Talk:Plan Dalet

There are issues with this article. See the following links: http://www.mideastweb.org/pland.htm http://www.israelforum.com/board/archive/index.php/t-3061.html http://www.ajds.org.au/mendes.htm

I did some major editing of this page and added the DISPUTE NPOV to it as it was one-sided with no links

Arguments are more effective when they are not in Bold text that is why i removed boldface and corrected grammar and spelling.

EU Plan D

I think that we should add a section (or separate article) about the EU's Plan D (that deals with its internal affairs, not with Arab-Israeli conflict)... Alinor 21:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

      Better to create a new article entitled Plan D. Queanbeyan 16:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Execution

What do you mean by "execution" ? I am not sure to understand what you mean. Alithien 07:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Plans Aleph, Beth and Gimel

Plan Daleth is Plan 4. It is an improvement on a previous plan, viz. Plan Gimel. The wikipedia article should have at least a little about the earlier plans for context. Pappe does something in his Ethnic Cleansing, but I do not propose to copy him at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.144.3.239 (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

POV

Hello, I have a few problems with this article. I find that it puts too much emphasis on the New Historians like Pappé and Morris and neglects the official Israeli/pro-Israeli viewpoint. This article needs to be more balanced. One good example of Bias comes in the opening paragraph:

According to Yoav Gelber, Plan D was primarily defensive in nature. According to other sources it was a plan with the purpose of conquering as much of Palestine as possible and to expel as many Palestinians as possible.

This gives the impression that there was only 1 person arguing that Plan D was a defensive plan while "Other Sources" sounds like everyone else. In actuality this article is just promoting the Minority viewpoint as the Majority one. More work needs to be put into getting this article NPOV. Jason Schwartz (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I will try to explain without mentioning any new historians In Major Knesset Debates, 1948-1981, by Netanel Lorch, Moshe Sneh interrupted a Ben Gurion Knesset speech about Menachem Begin's role in the Jerusalem insurrection to point out that 'you yourself cabled me not to interfere with the Irgun'. Ben Gurion and the Speaker warned Sneh not to try and threaten them with publication of that fact.

In any event, the Haganah and Irgun were conducting attacks inside the Corpus separatum no later than December of 1948, and the text of the plan itself mentions operations beyond "the borders of the Hebrew State" against military bases, towns, and villages in the provisional Arab state.

The Partition Plan authorized the establishment and defense of a Jewish State, but it also authorized the establishment and defense of an Arab State. The UN called for the provisional authorities in each state to take the necessary steps to implement the plan. According to the terms of the Partition Plan, during the transition period which started 29 November 1947, the provisional governments were supposed to raise and organize militias to prevent frontier clashes, not initiate them.

Article 3 of the Montevideo_Convention of 1933 explains the rights of a provisional state:

:::The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts. The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.

In late April the Jewish Agency was claiming the Partition Plan had binding force, and it still included a neigboring Arab state:

:::With regard to the status of Assembly resolutions in international law it was admitted that any which touched on the national sovereignty of the members of the United Nations were mere recommendations and not binding. However the Palestine resolution was essentially different for it concerned the future of a territory subject to an international trust. Only the United Nations as a whole was competent to determine the future of the territory and it's decision therefore had a binding force. Moshe Shertok, April 27, 1948. UN Doc. A/C. 1/SR.A 127, para 7.

Plan Dalet indicates that the Jewish militias already had orders not to respect the borders of the Provisional Arab state. Unprovoked attacks launched against Arab towns and villages in another state to determine if they can offer resistance are a violation of Article 25 of the Hague Convention of 1907 and the UN Charter. The record of the People's Council and the Provisional Council of State, Volume 1, page 19 reveal that on the eve of independence the Prime Minister wanted the matter of borders left open for developments and neither accepted nor rejected what he described as the UN proposals.

