Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 September 2024

Change "At the end of a series of offensives that began April 1948, in which Zionist forces had conquered cities and territories in Mandatory Palestine in preparation for the establishment of a Jewish state, Zionist leaders announced the Israeli Declaration of Independence on 14 May 1948.[16] The following morning, after the termination of the British Mandate, Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, and expeditionary forces from Iraq entered Palestine." to " At the end of a series of offensives that began April 1948, in which Zionist forces had conquered cities and territories in Mandatory Palestine in preparation for the establishment of a Jewish state, Zionist leaders announced the Israeli Declaration of Independence on 14 May 1948.[16] The following morning, after the termination of the British Mandate, Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, and expeditionary forces from Iraq entered Palestine."

to

"Zionist leaders announced the Israeli Declaration of Independence on 14 May 1948, and the following morning, after the termination of the British Mandate, Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, and expeditionary forces from Iraq invaded Palestine and Israel."

There is no citation indicating that "Zionist forces had conquered cities and territories in Mandatory Palestine in preparation for the establishment of a Jewish state", because there is not any historical record of this. There is also no credible citation detailing any "series of offensives that began April 1948". 2607:FEA8:539F:FA00:9C3C:BD87:A464:1402 (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Not done, there is citation 16 in the lead and 151 in the article body.Selfstudier (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

"Jewish bribes"

There's clearly a problem with the section which reads "due to Jewish bribes" and also claims " invaded territories of the former Palestinian mandate allocated for a future Arab state." I tagged with dubious and better source needed. I'll have to check what wording the Yoav Gelber source uses, who should be reliable, but I really doubt that this is the framing and context he uses. Andre🚐 19:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I checked Gelber and it does indeed say on p.11 "encouraged by Jewish bribes," without a footnote, this is in the introduction and there are several other occurrences of "bribe" in the book on p. 28, 38, 264, 61, 57, 257, 108, which might shed a bit more light on this, but I'll remove the dubious tag since it's from a reliable source and replace it with a clarify tag. Andre🚐 19:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

"Jewish exodus from Muslim world" due for lede?

Is the following due for the lede of this article? (Mentioned after the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight):

A similar number of Jews moved to Israel during the three years following the war, including 260,000 from the surrounding Arab states.

An RfC about the same question at 1948 Palestine war resulted in consensus against including this content in the lede. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, 1948 Palestine war is a different topic from 1948 Arab-Israeli war. If they were the same topic they'd presumably be merged. I think it is indeed an important outcome of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and belongs. Andre🚐 02:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The 1948 Arab-Israeli war is not "a different topic" from the 1948 Palestine war – it was a part of it.

I don't see how the RfC at 1948 Palestine war wouldn't apply to this article as well.

You'll need to make reference to RS to support your position that the Jewish exodus from the Muslim world was "an important outcome of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war", especially when the RfC at 1948 Palestine war concluded that "there were multiple sources, primarily Morris, used to show that the exodus was at most an indirect result of the war. While there were sources provided that attempted to discuss the exodus in context of the war, they were also rebutted." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

