Talk:1948 Palestine war

Israeli usage of biological warfare

It seems undue for there to be an entire section dedicated to "Israeli usage of biological warfare". It's also only one paragraph. This information should probably be merged into the "Course of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War" section where appropriate.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

In its current state, referencing only Morris 2023, I agree. But I'm working on an expansion for the Nakba article with more sources (will probably post today), which could be used to further expand the section here (and in the Israel and WMD article). So could be merged now but then potentially could be expanded out again. Levivich (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Even if expanded I don't see why this small aspect of the war should have its own section. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Division of British Mandate

British Mandate was split and Transjordan (77% of the Mandate) was assigned to the arabs and Palestinians.

The text says contrary to obvious discrepancies in view of maps that the part assigned to Israeli was 78%. Wkaisa (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

"After the war, the former territory of the mandate was divided among the State of Israel, which captured about 78% of it [...]". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Recent changes

I've made significant changes to the lead, primarily to shorten its excessive length but also adding details about the Palestinian expulsions.

I think I've improved it a lot but that it can still be further improved, especially the opening paragraph. I considered taking out the mention of the Nakba and the expulsions from the opening paragraph but I wasn't sure about that.

Any feedback or suggestions are welcome. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I've added a brief mention of the exodus of Jews from the Arab countries which is linked to the conflict by many sources. Alaexis_¿question? 15:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Not linked as a major sub-topic of this war however, so I have removed it from the lead. nableezy - 15:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree, clearly not due for the lead.

@Alaexis, you brought this same concern up recently at Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict with a user replying that "Mentioning depopulation of Jewish villages in the lead would be a big WP:BALASP violation IMO. The sources do not give that anywhere near as much weight as the depopulation of Arab villages."

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

This is an entirely different matter. The exodus of Jews from the Muslim countries is directly linked to the war and was quite significant, impacting hundreds of thousands of individuals. In the words of Morris the war indirectly created a second, major refugee problem. Not mentioning it is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Alaexis_¿question? 20:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Why would we include an indirect result in the lead? Including it is a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT, which is NPOV. You are trying to pretend like emigration over a decade is comparable to the expulsions over a year, and that is not NPOV because the sources dont do that. One is a direct result, one of the primary results, of the war, one is as you quote is an "indirect" result. Why would those be treated the same? nableezy - 21:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

"Not mentioning it is a clear violation of WP:NPOV."

It's discussed in the article (in the Aftermath section) but is not due for the lead. Also note that including undue material can also be a violation of NPOV.

False balance is also a concern here in my opinion.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

What do editors here think about the final paragraph of the lead (which has been changing a lot recently) as implemented here [1] and which reads:

During the war, massacres and acts of terror were conducted by and against both sides. A campaign of massacres and violence against the Arab population, such as occurred at Lydda and Ramle and the Battle of Haifa, led to the expulsion and flight of over 700,000 Palestinians, with most of their urban areas being depopulated and destroyed. This violence and dispossession of the Palestinians is known today as the Nakba (Arabic for "the disaster") and resulted in the beginning of the Palestinian refugee problem.

@BanyanClimber, @Alaexis, @Levivich

-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

LGTM Levivich (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I could have sworn that meant let’s get this money but you learn something new everyday on the internet nableezy - 04:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Erasing the exodus of the Jews from the Arab/Muslim countries is counter to WP:NPOV. It wasn't "emigration over a decade." 37% of all Jews in these countries left between 1948 and 1951, that is, during and right after the war. Multiple sources describe this as one of the effects of the war, I'll be adding them to the list below. Alaexis_¿question? 22:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You know where your source includes that bit on 37%? In the chapter on Jewish emigration to Palestine. Not as part of its coverage of the war. The paragraph is

In Arab countries, the defeat of the Arab armies and the exodus of the Palestinian Arabs exacerbated an already difficult situation. In December 1947, a pogrom and the destruction of synagogues in Aleppo persuaded half the city’s Jewish population to leave. In Egypt, arrests, killings and confiscations catalyzed the flight of nearly 40 per cent of the Jewis hcommunity by 1950. In Kuwait, the minuscule number of Jews were expelled. In Iraq, the Criminal Code was amended in July 1948 such that Zionists were lumped together with Anarchists and Communists. The death penalty could be meted out to adherents or they could be sentenced to many years’ imprisonment. Enforced emigration to Israel became the officially permitted route out of Iraq for an increasingly oppressed Jewish community. Israel ironically became the unlikely destination for many Jewish Communists despite their opposition to Zionism. In Libya, Algeria and Morocco, there were periodic outbreaks of anti-Jewish violence. Over 37 per cent of Jews in Islamic countries – the Arab world, Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan – left for Israel between May 1948 and the beginning of 1952. This amounted to 56 per cent of the total immigration.

