Talk:History of Israel
From Academic Kids
| Contents |
History of modern Israel
This page discusses the history of modern Israel. I assume it is simply because the initial source was the CIA factbook.
Is this the right page for the history of ancient Israel? I'm wondering where to put links like David, Solomon, Rehoboam, and related. History of Levant seems too broad. --Alan Millar
I would suggest ancient Israel. Something to keep in mind, though, is that for a time Israel was only the northern of two Hebrew kingdoms, and I would be suprised if you weren't intending to discuss both.
Good idea. I'm going with History of ancient Israel and Judah. --Alan Millar
Don't you think that History is implicit in ancient?
I can think of exceptions. For example an entry on "Ancient Rome" might give a description of the layout of the city, promonent landmarks, etc., without much discussion of history, but perhaps this example is irrelevent. :-)
Two articles need integration
The two articles on the page need to be integrated; and we need to decide how history of Israel, Palestine, history of Levant and history of ancient Israel and Judah relate to each other. They all overlap, though they cover different material. (The first two concentrate more on the modern period, while the later two on the ancient; but even Palestine has some info on the ancient period as well.) Finally, I think people need to be careful, especially when discussing modern history, to try to avoid bias towards either side. I must admit I myself have probably been a bit biased towards the Palestinians, though maybe not as much as say Joseph Saad; some other editors (RK for instance) have a quite strong pro-Israel bias. We need to work hard to make sure the articles remain neutral in the current conflict, such that a supporter of either side could read them, and mostly agree with what is said within. Of course one result of this is we will spend much more time writing about what each side says happened, than what actually happened; but that is inevitable when the history is at the centre of so much dispute. -- Simon J Kissane
This page seems a bit deficient on the actual creation of the state of Israel. I will try and flesh this out a bit because it is fairly important. sjc
- Very deficient. Compare it to the American Revolutionary War article which goes into detail about significant events and about organizations and leaders who also played a role after the revolution.
- There are events, organizations and leaders of comparable significance in the pre-1948 history and after but they are not mentioned here.
- I would encourage you to write this up, I think it could easily be well documented and would not be controversial.
Zionism and Jewish anti-Semitism
I'm going to remove yet again the parenthesised assertion that Zionism does not enjoy universal support of Jews even today. While technically true, it's grossly misleading in the context of the relevant sentence. The controversy of Zionism 100 years ago was very different from disagreements that exist today. Back then the very idea of a Jewish state was questioned by many if not most Jews; thus Zionism was controversial. Today, Zionism in the sense "belief that Jews should have a state of their own somewhere in the historical homeland" is no longer controversial among Jews, as a result of the Holocaust and some subsequent events; even Jews who don't support Zionism in the stronger sense (i.e. they don't immigrate to Israel themselves) almost unilaterally support the idea of Israel and its right to exist. While there are Jews who reject the legitimacy of Israel and its right to exist, they form extremely small fringe groups, and no real controversy exists. The sentence in its current form equates the very real disagreements then with the extremely fringelike disagreements now, thus creating an entirely wrong impression in the reader's mind. The result is propaganda.
There's no reason for that addition in the first place; to assert that Zionism was controversial then and to say nothing about now is the right solution, since the article speaks of history of Israel, not of contemporary beliefs of worldwide Jewry. --AV
AV: Do you like the new version better?
I think the fact that some Jews today, even if they are only a small fringe (and I don't deny they are), oppose Zionism is important. If even a few Jews oppose Zionism, it proves that opposition to Zionism isn't necessarily grounded in anti-Semitism, something many Zionists would want people to believe. A Jewish anti-Semite is a contradiction in terms. Though I agree that sort of discussion doesn't belong in the History of Israel article. -- Simon J Kissane
- Yes, that's much better, thank you. I think it's quite acceptable to me.
- Jewish anti-Semitism, alas, is not a contradiction in terms, and has been known to happen. You're right that anti-Zionism doesn't necessarily imply anti-Semitism; on the other hand, it's just as true that often today anti-Semitism hides itself behind the banner of anti-Zionism. But I digress... ;) --AV
- A Jewish anti-Semite is most certainly not a contradiction in terms. Consider this (limited)analogy: a women who opposes Feminism.
