Talk:1948 Palestine war


Chronology of the second sentence

The second sentence of the article has issues with the sequence of events.


  1. During the war, Zionist forces conquered territory [throughout the war but so did the Jordanians and Egyptians]
  2. and established the State of Israel [May 1948],
  3. over 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled from Palestine, [by the end of the war]
  4. the British withdrew from their Mandate of Palestine, [May 1948]
  5. and four neighbouring Arab nations entered the territory and joined the war [May 1948]

@Rafi Chazon's version is actually better from this point of view. Pinging @IOHANNVSVERVS as you've reverted it, Alaexis¿question? 09:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to consider any proposed changes to the lead.
Pinging @إيان who also reverted this. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the second sentence as changed in Rafi Chazon's most recent edit:
−
During the war, [[Zionism|Zionist]] forces conquered territory and established the [[State of Israel]], [[1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight|over 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled]] from Palestine, the British withdrew from their Mandate of Palestine, and four neighbouring Arab nations entered the territory and joined the war.
+
During the war, the British terminated the [[Mandate for Palestine|Mandate]] and withdrew, ending a period of rule which began in 1917. In May 1948, the [[Israel|State of Israel]] was established by the [[Yishuv|Jewish Yishuv]], its creation having been declared on the last day of the Mandate. On the same day, four neighbouring Arab nations invaded the territory and joined the war.
Happy to examine supporting WP:reliable sources and discuss these proposed changes as well—thanks for the ping IOHANNVSVERVS. إيان (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:LEDE, the lead should summarise the article. I'd suggest something along these lines.
The conquest of territory is described in the next paragraph so I don't think we need to mention it here. I've added a sentence about the first phase of the war, other that it's basically rearranging the existing content. Alaexis¿question? 20:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plan Dalet, executed 1 April – 14 May to, in its own words, "gain control of the areas of the Hebrew state and defend its borders," came before declaration of the establishment of the State of Israel on May 14, before the termination of the British Mandate for Palestine that night at midnight, and before the entry of Arab regular armies into the territory the morning of May 15. This chronology is not to be obfuscated.
"Plan Dalet" or "Plan D" was the name given by the Zionist High Command to the general plan for military operations within the framework of which the Zionists launched successive offensives in April and early May 1948 in various parts of Palestine. These offensives, which entailed the destruction of the Palestinian Arab community and the expulsion and pauperization of the bulk of the Palestine Arabs, were calculated to achieve the military fait accompli upon which the state of Israel was to be based.
إيان (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems okay. What about something like:

The 1948 Palestine war was fought in the territory of what had been, at the start of the war, British-ruled Mandatory Palestine. It began as a civil war between the Arab and Jewish communities and became an international conflict when the British withdrew and neighbouring Arab states entered Palestine to join the war. Zionist forces conquered territory and established the State of Israel, leading to the expulsion and flight of over 700,000 Palestinians.