While the expulsions and flights of Jews didn't start in 1948 they were intensified by the war. The 1948 Arab-Israeli war is a specific war while the 1948 Palestine War is a more general description of a wider topic. If that were not the case, it should be merged as a WP:CONTENTFORK. The 1948 Arab-Israeli War was the proximate event along with the partition and the rising unrest that led to a significant exodus of Jews, primarily from Arab countries in the Middle East and North Africa. The 1948 war exacerbated existing tensions and triggered widespread anti-Jewish sentiment in Arab countries.See For example, Benoussan p. 361, 371, 375 talk about how the war was the event which led to the situation in Egypt, see also Beinin which explicitly ties the unrest in Egypt to the partition. Gat p. 46 discusses the plan to expel Jews from Iraq after the war in 1949. See to put a fine point on it, in Egypt: . Rioting against Jews occurred in November 1945, then resumed in June-November 1948, the latter time inspired by the war with Israel... some Palestinians have come to see Jewish sovereignty in Israel in terms of a population exchange, and as the necessary price to be paid for the Arab expulsions. ‘Isam as-Sirtawi, who participated in some well-known terrorist operations but later excelled in seeking contact with the Israelis, told Ha-'Olam Ha-zé editor Uri Avneir that he gave up terrorism against Israel and instead began promoting negotiations when he realized that Israel serves as the asylum for Jews expelled from Arab countries; and that there is no going back along that path. Sabri Jiryis, director of the Institute of Palestine Studies in Beirut, enumerated in 1975 the factors leading to the establishment of the State of Israel. The Arab states had much to do with this, for they expelled the Jews “in a most ugly fashion, and after confiscating their possessions or taking control thereof at the lowest price.” ...“It is true that we Israelis brought about the exodus of the Arabs from their land in the war of 1948 . . . and that we took control of their property. In return however you Arabs caused the expulsion of a like number of Jews from Arab countries since 1948 until today. Most of these went to Israel after you seized control of their property in one way or another. What happened, therefore, is merely a kind of ‘population and property transfer,’ the consequences of which both sides have to bear. Thus Israel gathers in the Jews from Arab countries and the Arab countries are obliged in turn to settle the Palestinians within their own borders and work towards a solution of the problem”. ..Accounts of the late 1940s widely assume that the Arab exodus occurred first, followed by the Jewish expulsion. Kirkbride refers to “a decision of the Iraqi government to retaliate for the expulsion of Arab refugees from Palestine by forcing the majority of the Jewish population of Iraq to go to Israel.” In Libya, too, there is a similar tendency to associate the uprooting of the Jewish community with the establishment of the State of Israel. “Jews,” John Wright argues, “were forced out of Libya as a result of events leading up and following the foundation of the State of Israel in May 1948.” But these accounts oversimplify the actual sequence of events Andre🚐 18:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

You're relitigating the previous RfC.

"The 1948 Arab-Israeli war is a specific war while the 1948 Palestine War is a more general description of a wider topic." This is nonsensical - the Arab-Israeli war was a part of the 1948 Palestine war. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

If that RFC was about the lead of another article, it doesn't apply to this one. Andre🚐 22:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Undue and indirectly related to the war. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty clear to me that its completely the opposite. ABHammad (talk) 14:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Just run an RFC asking whether the result of the other RFC should apply to this page as well, should satisfy everyone. For the record, I will be !voting that it obviously does. Selfstudier (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It’s the exact same logic, and the claim that the two are distinct when one is a part of the other is absurd. Decades of immigration has nothing to do with this war, and we have an RFC that already settled that question. nableezy - 13:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

This is highly relevant, per Benny Morris

“ 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 ”

and other sources.

The RfC was about the other article and was likely influenced by canvassing. Alaexis_¿question? 14:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

That's an aspersion unless you have evidence for it. If not, strike it please. Also the other RFC close says specifically "As such, there were multiple sources, primarily Morris, used to show that the exodus was at most an indirect result of the war" (ie not DUE) and yet you have inserted it again based on that source, so that looks very much like tendentious editing. Selfstudier (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The RfC was about a different article. Indirect results of the war that are considered important by multiple sources can be mentioned. There is no policy that says that the lede should contain only direct results. Alaexis_¿question? 19:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

It’s about the parent article to this, making it even less an aspect of this article. It is the same argument and it is incredibly tendentious to make us go through it again, wikilawyering away an established consensus against the same argument you made there. nableezy - 22:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Palestine War isn't a parent article to 1948 Arab-Israeli War. If anything, this discussion makes me think it's more of a WP:POVFORK and an alternate name of the same thing. That would make the consensus apply but it also means the 2 articles should be merged and redirected. If we think they are different topics, then each lead consensus would be a different discussion. Furthermore, WP:CCC. Either way though, citing a consensus from a different article's lead section, parent, child, overlap or no, doesn't fly at all. It's not about wikilawyering, by the common sense, commonly understood spirit of the nature of a local consensus, a local consensus on one article's lead section applies narrowly to that question and is not generalizable to a related article even if you feel there is a parallel and equal issue at hand. Andre🚐 23:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m nearly certain you’ve tried that argument before too, but the Palestine War article is about the combination of the civil war and this international war. You either get that or don’t, I can’t say it matters to me one way or another, but that discussion was plainly about the same topic and the consensus was against its inclusion as a major aspect. nableezy - 03:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

If Palestine war is about, in your words, "the combination of the civil war and this international war," which makes it a distinct topic from "this international war" (1948 war), which means the lead section isn't identical, and therefore, the consensus on topic Topic A (Topic A1 + A2), isn't the same as the question for Topic A2 only. You can't have a cake and eat it too. Either these are 2 separate, but overlapping topics, with 2 different discussions as to whether subaspects are major or not, because presumably, by virtue of being only about A2, it's possible that some aspects are more important and some less important or not present at all. Andre🚐 03:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The issue addressed in the RfC is exactly the same, and the arguments that prevailed in the RfC apply just the same here. And even if the previous RfC is discounted, there is clearly no consensus here for this sentence. ONUS hasn't been repealed. Zero^talk 04:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

