian) worked together to create Definitions of Palestine a few years back. --Uncle Ed 04:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The British Mandate of Palestine didn't terminate until May 1948 according to the wiki article on same. So to me, "1947-8 Civil War in the British Mandate of Palestine" seems technically correct. And even if NOT the precisely correct term, it does prevent any misleading implications or confusion about the modern usage of the term "Palestine"; using a historical term for it to me is like referring to a war in the Byzantine Empire - even if that wasn't the term they used for it at the time, when writing articles about it now, use of the term makes sense. Kaisershatner 13:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
That sounds very logical. I share your mind.
Scholars, when they talk about the events from nov47 to apr49, ie when they talk about the civil war and the arab-israeli war talk about the 1948 Palestine War.
But this is understandable because it covers a wider period than only the civil war period in the british mandate. I also think "the more accurate, the better".
I also found on the website of Yale University the words : Palestine Mandate : [3]
Could *1947-1948 Civil War in the Palestine Mandate* be satisfying ?
(personnaly I prefer in the British Mandate of Palestine...) but I prefer we discuss this once far all...
Alithien 08:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
UN resolutions all talk about Palestine and it sounds more like a reference to a country than to an area (see uno website).
Another issue : Is "Mandatory Palestine" English such as here ? Alithien 08:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] suggestion

Ok. I suggest this Alithien 07:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC) :

  • 1947-1948 Civil War in mandatory Palestine
Y Done (nb: I will never understand the use of capitals letter in English - if someone can fix it, please don't hesitate). Alithien 08:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Y Done The phrase Mandatory Palestine, like Confederate Richmond, is a proper noun.—PaulTanenbaum 04:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rise of violence

This sections was written so that none is pictured guilty or responsible.
The reason is that historians don't agree on this matter and nobody can fin the truth about that.
Theses sentences :

Irgun and Lehi, acting indepently and starting early in December 1947, followed a strategy of placing bombs in crowded markets and bus stops.[8] The Arabs retaliated by placing bombs of their own.[9]