President Wilson usually gets the credit for making sure that Palestine wasn't simply annexed to the British Empire. In fact, the general proscription of territorial conquest and the non-recognition of all acquisitions made by force were announced by the First International Conference of American States back in 1890. Many of these principles are cataloged in The Inter-American Reciprocal Assistance and Solidarity (Act of Chapultepec); March 6, 1945. After WWI the system of mandates was developed, the Kellogg-Briand pact was signed, and the League of Nations adopted the Stimson doctrine in 1931. In the post-WWII era those customs of international law were incorporated into the UN Charter Article 2(4) and were stipulated for inclusion in the constitutions of the new Jewish and Arab states, i.e. a democratic constitution "Accepting the obligation of the State to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purpose of the United Nations;" harlan (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The reader above is right in his concerns and the article only seems to have become worse since then. What talk wrote is completely unrelated. Mashkin (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If people aren't willing to correct the allege mistakes, perhaps the tag should be removed? CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The UN Partition Plan and Plan Dalet

Mashkin must be forgetting that the Israeli Declaration of Independence contains a reference to the fact that the UN Partition Plan called upon the peoples of both states to take such steps as might have been necessary on their part to put the plan into effect:

On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable. see THE DECLARATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL May 14, 1948

The resolution cannot be interpreted to mean that the Israeli's were entitled to conduct unprovoked military attacks against Palestinian villages outside the Jewish State to see if there would be an armed response, because the resolution itself required that the Palestinians raise a militia to handle their own internal security. The Resolution stated that:

The period between the adoption by the General Assembly of its recommendation on the question of Palestine and the establishment of the independence of the Arab and Jewish States shall be a transitional period.

Under the heading B. STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE the plan provided that each state could control its own frontiers and residence within its own borders. Freedom of transit was guaranteed, but it was subject to national security considerations. That would have precluded the transit of armed groups, such as the Haganah, Irgun, or Stern Gang, attempting to reinforce stockade and watchtower settlements in the Arab State. Here is what the Resolution said:

• The Provisional Council of Government of each State shall, within the shortest time possible, recruit an armed militia from the residents of that State, sufficient in number to maintain internal order and to prevent frontier clashes.

• During the transitional period no Jew shall be permitted to establish residence in the area of the proposed Arab State, and no Arab shall be permitted to establish residence in the area of the proposed Jewish State, except by special leave of the Commission.

• Preserving freedom of transit and visit for all residents and citizens of the other State in Palestine and the City of Jerusalem, subject to considerations of national security, provided that each State shall control residence within its borders. harlan (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Exodus from Lyda

Happened long after Plan Dalet was over. There has to be a good reason to mention it in the see also, otherwise it is an undue weight. Please state any reason to mention it before including it. Mashkin (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You are removing mention of Lydda from several articles citing UNDUE, but this is a misunderstanding of UNDUE. It was an important event, and several historians link it to Plan Dalet. There is no reason within policy to remove it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You will have to convince me that this is the case. Stop inserting the lydda exodus everywhere! Mashkin (talk) 05:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The article currently says that Plan Dalet was put into effect from the start of April onwards. Can you supply a published source to support the claim that Lydda happened long after Plan Dalet was over, or that it had no connection to events?

Wikipedia should always reflect the published views about a particular subject. For example, Dr. David Tal teaches modern military and diplomatic history as a member of the Department of History and Security Studies Program at Tel Aviv University. He explains that the soldiers based their decisions regarding Lydda on the logic of Plan Dalet and an order from Aylon, dating from 6 July. He said that Ben Gurion's intervention was not required because deportations were involved, but rather because of their unusual extent. see War in Palestine, 1948: strategy and diplomacy, By David Tal, Routledge, 2004, ISBN 071465275X, page 312.harlan (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Plan Dalet was prior to the establishment of the state of Israel (prior to May 15th. Operation Danny was after the first truce, July 9-19, 1948. The Tal reference is hardly a justification to mention the exodus. If you want, you can mention what Tal says in the exodus article. Mashkin (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what any of us think as Wikipedians, many historians write about what happened in Lydda as part of Plan Dalet. Plan Dalet was a plan regarding what to do in the event of invasion. Invasion then occurred. What happened in Lydda was in response to that invasion. The article says, "The stated goals included in addition to the reorganization, gaining control of the areas of the planned Jewish as well as areas of Jewish settlements outside its borders. The control would be attained by fortifying strongholds in the surrounding areas and roads, conquering Arab villages which are close to Jewish settlements and occupying British bases and police stations ..." That is exactly what happened in Lydda and elsewhere, as several historians point out. There's no reason for us not to mention that, with at least a See also. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

What you say does not make sense: the plan affected the rest of the 1948 war, so there has to be a reason to single out this particular event, out of all the operations an events of the war. Why not point out to Operation Danny? Mashkin (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense. Plan Dalet outlined an overall concept of operations and subsequent operations orders were issued to actually implement the details. The US military calls the later "Fragmentary Orders", or "Frag Orders". It wouldn't harm anything to list both articles in the See Also section. harlan (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That is simply not true and not supported by the sources. Plan Dalet refers to a specific set of operations, not to a standing order or anything.