If there's WP:NOCON here, the status quo should remain. Andre🚐 04:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish do you think this end around an RFC with an established consensus on the same exact material with the same exact sourcing in the parent article to this is acceptable? nableezy - 04:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

That's nonsense. There's never been a precedent on Wikipedia that DUEness for a lead of one article means you have carte blanche to remove that same material in every article it's in. Andre🚐 04:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Im just checking if an admin is serious about dealing with tendentious and disruptive editing, dont mind me. nableezy - 12:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Such allegations are incivil. Nothing in the aforementioned is tendentious or disruptive. SFR just confirmed that different articles have different scopes, and a local consensus on one article doesn't apply to another, and a new RFC may be created for this article, which I can do at some point if nobody else does it first. Andre🚐 21:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Doesn’t necessarily, and yes they obviously have different scopes. The problem is this scope is narrower as that one is about this and the 47-48 civil war. That makes the inclusion here even less on topic than there. nableezy - 21:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

You may argue that in the RFC I just opened. Andre🚐 21:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Different articles have different scopes, even when one is a child article of the other. A local consensus at one article doesn't necessarily apply to another, especially when the issue is if the content is due. That said, in this circumstance there is clearly no consensus to include at this time. Someone should just start an rfc about the sentence in the lede of this article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I have now done so. Thanks for clarifying. Andre🚐 21:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The canvassing was from the side pushing for this material lol. Just like that article, introducing indirect consequences as though it were a major aspect due for the lead is absurd. Something that was "partly because of the clash" is not a major topic of the war. It would be just silly if we didn’t already have an RFC about this exact same thing in the article on the overall war. It is tendentious and disruptive because we already did. Alaexis' disruptive edit should be reverted. nableezy - 14:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

It’s also a straightforward distortion of the record, a similar number did not come to Israel in the three years following the war, to approach the number of Jews from the Arab world emigrating to Israel as Palestinians who were expelled would take over a decade. nableezy - 15:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

You're right, I've made the correction. Alaexis_¿question? 19:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

It's obvious to me that the RfC applies here too. People who want to violate that result should start another RfC. I'm not impressed that something can be found in a "reliable source"; we all know that the vastness of the literature on this subject means that practically anything can be found in a "reliable source" and that for every source that says "X" there is another that says "not X". It behooves us to attempt to find the consensus of reliable sources. I believe that the consensus is that the Jewish immigration was the result of Israeli independence, not a direct result of the war. It is also objectionable to place this information right beside the Palestinian exodus as if there was some sort of symmetry when there wasn't. This is just a standard propaganda play that is intended to defend Israel for driving out the Palestinians. Zero^talk 00:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

When has a consensus for the lead on one page ever applied to the lead on another page? Andre🚐 01:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It is the same question in the same circumstances. Not interested in wikilawyering. Zero^talk 02:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The statement "A similar number of Jews moved to Israel during the three years following the war," in the article by virtue of this revert, is false. Selfstudier (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, it has been reverted out. It should not be restored. Selfstudier (talk) 12:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Right, it took 7–9 years if I can add correctly. Zero^talk 13:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

To editor Snowstormfigorion: You reinserted this false information. What are you going to do about it? Zero^talk 02:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

How is it false information? Snowstormfigorion (talk) 07:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Because the number is not "similar", that you are not aware of this is a cause for concern. Alaexis edited to fix that and it was reverted, yet you reinserted it even though I specifically pointed out above that it should not be restored. Selfstudier (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Lack of consensus

There is no consensus for the relevance of this migration to the war, its inclusion in the lede is misleading, portraying it as a direct consequence, when we have sources saying it is indirectly related to the war. Editors who disagree should abide by WP policy and seek consensus for this addition through seeking WP:Dispute resolution, not by edit warring the disputed content back in contravention of WP:ONUS. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Now that the RFC has been opened, the article should stay at the status quo for 30 days while the RFC runs. Andre🚐 21:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

