Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War/Archive 9

Israeli commander

The first IDF chief of staff was Yaakov Dori, and he was followed by Yigael Yadin. Yigal Alon was never COS of IDF.--Nitsansh 06:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

"Wish the trash can had a lock on it, this smelly stuff keeps coming back inside"?

Smelly as in doesn't fit your POV? Because if I recall correctly you removed information attributed to four cited sources. —Aiden 01:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that none of those sources are the least bit respectable, material has to be relevant and balanced as well as sourced. This was neither. It was pure propagandising. --Zero 01:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

How? The sections you removed are directly related to the mufti and therefore related to both the Arab Revolt and following conflicts. —Aiden 04:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, for example, this fake quotation doesn't even make sense: "In 1940, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem, requested the Axis powers to acknowledge the Arab right: to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy." Can you explain by what method Italy had "solved the Jewish question" in 1940? Now, if you really want to know what the Mufti wrote to the Axis at that time you can get hold of Zvi Elpeleg's biography and there in an appendix you will find the whole multi-page letter. That is called "finding a respectable source", something we are supposed to do here on Wikipedia. --Zero 19:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Persecution of Jews was well under way in Germany in 1940. Why mufti chose to also include Italy, you should ask him. I didn't investigate the matter of persecution of Jews in Italy prior to 1940 (if there was any), and for what we know neither did der Mufti. Heptor _talk 22:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

In other words, you don't know. There is no evidence that this quotation is geniune. Since it contradicts what serious historians like Elpeleg have reported, it is a reasonable assumption that it is fake. --Zero 22:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In other words, you take davantage of the temoprary ban and continue the edit war. Zeq 22:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, this is rich. While Heptor isn´t? Just like he is not revert warring here? (While I and Palmiro are?) Zeq: having a POV doesn´t give you carte blanche to pursue it 100% of the time. Why on earth do you not clean up the stuff you brought into Israeli Arabs? Where you misrepresented each and every link? (-as I have pointed out to you.) How on earth can you justify such wrong inf. remaining in the article? Regards, Huldra 23:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmyes, I do not know how the the mentioning of Italy in that sentence makes it impossible for the mufti to have said that. Could you please elaborate how this quotation contradicts Elpeleg and other serious historians you speak of? -- Heptor _talk 23:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Protected but no discussion ?

Is anyone just waiting to continue the edit war once the protection is removed ?

Some civility is in order.

Zeq 08:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Refugees for eternity

Even the foreign press, in regular contact with all sides during the conflict of 1948, wrote nothing to suggest that the flight of the Palestinians was not voluntary. Nor did Arab spokesmen, such as the Palestinian representative to the U.N., Jamal Husseini, or the secretary general of the Arab League, blame the Jews contemporaneously with the 1948 war for the flight of Arabs and Palestinians. In fact, those who fled were urged to do so by other Arabs. As then Prime Minister of Iraq Nuri Said put it:

• "[…] the Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down".

One Arab who fled encapsulated this thinking in the Jordanian newspaper Al-Difaa: "The Arab governments told:

• “[…] Get out so that we can get in.' So we got out, but they did not get in. And a bad situation, impossibly, was allowed to get worse”.

Arabs and Palestinians displaced by the 1948 war were resettled in camps administered by the UNRA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency), the only such agency established for any refugee group since the massive dislocations of World War II. The partition of India occurred at the same time as the conflict in Palestine, and millions of Hindus and Muslims were uprooted, but virtually nothing was done for them. Nothing was done in response to the Chinese occupation of Tibet, where a long-standing religious, social, and political culture was virtually destroyed.

Yet 55 years after they were first established, the Arab refugee camps still exist. With the exception of Jordan, the Arab governments home to these camps have refused to grant citizenship to the refugees and opposed their resettlement. In Lebanon, 400,000 stateless Palestinians are not allowed to attend public school, own property, or even improve their housing stock. Three generations later, they continue to serve as political pawns of the Arab states, still hopeful of reversing the events of 1948.

• "[…] The return of the refugees," as President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt said years later, "will mean the end of Israel."

The U.N, through its administration of the camps, has made a complicated problem infinitely more so. How? U.N. officials define refugees in the Middle East to include the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948. In other parts of the world, descendants of refugees are not defined as refugees. The result of this unique treatment has been to increase the numbers of Arab refugees from roughly 700 000 to over 4 million, by including children, grandchildren, even great-grandchildren. As a former prime minister of Syria, Khaled al Azm, wrote in his memoirs,

• "[…] It is we who demanded the return of the refugees while it is we who made them leave. We brought disaster upon them. [We] exploited them in executing crimes of murder and throwing bombs. All this in the service of political purposes."