That is not treating that emigration as a major topic of the war, not in any way. nableezy - 22:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

"Erasing the exodus of the Jews from the Arab/Muslim countries is counter to WP:NPOV."

Nobody is erasing this history, it's simply not due for the lead. The war involves many, many aspects, not all which can or should be in the lead. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

As I've shown below, multiple sources clearly say that this was one of the effects of the war. Since no consensus seems likely to emerge here, I guess we'll need an RfC. Alaexis_¿question? 22:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm reconsidering that it might be worth including in the lead. What would be your proposed wording? This edit seems to present a false equivalence with the Palestinian expulsion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

They say it was an indirect effect or partially related. You have not shown that any sources treat it as a major subtopic to this topic. nableezy - 22:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the original wording that I removed of

In the three years following the war, about 700,000 Jews immigrated to Israel from Europe and Arab lands, with one third of them having left or been expelled from their countries of residence in the Middle East. These refugees were absorbed into Israel in the One Million Plan.

can probably be restored, and then modified or improved if need be. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

That's my opinion anyway. I don't think an RfC is necessary at this point but the the opinions of other editors would definitely be helpful. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

It doesn’t belong in the lead at all, it is not treated as major aspect of this subject by basically any source. nableezy - 20:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll have to read more about it to be honest, but for now I'm indifferent either way. BTW, it's inclusion in the infobox results should be reconsidered as well as part of this discussion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The lead is already quite long (5 paragraphs) and only recently had a tag removed which read "lead too long", so maybe that should be the deciding factor in not adding/including this content (which would likely require it's own paragraph). IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I would make it shorter (thus taking care of the false balance concerns) and more to the point, to make it clear how this is related to the war. Something like

“ The war was one of the reasons for the Jewish exodus from the Muslim world, with 37% of local Jews leaving Muslim countries in 1948-1951 ”

Alaexis_¿question? 22:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Sources discussing the effect on Jewish communities

1. Benny Morris, 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War. The exodus of the Jewish population is discussed at length (pp. 412-416) in the chapter Some conclusions.

“ The war indirectly created a second, major refugee problem. Partly because of the clash of Jewish and Arab arms in Palestine, some five to six hundred thousand Jews who lived in the Arab world emigrated, were intimidated into flight, or were expelled from their native countries, most of them reaching Israel, with a minority resettling in France, Britain, and the other Western countries. The immediate propellants to flight were the popular Arab hostility, including pogroms, triggered by the war in Palestine and specific governmental measures, amounting to institutionalized discrimination against and oppression of the Jewish minority communities. ”

2. Shlaim & Rogan, The War for Palestine. Rewriting the History of 1948. Edward Said (!) who wrote the Afterword mentions it as one of the effects of the war on the Arab world, and there is a chapter about the Jews in Egypt (pp. 140-142). Alaexis_¿question? 22:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

As opposed to length of Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem and Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited? No source treats this is a major subtopic of the war, at most they treat it as an indirect result. And as such it does not have weight to be in the lead of the article, especially in a way that appears to try to give the argument of population transfers in both direction cancel each other out, a common pro-Israel trope. nableezy - 22:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying it should have an equal weight. Anyway, I'm going to add more sources which will hopefully demonstrate the notability of this aspect. Alaexis_¿question? 22:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that the emigration from Arab and wider Muslim countries is not a notable topic. Nobody is nominating Jewish exodus from the Muslim world for deletion. The argument is that it is not a major subtopic of this war, and as such it should not be included in the lead. And you may not saying it should be given equal weight, but thats how you edited, and in fact you made that the final word on the topic of population movements in the lead. nableezy - 22:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