You mean with the false statement included? Which I said above should not be restored? Isn't there a rule about deliberate falsification of the encyclopedia? Selfstudier (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to correcting the statement while retaining it, but removing it would be contrary to that norm or tradition of not editing during the RFC. The RFC is about mentioning the event in the lead. A constructive edit improving the statement wouldn't be in the spirit of the reverts removing it. That's my view. Others might disagree. Andre🚐 22:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It wasn’t there when you started the RFC, making your argument be one in favor of retaining the article without it. nableezy - 14:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Huh? No, I started the RFC after the material was restored. Andre🚐 19:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Andrevan: There is no such thing. There is no consensus on the talk page and an RFC is a way of reaching consensus. The disputed content should not be restored until consensus has been reached per WP:ONUS, i.e. after the RFC is finished.

@Snowstormfigorion:'s reinsertion of disputed content which had been removed three times and has no consensus for its inclusion, coupled with the lack of engagement in the talk page discussion and the opened RFC, is extremely problematic editing behavior. This comes just after they had been blocked for a month from this article for "disrespect for consensus and slow edit warring" [1]. Please do better by self-reverting, and engaging in the consensus building processes here. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, Makeandtoss, when you start an RFC the article remains at the status quo for the duration. Andre🚐 18:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

This is gaming, there was clearly no consensus for the inclusion of that material, and you are transparently claiming what does not have consensus must remain for 30 days. nableezy - 19:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Of course it's not gaming. There is no consensus to remove the material. The material has been in the article for several years and therefore is long-standing. ONUS isn't a blank check to just remove anything. Andre🚐 19:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The material has been in the lead since 2012, and in the current phrasing since 2020; as such it does have consensus, as per WP:EDITCON. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 07:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:CCC Until it doesn't, like now. The reason given for removal initially was not ONUS, see this diff with edit summary "Remove as undue (See previous RfC at 1948 Palestine war) "A similar number of Jews moved to Israel during the three years following the war, including 260,000 from the surrounding Arab states." Add "Thousands of Palestinians were killed" which is not merely citing ONUS as a reason for removal, so the blank check argument is also irrelevant. Selfstudier (talk) 10:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Snowstormfigorion: It no longer has consensus as demonstrated in the talk page. Again, I do not see any effort on your side to engage in the consensus building process here, instead you have again reverted another edit. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The RFC only covers the second part of the disputed material. Selfstudier (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Andrevan: On which Wikipedia guideline is this principle referenced to? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOCON, WP:PRESERVE, WP:RFC, WP:QUO (essay) Andre🚐 15:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:DON'T PRESERVE is actually the relevant guideline since it involves contentious material. RFC and QUO are not guidelines nor policies. Preserving a disputed status quo is not a thing on WP. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Take a look at the discussion at WT:V#ONUS a blank check which I started because I wasn't sure if this has changed recently, but the bottom line is no, NOCON is policy, no consensus means keep/retain even when there is a dispute, but there's no consensus about how ONUS should affect that since ONUS puts the finger on the scale for exclusion. As I'm involved here and there and you're involved here, an uninvolved person would have to tell us about the consensus as to what is status quo an what should happen on this article, but it's always been a WP practice that nocon mean keep/retain. Andre🚐 19:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The RFC will decide if it is retained or not. Selfstudier (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, of course. And it's trending toward removal. I just meant in general WRT to Makeandtoss' statement that "Preserving a disputed status quo is not a thing on WP." If the RFC ends NOCON, which seems unlikely at this point, it would end up preserving a disputed status quo. See also WP:BRD. Andre🚐 19:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Pending further discussion, yes it would. QUO is not always clear cut tho, it can vary case by case. Selfstudier (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion you opened does not relate to the dispute here. Editors did not remove the content based on ONUS; editors removed the content because they explicitly disagreed with it, and stated that it should not be restored until ONUS is fulfilled. NOCON is irrelevant. Content that does not have consensus/has consensus against its inclusion should not stay. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

If the content has consensus against its inclusion, it should be removed. ONUS is irrelevant. If it has no consensus to be retained, but no consensus to remove it, per NOCON it should stay. That may be a moot point since consensus is trending toward removal but the discussion isn't over. ONUS may be a finger on the scale for exclusion, thus that discussion to clarify, but that clarification has determined that the tension between NOCON and ONUS still exists. Andre🚐 14:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