where they were added picture the scene as if Arab *defended themselves*, which is a controversed point of view.
If we want to keep this article neutral or even improve its neutrality (which is feasible), I suggest to add a section "controverses" where we could detail this (but not starting to pov-push the article step by step as if it where part of the Palestine).
Regards, Alithien 07:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The way it was written was: Arab action followed by Jewish reprisal, i.e. like the Jews *defended themselves*: In a counter-attack, Lehi ..., and in the preceding paragraph: In reprisals, some soldiers from the strike force, Palmach .... Morris pov on the three bombings is different and I added that. It doesn't say the Arabs defended themselves with bomb attacks. Right now both sides are pictured as taking reprisals, which seems more honest to me. --JaapBoBo 15:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand.
Look [4]
The first exemple is the famous attack were Irgoun throw a bomb inside an arab crowd; with is followed by an arab reaction and a haganah reprisal.
I don't see where you see that the Irgoun defends itself.
After that, there was an exemple where the Jihad al Muqadas throw a bomb and that is followed by a reprisal.
Two paragraphs, two exemples and the most knowns.
with your version, two times, there is an irgun attack followed by reprisals.
That is not neutral.
I revert this.
Alithien 16:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say the Irgun defended itself, and I maintain that the version as you want it blames primarily the Arabs, while the facts are that Irgun perpetrated a bomb attack on the Haifa oil refinery workers and that Morris states that the three Arab bombings were retaliations for (a strategy of) Irgun and Lehi bomb attacks on civilians that are further not specificied. Since they were not specified you want to act as if they didn't happen?
You seem to want to keep the three bomb attacks by Arabs in, but keep the Jewish 'strategy of bomb attacks' out? I think that is very pov! --JaapBoBo 07:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact Irgun started a campain of placing a bomb is correct but if you start considering who started first and who acted in retaliation of what, you start the infernal spiral of pov-push. Everybody justified his acts by retaliation of former acts.
It is impossible and unrelevant to try to state who would have started first and who would have been more responsible than the other. Read eg : Pappé, The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1947-1951. There were numerous acts of violences, and the spiral grew. The spiral is a word of Pappé ! Gelber describes the event exactly the same way.
In the article, there are currently 2 exemples, one where each side where the agressor and that lead to numerous deads.
I will check the global idea of Morris but I am quite sure he shares Pappé and Gelber's minds.
Alithien 07:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Alithien. I don't like the way you changed it now; especially putting the word [also] in. Here we have this knowledge from Morris, and you refuse to use it. Surely Morris's quote suggest that the Yishuv was at least as guilty of the rise of violence as the Palestinians. And usually Morris is right when he reports straight facts.
Be sure to read p. 75 ('The British quickly ... ') in the 'Birth ... Revisited', it gives the opinion of the British high commissioner Cunningham about the rise of violence.
Here's another quote from Cunningham:
The initial Arab outbreaks were spontaneous and unorganized and were more demonstrations of displeasure at the U.N. decision than determined attacks on Jews. The weapons initially employed were sticks and stones and had it not been for Jewish recourse to firearms, it is not impossible that the excitement would have subsided and little loss of life been caused. This is more probable since there is reliable evidence that the Arab Higher Committee as a whole, and the Mufti in particular, although pleased at the strong response to the strike call, were not in favor of serious outbreaks.
It's from an interesting page: [[5]]. --JaapBoBo 17:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi JaapBoBo,
Thank you for the Palumbo article. I don't have much about him and I had not that one.
I do not say (and it is important the article would not make readers think) that what happened between dec47 and mar48 in the mixed towns is of the responsability of the palestinians. As it is important people should not think it is the responsability of any other.
I don't write this because I would be whether pro-israeli, pro-palestinian or defender of a third way in between where I would like to state nobody is guilty.
I write this because our historians do not agree on the events of that period.
Eg, Yoav Gelber writes (Palestine 1948, p.24) that these famous 3 attacks "marked a new evolution of the [civil] war" (I must check precise wordings) to which british soldiers participated and to which IZL and LHI retaliated in organised 5 simulatenous attacks against british soliders...
Don't think it is not reliable because he would be poved. If you want to go further to understand the mess of 1948, you will understand that all these historians -without exceptions- are pov-ed and that if they all are reliable, they all introduced matters a pov-ed way.
The problem is that we cannot judge by ourselves who is and who is not because if they are pov-ed we are also and we cannot do anything BUT reporting their claims pov or not.
To come back on the matter :
  • Morris is reliable, but when Morris writes the "intention" of the arab was retaliation, do you think he got this from a document (he doesn't read arabic...) or do you think he just gives his mind (?) or, -as I think- he just has when he writes a book to link facts between themselves and use words. When he writes p.66 in his book "retaliation" it doesn't have the same meaning as when you add retaliation in the article.
  • I put two attacks in the summary of the "rise of violence". These are examples. In the first one, IZL throw a bomb - Arab retaliate - Palmach and Haganah retaliates. In the second example, Arab throw bombs - Lehi retaliates on British and later on arabs.
  • If we add concerning the 2nd attack that IZL started first, we would picture the events as if IZL started all the mess, which is blaming one side and which the gathering of all events and of all minds do not show.
  • I suggested before that you gather all the events as I did here, chronologically. You answered that unfortunately you didn't understand French, that I can -of cours- understand. If you could read French, you will see that it was a step by step process with numerous attacks from all sides. If you prefer, we could write that the first large scale attack were performed by Salameh soldiers who attacked Tel-Aviv neighbourhood... But what would it bring to the article or to a synthesis ? Nothing.
Alithien 06:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
nb: I go and see why I added the [also].
-> I removed this because I don't why the IZL would be the only one to be cited in the description of the situation.
More at the contrary of what Palombo claims, the IZL didn't answer to the "demonstration" by "throwing bombs". On 11 december, before the first IZL attack, 125 deaths were already reported (New-York Time - Dec 11/48). I don't know who to explain IZL motivations a npov-way but one thing is sure, that was not an answer to "demonstrations". They are 2 myths : the "right-wing" myth that arab attacked first and the "left-wing" myth that jewish attacked first.
They are two way to respect NPoV here. We give all the events chronologically or we just don't finger any guilty.
If you think the current version fingers a guilty, that make a suggestion here first so that we can discuss this. Alithien 06:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I do think that at least the Yishuv didn't want the violence to stop. They needed Arab violence as an excuse and cover. As for Gelbers pov, I think Gelber is not objective.
The way you write it it sounds like the Arabs were most to blame. I'll change something. --JaapBoBo 10:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
How would you know, you didn't read Gelber ?!
I neutralized your edits. Hope this verion satisfies you. Alithien 12:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deir Yassin and Nachshon or Plan Dalet

This article is not about Plan Dalet or operation Nachshon. All historians but one Among scholars only one states that Deir Yassin was part of Plan Dalet. And more, it is recent. He didn't state this in his former book about the 1948 war. Pappe also stated theyre were 200 victims at Deir Yassin. And [in] his last recent book, he states [there were] 97 massacred people + dozens of victims during the battle while all(*) scholars still consider around 100 victims at for the full total.
(*)even Palestinian scholars
These controversies can be introduced in wikipedia in the main article about Pappe. Not in this summary.
Ceedjee (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ceedjee says: All historians but one state that Deir Yassin was part of Plan Dalet.. Is Gelber the one? --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I wrote too fast and there are other english mistakes in my paragraph.
But you understood perfectly, didn't you ?
Ceedjee (talk) 07:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name