- A woman who opposes Feminism would be anti-feminist, not anti-female. Anti-Semitism is not opposition to Jewish beliefs, Jewish views, or Jewish actions, it's opposition to Jews. Thus IMO a Jewish anti-semite couldn't exist - if they did, they'd have to discriminate against themself. The correct analogy is something like an actively homosexual homophobe.
An anti-Semite is not specifically anti-Jewish. An anti-Semite is against all Semitic peoples, including Jews and Arabs.
Modern day Semites include the Druze, who are separate from the Arabs, and peoples outside of the Palestine area such as the Ethiopians and the Armenians. Let's not forget that there are many Ethiopian Jews as well. The term "anti-semetic" is used much too often and incorrectly. For example, many people considered Yassir Arafat an "anti-semetic" due to his conflict with the Isralis, but it would be impossible for him to actually be "anti-semetic".
- "Antisemitism" means hatred of Jews; that's the way English works, for better or worse. And there's no reason why even a Jew couldn't be an antisemite. Jayjg (talk) 16:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Israelis and the peace process
Since the article this points to has been deleted, took it out of the article. On the other hand, it is true that Israelis have become frustrated with the peace process (as have the Palestinians), but we need a real discussion of why, not just some anti-Palestinian propaganda piece:
- Israelis have become somewhat less supportive of the peace process in recent years, in part because some leaders in the Palestinian Authority has been teaching that the Peace treaty with Israel is a temporary measure only.--SJK
Would someone please tell me the name of the "peace treaty" which is regarded as temporary? I am thinking of changing all the Peace treaty with Israel is a temporary measure references to an article which has:
- a neutral-sounding name, like "Arab-Israeli Peace Treaty of 1994" or "Blah Blah Accord"
- discussion of how various named critics view the treaty
This should satisfy Larry's valid point about NPOV and also what I and some others feel is an equally valid point about a possible lack of good faith on the part of certain parties. -- Ed Poor
- The "peace treaty" in questions is basically the Oslo Accords of 1993 (together with Oslo B and Wye Plantation accords). However it this particular case, it is used in a generally broader concept, meaning the enactment of a state of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. --Uriyan
Palestinian and Jewish Refugees, 1948
Until 2001, two competing stories existed to explain how Palestinians became refugees as a result of the creation of Israel in 1948 and how Jewish refugees came to flee to Israel at around that time. Palestinains who reported how they were basically ethnically cleansed before, during and after the war and the Israeli story of they left on their own will, they were encouraged to leave, we asked them to stay.
These two competing stories until recently, when the "new Israeli historians" such as Ilan Pappe, Morris, Sternhall, Avi Schlaim and Tom Segev debunked the established Israeli myths using Israeli archives and declassified material. As an example, after opening the IDF (Israel's armed forces) archives we find a cable dated October 31, 1948, signed by Major General Carmel and addressed to all the division and district commanders under his command: "Do all you can to immediately and quickly purge the conquered territories of all hostile elements in accordance with the orders issued. The residents should be helped to leave the areas that have been conquered."
The truth, which was revealed and documented by direct references to Israeli, American, British and UN archives, by historians like Michael Palumbo and the Israeli historians (Pappe, Shlaim, Segev, Morris, Sternal) not to mention the credible Palestinian historians, was contrary to the Israeli and Zionist propaganda about the war. According to these honest and credible accounts, the truth, which is there for everyone who wants to know the truth, was as follows:
The "War of Independence" did not start on 15 May and in self-defence against the "aggression" of the Arab armies who invaded Israel. The war started in early April by the Haganah, which launched its offensive according to "Plan Dalet". Preparations for this war began immediately after WWII. (I refer you here to the activities of Ben-Gurion that were detailed in Michael Bar-Zohar, Ben-Gurion: A Biography. New York: Delacorte Press, 1977).