Again, the main point is not a particular operation, pretty far in the future. If you want to argue that somehow Plan Dalet was a model for the way conquered villages were handled later on in the war, try and make that case, supported by sources such as the Tal book. Mashkin (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

One of my previous posts in this thread contains a link to an Israeli Military Historian who said the decision of the soldiers of Operation Dani command was in line with the logic of Plan Dalet and the 6 July order from Ayalon. Do you have a published source which says those weren't their governing directives? harlan (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

He does not say that the orders were standing ones from Plan Dalet. Do not put words in his mouth. Read my suggestion. Mashkin (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The plan itself only speaks in generalities, and mentions other operational orders. For example, it says that a detailed list of counter attacks will be included in the operational targets of the Strategic Mobile Force (Palmach). Footnote number 8 on the Jewish Virtual Library Plan Dalet page explains that particular list wasn't part of Plan Dalet.

Dr. Tal did say the orders were standing ones. The last paragraph on page 88 refers to one of the articles of Plan Dalet. It made the decision of how to treat Palestinians that came under the control of the Haganah discretionary and left matters in the hands of the local Haganah commander, or later-on to the IDF commander. Tal mentions on page 100 that an updated version of Plan Dalet was published on the 11th of May. On page 296-297 he discusses the contents of Ayalon's letter. It supplemented the instructions in Plan Dalet and required special permission, or coordination with the Defense Minister before villages could be destroyed, or the inhabitants expelled in non-combat situations. On page 312 Tal is saying that the soldiers decisions regarding Lydda were in accordance with the logic of Plan Dalet and the order contained in Ayalon's letter.

Ilan Pappe discusses the evolution of the plan of general strategy from the Elimelech plan, Plan Gimel, and Plan Dalet on page 28 of the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. On page 151 he relates that the commander interpreted Plan Dalet as merely calling for the expulsion of Muslims, but not Druse or Christians from the village of Mghar during the operations in the lower Galilee. Those operations started on 29 June and were concluded in just ten days according to Pappe's account.

Please don't forget that I've asked for a published account that supports your position. harlan (talk) 04:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the quote the slim virgin brought and then quickly erased:

The partition plan accepted by the UN General Assembly on 29 November 1947, included Lydda and Ramle in the territory of the future Palestinian Arab state. When fighting erupted, Ramle became one of the focal points for blocking Jewish transportation. As a result, transportation from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv was shifted to a southern bypass, and Jewish Hagana semi-regular forces responded with raids on Ramle, which also damaged Arab transportation. As fighting intensified during the early months of 1948, the Hagana command began to prepare for the possibility of an invasion by the armies of Arab states in mid-May, when British rule was to end. The operational plan put together for this purpose was called Plan D (Dalet) and it was to be implemented during the week before the end of the British Mandate. Accordingly, Jewish forces were to besiege both Lydda and Ramle to thwart potential attacks on adjacent Jewish settlements. (emphasis added; Golan, Arnon. "Lydda and Ramle: from Palestinian-Arab to Israeli towns, 1948-67," Middle Eastern Studies, October 1, 2003.

Stop saying "bring me published sources". I have shown that all the stuff you are bringing is irrelevant.

Ayalon's letter is from the first truce (well after the end of Plan Dalet). All that Tal does is talk about the logic of Plan Dalet. You have not given any particular reason to refer to the exodus in plan dalet, as oppose to any other operation. Let me rephrase what I wrote above: you may want to argue, based on a source such as the Tal Book, that Plan Dalet was a model (the "logic") for the way conquered villages and population were handled later on in the war. The proper case for such a claim is in the article itself, not by a link to a ranom event.Mashkin (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

In the article you are citing, Arnon Golen wrote that Israeli forces started the expulsion of Lydda's residents on the afternoon of 12 July, after consulting David Ben-Gurion, and that the expulsion had adhered to the policy outlined in Plan D. He cites HA, 73/94, Plan D, Introduction, p.5. in the footnote.