There was never an explicit consensus for this material. You are basically saying unless there is an explicit consensus against then your position prevails. Sorry, but ONUS still applies to this material after it has been challenged. nableezy - 14:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The fact that the content in a well-watched article has remained in some form since 2012 and in present form since 2020 suggests an implicit consensus for that material at one time existed. So yes, I am arguing that ONUS shouldn't weigh in here. That is the nature of the discussion at WT:V which shows that it does relate to this discussion. Again, it may be a moot point if there is an affirmative consensus to remove the content. Andre🚐 14:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

And once challenged that implicit consensus is gone. nableezy - 15:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The other RFC self evidently raises doubt about the consensus assumed for this one and the argument that it somehow doesn't count for this page is not convincing at all. Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

An uninvolved admin already confirmed that the two scopes for different articles are different, so a new RFC is needed as that other one does not apply here. Andre🚐 15:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Technically true, fine example of wikilawyering to boot. Selfstudier (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Because reasoned arguments in a debate necessarily include both elements of fact and references to principles, disputants who lack such an argument sometimes try to undermine arguments they can not otherwise overcome by just tossing out the naked accusation that their opponent is a wikilawyer. This is not a good-faith tactic and does not foster a collegial consensus-seeking atmosphere. Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. Which also says that what I'm doing isn't wikilawyering and that such allegations are a civility violation. Andre🚐 15:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Sigh. Selfstudier (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

References

700,000

A related issue to the addition of the Jewish exodus line is that the 700,000 number isn’t accurate for this article. The majority of that number was expelled prior to the outbreak of this war, though getting an exact number might be difficult since there are ranges of estimates. But we need to rephrase at least that this number includes a majority that were kicked out prior to this war and that this was a cause for the Arab states entering the conflict. nableezy - 21:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

How is this? [2] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

RFC for Jewish exodus

Should the lead section of 1948 Arab-Israeli War mention the Jewish exodus from the Muslim world? Andre🚐 21:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• No - as the discussion and the sourcing makes clear at the exact same RFC about the parent article of this makes clear, the Jewish exodus from Muslim countries is not a major aspect of the topic of this war. Since apparently we need to have this same discussion over and over, I’ll just quote myself from that RFC. 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 - 22:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• No, there was an RFC about this same question which established "consensus against inclusion in the lede" at the article 1948 Palestine war. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, discussed extensively by the best sources on the war. Andre🚐 22:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Which sources are you referring to? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Küntzel 2023, Benny Morris 1948: A History, as mentioned by Alaexis in the previous section, Shabi 2009, Shlaim/Rogan 2001, Benoussan, Beinin, and Gat. Andre🚐 00:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose to its inclusion in the lede as the Jewish exodus is completely irrelevant to the war in a direct way for the following reasons:

1- Geographic irrelevance: The 1948 Arab-Israeli war took place in Mandatory Palestine, and not in any regional Arab country with sizable Jewish communities that later mostly left for Israel such as Iraq, unlike the expulsion of Palestinians which occurred in Palestine.

2- Temporal irrelevance: The exodus of Jewish Arabs from their home countries mostly occurred after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war had ended, unlike the expulsion of Palestinians which occurred mostly during the war.

3- Indirect relevance: The exodus of Jews from Arab countries such as Iraq was not directly related to the war, but rather indirectly, unlike the mostly direct expulsion and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

Therefore, the inclusion of this disputed content would also give a misleading false equivalence between two completely unrelated and dissimilar issues. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

One can't really establish lack of a causal connection through arguments like this. A similar argument would suggest that the Holocaust wasn't connected to the creation is Israel. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Morris said it was indirect. Idk what the Holocaust has to do with this discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• No. Unlike the exodus of the Palestinians, which was part of the war and to a large extent a war aim, the exodus of Jews from Arab countries was a result of the foundation of Israel and the consequent implementation of Israeli policy. It was part of the demographic development over the following 3-10 years, not an aspect of the war. Zero^talk 12:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• No, The same arguments are valid here, as here, the exodus of Jews from Arab contries happened after the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, and was at leat partly due the the actions of the new Israeli state, (Lavon Affair, anyone?) Huldra (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• No per reasoning by Nableezy and Huldra. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• No Nableezy has explained quite well why this is out of place here, and also that there has already been consensus established on this. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 05:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• No per reasoning by Nableezy and Zero. M.Bitton (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• No. We had this discussion at the 'Jewish exodus' article in February. Again, I quote Tessler 2009 (1,064 Google scholar cites), pp. 308-311, which covers this in depth:

  Supporters of Israel have frequently sought to buttress the case for Palestinian resettlement by emphasizing that roughly 450,000 Jewish "refugees" from the Arab world were resettled in Israel in the decade after 1948. More than half of these individuals arrived in the Jewish state between 1949 and 1951 ...