3. Colin Schindler. A history of modern Israel, pp. 63-64. The exodus is explicitly linked to the war:

“ In Arab countries, the defeat of the Arab armies and the exodus of the Palestinian Arabs exacerbated an already difficult situation [pogroms, arrests, killings, confiscations]. Over 37 percent of Jews in Islamic countries ... left for Israel between May 1948 and the beginning of 1952 ”

Alaexis_¿question? 14:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I posted the entire paragraph this is taken from above, it does not support in any way that this was a major aspect of this conflict. nableezy - 16:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

4.The Jews of the Middle East and North Africa in Modern Times, p. 150

“ The Arab-Israeli War greatly accelerated the process whereby the Jewish minorities in the Arab countries were being alienated and isolated ”

p. 177

“ The Arab-Israeli war may have been the catalyst for the mass exodus of Jews from most of the Arab countries ”

It also has a chapter The mass exodus begins about the flight/emigration of Jews from Arab countries between 1948 and the mid-1950s as a result of the war.

5. Anita Shapira also links the exodus and the war in Israel. A History. When discussing the immigration of Jews from the Arab countries she says (p. 223)

“ throughout the Middle East and North Africa relations between Jews and Arabs had been strained, especially since the establishment of the Jewish State and the War of Independence ”

Alaexis_¿question? 15:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

6. Ahron Bregman considers the defeat one of three main drivers of the exodus (A History of Israel, p. 71)

“ growing numbers of Jews also arrived from Arab lands where their

position had become perilous and nearly untenable as a result of growing nationalism reinforced by religion, the humiliating Arab defeat and the creation of Israel on the land of Palestine in 1948

”

Alaexis_¿question? 21:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

7. Avi Bekker, The Forgotten Narrative: Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries

“ In a few years, Jewish communities that had existed in the Middle East for more than 2,500 years were brutally expelled or had to run

for their lives... Following the Partition Resolution of November 1947... Middle Eastern Jews were the targets of official and popular incitement, state-legislated discrimination, and pogroms

”

That does not at all support the contention this is a major aspect of this conflict to merit inclusion in the lead. It doesnt even support that it should be in the body. nableezy - 16:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

None of these sources add any new strength to your argument. In fact the one source you cited says that the 1948 Palestine war "exacerbated an already difficult situation" and that the Jewish exodus occurred "between May 1948 and the beginning of 1952". So it's clear that this exodus is related to the war, but that it was still an indirect effect (Morris as you cited says "The war indirectly created a second, major refugee problem.")

Of course this history is worth mentioning/including in the article (which it is) but I still don't see any reason it belongs in the lead. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

There's more analysis of this issue/comparison in the article 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight:

The 1948 Palestinian exodus has also drawn comparisons with the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries, which involved the departure, flight, migration, and expulsion of 800000–1000000 Jews from Arab and Muslim countries between 1948 and the 1970s. In three resolutions between 2007 and 2012 (H.Res. 185, S.Res. 85, H.R. 6242), the US Congress called on the Barack Obama administration to "pair any explicit reference to Palestinian refugees with a similar reference to Jewish or other refugee populations".

Israeli historian Yehoshua Porath has rejected the comparison, arguing that the ideological and historical significance of the two population movements are totally different and that any similarity is superficial. Porath says that the immigration of Jews from Arab countries to Israel, expelled or not, was from a Jewish-Zionist perspective the fulfilment of "a national dream" and of Israeli national policy in the form of the One Million Plan. He notes the efforts of Israeli agents working in Arab countries, including those of the Jewish Agency in various Arab countries since the 1930s, to assist a Jewish "aliyah". Porath contrasts this with what he calls the "national calamity" and "unending personal tragedies" suffered by the Palestinians that resulted in "the collapse of the Palestinian community, the fragmentation of a people, and the loss of a country that had in the past been mostly Arabic-speaking and Islamic".

Israeli academic Yehouda Shenhav has written in an article entitled "Hitching A Ride on the Magic Carpet" published in the Israeli daily Haaretz regarding this issue. "Shlomo Hillel, a government minister and an active Zionist in Iraq, adamantly opposed the analogy: "I don't regard the departure of Jews from Arab lands as that of refugees. They came here because they wanted to, as Zionists." In a Knesset hearing, Ran Cohen stated emphatically: "I have this to say: I am not a refugee." He added: "I came at the behest of Zionism, due to the pull that this land exerts, and due to the idea of redemption. Nobody is going to define me as a refugee."