Dr. Tal also talks about the continuing applicability of the policy contained in Plan Dalet as part of the discussion of Ayalon's letter on page 297. He explains that Alon Kadish viewed Ayalon's letter as a change in policy - because up until that moment, under Plan Dalet, local commanders had the right to decide on any measures. Dr. Tal says that he thinks the relevant article in Plan Dalet was very similar, and that Ayalon's letter was more of a reminder than a new policy.

If you had supplied a published source that supported your position, it still would not have shown that the published views of Tal, Golen, and Pappe are irrelevant. I'm interested in including other published views so that all of this information can be included in the article, but the burden of proof has shifted to you. Tal and Gelber do point out that they think the Plan was mainly defensive, but they do not deny that it called for unprovoked attacks on Palestinian villages. For example, Tal mentions the Plan's objectives for targets inside the Palestinian State on page 88:

"placing potentially hostile Palestinian cities within the Palestinian State, near the border, under siege;"

A number of authorities on international law including Jacob Robinson, W. Tom Mallison, and John Quigley have published opinions which hold that two new dependent states legally came into existence with the adoption of the resolution by the General Assembly on 29 November 1947. In any event, the representative of the Provisional Government of Israel pointed out during the first cease fire that the juridical status of the territory didn't matter:

With regard to the first point, the theory that the Charter forbids acts of aggression only against States is utterly without foundation. Indeed, neither Chapter VI nor Chapter VII, in defining threats to the peace or acts of aggression, shows the slightest interest in the juridical status of the victim. The word "State" does not occur in either of those chapters. There is no provision whatever that the attacked party must be universally recognized as a State before an armed attack upon it can be determined as an act of aggression. Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter forbids the use of force not only if it is directed against the integrity of a State, but also if it is used "in any other manner inconsistent with the purpose of the United Nations". --Mr. Eban, S/PV.340, Minutes of the 340th meeting of the Security Council, on 27 July 1948.

Whether the plan called for attacks in another country or not doesn't matter. The plan clearly calls for placing towns and villages under siege because they posed a potential threat, not because they had taken part in any hostilities.harlan (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Time for a new look

There has been no discussion at this article for two years. The third sentence is a copyright violation, a direct quote from an article by Benny Morris, which I have emboldened. The Gelber reference says no such thing. In fact the Gelber reference [2] essentially contradicts the Morris one, since "carte blanche" means no limitations on action, and Gelber says Plan D was "guidelines."

Plan Dalet, or Plan D, (Hebrew: תוכנית ד', Tokhnit dalet) was a plan worked out by the Haganah, a Jewish paramilitary group and the forerunner of the Israel Defense Forces, in Palestine in autumn 1947 to spring 1948. Its purpose is much debated. According to Yoav Gelber and Benny Morris, it was a contingency plan for defending a nascent Jewish state from invasion but also one that gave the regional commanders carte blanche to occupy and garrison or expel and destroy the Arab villages along and behind the front lines. According to other historians such as Walid Khalidi and Ilan Pappe, its purpose was to conquer as much of Palestine and to expel as many Palestinians as possible.

Besides the copyright violation, the lead suffers WP:UNDUE weight on the aspect of expelling and destroying Arab villages. In fact, while the lead says that Dalet was "a contingency plan for defending the nascent Jewish state from invasion," it but-monkies and immediately refers notes the authority to destroy Arab towns and expel Arab population.

Even the link to Gelber does not put that kind or weight on expulsion and destruction, and nowhere does he imply "cart blanche." Specifically Gelber says ([1]) "Plan 'D' drew guidelines for management of occupied areas and safeguarding of the troops' rear. One of these procedures was demolishing villages that could not be held permanently. The instructions explained how to take over an Arab village and an Arab quarter of a mixed town. In case of resistance, the occupying forces should expel the population beyond the border. If no resistance was met, residents could stay put, under military rule."

According to Schulz and Hammer in The Palestinian diaspora "The prime purpose of Plan D was to secure the Jewish state against the expected Arab onslaught and to create 'territorial continuity between the major concentrations of Jewish population' [quoting Morris, 87]]... Eviction was thus contingent on the behavior of residents of different areas. In case of resistance the inhabitants were forced to leave, and in this regard plan D was a sort of blueprint..." [2] In other words, the plan did not give carte blance for expulsion and destruction, only in the case of resistance.