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
List of towns and villages depopulated during the 1947–1949 Palestine war should also be linked. إيان (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's covered by linking to the Nakba and the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:27, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. This proposal seems ok to me, by the way. Seems to fit in the third paragraph:
The war had two main phases, the first being the 1947–1948 civil war, which began on 30 November 1947, a day after the United Nations voted to adopt the Partition Plan for Palestine, which planned for the division of the territory into Jewish and Arab sovereign states. During this period, the British still maintained a declining rule over Palestine and occasionally intervened in the violence.Initially on the defensive, the Zionist forces switched to the offensive in April 1948. In anticipation of an invasion by Arab armies, they enacted Plan Dalet, an operation aimed at securing territory for the establishment of a Jewish state.
What do you think?
Also “In anticipation of an invasion by Arab armies, they enacted Plan Dalet, an operation aimed at securing territory for the establishment of a Jewish state” seems to be UNDUE POV when historians describe it as offensive rather than defensive. إيان (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sentence is fine. Perhaps "capturing" rather than "securing" territory would address your concern. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That works. إيان (talk) 09:03, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 1948 Palestine war was fought in the territory of what had been, at the start of the war, British-ruled Mandatory Palestine. It began as a civil war between the Arab and Jewish communities and became an international conflict when the British withdrew and neighbouring Arab states entered Palestine to join the war. Zionist forces conquered territory and established the State of Israel, leading to the expulsion and flight of over 700,000 Palestinians.
This is still not the right sequence of events. The establishment of Israel happened before the entry of the foreign armies. Most of the conquest of the territory not assigned to the Jewish state happened after that. The capturing of territory is mentioned in the very next sentence (By the end of the war, the State of Israel had held or captured about 78% of former territory of the mandate, the Kingdom of Jordan had captured and later annexed the area that became the West Bank, and Egypt had captured the Gaza Strip) so there is no need to mention it again in the second sentence.
This is what I'd suggest - including the 3rd question about the territorial control.
The 1948 Palestine war was fought in the territory of what had been, at the start of the war, British-ruled Mandatory Palestine. It began as a civil war between the Arab and Jewish communities and became an international conflict when the British withdrew, the State of Israel was established and neighbouring Arab states entered Palestine to join the war. The war led to the expulsion and flight of over 700,000 Palestinians. By the end of the war, the State of Israel had held or captured about 78% of former territory of the mandate, the Kingdom of Jordan had captured and later annexed the area that became the West Bank, and Egypt had captured the Gaza Strip. Alaexis¿question? 14:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it's reasonable to say "the war led to" the expulsion of the Palestinians? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "war led to" is not good as it reads as if the expulsion and flight was just a natural outcome of the war. It would be better to follow the good example of the 78% and present it as something that happened rather than as a consequence of something. Zerotalk 00:48, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I meant to say that it *caused* the expulsion and flight but I'm fine with your suggestion to use the same wording as for the territorial control.
"The 1948 Palestine war was fought in the territory of what had been, at the start of the war, British-ruled Mandatory Palestine. It began as a civil war between the Arab and Jewish communities and became an international conflict when the British withdrew, the State of Israel was established and neighbouring Arab states entered Palestine to join the war. By the end of the war, over 700,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled, the State of Israel had held or captured about 78% of former territory of the mandate, the Kingdom of Jordan had captured and later annexed the area that became the West Bank, and Egypt had captured the Gaza Strip." Alaexis¿question? 19:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're still omitting who did the expelling. How about:
"The 1948 Palestine war was fought in the territory of what had been, at the start of the war, British-ruled Mandatory Palestine. It began as a civil war between the Arab and Jewish communities and became an international conflict when the British withdrew and neighbouring Arab states entered Palestine to join the war. Zionist forces conquered territory and established the State of Israel, leading to the expulsion and flight of over 700,000 Palestinians. Jordan took control of the West Bank and Egypt occupied/captured the Gaza Strip."
[Not sure what the best wording is for Jordan and Egypt, I'm flexible on took control of / captured / occupied / other] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "Zionist forces" seems POV and not specific. Can we say the Haganah, Lehi, or whichever group it was? BlookyNapsta (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is 'Zionist forces' POV? إيان (talk) 12:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IOHANNVSVERVS - I'm fine with this version, I think we can replace the current one already.
The question of how to call the Zionist/Yishuv/Jewish forces is a separate and rather minor one that can be dealt with separately. I think that it's a matter of common name rather than NPOV. We should use the name that our sources use. Morris prefers to specify Haganah/Lehi in 1948 but uses "Jewish forces" 4 times. "Zionist forces" is used only once in a quote. Karsh uses "Jewish forces" a few times. Khalidi in his article about Plan Dalet uses "Jewish forces" once and "Zionist forces" once. "Zionist forces" doesn't seem to be the dominant term but we should review more sources. Alaexis¿question? 22:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'Zionist forces' appears 12 times in Avi Shlaim's The War for Palestine (2nd ed.), and 8 times in Rashid Khalidi's The Iron Cage, for example.
The term is useful where it exists per MOS:INTRO because it allows for a link to Zionism—a concept rather central to the war. إيان (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Jewish forces" is more NPOV. I don't believe that either Shlaim or Khalidi should be used in determining NPOV terminology, especially not when other RS use a more neutral term. We can use the term "Zionist" elsewhere in the lead and link from there. Nehushtani (talk) 08:18, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that either Shlaim or Khalidi should be used in determining NPOV terminology, especially not when other RS use a more neutral term. Based on what? Do you imagine that Morris is more neutral than Shlaim or Khalidi? Please explain.
'Jewish forces' is POV because it paints Judaism rather than Zionism as the animus. إيان (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe that Morris is a little more neutral than Shlaim or Khalidi.
Either way, "Zionist forces conquered territory and established the State of Israel" sounds like it was done by a guerilla group of unknown origins. A neutral source would say that "Israel was established by the Jewish yishuv" (the community of Jews residing in Palestine). There's also the option of naming the specific Jewish groups regarding the military victory (for example, say that the military operations were conducted by the Haganah and the Irgun, which later unified/incorporated into the Israel Defense Forces), and then saying that the yishuv established the State. Nehushtani (talk) 10:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We could insert a footnote explaining that the Haganah, Lehi, and Irgun participated in Plan Dalet, and that Ben Gurion established the IDF 26 May 1948, the role of Mahal, etc. إيان (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@إيان I agree with this. I don't think Zionist forces... is vague or POV because it's almost tautological to say that Zionist forces established the State of Israel, but if we're concerned about readers not understanding the specific forces involved here a footnote makes sense. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:10, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IOHANNVSVERVS apologies, I re-read your suggested version and there is still a bit of a chronology problem that I missed yesterday. Zionist forces conquered territory and established the State of Israel might be a bit misleading. Most of the territory was captured after the state of Israel was established. Here is a new version in which I've kept the "leading to" phrasing from your version.
In this version I've used "Israel" instead of "Jewish/Zionist forces" but it's not that important. Let's get the basics straight and we can hammer out the details later. Alaexis¿question? 11:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like this version. Nehushtani (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this version accurately summarises the body; @IOHANNVSVERVS's suggestion but with a correct chronology is better:
(I omitted the text of the footnote because it's messy on talk pages, but essentially what @إيان says here.) Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Zionist forces" did not establish the State of Israel; the yishuv did. Adding the footnote does not solve this part of the issue. Nehushtani (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nehushtani is correct—though the Zionist forces conquered the territory upon which the state was to be established—they did not do the establishing itself. However, we can and should be more precise than "the Yishuv" and specify David Ben-Gurion, executive head of the Zionist Organization and chairman of the Jewish Agency for Palestine. إيان (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that. How is this text?