And so it goes, to this very day. At the time of the founding of the State of Israel, 900, 000 Jewish refugees were forced out of neighboring Arab States in a coordinated effort. These refugees were absorbed into the new Israel. Yet the world was, and still is, untroubled by the plight of Jewish refugees from Arab lands.

Takima 01:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Please restrict yourself to discussing the article. Your political opinions should go on some other venue. --Zero 12:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

_______________________________________________

Validated facts and qotes, not opinions on one of the main political issues: refugees.

Takima 02:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

+pl

can someone add to article : pl:Pierwsza wojna izraelsko-arabska 1948-1949 ?

British troops in Palestine during war

British had 100,000 men in Palestine during war but is there a reference stating how many troops to be distinguished from the people working in their administration or for the supply chain.

The israeli governement website underline 100,000 people is more than the whole arab and jewish troops but it doesn't take into account that these last were supplied by the population where British had to organise their supply.

In summary : how many british soldiers, policemen, bureaucrats, physicians, etc ? Alithien 09:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Israeli defense arms smuggling

It's a bit of a mystery how the Jews just happened to have all this military hardware in 1948. Obviously there were some organization(s) who planned and financed the smuggling of arms and terrorists into the Mandate, but it won't be mentioned here. Also, no mention of the Jewish campaign of bombing and assassination against Mandate personnel.24.64.166.191 04:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

See 1948_Arab-Israeli_War#Yishuv.2FBritish_Security_and_Intelligence_Collaboration. You're welcome :)

Heptor _talk 19:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not much of a mystery really when you recall that there was a major war immediately preceeding this period (World War 2, you may have heard of it), and that the Jewish contigent of British Palestine took up arms on the Allied side - despite their long-running dispute with the British Mandate. Joffan 16:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It is often reminded that people felt too easily in the "trap" of traditionnal historians that David faced 5 armies. Today people fall too easily in the trap that many good soldiers make a good army... The Haganah was composed of course of many good soldiers (see above) but they were not organised to combat involving many soldiers and had no material (whatever is claimed - just think about this !). In fact for field combat coordination they were not whether well trained or badly trainded, ... they were simply not trained because it was a clandestine army and people could not gather and train all together or simulate a war like other armies do regurlarly during manoeuvers. I have some quotes from British officers (and taken from new historians) stating that the Egyptian army was not ready because it was not able to organize the movement of more of 1 brigade (for info : 3000 men) due to the lack of training all together ! what to think about Hagannah ? When they talk about equipment they also exagerate a little bit. This clandestine army equipment cannot be compared to a state army equipment. So the question is real : where come this military "hardware" from ? In fact, as soon as dec 1947, they send agents to USA to gather funds and to Europe to by arms and hopefully for them they never faced real "campaign" before november 1948 when they counter-attack egyptian in the Neguev and for which they prepare. Alithien 22:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Arab Legion in Palestine before 15 May 1948

Nobody answers my questions but this doesn't prevent me to ask them... :-) I would be very grateful if somebody could answer this one : I have read that Arab Legion had been fordidden by British to enter Palestine before 15 May 1948. But some incidents are related between arab legion and haganah before ! As the some convoys attacks near Hebron in jan48 and the well known attack of Kfar Etzion (from May 4 to May 13) by arab legion. Does someone have some information about that paradox ? Thank you. Alithien 22:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to answer your question. Although the Arab Legion was supposed to leave Palestine before the Mandate ended, a few units (don't recall the correct military word) did not. They also started to operate independently of British command. (Officially they were in Palestine on secondment to the British Army.) A good source for this is Benny Morris's book on Glubb Pasha; you can read bits of it at Amazon if you register. --Zero 09:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You should look at Kaukji's army. Those were "iregulars" who came from Arab countries. They invaded in Januray / Februray.