Morris describes Plan D in his book 1948 p. 20 "The plan called for the consolidation of Jewish control in and around the big Jewish and mixed towns (Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa), the sealing off of potential enemy routes into the country, the consolidation of a defense line along the borders, and the extension of Haganah protection to the Jewish population centers outside the UN-sanctioned borders." This sounds very different from "giving regional commanders carte blanche to occupy and garrison or expel and destroy Arab villages..."

According to others: "The objective of "Plan Dalet" was the conquest and capture of rural and urban Arab centers within and along the borders of the Jewish state, so as to prevent the mounting of hostile operations from them. ...it was decided to deport the population only if they resisted the Haganahblanche forces. The number of villages that were to be destroyed was actually small, only a few in each sector of the Haganah's six brigades. A policy of destruction was scarcely implemented during the war, although some villages or parts of their built area were demolished either by local commanders due to tactical needs or as mere acts of vandalism. Deportation of residents of Arab towns and villages was carried out in certain places such as Lydda and Ramle and the southern coastal plain. [3]

I would say that the description of Plan Dalet (in the lead anyway) is insufficient as to the Israeli purpose, and at the same time putting too much emphasis on destruction and expulsion. Help wanted! to improve this article. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 05:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The new lead looks better. The last sentence starts with "according to other historians" but the lead doesn't talk about historians before that. I don't think we need to name them in the lead anyway. We can just say that according to some historians the purpose was X, while according to others it was Y, leaving the attribution in the body of the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. As you can see I went ahead and made changes. I did forget to make a note of it on the discussion page. I agree with your criticism above. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect attribution to Yoav Gelber and Benny Morris

The word 'contingency' didn't come from Gelber or Morris.

• It's the work of one Ami Isseroff.
• Gelber & Morris appear to have been added here
• Gelber & Morris changed places with the first source here
• Then had a bit of a jostle here
• Finally the original entry for 'contingency' was ousted by Yoav Gelber (sans Morris)here
• Then Yoav Gelber was joined by most of the (unsourced & un-cited) historians here
• Most of the (unsourced & un-cited) historians became other (unsourced & un-cited) historians here
• The other (unsourced & un-cited) historians changed into most other(unsourced & un-cited) historians here
• Most other (unsourced & un-cited) historians were all unceremoniously dumped here
• By now 'contingency' wrongly belonged to Yoav Gelber until Benny Morris appeared here.

Rather than leave the existing to lie, suggest the issue be addressed appropriately talknic (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Noting the correction. However the source might be less than credible..."Dr Tal examines the reasons behind the new state's victories against Egypt, as well as its failures, which were decisive in delimiting Israel's borders and were finally sealed in the Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, signed on Rhodes, in March 1949".

If we look to the primary source referred to, Armistice Demarcation Lines were agreed, not borders. "It is emphasized that it is not the purpose of this Agreement to establish, to recognise, to strengthen, or to weaken or nullify, in any way, any territorial, custodial or other rights, claims or interests which may be asserted by either Party in the area of Palestine or any part or locality thereof covered by this Agreement, whether such asserted rights, claims or interests derive from Security Council resolutions, including the resolution of 4 November 1948 and the Memorandum of 13 November 1948 for its implementation, or from any other source. The provisions of this Agreement are dictated exclusively by military considerations and are valid only for the period of the Armistice. talknic (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... your link does not go to the quote you quoted. Obviously the quote does not come from Tal since he would not talk about himself in the third person. It is not clear who is making that criticism of Tal. David Tal (historian) is certainly credible. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Snakeswithfeet -- the source -- The Armistice Agreement Both links go to what I've quoted.