The Zionist leadership was in tacit agreement with Emir Abdullah of Transjordan. According to this agreement, Palestine would be divided between the Jews and Abdullah. Abdullah would take that part of Palestine allotted to the Arabs west of the Jordan Valley according to UN Resolution # 181 (II) of 29 November 1947. This part later became to be known as the West Bank. The rest of Palestine was to be left for the "Exclusive Jewish State". (Documented and intriguing details of this agreement were presented in: Avi Shlaim, "Collusion Across the Jordan: King Abdullah, The Zionist Movement, and the Partition of Palestine". New York: Columbia University Press, 1988).
Yosef Weitz, Director of the JNF Lands Dept. was very active as of March 1948 in planning for and implementing plans to expel the Palestinians, destroy their villages, and build new homes for the influx of new Jewish immigrants. These activities were given in detail by Benny Morris in his "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem: 1947 - 1949", and "1948 and After: Israel and the Palestinians". If the Jewish Community in Palestine was in a state of self-defence and threatened by the "mighty Arab armies" they could not afford the time for Yosef Weitz activities [that were planned and implemented in cold blood].
In his book "The Gun & the Olive Branch," David Hirst describes in detail covert Israeli operations to scare Iraqi and Egyptian Jews into fleeing their homes for the "sanctuary" of Israel. In Iraq they did so by placing bombs in areas frequented by Iraqis who were Jewish, then starting whispering campaigns that scared people into emigrating. The plan worked brilliantly, but then again, Israeli intelligence/covert operatives, had experience with such things from massacres like Deir Yassin. Slaughter 250 people and terrorize hundreds of thousands into fleeing their homes lest they suffer the same brutal fate. In Egypt, the plan had two targets, one, to spur emigration of Egyptian Jews, and two, to damage nascent relations between the Free Officers junta, led by Jamal Abd-un-Nasir and the US and Britain. A series of bombing took place and a handful of Jewish residents, some Egyptian, some foreign, were arrested, tried, and convicted. Two were hung. Again, the whispers started, but few actually left the country.
Despite Israeli protests that the accused were being framed a la Dreyfus, political infighting within the Israeli government over the matter, labelled the "Lavon Affair," after the then minister of defense, Pinhas Lavon, launched a 1960 inquiry that concluded that elements of the Israeli security apparatus, guided by David Ben Gurion, were in fact responsible for the bombings in Egypt. Sadly, after the 1956 Israeli/British/French invasion of Egypt, however, the Egyptian government took the Israeli bait and began ordering the expulsion of large numbers of Jews, some Egyptian, others with foreign citizenship, from Egypt. The number who left is as high as 50,000.
In his book "Ben Gurion's Scandals" Naeim Giladi (an Iraqi Jew and ex Zionist) discusses the crimes committed by Zionists in their frenzy to import Jews from Iraq to Israel in the 1950s. He lives in New York now after he left Israel and he wrote to 'The Link' about his book saying "About 125,000 Jews left Iraq for Israel in the late 1940s and into 1952, most because they had been lied to and put into a panic by what I came to learn were Zionist bombs. But my mother and father were among the 6,000 who did not go to Israel.."
Here are relevant quotes from the horse's mouth on refugees.
"Before [the Palestinians] very eyes we are possessing the land and the villages where they, and their ancestors, have lived...We are the generation of colonizers, and without the steel helmet and the gun barrel we cannot plant a tree and build a home." Israeli leader Moshe Dayan, quoted in Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, "Original Sins: Reflections on the History of Zionism and Israel"
In an article in the Haaretz newspaper, Danny Rabinovitz wrote, "What happened to the Palestinians in 1948 is Israel's original sin. . . . Between the 1950s and 1976, the state systematically confiscated most of the land of its remaining Palestinian citizens."
Testimony of an Israeli soldier who participated in the massacre at al Duwayima Village, on 29th October 1948. Quoted in Davar, 9th. June 1979:
"Killed between 80 to 100 Arabs, women and children. To kill the children they fractured their heads with sticks. There was not one house without corpses. The men and women of the villages were pushed into houses without food or water. Then the saboteurs came to dynamite the houses. One commander ordered a soldier to bring two women into a house he was about to blow up… Another soldier prided himself upon having raped an Arab woman before shooting her to death.