Their loss at Tirat Tzvi cause the first wave of palestinian vilagers to leave. Until that time they were sure the Arabs would win against the jews. Once the jews won the Arab started fearing that a military loss will cause the jews to massacre the arabs. (I guess they assumed that is "the norm" so they understodd a miliotary loss by kakuji as impending massacre) also Latrun battle took place on May 24-25 but The British led Jordenian forces have been mobelized several days before to invade Israel. The exact date in which they crossed into israel is not known to me currently but they were already deployed insid israel/palestine by May 24. Zeq 07:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Palestinians began leaving in December, not January or February. The Arab Legion wasn't "British led" by May 24, the officers having being recalled by London and even before that they had orders to abandon their posts if the Legion was asked to enter the area allocated to the Jewish state in the partition resolution. At no stage did the Legion invade or cross into Israel. --Ian Pitchford 11:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

I see no discussion of disputes here in the past week, so I've unprotected. --Tony Sidaway 01:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Woohookitty restored protection, but has since said that he's bowing out of the page protection business for now. I've applied on WP:RFPP for unprotection again. --Tony Sidaway 12:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

A quick note - I've changed the external link URLs. The links to the BBC had been out of date since 2004, so I've found the new articles and plonked them in. I am currently in the process of citing the stats in the background section. -- Cyril Washbrook 23:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Good Sources

(moved from user talk:Fred Bauder on 22:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

Regarding your comment on the proposed fining of fact in the workshop nr 6 (deletion of the quotation by Ian Pitchford).Could you please elaborate a little what you consider "good sources" on the israeli-arab conflict? How do you personally decide what sources are good?

Personally I think that primary sources, publications by acknowledged academics, articles in respected newspapers or books by known authors that can not be reasonably dismissed as dishonest can be trusted as sources. Possibly except primary sources not published in a credible publication. What do you think about such definition?

-- Heptor _talk 13:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

What we are discussing is the use of a more or less credible primary source which has been published (numerous times) in less then credible secondary sources. So we can't be that sure he ever said the exact words everyone wants to quote. Fred Bauder 14:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC

You see, I am trying to exctract a more general principle here. Do you consider any author in some way affiliated with a party in a confict to be "less then credible"? I do not think exact words mufti have used are important anyway, they just illustrated an important historical point. Do you think this book of Hannah Arendt will be usefull as a source instead? [1] -- Heptor _talk 01:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

She is generally recognized as a scholar. Fred Bauder 13:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This book includes following: "The Grand Mufti's connections with the Nazis during the war were not secret; he had hoped they would help him in the implementation of some final solution in the Near East". Zvi Elpeleg writes approximatly the same. But it does seem that they both avoid using any exact quotations. -- Heptor _talk 14:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

They had the same problem we have verifying any particular exact words, but his role as a Nazi collaborator and anti-Semite is not at issue. Fred Bauder 16:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, you present the case in an entirely different manner from Zero an Ian Pitchford, who dismissed Pearlman as a liar, called Kriegman a vandal Talk:1948_Arab-Israeli_War/Archive_2 (page search for vandal) " et cetera. I actually do understand the problem the way you put it.

I believe the most honest at this point would be to add a footnote that certain claims has been made, that they seem to track back to Pearlman's book and at present time there are no sources on Wikipedia that confirm or deny that he said those particular words (probably needs better wording). What do you think? -- Heptor _talk 15:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to find Maurice Pearlman on Amazon right now, no luck so far. But a google search reveals "Maurice Pearlman, Mufti of Jerusalem: The Story of Haj Amin el Husseini (London: V.Gollancz, 1947)" (too old for Amazon). This book isn't even on WorldCat. I did however find The Mufti of Jerusalem by Philip Mattar ISBN 0231064632 published by Columbia University Press. I can't find a copy of Pearlman's book even on ABE. Anyway, I don't know much about the book and can't find out easily over the internet. I don't have any reason to say it is not a reliable source. Fred Bauder 17:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:1948_Arab-Israeli_War/Archive_3#Comment_on_the_Mufti_quotation is quite interesting. Fred Bauder 18:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

A part of his book "Mufti of Jerusalem" is available here [2]. Zero believes he is a liar, see Talk:Amin_al-Husayni/Archive_1#Maurice_Pearlman for his statement. To sum up, the British put down a commission to investigate Riots_in_Palestine_of_1929, which was called "Commission of Enquiry", or "The Shaw Commission". Pearlman provides references to the commision's report, and also large quotations from it. He claimed that "There was unanimity in the findings of the commission that the attacks were planned". The majority report concluded however that "The outbreak was not premeditated." This duely mentioned in the book (At least not on that page, actually... And, of course, the next page is not included. I'll get back to this later), also providing extracts from the minority report, submitted by Mr (Later Lord) Harry Snell, who aparently placed more responsibility on the Mufti. As far as I see, Pearlman just provides his opinion that findings made by the commision suggested that mufti instigated them, while also duely mentioning that the majority report concluded differently, and the minority report which held the Mufti more responsible.