If it is from the forward of the book, it should surely reflect what is in the book. If it is reflecting what is in the book, the book is not a reliable source in respect to the Armistice agreements it cites. If it is wrong in respect to the Armistice Agreements it cites, why should it be trusted for anything else it contains? talknic (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to understand you but it is exceedingly difficult for some reason. Are you trying to say that what is in the MFA document does not tally (no pun intended) with what Tal is saying, in your opinion? I don't see an inconsistency there myself, and even if there were, it would be in no way sufficient to strip him of his reliable source credentials. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Snakeswithfeet - Uh huh. It's quite simple if you dare to look. The forward/speil for the book contains glaring errors according to the documents it cites. To trust such a source based on blind faith seems rather odd for someone involved in improving an article. In WikI/Pedia however, accuracy seems to be the last thing some folk care about. talknic (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It really is quite simple, professor David Tal is an expert in the field. You are not. If you think the Kahanoff Chair in Israeli Studies at the University of Calgary, Canada, is not a reliable source for use in this encyclopedia, you know where to take that discussion. I seriously doubt you'll find consensus for your opinion based on a blurb we don't even know he wrote and a primary document, but you're free to try. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -- The preface or spiel for the book in the given source, is quite simply false information according to the Armistice Agreements it cites. That is the point I made. Professor David Tal, expert in the field, has a glaring chunk of twaddle attached to his book on the link given. Furthermore RS is only for particular issues tested against the benchmark for RS, even if a source has qualified for RS before on a different issue, it cannot be definitively said to be a RS on all issues.

Instead of posting excuses and misrepresenting RS policy, it would be far better to cite a secondary source source that does not contain a glaring chunk of twaddle. The notion of Wikipedia is to improve articles, not have them look like a propagandists picnic. talknic (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Since nobody is suggesting to use the preface in this article, what exactly do you want? If you think Tal can't be used at all because you think you found a mistake in the preface, you are mistaken. Like I said, you know where to go with this. In case you forgot, it's WP:RSN. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy A 'mistake'? Rather than look for a source without a piece of blatant propaganda promoting it, wave WP:RSN and fight for it to be left as is. with a 'mistake' I seem to see you saying that quite often. It's a strange way of improving articles . talknic (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I gather you understand that your argument doesn't hold water and that's why you're reluctant to take it where more editors can tell you the same thing I have. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

some issues

I think most of the recent edits to the article were good, but I have have some issues with the following so I moved them from the article to the talk page for discussion:

• Who is J.C. Bosma and what is his expertise relevant to this article? I suspect it's the user who inserted the material, in which case he should familiarize himself with WP:COI.

According to J.C. Bosma Plan Dalet and the question of Zionist intent should be seen in the context of the "contradictions of Zionism". Bosma considers that the Zionist imperatives of turning an Arab country into a Jewish one and of, at the same time, acting moral posed a severe problem for Zionism. As a consequence Zionism is susceptible to self-deception and used Plan Dalet as a dubious legitimation:

Ben-Gurion and the military leadership did not send their troops to destroy or "occupy" Palestinian villages without an explanation and legitimation. The troops were ordered to "move to State Dalet for an operative implementation of Plan Dalet". Plan Dalet and its stated defensive rationale were referred to and therefore automatically provided a framework that legitimated these orders. ... the politicians need not worry about the moral side of this, because these actions were justified by a defensive military plan.

Bosma investigated the military logic of Plan Dalet and points out seven aspects of it that are inconsistent with the stated defensive purpose.

• J.C. Bosma, "Plan Dalet in the context of the contradictions of Zionism", Holy Land Studies 9 (2), 2010, p. 209-227

Does Teveth link the following to Plan Dalet?

According to Shabtai Teveth the Yishuv had started to prepare for war already in the early 1940's.

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The journal "Holy Land Studies" is a scholarly journal and a reliable source, so there is no need to take the "J.C. Bosma" stuff out.

Teveth does not refer to Plan Dalet, but of course his observation is relevant for the "background". Don't you think so?

JaapBoBo (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You are right that J.C.Bosma and me are the one and same, but COI states:

Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies.

I think the edit is in line with this policy.

JaapBoBo (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I believe being published by a scholarly journal is not enough, per WP:SOURCES - The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability. Does J.C Bosma have any expertise in history? His field seems to be chemical engineering.

Tevet - it depends on the context. Started to prepare by hoarding food or by buying guns? War with whom? Etc. Could you post a short quote from the book? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

COI - I wasn't accusing you of having one, just noting you should be aware of the policy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Is "Bosma" a reliable source?

