Talk:Zionist and Palestinian Arab attitudes before 1948

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 New article 2 Reverted, sort of 2.1 Main objection 3 POV flag

[edit] New article

I created this article from Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs after it was agreed on the talk-page to rename it thus. Renaming was decided upon after that article was nominated for deletion --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I came here because I wanted to see what changes had occurred since the move from the original title and noted that there had been none, except by you. It has survived very well, congrats, JaapBoBo. I had watched some of the mediation, as you had said, it did cover both sides already. Anyway, I decided to do a re-write of the lede for the reader with as little disruption as possible, since I did not catch all of the mediation. Between the time I made the edits and came back to drop this note, an intervening edit had occurred, as noted below. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted, sort of

I reverted this [1] for the following reasons:

• Most facts I removed, were either a result of the war/nakba or events that followed this very specific historical period, including 'external protagonists intervene' and what [Trans]'Jordan' eventually did. These tend to complicate the issue of the limited time period for which the article was written and are things that did not influence the 'attitudes' in this specific period. Attitudes were already set; yes, they maybe changed attitudes, but later.
• The included (former)ref 1 'At the exception of the Gaza strip officialy under the control of the Arab Palestinian government for all-Palestine but in practice under Egyptian military rule.' Should probably come from a book, and is also as a result of/after the fact.
• These shouldn't go in the lede anyway, and probably shouldn't be included below. Are they there now?
• The 1948 Palestine war is a neologism. I did a quick Google search as a 'sniff test' and it exists; Wiki's internal link is less than a year old and virtually all references are relatively new internet links or paperbacks with the ink hardly dry. I'm a stickler, maybe old fashioned, but I'd like to see a real book, at least, say, 10 years old. What info does the wiki 1948 Palestine war article tell you? It says civil war, some of whom were involved, and .... see the 1948 Arab Israeli War. Point taken?

That said and being unaware of this neologueism, I did note during my search the particular civil war aspects inferred and the fact that the term has been used by both sides, to an extent; it is also used by some New Historians, who I generally appreciate. So, after the revert, I added a sentence to include it and it's limited usage. I am still suspicious of the term, however, until I learn more about it; it could be that over the years it becomes more widely accepted and I can see possibly why, but not now. Wiki is not a vehicle to push new concepts, just to document them, until they start coming back as, well, books and RS. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guy. I will revert you.

I understand your point of view and your motivation but I will not start a debate with somebody who doesn't know the topic.

The content of this article is a mess : it is highly pro-palestinian oritented and I still don't know how to "correct" this because the problem also comes from the structure. It is really very bad and instead of discussing about the lead you should just start reading books on the topic, as did JaapBoBo and as I did before him. Ceedjee (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict : this was added by Ceedjee (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC) before reading former 1948CasualObserver answer). Ceedjee (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

CasualObserver1948, you wrote : "Some recent scholars on both sides have refered to this particular period as the 1948 Palestine War because of some civil war aspects."
Could you source : some / recent / and the cause you give ?

• This is not "some scholars". That is the majority (if not all) who are known : Efraim Karsh, "David Tal", Ilan Pappé, Yoav Gelber, Benny Morris, Rashid Khalidi, Tom Segev, Avi Shlaim, etc etc
• The first reference in google books dates back to 1958 : [2]
• And the reason is not some "civil war aspects". The reason is that there cannot be an Arab-Israeli war without Israel and the war period started in Dec 1947 while Israeli (and the war of independence) birth (and started) on 14 May 1948.
  

Concerning your claim this is a neologism. You are wrong (the proof is the first reference of 1955). In fact, you mix (as most people it is true) the period that starts in May and the other one that starts in Dec and that comprise the first one.
More of that, it is no sense to make a parallel on one side, with the 1948 Arab-Israeli War (= the independence war) where 300,000 Palestinians became refugees, and on the other side, with Naqba where 700-750,000 Palestinians became refugees. Ceedjee (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Nb: I answered here above without reading your comments.