Nehushtani (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@إيان @IOHANNVSVERVS @Alaexis @BlookyNapsta @Smallangryplanet @Zero0000 (I hope I didn't miss anyone, if I did, please tag them as well) - Is the above version I suggested over 2 weeks ago acceptable to everyone? If there are no objections, I will go ahead and add it to the main page. Nehushtani (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about:
"The 1948 Palestine war was fought in the territory of what had been, at the start of the war, British-ruled Mandatory Palestine. It began as a civil war between the Arab and Jewish communities and became an international conflict when the British withdrew and neighbouring Arab states entered Palestine to join the war. By the end of the war, Zionist forces[add a footnote to note which forces] established the State of Israel and conquered about 78% of the former territory of the mandate, causing the expulsion and flight of over 700,000 Palestinians. Jordan took control of the West Bank and Egypt occupied/captured the Gaza Strip." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:10, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IOHANNVSVERVS - Mostly ok. But as discussed above, "Zionist forces established the State of Israel" is inaccurate. I am ok with either "the yishuv established the State of Israel" or "David Ben-Gurion, executive head of the Zionist Organization and chairman of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared the independence of the State of Israel", or I am open to considering another formulation if somebody would like to suggest one. Nehushtani (talk) 08:44, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about "The war led to the establishment of the State of Israel, with Zionist forces[add a footnote to note which forces] conquering about 78% of the former territory of the mandate and causing the expulsion and flight of over 700,000 Palestinians." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:54, 29 December 2025 (UTC) Copyedit 08:55, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather be more specific about who established the State of Israel, but I can live with the suggested version. Nehushtani (talk) 09:32, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This version is acceptable. Zerotalk 10:30, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So we have:
The 1948 Palestine war was fought in the territory of what had been, at the start of the war, British-ruled Mandatory Palestine. It began as a civil war between the Arab and Jewish communities and became an international conflict when the British withdrew and neighbouring Arab states entered Palestine to join the war. The war led to the establishment of the State of Israel, with Zionist forces[footnote: prior to the establishment of the Israeli military midway through the war, the paramilitary organizations Haganah, Irgun, and Lehi fought on behalf of the Yishuv] conquering about 78% of the former territory of the mandate and causing the expulsion and flight of over 700,000 Palestinians. Jordan took control of the West Bank and Egypt occupied/captured the Gaza Strip.
How to resolve "Egypt occupied/captured the Gaza Strip."?
-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:16, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Replace "Israeli military" with "IDF". Arguably, the Haganah was the Israeli military from the time of independence. (2) "Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip" correct and better since they didn't just conquer it but stayed there. Zerotalk 11:30, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good points Zero. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 12:27, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. And I agree with both of @Zero0000's comments. Nehushtani (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks alright, let's apply the changes. Alaexis¿question? 10:11, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Doing. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to come back on this point but I agree that many historians use "Zionist" in this context, so the term is not inherently "wrong". My point is about lead style and neutrality: in a Wikipedia lead, using an ideological label for one side can read as a loaded label to non-specialist readers. Per the guidance at Wikipedia:Avoid vague loaded terms, it is usually clearer to describe the actors in plain terms ("Jewish/Yishuv forces", later "Israeli forces") and reserve "Zionist" for contexts where the ideology/movement itself is the topic, or where we are summarizing a specific historian's framing (with attribution). Michael Boutboul (talk) 09:19, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is not so simply implemented. If we replace the first paragraph with this one, following paragraphs will have to be rewritten as there will be duplicated content. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@IOHANNVSVERVS - Can you please explain what the issue is here with the proposed version? I see that there would be some repeated content, but I would think that it could simply be removed so that it's not repeated. Nehushtani (talk) 07:01, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there are problems. We should simply replace the current first three sentences.
Now
Should be
The next sentence is "The war formally ended with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, which established the State of Israel and laid out the Green Line demarcating these territories. It was the first war of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and the broader Arab–Israeli conflict" which works fine with the new text. Alaexis¿question? 17:44, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Nehushtani (talk) 06:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The State of Israel was established 14 May before shabbat, before the termination of the mandate at midnight and before the entry of the armies of Arab states the following morning. إيان (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's establishment was declared on May 14, but it wasn't actually established until the end of the war. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Declaration is what I meant. Accidentally omitted it while editing my comment. إيان (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