I can see that there's been some debate about the name of this page in the recent past, and so I apologize to stir things up again, but "Mandate Palestine" is, as far as I am aware, not an appropriate term. Mandate is a noun, not an adjective, and so it really needs to be "the British Mandate of Palestine" or "the Mandate of Palestine". "Mandatory Palestine", while it seems good, having turned Mandate into an adjective, is also no good as far as I am concerned; it raises the question of what is mandatory. You wouldn't write Obligatory Palestine or Compulsory Palestine, so I don't think we should use Mandatory either. LordAmeth (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi,
Thank you very much for your interest !
I share your mind.
The only issue I see is to use what revelant sources use, forgetting about the misguiding it could have because else there will be no solution.
Mandatory Palestine is well referenced on google books : [6].
Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Settlements were armed from the beginning.

The whole of this article is badly distorted by the impression given by statements such as: during the British mandate, the authorities always prohibited the possession of weapons, and confiscated all that they found.

Disarmament of the native population seems to have been consistent and effective since the capture of Jerusalem by the British in Dec 1918 (and they were only lightly armed before that). However, the settlements had been arming themselves since their inception over 30 years earlier - eg Ro'i, Yakov. "The Zionist Attitude to the Arabs 1908-1914." Middle Eastern Studies 4:3 (1968), p206 (cited Morris, Righteous Victims, p56): On June 24 [1891] a group of Jerusalem Arab notables sent a telegram to the grand Vizier of Constantinople asking that the government halt Russian Jewish immigration and bar Jews from purchasing land. "The Jews are taking all the lands out of the hands of the Muslims, taking all the commerce into their hands and bringing arms into the country,"

Here is what Huneidi says of the first disturbances in 1920, p.40 of "A Broken Trust": a secret telegram from General Headquarters in Egypt to the War Office on 18 April 1920 indicated that 'no doubt Jews possessed large numbers of firearms', and that inspection of casualties bore this out. ... [71.FO 371/5- 118 E 3478 20 April 1920. Secret.]

Still in 1920, Ibid., p.138 Following the disturbances, the Muslim-Christian Association of Jaffa wrote to the military governor complaining that 'the Zionist Committee [sic, Zionist Commission] was training their young on military grounds, which fact was observed on the same day when thousands of them demonstrated in a military way, carrying arms and sticks of every description.'[64. FO 371/5114 E 6982/61/44, Allenby to Lord Curzon, l0 June 1920. The letter was signed by Taher About Seoud, Aref El Rigali [sic], and Ibrahim El Schakassi [sic]. The letter also alleged that the Zionist Committee, 'composed chiefly of Russian, American and German members, accustomed to revolutions, have jointly planned this programme so that news may reach Europe of the tyranny and bloodshed caused by the Arabs to the so called innocent Jews, and thus attaining their devilish aim'. The Muslim-Christian Association also asked that a commission be appointed to investigate the killing of Jews and Arabs in the riots since the Arabs claimed that 'most of the wounded Jews had wounded themselves to increase the number of the wounded'. This letter was among copies of protests presented by four Palestinian societies to the military governor of Jaffa, which Allenby was transmitting to the Foreign Office. Allenby had received them from the Comite Central [sic] du Parti de l'Union Syrienne in Cairo, relative to the British government's policy towards Zionism. In replying, Allenby confined himself to 'a bare acknowledgement of the receipt of these protests' and that he was communicating them to HMG 'as desired'.] They pointed out that the government had collected all arms and ammunition from Christians and Muslims but 'the said law was never put in force on the Jews'.[65.The document merely mentions the 'said law' and gives no more details. It probably refers to martial law which was still in force at the time.] The letter claimed that the British authorities had recruited an army 'all composed of Jews and these have misused the confidence placed in them and used their arms against the Moslems and Christians', adding that several complaints had previously been made against Jewish soldiers at Jaffa, Ludd and Ramleh. The Muslim-Christian Association therefore called on the government, in the interest of peace and to safeguard their 'lives' and 'property', to initiate the 'immediate expulsion' of all Jewish soldiers from the country, 'retaking their arms' as well as those found in the possession of other Jews. It called for a thorough search for arms in Zionist institutions, confiscation of the same and 'severe punishment' of the Jews, who were the cause of the trouble. Should the government not wish to expel Jewish soldiers, 'an army of Arabs under the British flag should be recruited to defend the Moslems and Christians against the Jews'. [66.FO 371/5114 E 37-1/51I4 E 6982/61/44, Allenby to Lord Curzon, l0 June 1920.]