  While the arrival of these Jews from the Arab world played a critical role in shaping the character and evolution of Israeli society after 1948, the argument that their dislocation was comparable to that of the Palestinians is controversial and problematic. Israeli propagandists stressed the difficulties that confronted Jews in Arab lands and suggested that they had been forced to leave their homes. ... In fact, however, such statements give a distorted impression of the complex and varied situation of the Jews in Arab countries and of the diverse reasons that led most to leave.

  Scholarly Israeli and Jewish sources, as well as others, offer a more realistic appraisal. ... In these cases, and undoubtedly some others, it was the attraction of Israel, rather than a desire to flee persecution, that led Jews to leave the Arab countries in which they lived.

  Socioeconomic factors may have been an even more important consideration. ...

  In some instances, cultural factors provided yet another stimulus to Jewish emigration. ...

  Finally, post-1948 Zionist efforts to promote Jewish emigration appear to have been an important factor in at least a few instances. ... In any event, when Zionist involvement is added to the socioeconomic, cultural, and other factors that helped to stimulate Jewish departures, it becomes clear that it is highly oversimplified, and in many ways misleading, to equate the flight of Palestine's Arabs with the immigration to Israel of Jews from Arab countries.

  Nowhere on Wikipedia should we be stating in Wikivoice this widely-debunked "population exchange" or "Jewish Nakba" theory. Levivich (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, per sources which make the connection clear and treat it as a consequence of the war, including Benny Morris (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) and others, please see more in the discussion thread. It's certainly true that there were other reasons for the migration but the sources make it clear that the war was one of the major ones. Alaexis_¿question? 22:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• No Apart from sources such as Tessler as quoted by Levivich, the One Million Plan#Following establishment of Israel makes it clear that encouraging Jewish immigration from Arab countries was a priority for the new Israeli government.Selfstudier (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, clearly a result of the hostilities, and per Alaexis and Andrevan. ABHammad (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, per what Alaexis shows below. HaOfa (talk) 08:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, the actions of Arab states who invaded Israel against Jewish citizens in those states is very relevant to the war. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Yes Per WP:LEAD, summarize article's content. Jewish mass immigration, particularly from the Arab world, was an important consequence of the war. No serious source on the topic disputes that. BePrepared1907 (talk) 09:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• No as stated by others it was not a result of the war, but of further colonialisation following the establishment of the Israel state. No mention of it belongs in the article let alone the lead. TarnishedPath^talk 10:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, per Andre, BePrepared1907 and others. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, 100% yes. So obviously yes that I'm surprised that we need a survey for this. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• Notified WikiProject Jewish history, WikiProject Arab world, WikiProject Israel, WikiProject Palestine. Andre🚐 19:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Andrevan and Alaexis there are a two components to this debate. Yes, you should show that (1) the Jewish exodus was caused by the 1948 war. You also need to show that (2) among the war's many effects, the Jewish exodus was one of the most significant outcomes. Showing (1) alone would merit mention of the war in the lead of Jewish exodus from the Muslim world, but not here. Indeed, we have no mention of the Jewish exodus in the lead of the Iranian revolution, even though that revolution did lead to many Jews leaving Iran, because the Iranian revolution had far more significant outcomes (according to RS).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 10:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  The two first sources from the list below are books about the war and they describe this as one of the effects of the war (in Conclusion and Afterword respectively). It's called a *major* refugee problem. Other sources which deal with the history of Israel also stress the importance of this migration. Alaexis_¿question? 22:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  In the entirety of 1948 by Morris he even mentions Jewish refugees, according to the index, over a total of 4 pages, one page discussing internal Jewish refugees (where he says During the following months, abandoned urban houses were often settled by Jewish refugees from Palestine’s war zone) and three pages of the conclusion of the book. This in a book 420 pages long. Thats 3 pages about an indirect effect out of 420 pages, so about .7% of the pages of the book even mention this supposedly major subtopic. Giving that even a sentence in the lead is wildly undue even if one ignores that Morris himself doesn’t even say that this was a consequence of the war itself. nableezy - 23:33, 31 October 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).

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 ”

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 ”

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 ”

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

”

Alaexis_¿question? 22:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)