"Another Arab woman with her newborn baby was made to clean the place for a couple of days, and then they shot her and the baby. Educated and well-mannered commanders who were considered "good guys" became base murderers, and this not in the storm of battle, but as a method of expulsion and extermination. The fewer the Arabs who remain, the better."
Only a small number of Arab Jews supported Zionism and most immigrants were not refugees but immigrated to Israel in the 1950 (long after the war). The same for Russian or Polish Jews (are not termed refugees but migrants, immigrants). Zionists of European origin, like David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir, and Abba Eban often made derogatory statements regarding Arab Jews who they considered to be inferior to themselves.
The Jewish communities had flourished in Arab lands for thousands of years, and they contributed greatly to Arab culture, as did all other peoples who settled in the Arab World. Off the coast of Tunisia, on a small island of Djerba, a Jewish colony lived that traced its presence there to at least 1000 BC.
According to Rabbi Moshe Schonfeld, "Some Djerban rabbis who were not to be fooled nor intimidated by the Zionists were harassed, threatened and even beaten." (Schonfeld, "Genocide in the Holy Land, 508)
Rabbi Schonfeld also wrote about the same tactics used to get the Jews of Iraq to flee to Israel. Zionists tried to convince these Arab Jews that it was the Arabs who were exploding bombs in their neighborhoods, but it was the Zionists who dreamed of populating Israel with Jews form all over the world.
Wilbur Crane Eveland, a former CIA operative, wrote about the Zionist crimes against Arab Jews in Iraq (Feuerlicht, "The Fate of the Jews," 231). Jewish author, Alfred Lilienthal, wrote about the oppressive treatment by Ashkenazi (European) Jews in Israel of the Sephardic Jews (Semitic Arab origin) in his book "The Zionist Connection." Jews in the Arab World were always treated with respect and civility throughout history. Any mistreatment they received was in the hands of the Zionists in Israel. In either case, Arab countries continues to have a policy of welcoming emigrants back to those countries.
As to absorption of Palestinian refugees in Arab countries, that is against International law and becomes complicity with a war crime. Jewish immigrants are absorbed in Israel as part of the Zionist dream and this is not the same thing as indicated above (i.e. not an issue of population exchange). For example, there was no population exchange when one million Russian Jews came to Israel. In either case, the right of those people to return to their countries is preserved by International law which is very clear about forcible movement of people.
Nathan Chofshi, wrote: "We came and turned the native Arabs into tragic refugees. And still we have to slander and malign them, to besmirch their name. Instead of being deeply ashamed of what we did and trying to undo some of the evil we committed...we justify our terrible acts and even attempt to glorify them." (Jewish Newsletter, New York, 9 February 1959, cited in Erskine Childers, 'The Other Exodus' in Spectator, London, 12 May 1961)
Martin Buber, Jewish Philosopher, addressed Prime Minister Ben Gurion on the moral character of the state of Israel with reference to the Arab refugees in March 1949: " We will have to face the reality that Israel is neither innocent, nor redemptive. And that in its creation, and expansion; we as Jews, have caused what we historically have suffered; a refugee population in Diaspora"
This apparent propagandist troll doesn't belong to this article (and is probably copyrighted). The issue is indeed of importance, but it needs a real discussion, not what was brought above. --Uri
- The section of text Uriyan removed appears to be a verbatim quote from the Nakba '48 page from a University of Florida websit. The page is entitled Four famous pieces of bull proclaimed by Zionists (http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:ziYZeYv756sC:grove.ufl.edu/~nakba48/index2.html+quickly+purge+the+conquered+territories+of+all+hostile+elements&hl=en&ie=UTF-8) Ed Poor
- Thanks, Ed. Frankly, I've had enough of the Arab trolls; I'll consider speaking about it to Wikipedia-L. What do you think? --Uri
- I think that unless we can get Gandalf to trick them into staying outside past dawn, there's no way to freeze them out. Sorry. --Ed Poor
- I don't have a problem with those who are logged in, but how about blocking anonymous IP? Dunno about Gandalf, but some Eagles would certainly do a handier work than me, I'm afraid. --Uri