إيان - Is the above formulation ok with you? Nehushtani (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No—the declaration is the first thing in the sequence of events that transformed it from a civil war to a war of different states. إيان (talk) 08:16, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The British leaving is what allowed the Arab states to enter and to turn it into an international war. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It had already become an international war when Israel declared itself as a state distinct from Mandatory Palestine, and the British withdrawal had been going on for weeks by mid-May. See, for example, Walid Khalidi's "The Fall of Haifa." Arab states also saw the declaration itself as a casus belli. إيان (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@إيان - I think the suggested version is ok. If you don't like it, would you please suggest an alternate version that we can discuss? Nehushtani (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How about these suggested changes to the current text, incorporating language from suggestions above?
−
The '''1948 Palestine war''' was fought in the territory of what had been, at the start of the war, British-ruled [[Mandatory Palestine]]. During the war, [[Zionism|Zionist]] forces conquered territory and established the [[State of Israel]], [[1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight|over 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled]] from Palestine, the British withdrew from their Mandate of Palestine, and four neighbouring Arab nations entered the territory and joined the war. By the end of the war, the State of Israel had held or captured about 78% of former territory of the mandate, the [[Jordan|Kingdom of Jordan]] had [[Jordanian annexation of the West Bank|captured and later annexed]] the area that became the [[West Bank]], and [[Egypt]] had [[Occupation of the Gaza Strip by the United Arab Republic|captured]] the [[Gaza Strip]]. The war formally ended with the [[1949 Armistice Agreements]], which established the [[Israel|State of Israel]] and laid out the [[Green Line (Israel)|Green Line]] demarcating these territories. It was the first war of the [[Israeli–Palestinian conflict]] and the broader [[Arab–Israeli conflict]].
+
The '''1948 Palestine war''' (30 November 1947 – 10 March 1949) was fought in the territory of what had been, at the start of the war, British-ruled [[Mandatory Palestine]]. It began as a [[1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine|civil war]] between the [[Palestinians|Arab]] and [[Yishuv|Jewish]] communities and became an [[1948 Arab–Israeli War|international conflict]] with the [[Israeli Declaration of Independence]], the [[End of the British Mandate for Palestine|termination of the British mandate]], and the entry of the armies of neighbouring Arab states into Palestine. During the war, [[Zionism|Zionist]] forces [footnote: prior to the establishment of the [[Israel Defense Forces|Israeli military]] midway through the war, the paramilitary organizations [[Haganah]], [[Irgun]], and [[Lehi (militant group)|Lehi]] fought on behalf of the Yishuv] conquered about 78% of the former territory of the mandate causing the [[1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight|expulsion and flight of over 700,000 Palestinians]]. [[Jordan|Kingdom of Jordan]] took control of the [[Jordanian annexation of the West Bank|West Bank]] and [[Kingdom of Egypt|Egypt]] had [[Occupation of the Gaza Strip by the United Arab Republic|occupied]] the [[Gaza Strip]]. The war formally ended with the [[1949 Armistice Agreements]], which established the [[Israel|State of Israel]] and laid out the [[Green Line (Israel)|Green Line]] demarcating these territories. It was the first war of the [[Israeli–Palestinian conflict]] and the broader [[Arab–Israeli conflict]].
إيان (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Generally ok, but I think "The war formally ended with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, which established the State of Israel and laid out the Green Line demarcating these territories." still seems inaccurate. The State of Israel was established in 1948 by the Yishuv or Ben Gurion. Nehushtani (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nehushtani, thanks for your amenability on this. I’m certainly willing to hear this out. I imagine IOHANNVSVERVS might have more on this.
Perhaps something like "The war formally ended with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, which established the Green Line borders of the the State of Israel, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank." إيان (talk) 06:41, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
More accurate that the previous version, but I believe that the "establishment of the State of Israel" itself is WP:DUE to be mentioned here specifically. Can you suggest a formulation that includes that? Nehushtani (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How about this?
The 1948 Palestine war (30 November 1947 – 10 March 1949) was fought in the territory of what had been, at the start of the war, British-ruled Mandatory Palestine. It began as a civil war between the Arab and Jewish communities and became an international conflict with the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel[footnote: On the afternoon of 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion, executive head of the Zionist Organization and chairman of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, proclaimed the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine to be known as the State of Israel.], the termination of the British mandate, and the entry of the armies of neighbouring Arab states into Palestine. During the war, Zionist forces [footnote: prior to the establishment of the Israeli military midway through the war, the paramilitary organizations Haganah, Irgun, and Lehi fought on behalf of the Yishuv] conquered about 78% of the former territory of the mandate causing the expulsion and flight of over 700,000 Palestinians. Jordan took control of the territory west of the Jordan River and Egypt occupied the coastal territory around Gaza. The war formally ended with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, which established the Green Line borders of the the State of Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. It was the first war of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and the broader Arab–Israeli conflict. إيان (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Is everyone ok with implementing this version? Nehushtani (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks okay. Alaexis¿question? 10:45, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this proposal except the word Zionist used here but I prefer to deal with it in a second step. Let’s implement it. Michael Boutboul (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've implemented this version of the text with alterations to the footnotes, which were unpolished anyway. إيان (talk) 08:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This looks fine to me. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is ok for me too except the word Zionist used here. But let’s talk about it in a second step. Michael Boutboul (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology section