-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I rewrote some of the section about the Jewish exodus from the Muslim world [2]. I post this here for review. Especially @Alaexis I would like to make sure these changes seem accurate to you. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks alright, thanks! Obviously there were push and pull factors. Instead of the numbers for the 1948-1971 period, I would include the numbers for the 1948-1951 as the later migrations were caused by subsequent conflicts. Alaexis_¿question? 22:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Coming back to this again after some time I find that the sentence "The results of the war also led to the beginning of the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries." doesn't belong in the lead, and that it especially doesn't belong at the end of the paragraph about the Nakba. Although I was previously indifferent to its inclusion, I'll be removing it. Specifically the reasons for this removal are that it is undue for the lead and that the lead is already very long so there are certain things like this which will simply have to be omitted. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

As I have shown before, there are many sources which discuss this as one of the results of the conflict, so it should be reflected in the lede. Alaexis_¿question? 10:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

No, you showed that at most they considered it an indirect result, which does not merit inclusion in the overarching summary of the article. nableezy - 10:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 February 2024

The word "Palestine" in: "The following day, the surrounding Arab armies and expeditionary forces invaded Palestine, beginning the 1948 Arab–Israeli War." should be changed from Israel, as the invading Arab armies attacked the newly declared state of Israel, and not Palestine. Discover (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

This was discussed recently here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A1948_Arab–Israeli_War&diff=1192656620&oldid=1192654865

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The Arab armies entered/invaded the territory of the former British mandate for Palestine, of which the newborn State of Israel was only a portion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

6 March 2024

IOHANNVSVERVS, could you please explain your revert? The declaration only technically preceded the termination of the mandate. Your argument here isn't clear to me.

'Zionist leadership' is better phrasing than 'Jewish leadership' in this instance because the people in question were not rabbinical figures or religious leaders; they were statesmen and leaders of Zionist organizations such as the Zionist Organization and the Jewish Agency. إيان (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for creating a discussion about this.

Regarding my statement that "the declaration only technically preceded the termination of the mandate": I mean that even though the formal/official declaration was made the day before the the official end of the mandate, the termination of the mandate and the establishment of the State of Israel occurred practically at the same time and in fact it was only because the mandate was ending that the State of Israel was able to be declared/established. The one began when the other ended. So only technically (de jure) did the declaration happen before the termination of the mandate; but in reality (de facto) the end of the mandate and withdrawal of the British preceded the establishment of the State of Israel.

I understand your logic regarding "Zionist leadership' is better phrasing than 'Jewish leadership" and in this specific sentence you may be right, but in the lead generally, reliable sources do not only speak of 'Zionists' but often refer simply to '(the) Jews', 'the Yishuv', 'Jewish forces' etc as well, and so we should not only use the word Zionist(s) in the lead evey time.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

How about this wording? [3] - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 10:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Reverts

@IOHANNVSVERVS, I believe that you have made 2 reverts within the last 24 hours. Please kindly self-revert your last edit. Alaexis_¿question? 22:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I always thought one revert rule meant you can't revert the same content twice. Does it apply to simply making more than one revert on the same page even if regarding different content? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, see WP:3RR: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. Alaexis_¿question? 17:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks I should've known. Reverted. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

If they hadn’t removed your undue POV injection I would have. إيان (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Plan Dalet

Regarding this edit, I'm fine with leaving the details of Plan Dalet outside of the lede. If we do include the description ("an offensive operation conquering territory for the planned establishment of a Jewish state") then we should also provide a context for the plan, that it was implemented in anticipation of the intervention by the Arab states. Alaexis_¿question? 23:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

In what way is that relevant or due context? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I question whether that is the context or whether it was the other way around: the Arab states intervened in response to Plan Dalet. Levivich (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, this is what Morris writes in 1948

“ Plan D, formulated in early March and signed and dispatched to the Haganah brigade commanders on 10 March, was Yadin’s blueprint for concerted operations on the eve of the final British departure and the pan-Arab invasion that was expected to follow hard on its heels ”

Are there RS that contradict it? Alaexis_¿question? 16:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