Actually, when I think it over, Zero may have simply been sloppy with the reading and didn't notice that Pearlman did mention the majority report.

-- Heptor _talk 21:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

(Fred: sorry to fill up your talk page with this.) The phrase "unanimity in the findings of the commission" (my bold) is completely unambiguous and is obviously a deception if only a minority report made that claim. Another proof that Pearlman was a propagandist appears on the same page [3]. The minority report said "I [minority commissioner Snell] am not satisfied that he [the Mufti] was directly responsible for, or even that he was aware of the character of the anti-Zionist campaign", but Pearlman replaced that by "..." so that his readers would not know. Elsewhere, Pearlman is described as a "Haganah spokesman" - that seems to be about all that anyone knows about him. Given that he misrepresents a very well known published report, I don't see why we have to trust his claim about what someone else supposedly heard on the radio. --Zero 10:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

How is it a deception? It was a comment on the findings of the commision, not its conclusion. For example, I it is perfectly legitimate to write that "findings in the US report on Abu Grahib prisoner abuse strongly suggested that orders came from within the White House, but the report itself concluded that there was no evidence of such orders". It is even more legitimate if there was a minority report claiming that existence of such orders is proven.

Note that I do not say that we should add the quotation as a fact in Wikipedia; it is indeed strange that no known scholar works were found to date in Wikipedia.

As I mentioned earlier, I think the most informative, and practically the only honest thing to do would be to put up a foot note, saying that the claim exists and is widely repeated, but Wikipedia could not confirm or discredit it based on academic writings. -- Heptor _talk 22:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I just had to go back to see the my discussion with Zero. There, I didn't actually claim that I saw that Pearlman mentioned the reports own conclusion, sorry for the mixup. The scan of the book ends on the same page, so this is still unclear. In worst case he didn't mention that his own opinion diverged with the opinion in the majority report, while the minority report of the commision was "more specific"; he included following excerpt of this minority report: "... I [Harry Snell] therefore take a more serious view than do my collegues of the responsibilities of these leaders for the character and conduct of the campaign[...]".

If Pearlman didn't mention the conclusion of majority report on one of the next pages, this would still be an omision, not a falsification; in my opinion not enough for a total character assasination as Zero suggests.

Also, thank you for taking interest in the case.

Heptor _talk 12:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

For record, here is what is on the next page of Pearlman: "among a Moslem people. I theorefore attribute to the Mufti a greater share in the responsibility for the disturbance than is attributed to him in the report. I am of the opinion that the Mufti must bear the blame for his failure to make any effort to control the character of an agitation conducted in the name of a religion of which in Palestine he was the head." Then the next chapter starts on a different topic. So, as well as eliding a crucial sentence of the minority report, Pearlman entirely fails to mention that the majority report wrote "no connection has been established between the Mufti and the work of those who either are known or are thought to have engaged in agitation or incitement. ... After the disturbances had broken out the Mufti co-operated with the Government in their efforts both to restore peace and to prevent the extension of disorder." Ergo, Pearlman was a propagandist. --Zero^talk 12:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• The comment above by Zero is Original Research (Zero own analysis to a published source) - we can therefor ignore the conclusion. Zeq 13:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Shaw Commission

The Shaw Commission found that the attacks were not premeditated, but Pearlman claims that "there was unanimity in the findings of the Commission that the attacks were planned"; hence he's lying. What are you not following here? --Ian Pitchford 15:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

hence he is lying or makes a mistake. Alithien 19:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You have to read what he actually writes more carefully: he doesn't make a claim on the report's conclusion. He writes that "there was an unanimity in the findings[...]". (my italic) Not that it was the report's conclusion. If he mentioned the conclusion of the majority report, then it is as honest as it could be: he himself thought that findings suggested that attacks were planned, minority report agreed, while the majority report held another opinion. It is perfectly legitimate to disagree with conclusion of a report, as in example I wrote earlier one can claim that "findings in the US report on Abu Grahib prisoner abuse strongly suggested that orders came from within the White House, but the report itself concluded that there was no evidence of such orders". It is even more legitimate if there was a minority report claiming that existence of such orders is proven.