I would like to add a terminology section as follows:

The terminology used to describe the 1948 conflict varies by perspective. In Western scholarship, it is often referred to as the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, the First Arab–Israeli War, or simply the 1948 War. In the Arab world, it is frequently called the First Palestine War or 1948 Palestine war while Palestinians refer to it as al-Nakba ("the catastrophe"). In Israel, the conflict is known as the War of Independence (Milhemet Ha'atzma'ut). Besides, some scholars prefer to formally reserve the term Arab–Israeli War for the second phase of the conflict, beginning in May 1948 with the involvement of regular Arab armies while other used it for the whole conflit. However, all these designations—1948 Arab–Israeli War, 1948 Palestine War, War of Independence, Nakba, First Arab–Israeli War, and First Palestine War—refer to the same historical events. Benny Morris in 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War explains that "the 1948 War - called by the Arab world the First Palestine War and by the Palestinians al-nakba (the disaster), and by the Jews the War of Independence (milhemet ha`atzma'ut),[...] - was to have two distinct stages: a civil war, beginning on 3o November 1947 and ending on 14 May 1948, and a conventional war, beginning when the armies of the surrounding rounding Arab states invaded Palestine on 15 May and ending in 1949." While Encyclopædia Britannica states: "1948 Arab-Israeli War, an existential war fought between Israel and Arab forces from Egypt, Transjordan (Jordan), Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. The war formally began on May 15, 1948, and ended on July 20, 1949, although it followed a civil war that began after the passage of United Nations partition plan on November 29, 1947. The fighting more or less came to an end on January 7, 1949. For Israel, the war is remembered as the War of Independence because it secured the country’s existence despite hostile neighbors. For Arabs, the war is remembered as “the Nakba” (from Arabic al-nakbah, “the catastrophe”) because of the mass displacement of Palestinians that resulted from the war.