I'm a slow typist, sorry. I won't revert you because I am on an 1RR pledge at WP:IPCOLL, even tho this article isn't included in that and that wasn't necessarily a revert. Obviously you read part of my page, thanks. I did look at the ONE ref you noted that was >10 yrs, thanks. It seemed more of a snippet, but never mind. My main objection is that the 1948 PalWar is a link with little info substantitive info in and of itself, it requires going other places. A far better way is to work on that article and flesh it out with your sources. I admited that I didnt know the terminology, I didnt say I didnt know the subject. I have no problem really with the facts the New Historians bring, but the 1948Pal war is a concept at this point, certainly not a fact of wide acceptance, yet. It is bedtime on my side of the world. Did you see my edits at 1948 Palestine War ? CasualObserver'48 (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Apperently you did see it, since it is already reverted there. Good night CasualObserver'48 (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your frustration.

But what can I do ? I gave you the reasons on your talk page.

NPoV doesn't mean artificially equilibrating things. It means giving all pov's on a matter.

I am not part of the current conflict on the I-P topics. I am out of that "game". And If I didn't subscribe in your attempt to cool the matters it is only because I would have written :

• whether people read on the matters, or they refrain from editing the articles.

Ceedjee (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Main objection

CO48 : "My main objection is that the 1948 PalWar is a link with little info substantitive info in and of itself, it requires going other places. A far better way is to work on that article and flesh it out with your sources. I admited that I didnt know the terminology, I didnt say I didnt know the subject. I have no problem really with the facts the New Historians bring, but the 1948Pal war is a concept at this point, certainly not a fact of wide acceptance, yet. It is bedtime on my side of the world" CasualObserver1948.

• I agree that the article is short. Sorry for that. I wrote on wp:fr the whole of the article related to the 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine that is FA there. Somebody translated it here. That is already a good stuff.
• These are not New historians. Please : click on the name I gave you : Efraim Karsh and Yoav Gelber. You made as if you were open minded but that is the 4th time I give these names to you ! And I added the Kimche brothers on your talk page. Do you know who they were ? And David Tal is not anecdotical either even if he wrote after the 10 years probation period.

" but the 1948Pal war is a concept at this point, certainly not a fact of wide acceptance, yet". Among people who doens't know the topic, I think you are right. And I don't care because among historians, there is not a single doubt about this formulation. Find sources that put the events from Nov47 to May48 in a chapter titled "The 1948 Arab-Israeli War" and we will discuss. (There are some. I found 2 who did so). Ceedjee (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Good morning, Ceedjee, it is a new day. We have differences that I am not going to debate any more now. I believe that it is fair and appropriate to leave this to other editors for their opinions and consensus will hopefully prevail as it should. Any comments by other editors? CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV flag

Between 1920 and 1948, Arabs systematically put forward force and violence against Jews and Zionists (in 1920 - 1921 - 1929 - 1936/39). They rejected all compromise with Jews, particularly during the hard years of Nazism growth in Europe. They also chose the Nazi camp during WWII (which is an attitude against Jews...), particularly their leader (Amin al-Husseini) who collaborated with them (according to some sources, even in the extermination of some Jews). All this should be developed because this is the main cause of the transfer idea (impossible to live with Arabs) and the events that lead to 1948 expulsions (as explained by Benny Morris in the Birth revisited) is also there. Ceedjee (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The 'transfer idea' came from Zionist ideology, not from Arab hostility. --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That is why Transjordans and British suggested this too. They were poisonned by Zionist ideology :-)

Another explanation is that the violence, misunderstanding, mutual suspision, lack of compromise, racism, mutual hatred, explosions of violence,... that grew and grew generated that common feeling in human race that living together was not possible and that the other only wanted to steal or kill... Maybe that could be the origin of the transfer idea... You never wanted to see a colleague you didn't like transferred somewhere else ?

And, did you notice that Palestinian Arabs also wanted the transfer during that period ? But of Jews : anywhere but not in Palestine...

Sure that if that would have happened, there would be a Pappé to explain us that Mufti and Hitler collaborated to exterminate Jews and this was in arab ideology as proven by excerpts of Koran taken out of their context and nobody would talk about the attitude of the jewish Zionists (arrogance, racism, extreme violence...) vs Palestinian Arabs because for some people, it is not history that matters but only politics and it is important to complain the victim.

Cheers, Ceedjee (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)