- That would be very un-wiki! It is the right of anybody here to be anonymous if they want. Anonymous users contribute a lot to the project and newbies hardly ever create an account before doing their first edit. Besides I object to the use of the term "Arab troll" -- how do you know the race of the person doing the trolling? --mav
- "Arab trolls" is short for "Trolls presenting Arab positions". The vast majority is Arab, if you bother to notice. I will send a proper letter to the list, explaining my position. --Uri
- Should have said "pro-Arab" or "anti-Israeli" trolls, but Mav is right. Anyway, We must all write from the NPOV. Some of us can edit others' writings to be NPOV. The best of us can teach writers how to write from the NPOV. --Ed Poor
- What about some "American" trolls like me, guys, would be that correct, and how would they fit in? My "pro-Palestinian" friends want to know. By the way I don't see any bias in the disputed article, while they would surely at least double the number of refugees, say a million? --greg973
- That would be very un-wiki! It is the right of anybody here to be anonymous if they want. Anonymous users contribute a lot to the project and newbies hardly ever create an account before doing their first edit. Besides I object to the use of the term "Arab troll" -- how do you know the race of the person doing the trolling? --mav
- Hmmm - I added the article in question. While I agree that it has a pro-Palestinian bias, it seemed a quick (and lazy, admittedly) way of redressing the balance on the refugee issue, which was previously written entirely from a pro-Israeli perspective. Delete if you wish, but perhaps a Wiki-er response would have been to re-write it to iron out the bias?
- PS/ Is there an easier way to contribute to ths talk page than editing it directly? --User:jacobgreenbaum
- I don't have a problem with those who are logged in, but how about blocking anonymous IP? Dunno about Gandalf, but some Eagles would certainly do a handier work than me, I'm afraid. --Uri
- (1) I would be delighted to edit the page on every possible issue, but I don't have time (see mailing list for full description). (2) I'm afraid that editing the Talk page is the only way, sorry --Uri
- (1) I appreciate that - but this page needed *something* as a starting point, surely? The pro-Israeli bias was really obvious throughout this section (though perhaps not so obvious to Americans, if I might be so presumptuous?).On (2), that's a shame - but n'er mind.
- Oh, and I'm not an "arab", by the way - I'm British --Jacob
- Ah sorry... But Arab propaganda articles work well enough for you, I see. --Uri
- Jacob, did you copy your "article" from another website? If so, please be aware that this encyclopedia does not accept such contributions. When you click the submit button, you are promising that you giving us (and the world) your original work; and by the way, assigning us the copyright -- which you can't do if someone else wrote it or hold the copyright. But you're heart's clearly in the right place. You are seeking balance, as are all us old-timers no matter how devoted we are to our cherished causes. --Ed Poor
- Actually, you were - as I stated above, I added the article on refugees from the Ed Post paper which you deleted (though I neglected to log in to the site before adding it). And I would argue that something on the subject is better than silence - later contributors who object to the (fairly clear) bias in that section can (and should) edit it out, in the name of Wiki-ness. Rather than just deleting it.
- Ed - yeah, I'm afraid so. In defence, though, Post's piece has been copyright-recinded ("copylefted" in old-speak), according to the form I received it in. --jacobgreenbaum
- Jacob - You might take a look at the Dwight Eisenhower article. If you click on its History link, you can review the various versions and see how user:H.J.'s position was incorporated into the Wikipedia. I spent hours on this, because I think NPOV is worth the trouble: it's the only way people of disparate views can collaborate on a writing project such as this. --Ed Poor
Jacob, what you've pasted is the most unilateral piece of Arab propaganda that I've seen in days (and I do see a lot of it). There are much better ways of starting the article - such as beginning work on your own. If you don't think you know enough, the worst thing you can do is pasting someone else's writings. --Uri
- If in fact it is "copylefted" then it is just as valid as posting CIA "Fact"book stuff. Deleting it is Vandalism unless you can argue here that the references are bogus or it belongs in some other article.