Please comment Michael Boutboul (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article already has a fitting section for this topic, "Historiography", which covers conflicting perspectives/narratives of the war. I could see more coverage of specific names for the war being added to their respective "narratives", but I don't believe a separate "terminology section is necessary. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. My point is not to expand the competing narratives - it is specifically about terminology. The current “Historiography” section briefly mentions “War of Independence” and “Nakba”, but it does not systematically outline the main terms used across different contexts (for example “1948 Arab-Israeli War”/“First Arab-Israeli War”, “First Palestine War”/“1948 Palestine War”), nor the common distinction some scholars make between using “Arab-Israeli War” for the interstate phase from May 1948 versus the whole 1947-49 conflict. For clarity, I think a short “Terminology” subsection within “Historiography” (rather than a standalone section) would help readers by summarizing the principal names and their usage, without getting into narrative framing. Michael Boutboul (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I reduced the terminology section to two sentences rather than three paragraphs. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:54, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We certainly can reduce the subsection, but it is important to attribute the terminology by using secondary sources. Who’s saying what? Michael Boutboul (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should not have restored the content you added as it is disputed. Three pragraphs is way too long and there is no reason to quote from Benny Morris or Encyclopedia Britannica. Please self-revert. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:26, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all I wish you a merry Christmas! I understand your concern so I removed the last paragraph, it is now much shorter. Michael Boutboul (talk) 22:48, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Boutboul, you need to get consensus for your proposed additions. I'm compromising with you to add a Terminology section, but there is no reason the terminology can't be explained in a few sentences. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:01, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed before and there was no consensus to include your terminology section. Talk:1948 Palestine war/Archive 8#Removal of the Terminology section. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology section - informal straw poll (Jan 2026)

Hi all. Following the recent discussion at the "Terminology section" thread, I'd like to propose two alternative wordings for the terminology paragraph (lead/subsection). This is an informal straw poll to gauge preferences before any edit request. @IOHANNVSVERVS, Butterscotch Beluga, Alaexis, Nehushtani, Zero0000, إيان, and Rafi Chazon:

Please reply with:

  • Support A / Support B / Neither
option A

The 1948 Palestine war is also sometimes referred to as the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, the First Arab-Israeli war, or simply the 1948 war, although the term "Arab-Israeli war" often refers to the international phase of the war between Arab countries and Israel after May 15 1948. Palestinians and the Arab world often refer to the war as the Nakba ("the catastrophe"), while in Israel the conflict is known as the War of Independence (Milhemet Ha'atzma'ut).

Option B

The terminology used to describe the 1948 conflict varies by perspective. In Western scholarship, it is often referred to as the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the First Arab-Israeli War, or simply the 1948 War. In the Arab world, it is also described as the First Palestine War or the 1948 Palestine war, while Palestinians refer to it as al-Nakba ("the catastrophe"). In Israel, the conflict is known as the War of Independence (Milhemet Ha'atzma'ut). Some scholars reserve the term "Arab-Israeli War" for the interstate phase beginning in May 1948 (after the entry of regular Arab armies), while others use it for the full 1947-1949 conflict. All these designations refer to the same set of events.[a]

Notes

  1. ^ Benny Morris in 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War explains that "the 1948 War - called by the Arab world the First Palestine War and by the Palestinians al-nakba (the disaster), and by the Jews the War of Independence (milhemet ha`atzma'ut),[...] - was to have two distinct stages: a civil war, beginning on 3o November 1947 and ending on 14 May 1948, and a conventional war, beginning when the armies of the surrounding rounding Arab states invaded Palestine on 15 May and ending in 1949."