See Pappe, W. Khalidi, et al. Alaexis’s POV injection pushes the perennial myth of somehow acting in ‘self-defense’ even as Zionist forces were on the offensive conquering territory. إيان (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Not just contradicted but I think it's one of the most hotly-debated aspects of Morris's work, and a central part of the Morris-Pappe divide. Examples:

Tessler 2009, p. 295: "some accordingly describe it as a blueprint for preventing the emergence of a Palestinian state and expelling the Palestinian population" (he goes on for pages describing the debate)

Shlaim 2009, p. 60: "Morris regards Plan D, the Haganah plan of early March 1948, as a military plan for coping with the anticipated Arab invasion. Pappé agrees with Khalidi that Plan D was also, in many ways, a master plan for the expulsion of as many Palestinians as could be expelled."

Masalha 2012, p. 182: "For instance, from the outset Morris and Pappé offered two completely contradictory interpretations of the political objectives of Plan Dalet, adopted by the Haganah militia in early March and implemented in early April 1948." Levivich (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

For an example of the view of the "other side" of Morris, here is Pappe from his 2017 Ten Myths book:

p. 56: "I claimed that the war was initiated by Israel in order to secure the historical opportunity to expel the Palestinians ... Moreover, these [Arab] troops were sent into Palestine not as a reaction to the declaration of the founding of the state of Israel, but in response to Zionist operations that had already begun in February 1948, and in particular in the wake of the well-publicized massacre in the village of Der Yassin near Jerusalem in April 1948."

p. 62 "The process began in February 1948 with a few villages, and culminated in April with the cleansing of Haifa, Jaffa, Safad, Beisan, Acre, and Western Jerusalem. These last stages had already been systematically planned under the master plan, Plan D, prepared alongside the high command of the Haganah, the main military wing of the Jewish community."

For more quotes see Ref #52 in the current version of the Nakba article, which includes more quotes from Morris's 1948, including this from p. 180: "As the months passed and the Palestinian Arabs, beefed up by contingents of foreign volunteers, proved incapable of defeating the Yishuv, the Arab leaders began more seriously to contemplate sending in their armies. The events of April 1948—Deir Yassin, Tiberias, Haifa, Jaffa—rattled and focused their minds, and the arrival of tens of thousands of refugees drove home the urgency of direct intervention. By the end of April, they decided to invade." Levivich (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

That's a lot to digest. I'll review the sources and respond later. Alaexis_¿question? 20:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Should we mention the exodus of Jews from Arab countries in the lede?

Should we mention the exodus of Jews from Arab countries during and immediately after the war in the lede of this article? Alaexis_¿question? 23:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• No, as discussed above in "Recent changes". The beginning of the exodus is only indirectly a consequence of the war and we should be striving for brevity in the lead of this article as there is much information to cover. Note also that though the lead is a summary of the body, the aftermath section of this article currently gives disproportionate attention to this aspect of the war's consequences and results. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. This was a massive event, with hundreds of thousands people fleeing or emigrating. Multiple reliable sources (see the list here) agree that this was one of the major consequences of the war. Therefore a brief mention is warranted. Alaexis_¿question? 23:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• No certainly it was an important event, but it was not an event that is a subtopic of this war. At most a small portion of the emigration was even indirectly related to this war, and the argument that we should include decades of immigration from a large number of countries not even involved in this war makes no sense. And the claim that reliable sources agree that it was a major consequence of the war is just not true. Morris says "The war indirectly created a second, major refugee problem", Schindler says In Arab countries, the defeat of the Arab armies and the exodus of the Palestinian Arabs exacerbated an already difficult situation. In December 1947, a pogrom and the destruction of synagogues in Aleppo persuaded half the city’s Jewish population to leave. In Egypt, arrests, killings and confiscations catalyzed the flight of nearly 40 per cent of the Jewis hcommunity by 1950. In Kuwait, the minuscule number of Jews were expelled. In Iraq, the Criminal Code was amended in July 1948 such that Zionists were lumped together with Anarchists and Communists. The death penalty could be meted out to adherents or they could be sentenced to many years’ imprisonment. Enforced emigration to Israel became the officially permitted route out of Iraq for an increasingly oppressed Jewish community. Israel ironically became the unlikely destination for many Jewish Communists despite their opposition to Zionism. In Libya, Algeria and Morocco, there were periodic outbreaks of anti-Jewish violence. Over 37 per cent of Jews in Islamic countries – the Arab world, Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan – left for Israel between May 1948 and the beginning of 1952. This amounted to 56 per cent of the total immigration. And he says that in a chapter on Jewish emigration, not in coverage of this war. It is an attempt at trying to balance what actually was a direct major consequence of this war, the expulsion and flight of 80-90% of the Palestinians from the territory Israel would come to control in this war, with an entirely different topic that was not a part of this war. And a ton of it was from countries not involved in this war at all. There are no sources that treat this as a major consequence of this war, and the claim that there is rests on the assumption that nobody will actually check, as it is so plainly not true, and been shown untrue on this talk page previously. Beyond that, there is no definition of immediately after that includes years and years later. nableezy - 00:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