If you dont want the contraversal sentence to be where it is, find a suitable place for it, reword it but do not DELETE it all the time. It is not someones random demagogy, but a view of 400 million people. Right or wrong, this view is one of the basic facts about Israel, and that is why it shold be mentioned - if it is erased from the Israel page to be moved here - then it should stay here. M
No, I won't delete it anymore. I am somewhat tired of this and will keep out of Israel/Palestine articles from now on. Perhaps you should do the same. - Cordyph
I came here looking for a neutral account of the story of Naeim Giladi. I've seen the block of text above before, and it is indeed copied directly from anti-Israeli websites. While checking the sources of information on one of these websites, Naeim Giladi's story stood out as different from the rest. The story he tells is that, as an Iraqi Jewish Zionist, he risked his life helping Iraqi Jews escape to Israel, narrowly avoiding execution by the Iraqis before escaping to Israel himself. He goes on to describe what he learned about the deliberate ethnic cleansing of Arabs from Israel in 1948 and after; and his shock at finding out that the attacks on Iraqi Jews in 1950 - that persuaded many of that community to emigrate to Israel - were perpetrated by other Jews.
If this story had been told by al-Jazeera I would dismiss it as obvious propaganda. Given its purported source, I am wondering how it has been received by historians.
Giladi says he was prominent in the demonstrations in Israel for the rights of Sephardic Jews around 1970, so he must be a fairly well-known figure in Israel. His book is Ben Gurion's scandals: How the Haganah and the Mossad eliminated Jews (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1893302407/qid=1107815530/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-3212863-9194543?v=glance&s=books); a shortened version is presented as this article: [1] (http://www.ameu.org/page.asp?iid=36&aid=72&pg=1)
USS Liberty
Regarding the USS Liberty: in the greater context of Israeli history, it didn't lead to any substancial consequences and is therefore not worth mentioning on this article. It is mentioned on the Six-Day War page and discussed at length at USS Liberty. --Uri
Change line?
Quote "No secular non-zionist jewish movements exist today".
By the definition used on another linking page: "Since 1948, Zionism has been a movement to support the development and defence of the State of Israel, and to encourage Jews to settle there. " I would know of a jewish secular organization that does not encourage jews to settle there, and holds ambivalent positions on its defence. Saying that something does NOT exist is always tricky of course. Very easy to disprove. :-) I changed the line to "are very rare today" Hope that helps,
Has nothing happened since Sharon was elected in 2001? I only ask, because I was looking for somewhere to slot a link to the orphan Or Commission.
I don't understand what you're trying to say, Uri...from your posts, it seems like you believe that "pro-Arab" views are somehow automatically wrong. How is that NPOV? I mean, you can't disregard an argument just because it serves the views of one side. All you can do is counter-argue its evidence.
So, can anyone point out an incorrect “fact” in the article posted/pasted by Jacob? Then share it with us. Otherwise, I don't think we should be criticizing something simply on the basis of its point-of-view. That's not what neutrality means (IMHO, of course).