References

Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why in option B you don't include '1948 Palestine war' as one of the names used by Western scholarship? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I also doubt that "the Arab world" doesn't use the terms 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the First Arab-Israeli War. Altogether your proposal is very poorly sourced and poorly thought out. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I found only one secondary source talking about terminology of the 1948 war and this what Benny Moris wrote. I can’t read Arabic so I don’t know … but if you find other secondary sources talking about terminology that’s fine, let’s add them. Michael Boutboul (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a mistake, western scholarship used it now. Thank you for pointing it out. Michael Boutboul (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-war is not even a reliable source... IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I support Option B as it is better supported by RS. Nehushtani (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I support the current wording (option A). IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I support Option B, because it relies on secondary sources and tertiary sources while Option A relies on opinion.Michael Boutboul (talk) 12:13, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Option A (The current wording) - It reads better, begins by referring to the war by the article's current title, & is more focused on the perspectives of relevant parties (Outside of "Western scholarship" being both a vague & an overly broad group to assign a perspective to, I don't see a reason it should be listed first).
I also object to the current presentation of options. It gives the false impression that only Option B is sourced, but the article's terminology section (Option A) currently cites several sources, including the same source they're citing for Option B. This mischaracterization is furthered by Michael Boutboul's comment that Option B "relies on secondary sources and tertiary sources while Option A relies on opinion". This may be an "informal straw poll", but you won't get any valuable information if the options are inaccurate. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, the question is which option better match with the sources?
Benny Morris in 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War explains that "the 1948 War - called by the Arab world the First Palestine War and by the Palestinians al-nakba (the disaster), and by the Jews the War of Independence (milhemet ha`atzma'ut),[...] - was to have two distinct stages: a civil war, beginning on 30 November 1947 and ending on 14 May 1948, and a conventional war, beginning when the armies of the surrounding rounding Arab states invaded Palestine on 15 May and ending in 1949." Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I found another RS discussing the terminology:
Pappé, Ilan. The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1947-1951 - Finally, a note on the choice of an adequate name for the first Arab-Israeli war. Arabs and Jews describe the same event in contradictory ways. For the Arabs – and in particular the Palestinians – the events of 1948 are the Nakba or Karitha, terms that both signify in one way or another catastrophe, trauma and disaster. For the Jews – and in particular the Israelis – the war was a war of independence and 1948 is for them a year of miraculous and glorious events, the most notable being the creation of the state of Israel. I have chosen to call the war by its calendar name – the war of 1948.(p. 7) Michael Boutboul (talk) 12:06, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Zionist forces in the lead

Although "Zionist forces" is correct and used in many reliable secondary sources, its use in the lead raises an editorial issue for three main reasons:

  • 1 - The word "Zionist" is documented as having become pejorative in some contemporary usage.
The Guardian explains that, in the context of mobilization against the war in Gaza, "Zionist" and "Zionism" have become a "watchword" used in a pejorative way. This supports the idea that, in a lead sentence, the term may be read as a polemical marker rather than a purely factual descriptor. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/12/how-zionist-became-a-slur-on-the-us-left)
  • 2 - Precision issue
The note linked to "Zionist forces" defines the actors concretely (the Haganah, Irgun, and Lehi, followed by the creation of the IDF). The lead would therefore be stronger if it used this organizational and chronological description, which is more precise and less label-driven, rather than the ideological label "Zionist".
  • 3 - In a lead, an organizational description is generally preferable to an ideological label.
Wikipedia style guidance encourages avoiding potentially loaded or disputed labels, and instead using factual descriptions (or attribution when a label is necessary). MOS:LABEL
  • Suggested rewording (lead-friendly)
Replace "During the war, Zionist forces[c] conquered..." with: "During the war, Yishuv paramilitary forces (Haganah, Irgun, and Lehi) and later Israeli forces (the Israel Defense Forces) conquered about 78%..."

Michael Boutboul (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support. "Yishuv paramilitary forces" is more NPOV than the current wording as suggested here. Nehushtani (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But do RS use this phrasing? There's nothing wrong with the word Zionist and I believe it is more commonly used by RS by far. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:57, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion itself explained why the proposed wording is preferable despite RS using a different phrase. Nehushtani (talk) 08:14, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion itself acknowledges that ""Zionist forces" is correct and used in many reliable secondary sources". We'll not be implementing the proposed wording "despite RS using a different phrase." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:50, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
RS use several different wording see below, "Zionist forces" is only one of them and clearly not neutral nor very accurate. Michael Boutboul (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is neutral and accurate and widely used by RS. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is almost impossible to know which terms are mostly used Michael Boutboul (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—we are to observe the policy of no WP:OR and to defer to the WP:reliable sources. إيان (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OR applies to facts, not to how something is phrased. Nehushtani (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Could you cite and quote the specific policy that states that WP:Verifiability does not apply here? إيان (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OR means that facts need to be directly supported by reliable sources. But we don't quote sources word for word (doing so would usually be a copyright violation), and instead we paraphrase. So once we establish a fact, it can be stated in whatever language we feel is the most accurate as long as it doesn't change the meaning. Do you think that "Yishuv paramilitary forces" has a different meaning than "Zionist forces"? If not, OR is not an issue. Nehushtani (talk) 09:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You did not address my question. إيان (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that I addressed what you asked. If you would like to re-phrase or ask a different question, I will be glad to address it. Nehushtani (talk) 09:41, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Reliable secondary sources use several terms (see comment below), but as explained above, "Zionist forces", while accurate, raises some issues. Michael Boutboul (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The excerpts below illustrate how different authors refer to the pre-state Jewish community and its armed organizations during the 1947-49 war, using terms such as "the Yishuv", "Jewish forces", and "Zionist forces".