The Palin Report appears to think that (perhaps in Jerusalem only), there had even been collusion with the military government eg pp. 52,68: It seems scarcely credible that the fact that these men had been got together and were openly drilling at the back of Lemel School and on Mount Scopas [sic] should have been known as it undoubtedly was, to the population during the month of March - it was organised after the demonstration of the 8th - and yet no word of it reached either the Governorate or the Administration until after the riots.

Immediately after the 1920 disturbances, action was taken by the military forces against these armed groups, with Jabotinsky sentenced to a term of 15 years. (Husseini was simlarily convicted in absentia by a secret court, the proceedings of which have never been divulged and may be lost). The policy of the military administration on disarmament of the settlers was thrown into reverse on the arrival in June 1920 of the new Zionist High Commissioner, Hubert Samuel, who released Jabotinsky (and pardoned Husseini).

In 1921 (Ibid., p.138) Immediately following the May 1921 riots, Samuel initiated a scheme for the defence of Jewish colonies. In order to 'provide for the possible contingency of attacks upon Jewish Colonies' the high commissioner deemed it necessary to 'draw up a general defence scheme' as well as special schemes for different districts, 'in conjunction with the Military Authorities'. ... In his 'Political Report' for June 1921, Samuel reported the details of this scheme to the colonial secretary Winston Churchill. He wrote that, since his speech of 3 June, the Jewish population had been 'very nervous and apprehensive' and considered the speech a 'severe set-back' to their aspirations. He maintained, however, that this feeling had been 'a good deal modified' since Jewish colonies had been 'provided with Arms (under conditions strictly limiting their use to self-defence)'.53 On 22 June, Samuel despatched a 'top secret' telegram clarifying his proposals: 'a small number of Jewish special constables, provided with police uniforms and rifles, have already been enrolled'; additional rifles and ammunition 'have been or are being placed in sealed armouries in Colonies'; 'bonds' were being taken against misuse. District governors would 'in the event of disturbances authorise opening of armouries and arming reliable colonists named in lists previously prepared', but that the head of a colony could also give 'necessary authority' in case a sudden attack took place.

Meanwhile, large numbers of guns were being smuggled by the Zionists - and it's not even clear that the government was really trying to stop it happening. eg: Ibid., p.140 In December 1921, the 'Political Report' stated that an event which had caused a 'considerable amount of adverse comment' in the press was the seizure of 300 revolvers and a quantity of ammunition at Haifa consigned to Isaac Rosenberg from an Austrian individual named G. Fleikheer. The revolvers were concealed in beehives and steel cylinders, and one of the consignees according to the report, had been arrested while the other absconded.[69. C0 733/8, Deedes to Churchill, Political Report for December 1921, Secret Despatch.]

In it's present condition, the article reads like propaganda, as if this problem blew up suddenly, or came about as a result of WWII, and that any "blame" could probably be apportioned equally. The easily ascertainable facts show that one party (only) was arming itself against the other. Obviously, we don't say that, but we must indicate that the Zionists had never been disarmed, far from it. They'd been heavily armed virtually since their arrival, and had been well-trained for at least 28 years. PRtalk 12:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi PR,
This article deals with 1948, not 1920... ??? I don't understand what you mean.
Could you please in less sentences indicate what you would like to modify or see modified ? not English
Could you please precisely show what sentence you owuld like to modify or see modified.
Thank you. Ceedjee (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The article treats both communities as being relatively defenseless, and tells us that that is the way the British had kept them. Then it implies that the "Arab side", with presumably considerable outside State assistance, went on the armed offensive first. It implies that only later did the Yishuv catch up and overtake the native Palestinians in weaponry (and perhaps tactics?). That's so misleading as to be a complete propaganda travesty, all the serious evidence I've ever seen suggests that, right from the beginning (ie 1920 and even a lot earlier again), the Zionists were specialists in warfare, and either heavily armed, or rapidly to become heavily armed. Even more damagingly, the British (immediately after the short-lived occupation to 1920, before the Mandate of 1922), far from being even-handed, was almost absurdly supportive of the immigrants. If there are sources that claim something different, then by all means include them too. But I'd be very surprised if there was anything much different except from thoroughly POV publications, depending on very much non-reliable sources. PRtalk 13:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Yishuv was not defenceless but it was not strong either.
Please remember this article deals with the situation between nov47 and may48.
What sentence is not good ? Ceedjee (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)