If he did not mention the conclusion of the majority report, then this is a (serious) omission, but not a direct lie. Unfortunately we do not have next pages available, but the passage from the minority report "I therefore take a more serious view then do my colleagues" does say that the "colleagues" took a less serious view.

Heptor _talk 22:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I doubt if any reader would understand "findings of the Commission" as meaning anything other than the conclusions that the Commission came to. I think the phrase "findings of the commission/enquiry/court/etc" never means anything else in the English language. This is emphasised by the word "unanimity" which indicates agreement among the commissioners. Even if Pearlman would make an argument like you are making, it does not alter the fact that almost all readers are going to be misled by his words. As for your example, you cheated by using the words "strongly suggested" where Pearlman made a completely unqualified statement. --Zero 23:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Contested Spaces

Full references for Contested Spaces (Bickerton, Hill) added. -- Cyril Washbrook 23:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed of sourced material from this article

This was removed [4] by Zero:

1. ^ During the 1948 War, the Mufti is also alleged to have said "I declare a holy war, my Moslem brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!" (Leonard J. Davis and M. Decter, Eds., Myths and facts: A Concise Record of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Washington DC: Near East Report, 1982, p. 199).

Zeq 05:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Propagandistic sources with no other support do not meet Wikipedia standards. --Zero 09:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, this book is not such a source. It was in a recent ArbCom case and they did not rule this source out. If they would have this would be a different ball game. Zeq 10:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand the function of the Arbitration Committee. --Zero 10:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but that is not the issue. You removed this sourced material based on ArbCom rulling but they never rulled in such way. so this material should be re-inserted. Zeq 05:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It was you and not me who was cautioned by the AC on the use of propagandistic sources. Apparently you learnt nothing. --Zero 05:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess that is the issue: Is this source valid for Wikipedia or not. BTW< you were warned to use dispute resolutions process and avoid edit war. Hopefully you will comply. Zeq 06:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Great words of advice from Mr. Edit War himself. --Zero 06:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Although discussion on this subject has died, I feel the need to point out that Zero has completely and totally failed to respond to Zeq's point, and has relied entirely and totally to ad hominem.

---

An anon added following info without any explanation: "The Saudis, contrary to popular belief, did not get involved". Sources, anyone? -- Heptor _talk 23:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I have read that when they sent troops toward Palestine, Abdallah refused they cross Tranjordania and sent Arab Legion to prevent them. But this doesn't the information is true. Alithien 00:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Saudi Arabia sent a small force that fought with the Egyptians in the south. I think we can revert the anon insertion until a proper citation is provided. Even then it is not worth spending more than a sentence or two on the Saudis as their involvement was tiny compared to the big players. --Zero 01:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the revert. Alithien 15:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yoav Gelber, "Palestine 1948", 2006 clearly specifies there were 800 saudis who participated to the war. They waited at Aqaba and enter the coutry with the column of egyptian volonteers. He also precises Abdallah didn't agree they cross his country. Alithien 15:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

Here's what I can find:

• Riad es.Solh stated here to-night that King Ibn Saud had agreed that the Saudi Arabian army should join in Arab League military action to prevent the establishment of a Zionist state. (Fom Our Correspondent, Bagdhad, May 9. 'King Ibn Saud's Army', The Times, Monday, May 10, 1948; pg. 4; Issue 51067; col B.)
• The five Arab states who joined in the invasion of Palestine were Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq; while the two contingents came from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. All these states, however, only sent an expeditionary force to Palestine, keeping the bulk of their army at home. (p.81) (Shlaim, Avi (2001). Israel and the Arab Coalition. In Eugene Rogan and Avi Shlaim (eds.). The War for Palestine (pp. 79-103). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521794765)
• Saudi Arabia paid 20% of the cost of the Arab Liberation Army. (p. 193) (Landis, Joshua (2003) Syria in the 1948 Palestine War: Fighting King Abdullah’s Greater Syria Plan. In Eugene Rogan and Avi Shlaim (eds.). The War for Palestine (pp. 178-205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521794765)
• Saudi Arabia sent a small contingent, that fought under Egyptian command. (p. 193) (Gilbert, Martin (1998). Israel: A History. Black Swan. ISBN 0552995452)

