Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War

Infobox image(s)

What is the reason for this revert, @Snowstormfigorion? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The thing is I don't see that there's a reason for placing a collage in the infobox; the images are identical in purpose of demonstration and sentiment to the ones in the body, which, per MOS:PERTINENCE, are much ample and number 40+ and include multiple galleries. One of the images in the collage, albeit slightly cropped, is already used in the body. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 11:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Snowstormfigorion: For me, I don't see a reason to place an exclusively Israeli picture in the infobox. We can either replace it with a more neutral picture or use a collage. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The image is not meant to portray one side over the other; rather, it merely captures a pivotal moment in the conflict. As for the collage, as per the above, I don't see that there's a need for whatsoever given that the article is ladened with images and galleries/collages in the body. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

How is multiple images not superior to a single image? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

See the above; the number of images used in the infobox by itself is impertinent. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

"The number of images used in the infobox by itself is impertinent"? Then why have you reverted my edit? This doesn't make sense. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Impertinent as in simply more images are not "superior" to less and vice versa; again, see the above for why a collage in the infobox is redundant in the case of this article, which further applies to 1948 Palestine war. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

So your opinion is that it doesn't matter either way whether we use one or multiple images? Myself and seemingly Makeandtoss prefer multiple images so why not go with that? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Because that's not how this works, we don't merely go by opinions or preference; I've presented based on policy why a collage in the articles(s) is not needed, unless you're willing to refute this in a parallel manner a notion alone does not constitute a counterargument. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

How can I refute that "a college in the articles(s) is not needed"? Obviously it isn't needed but the question is is it preferable. I and another prefer it. You oppose it. I think we'll need more input from others. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

If it's not needed and "obviously" so, it's WP:NONCONSTRUCTIVE. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The 1973 War was far shorter, less consequential than the 1948 War, and has an image collage. I think the article should feature a collage. Lightiggy (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems it is three to one in favour of using multiple images. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Drop the multiple mini images from one that is accessible for all. Moxy🍁 02:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Support multiple images per NPOV. It's standard for major war articles. See World War I and World War II. Besides, the flag image is before the entry of Arab regular armies the following day, when the 1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine really became the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. إيان (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The flag image is from 10 March 1949 I believe. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Moxy, not sure I'm following where you're getting it; could you please further elaborate? Snowstormfigorion (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Snowstormfigorion: Reverting three times against multiple editors in an ARBPIA article is WP:edit warring. Please self-revert. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted IOHANNVSVERVS as per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY; major changes to ARBPIA articles are decided through community discourse and consensus, see WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, not through vote-tallying. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 09:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Snowstormfigorion: That is correct, but consensus is established through talk page discussions, not through edit warring your preferred version. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, last time I reverted was nine days ago, the two reverts were two days in between and I explained throughly in the talk page the rationale behind them, with the reverts being to the status quo and as opposed to my "preferred version"; wouldn't call this edit warring, but I guess by some definition it could be. If so, then my apologies, keeping this here henceforth. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 11:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Implemented above consensus. Selfstudier (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Again and as per the above, this is a major change to a contentious topic, ARBPIA article, see WP:NHC and please self-revert until further editorial input is given and consensus is evidently clear. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 12:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The consensus IS clear. Selfstudier (talk) 12:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not. As per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, discussion is still ongoing and currently only involves a handful editors; again, please self-revert. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

As I've said above I committed myself to keep the discussion in the talk page, however, Selfstudier, it’s not your jurisdiction to decide that consensus has been reached in an ongoing discussion concerning a major change to a CTOP article. Moreover, as said above, more community and editorial input is needed for such change and an WP:RFC would also be constructive in reaching a collective community consensus as per WP:CONACHIEVE. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

See ur talk page. Selfstudier (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Seen, see yours. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 10:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Just so you know, guys, there's this wonderful little template called {{outdent}} designed for situations exactly like this. In my experience it's a little easier to assume good faith and resolve disputes without outside help when you're not reading and responding to text jammed into an inch (2.54 cm) or so. Daniel Case (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)