The British deal
I remember being taught (a few years ago) that the land of israel was first promised to the Arabs for their support in the war by the British. Then it was also promised to Jews for their support. In the end, because of factors like Haulocost it was given to the latter group. This was part of the Ontario high school curriculum so i dont think its wrong but kind of general, perhaps someon can elaborate on this? 209.197.155.141 05:34, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- See Hussein-McMahon Correspondence. Jayjg 14:18, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Polish information
Just finished reading Szewach Weiss article (he is Israeli charge d'affair or whatever it is called officailly - in Poland) about role of Polish Jews in Israel. He mentioned that actually majority of ministers, major rabbis, many officers and generals were in fact Polish Jews and in first Kneset 61 from 120 deputees were Polish Jews. Also before i've read that in fact initial Isreali army was under great influence of Polish traditions: e.g. Menachem Begin was officer in Polish army, and because he doesn't wat to leave Polish army, he received special allowance to desert from Anders himself, and many Jews in first army were also either trained in pre-1939 army or were deserters from Anders's army, who didn't chase deserters when Polish army stationed in Isreal, except when British were pushing him (it's quite interesting BTW that both Russians and British who were pushing Anders to no accept Jews into army are painted as philo-semitic while he often is painted as anti-semite :)))) ). But this does not suit well into that article, but i would like to include that SOMEWHERE. But where? Any suggestions?Szopen 07:20, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
472,000
I can't find that estimate on other sites than sites like this one http://www.ujc.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=11513. That site references two UN documents for the estimate:
- 2) Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine, Submitted to the Secretary-General for Transmission to the Members of the United Nations, General Assembly Official Records: Third Session, Supplement No.11 (A\648), Paris, 1948, p. 47 and Supplement No. 11A (A\689, and A\689\Add.1, p. 5.
One of the documents can be found here:
The other cannot be found. Neither can I find the magic number 472,000 in that document. Does it matter? The document is from September 16, 1948 before armistice agreements was signed. It therefore wouldn't have been possible to accurately estimate the refugee flight since it wasn't over! The reference is fake.
- The reference mentions 300,000 refugees several times. Jayjg 15:25, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- First. It mentions "more than 300,000" once. Second. Check the date. "16 September 1948". Third. I don't trust Mitchell Bard. Do you still think it is a credible source? Palestine-info 01:05, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I found at least two references in the article to 300,000 refugees. The reference by Mitchell Bard is likely to a later document that 16 Sep 1948, and you can't assume it doesn't say that simply because you can't find the document on-line. Jayjg 14:43, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The reference mentions "the United Nations Mediator on Palestine" which was Ralph J. Bunche. In this document from April 20, 1949:
one can read that "The United Nations Mediator established that some 360,000 Arabs and some 7,000 Jews became refugees as a result of hostilities in Palestine." And further down: "Supplies were being distributed by the League of Red Cross Societies to about 275,000 refugees in Lebanon, Syria and Transjordan; by the International committee of the Red Cross to 350,000 refugees in Eastern Palestine and Israel; and by the American Friends Service Committee to 220,000 refugees in the Gaza area and in North Palestine." The 360,000 number must obviously have been reported during the conflict and the latter number 845,000 (275,000 + 350,000 + 220,000) after the conflict had ended.
You are welcome to add your sourced estimates to Estimates of the Palestinian refugee flight of 1948. But if the 472,000 number can't be sourced, it has to go. Palestine-info 02:54, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Immigration Restrictions
Can someone explain why the British imposed immigration restrictions in 1939? It would seem contrary to the British Mandate for them to have done this if the goal was the creation of a Jewish state.
- I'll quote from Rabbi Dan Cohn-Sherbok's book Israel: The History of an Idea (ISBN 0-281-04577-1) here. It basically says that the British tried to limit immigration to keep the Arab population happier. They thought, I suppose, that the slower the immigration took place, the more the Arab population would get used to it. Hopefully someone can integrate it into the article:
- In 1929 a massacre took place in Palestine in which 150 Jews were killed; this led to a further limit on immigration despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of Jews sought entry into Palestine. As more and more Jews were allowed to settle, Arab resentment intensified. Each year there were more than 30,000 arrivals, and in 1935 the number grew to 62,000. In response, in April 1936, a major Arab uprising took place. On July 1937 a commission headed by Lord Peel recommended that Jewish immigration be reduced to 12,000 a year, and restrictions were placed on land purchases. Twrist 17:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Off Topic
About 25% of the current article is pre-1948 and belongs elsewhere according to the first sentence: "This article discusses the history of the modern State of Israel, from its inception in 1948 to the present." Can I delete or move that stuff? Or delete the first sentence?
"pro-Israel sources"
The links to "pro-Israel sources" should be trimmed down, or balanced out with links to sites with an opposing point of view. --Tothebarricades.tk 21:40, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