No, it's a part of the IP conflict but not a significant-enough part of the 1948 war to merit being mentioned in the lead. While Morris says this is an "indirect" result of the war, I think the balance of sources do not treat this as a significant effect of the war, even indirectly. Further, in the RM for the article about the exodus, I quoted Tessler's book explaining the complicated factors he said was behind the exodus, and the war was only a small part of it; I won't reproduce the whole quote here but it applies to this RfC as well. It's something that happened over years during and after the war (1948-52), which is further evidence that while it's a part of the conflict, it's not a huge part of the (47-) '48 war. Levivich (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• No, it wasn't a part of the 1948 war. Lots of things happened as a result of the foundation of Israel, but that's not the topic of this article. Zero^talk 02:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  Elaborating, the exodus of Jews was a result of the foundation of Israel and the consequent implementation of Israeli policy. It would have happened without the war that accompanied Israel's foundation, so it is factually incorrect to call it a consequence of that war. Zero^talk 11:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

'It would have happened without the (1948) war. That is as hypothetical at least as the argument that the exodus was consequential on that war. For one thing, in an alternative history, one could imagine that the old Zionist priority to privilege Ashkenazi immigration over aliyah from 'Arabized' Jews (i.e. deemed slack, uneducated etc.,) probably would have prevailed, esp. given that they were the victims of a Holocaust whose mass immigration to the US and Great Britain was systematically blocked by those powers, for the usual electoral-antisemitic motives. 'Consequence' does not mean strictly an assertion of some mechanical 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' reasoning. Nishidani (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• Ummmm. There is way to much in the lede already. It should be cut significantly down with superfluous language removed. It DOES NOT read as neutral. Most of the factual information should be in the body of the article. With that said, if the lede stays "as-is" then, yes, information about an exodus should be added if nothing more than to provide a more balanced perspective and neutrality. Slacker13 (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

No: It wasn't a direct effect of the war; just an indirect side-effect in the aftermath of the conflict. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

agreed Slacker13 (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

You might want to amend your vote and clarify your position on this, @Slacker13. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• No I do not see evidence that this event was sufficiently closely related to be DUE in the lead of the article. (t · c) buidhe 04:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes The Jewish exodus from Arab countries was one of the most important consequences of the war, along with the Palestinian refugee problem. I agree with Alaexis. Marokwitz (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  The ethnic cleansing of Palestinians wasn't a consequence of the war: it began before the war, was partially a trigger for the war, and intensified during the war by design. It was a direct impact on the civilian population in the warzone. The subsequent exodus of Jews from other countries due to a range of push and pull factors, one of which was negative sentiment arising from the war (and the ethnic cleansing it entailed), was a consequence, but not a direct impact of the conflict. The two phenomena are in entirely different categories of immediacy to the conflict. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• No per Nableezy, Levivich and Buidhe, The 'exodus' narrative emerged later to draw a false equivalence between the radical programmatic ethnic cleansing which Yishuv and then Israeli forces imposed on Palestinians during the war, and what occurred to Jews in Arab countries after the cessation of hostilities, often at the open invitation of the new state of Israel, which adopted a policy of encouraging Jews in those countries to make aliyah, not always successively, as their conditions deteriorated very much as a consequence of the impact of the image of mass expulsions on the 'Arab street'.Nishidani (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes The Jewish exodus from Arab countries was one of the most important consequences of the war. Vegan416 (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Can you give any sources that say that a. it was a consequence of the war, and b. it was one of the most important of those consequences? nableezy - 23:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Rephrase and reorder footnote