Agree with NMMNG - Jaap, you are a chemical engineer, not a historian nor military expert. Your opinions, even if published by a 3rd party, are not notable for this aeticle. Rym torch (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:Source says: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. "

Whether I'm a chemical engineer is not relevant. What counts is that I'm also a historian and that this is a peer-reviewed journal. It is not up to wikipedia-editors to question the expertise of peer reviewers. So there is really no issue here.

JaapBoBo (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

What are your credentials as a historian that put your opinion on the same level as 6 of the most well known professors in the field? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

One of those professors, Ilan Pappe, is in the editorial board, as is another well known professore, Nur Masalha. Do you think they would accept an article if it were not of an academic level? Obviously they accepted my interpretation is a worthy scholarly contribution.

I put the question on the notice board. Please give your views there ...

JaapBoBo (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think Ilan Pappe is known to have accepted at least one academic work that is not of an academic level, but that's neither here nor there. I responded at the board. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You are probably referring to the "Tantura" massacre. This case is not known to be not of academic level or, for that matter, of academic level, but is disputed. Small wonder with Zionism's preoccupation wih everything related to the legitimacy of what they are doing. JaapBoBo (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I see multiple problems. To me the would-be section is a mouthful of psycho-jiggly: "the question of Zionist intent" "should be seen" "in the context of the 'contradictions of Zionism'"? What kind of mumbo-jumbo is that? I say it is highly un-encyclopedic. "Bosma considers that the Zionist imperatives of turning an Arab country into a Jewish one..." What this sentence seeks to do is to establish that it is a "Zionist imperative" to "turn an Arab country into a Jewish one". Who says there is such a thing? To say so is clearly POV in a broader sense than just this article on Plan Dalet. All the while, Bosma asserts, the Zionists are "acting moral". Bosma has set himself up as interpreter and judge of Zionists' true intentions, telling the reader in what light it should be understood, postulating as a "given," an immoral position by the Zionists. Oddly, the quote given by Bosma from his article is rather mundane in that doesn't reflect his lead-in to it. I believe his intention is to draw attention to his article, and to his "seven aspects" of the plan that he deems inconsistent with the defensive nature of the Plan. This is acknowledged original research (with an attitude), and I would want to see some peer review of this analysis before it should have (any) weight in this article. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If the source is deemed reliable and the weight appropriate, the fact it's POV is not an issue. On the contrary, we're supposed to include all significant POVs. Whether this is a mainstream POV or WP:FRINGE is another issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If this is a significant viewpoint, then we should be able to find others that say the same. This sentence "Bosma considers that the Zionist imperatives of turning an Arab country into a Jewish one and of, at the same time, acting moral posed a severe problem for Zionism. As a consequence Zionism is susceptible to self-deception and used Plan Dalet as a dubious legitimation" which doesn't say clearly that it is Bosma's opinion that it is a Zionist "imperative" to turn an Arab country into a Jewish one ...while "acting" moral, and "susceptible to self-deception". The sentence says that Bosma considers ... something....to pose a severe problem for Zionism. What it is he considers a problem for Zionism (its imperitive and its moral hypocrisy) is given as if it were a fact. I have a problem with someone who has a viewpoint like this inserting his views into the article. Simply because an acknowleged biased source has seen fit to publish his material does not make him a valid reference. The view that Plan D was not defensive in nature and that it was merely an excuse for "the ethnic cleansing" of the Arab population has already been thoroughly covered in this article. In fact it is weighted heavily with that viewpoint under "the intent" section with only the last three short paragraphs (out of around 13) supporting the position that Plan was defensive in nature. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You say: "I have a problem with someone who has a viewpoint like this inserting his views into the article." That is certainly not a valid argument on wikipedia.

I don't agree with you that it is not clear that "As a consequence Zionism is susceptible to self-deception ..." is presented as a fact. It follows right on "Bosma considers that ...", which creates the context for the subsequent sentence.

Anyway, a neutral formulation should not be a problem. JaapBoBo (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Given that Holy Land Studies is a peer-reviewed academic journal published by a university press, I don't think WP:RS can be used as an argument for excluding material it contains. I'm sure an appeal at WP:RSN would fail. A case based on the content of a specific article doesn't cut it either, nor does the background of the author, since the peer-review process is assumed to take care of quality issues. Weight and relevance are permitted grounds, however. I didn't study this particular case so this is not an opinion about it. Zero^talk 16:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)