I can't find anything about actual fighting or casualties. --Ian Pitchford 16:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is the abstract of an article I don't have the full text for. Casualties are mentioned.
Author: `Uthman, Hasan Salih.
Title: DAWR AL-MAMLAKA AL-`ARABIYYA AL-SA`UDIYYA FI HARB FILASIN 1367H/1948
Transl/Info: [The role of Saudi Arabia in the Palestine war of 1948].
Citation: Revue d'Histoire Maghrébine [Tunisia] 1986 13(43-44): 201-221. ISSN: 0330-8987
Abstract: During the fighting that followed the UN partition resolution, King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia made representations to the United States, Britain, and other Arab states. The Arab League states decided to invade on 15 May 1948 when the Mandate expired, in order to protect the Palestinian Arabs from further Jewish attacks and to prevent the emergence of a Jewish state. The Saudi king sent 1,200 men to fight with the Egyptian forces, although he originally wished only to send aid to Palestinian fighters. But the Arab states were at odds with each other. Ninety-six Saudis died in the Palestine war.
--Zero 10:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Splendid. These references seem enough to cover the role of Saudi Arabia in this general article. --Ian Pitchford 10:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice job Zero ! More precisely about what I wrote above : refering to Levinberg and different IDF documents, Gelber writes : "Another contingent comprised of 800 Saudi tribesmen had assembled near Aqaba, apparently heading for Neguev. (...) Ultimately they moved to Egypt and joined the Egyptian expeditionary force".(Palestine 1948, p.55). You are designed volunteer to introduce all the information in the article. ;-) Alithien 19:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

in the independece war Israel faught against 6-7 countries: Egypt, Jorda, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and yaman or Sudan. Zeq 10:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait a second, 96 casualties out of a total force of 1200, doesn't that seem kinda high?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually 96 dead, not casualties, so it is even higher. According to one source quoted here, deaths for other Arab armies were Egypt: 2,000, Syria: 1,000, Jordan: 1,000, Iraq: 500, Lebanon: 500. Comparing these to the total troop counts, 96/1200 is not unreasonably high. --Zero 05:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Think about it, if your numbers our right then some of our current info must be wrong. If lebanon lost 500 troops and we have said they had 2000 overall then a quater of their overall strength would have been lost. I don't pretend to be an expert on military matters but I am pretty sure these casualty rates are unheard of.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure some of our current info is wrong, because all these statistics are rough estimates and different researchers come up with different values. We won't ever get them to look completely consistent. On Lebanon: recently I saw a detailed analysis of the Lebanese force that used Lebanese sources for the first time. Most early estimates were based on guesses made by Israeli soldiers in the field; obviously that is very difficult. When I remember where it is, I'll report. --Zero 06:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you think until then we can use one source for everything, just to be consistent?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Consistency might come at the price of accuracy. An alternative would be to open about the difficulty of the problem and give some examples of disagreements. --Zero 10:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Back to Lebanon. I have Matthew Hughes, Lebanon's armed forces and the Arab-Israeli war, 1948-49, J. Palestine Studies, vol 24 (2005) pp24-41. You are right, a body count of 500 is completely fanciful. The Lebanese Army had 4 infantry battalions of 400-450 soldiers each plus support personnel. Three battalions were positioned along the border but only one of those was engaged in serious battles. They captured the Jewish village of Malikiyya (700 meters inside Palestine) on May 13-14, and lost it again on May 28-29. Apart from that some skirmishes, some inside Lebanon. Hughes does not give a number for total fatalities, but it is clearly impossible for it to have been very high and 500 is out of the question. Lebanon also had some involvement with the ALA irregulars (Qawuqji’s forces). Our figure of 2000 total forces seems within reason, but many never entered Palestine and it's debatable whether those should be counted. --Zero 10:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I checked this morning before to go to work. Gelbert writes at the first truce there was 1 (one) casuality on the Libanese side and that illustrates how deep they participate. I come back with the exact page. I think the 2000 must be counted of course but their real involvment must be specified. Alithien 13:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If some fought skirmishes inside Lebanon then why should we only count the soldiers who were in in Israel?, and even if they didn't I believe it is customary to count non-combat troops, but I agree if it is possible then we should explain their roles.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It was initially intended that the Lebanese army would not enter Palestine at all but just defend the border. There was a lot of opposition in Lebanon to getting involved in the war. In the end, they had some small involvement. The skirmishes inside Lebanon were due to Jewish forces entering Lebanon. They got as far as the Litani River and some of the Israeli generals wanted to keep going. Anyway, to get back to the point, I agree that forces in support roles get counted as well as those in combat. Within limits, naturally. --Zero 11:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, aren't we sacrificing accuracy even without the consistency?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)