IOHANNVSVERVS, why? إيان (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Why not? But really, I do think War of Independence should be the first alternate name mentioned as it is the more direct alternate name for the 1948 Palestine war, with the Hebrew Wikipedia titled as War of Independence while the Arabic Wikipedia is titled 1947-1948 Palestine war, with Nakba or War of the Nakba not being given as alternate names (from what I can see, though I don't speak Arabic - no bolded alternate name anyway)

Also Nakba should wikilink to Nakba rather than 'the catastrophe' doing so.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Why not? Because Wikipedia is not a reliable sourceǃ Come on, this is elementary stuff. إيان (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The Wikipedia articles were just an example.

The order of the alternate names doesn't really matter anyway. Feel free to edit it to your preferred version, I don't feel strongly about it.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Alaexis, given IOHANNVSVERVS's concession Feel free to edit it to your preferred version, I don't feel strongly about it, above, please explain. إيان (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, please explain your inappropriate removal of the reliable source. إيان (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

This statement isn't controversial, so I don't think that the inline reference is necessary per WP:LEADCITE but I don't have strong feelings about that and have no problems with restoring it. Alaexis_¿question? 20:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, @Alaexis, please stop making reversions based simply on "there is no consensus for this change". That is disruptive editing. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if you'd restore it. The citation is useful and doesn't go against WP:LEADCITE. It doesn't clutter the lead as it's placed within the note. It also offers a high quality academic source that is clear and informative and dispels any potential misconceptions like the impression that 'War of Independence' is somehow more of a direct alternative name than 'Nakba,' as we see at the beginning of this discussion topic. إيان (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding "misconceptions like the impression that 'War of Independence' is somehow more of a direct alternative name than 'Nakba", maybe I was hasty in my previous opinion and maybe you're right that they are equally valid alternate names - thanks for your feedback.

Are you asking me personally to restore the source removed by @Alaexis? You may be better asking them to do so as I'm indifferent to whether it's included or not.

Thanks, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your note IOHANNVSVERVS. No, I was asking Alaexis but I should have tagged them because the reply got stacked ambiguously. Apologies. Alaexis, would you reinstate the footnote the way I had it? إيان (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the reference. Alaexis_¿question? 09:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Photos

I'd like to start making changes and especially additions to the photos in this article.

Not sure how to deal with copyright concerns and attirbution requirements etc however. I believe all images from this time and place are now in the public domain due to how long ago this all was. But what requirements are there for attribution with such images? Do I have to attribute photographer as well as the specific source (Haaretz for example) I got the photo from? Not sure how this all works.

If someone could advise me or point me to where I can learn more about the relevant policies I'd appreciate it.

Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

They are not necessarily in the public domain in the US since the copyright can extend for 95 years after the publication for the works published at that time. Alaexis_¿question? 15:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Photo selection has been discussed above at Talk:1948 Palestine war#Images and NPOV and there is consensus that improvements would be welcome. IOHANNVSVERVS, you might like to familiarize yourself with the FAQ on Commons. On another note, one of the issues is that the vast majority of archival material out there is curated and provided by a belligerent military. إيان (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

9 March 2024

Alaexis, in your edit you argue that per the main article, only the second phase was peasant-led. Please understand that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Please also see the cited reliable source:

Nadan, Amos (2017-07-26). "Economic Aspects of the Peasant-Led National Palestinian Revolt, 1936-39". Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient. 60 (5): 647–682. doi:10.1163/15685209-12341436. ISSN 1568-5209.

The title alone should be sufficient. إيان (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I've reviewed the source and it seems like you're right and the uprising, unlike the general strike that had taken place before, was indeed peasant-led. Alaexis_¿question? 20:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

18%

It seems like Salt is talking about Jerusalem rather than about the whole Mandatory Palestine. The word "its" in the first line of page 231 refers to the subject of the sentence, that is "Jerusalem." Alaexis_¿question? 20:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The figure for Jewish-owned land in all of Mandatory Palestine before the war is 7% per e.g. Morris 2008 p. 65. Levivich (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, and a large part of the rest was publicly owned land. Alaexis_¿question? 05:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)