  • Sela, Avraham; Kadish, Alon. The War of 1948: Representations of Israeli and Palestinian Memories and Narratives (p. 31).
    • Chapters 2 and 3 describe the battles of the war: the first presents the coping of the Yishuv and its defense forces with the first stages of the war
  • Eugene L. Rogan; Avi Shlaim. The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948 (Cambridge Middle East Studies)
    • The most prominent of the Arab myths of the 1948 War, most of which continue to be circulated down to the present day, portray the Zionist forces as mere terrorist gangs which had been surrounded in all directions by the Arab armies in the first phase of the war (15 May-11 June).(Kindle 232-233)
    • In a few months of heavy fighting in the early spring of 1948, the military forces of a well-organized Jewish population of just over 600,000 people routed those of an Arab majority more than twice its size.(Kindle 338)
    • Contact with regular armies undoubtedly came as a shock to the Haganah, the paramilitary organization of the Yishuv which was in the process of being transformed into the IDF. (Kindle 1399-1400)
  • Karsh, Efraim. Palestine Betrayed (English Edition). Yale University Press.
    • By April 15, when Operation Nahshon came to an end, the Jewish forces had managed to occupy a number of Arab villages along the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem road (p. 184)
  • Black, Ian. Enemies and Neighbours: Arabs and Jews in Palestine and Israel, 1917-2017
    • Until the end of February Jewish forces remained largely on the defensive, partly out of fear of a possible British reaction.(p. 115)
    • the initiative in the hands of Zionist forces held back ‘only by their fear of the British’.(p. 116).
  • Shapira, Anita. Israel: A History (English Edition)
    • A year earlier, at the Twenty-second Zionist Congress, he had told the Yishuv’s security leadership that the Jewish forces must be held in check and confrontation with the British avoided,(p. 155)
  • Pappé, Ilan. The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1947-1951
    • The Jewish forces encircled Jaffa in accordance with Plan D (p. 119)
    • Immediately the Jewish forces began their offensive and in three days occupied the Arab districts.(p. 120)
  • Khalidi, Rashid. The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood
    • were the targets of most of the initial attacks of Zionist forces in the winter and spring of 1947–48, (p. 6)
    • The flight of the Palestinian population from areas conquered by the Hagana and other Jewish forces increased under the impact of the shock of the Deir Yasin massacre,(p. 134)
    • By 1939 the yishuv was larger, more prosperous and economically secure, better organized, and better armed than ever before.(p. 122)
  • Prof. Benny Morris. 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War
    • The Jewish force facing the Legion initially consisted of three brigades. (Kindle 3028)
Michael Boutboul (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we should defer to the terminology used by RS, rather than revising historical language based on how some readers may perceive a term today. The fact that Zionist is sometimes used pejoratively in contemporary discourse does not negate its neutral, descriptive use in historical and scholarly contexts, nor does it justify substitution. Doing so would amount to WP:OR and WP:PRESENTISM. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As demonstrated in the comment above, "Zionsit forces" is only one of the wording used in RS. There are several other wording more accurate and neutral. Michael Boutboul (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per nom. A description of the community they represented (the Yishuv) works better than the controversion ideological term. Alaexis¿question? 12:53, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Paprikaiser. M.Bitton (talk) 13:02, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least three different phrasings we can find in RS: "Jewish forces", "Zionist forces", and "the Yishuv’s paramilitary organizations". Why choose the most polemical one? Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Polemical? إيان (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1948_Palestine_war