Talk:Battle of Jenin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
October 17, 2008 WikiProject A-class review Not approved
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Israel (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Palestine (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.


I had added the sentence [to the intro] regarding the IDF use of loudspeakers suggesting the civilian population leave prior to the assault. I thought it especially relevant given that one of the distinct occurrences of the Jenin battle were the rumors of massacre that dominated the news (as noted in the intro). I am sure many of you remember those stories, as I do, from that time. I think it would be appropriate to point out that the IDF explicitly took steps to minimize civilian casualties (loudspeakers and not using the air force to annihilate Jenin) in stark contradistinction to the allegations made. Thoughts? Kaisershatner (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this point should be mentioned in the lead. It is not clear that the warnings were made. Some reported hearing warnings, other say they did not. There is also contradictory testimony about when the warnings were made (was it before the entrance of Israeli troops to Jenin, or before the entrance to the camp itself, or when? depends on the source cited). Also, all of the men who heeded the warnings were stripped naked before being arrested. If we mention the loudspeakers in the lead, we should mention what happened to those who heeded the warnings. There are other issues with it as well, but that's just a few things that come to mind. Tiamuttalk 13:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I suppose I can see your view of this. However, can you restore the source of allegations of "war crimes" to the intro. There is IMO a big difference between anonymous "investigations" that found evidence of "war crimes" and UN investigation, Amnesty International investigation, or BBC investigation, etc. It was more precise and specific before. I'd also prefer the quotation marks "war crimes" but will settle for restoring the source of the accusations (please). Kaisershatner (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I removed that bit because we don't go into detail about who conducted the investigations which found no evidence of a massacre. (In fact, the wording is rather misleading anyway, since I don't think it said "no evidence", but anyway). I don't think we need that level of detail in the intro. If we did mention that, we would also need to mention (IMO) that the investigations took place some after the events due to Israeli restrictions that prevented people from entering the camp, including the UN team that was set up to investigate the issue. I prefer to leave the wording there vague and general for now, representing both major POVs to come out the investigation without deciding which details to mention and which to omit. I'm willing to discuss other wording options though, that address these concerns, if you have some. Tiamuttalk 14:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. One area of wording concern that I do have- the allegations of "war crimes" should not be linked to the sentence about massacre claims. "Rumors of massacre" should be followed by the simple "no evidence of massacre," not "no evidence of massacre, but evidence/allegations of war crimes." Subsequent evidence or allegations of "war crimes" is unrelated to the first point and shouldn't be hooked to it in the intro. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The problem with changing it is that reliable sources usually reported it that way. For example, BBC writes: The report says there was no massacre as the Palestinians have claimed, but it does accuse the Israeli army of committing war crimes. I think this is because the report while absolving Israel of "massacre" claims, did accuse of it war crimes. The two ideas seem to be related in most of the sources I have read. I'm not sure another wording would be appropriate actually but am open to considering other formulations based on what reliable sources have to say. Tiamuttalk 15:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Another example of what I mean, referring this time to the Amnesty International report (the other one referring to Human Rights Watch's report above): An Amnesty International military expert said that he had found no evidence of a massacre but did see signs of Israeli war crimes ... Tiamuttalk 15:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I hear what you are saying, but imo these are just examples of HRW and AI moving the goalposts: "Was there a massacre as widely claimed?!!? No...but there were war crimes!" HRW and AI aren't required to be NPOV. I am not saying we shouldn't include the allegations of "war crimes," just that they should be separated by a full stop from the allegations of massacre. There were allegations of massacre. There was no massacre. There were accusations of war crimes. Three separate ideas. To put it another way, would you want to write, "There were widespread rumors of a massacre but there was never any proof of a massacre." See how the latter clause influences the former? To me that is a superior formulation, but if you want to emphasize the significance of the rumors you might disagree. Similiarly, given the emphasis we place on the notability of the unsubstantiated rumors of civilian massacre in the 1000s, I think we ought to place comparable emphasis on the fact that this was never proven. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I also see some of the rationale behind what you are saying. But the fact remains that the reports by AI and HRW are the source for the idea that there was no massacre and both were very careful to emphasize that there were war crimes. You may see that as moving the goalposts. I see it as intentional nuance byt these human rights organizations, which is why I find the coupling of the two ideas so important (because they did). Both Israelis and Palestinians saw what they wanted to see in the report. Israeli officials focused on how it had vindicated them of charges of a massacre, Palestinian officials focused on how it found evidence of war crimes. The verdicts for both come from the same reports, and so, IMO, should be be reported together. I would note also that the BBC choosing to use the same formulation is evidence that this is how the mainstream media sources saw fit to report it. Tiamuttalk 15:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
"Israeli officials focused on how it had vindicated them of charges of a massacre, Palestinian officials focused on how it found evidence of war crimes" is exactly my point. Palestinian officials charged there was a massacre. There wasn't one. The finding of "war crimes" is something that Palestinians, AI, HRW, and the BBC chose to focus on because they could not substantiate their (apparently false) claims of massive and deliberate murdering of civilians. All I am saying is that there should be a period to separate the ideas of massacre and war crimes. As much as the Palestinian side deserves recognition of the destruction of property and other events noted by these investigations, the IDF deserves vindication against what proved to be unsubstantiated accusations. In my view, the full stop makes this explicit. Kaisershatner (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The reports were purposefully equivocally phrased. I find our wording of "no evidence of a massacre" to be a little misrepresentative actually, though its tempered by the joining of the two sentences. This source for example says: Palestinian officials claimed that a masacre had occurred in Jenin. Israel denied it. Amnesty International called for a full investigation, having found evidence of war crimes. It was important therefore to establish the facts. The source goes to explain that the UN fact-finding team was formed and was disbanded after agreement with Israel could be secured. It says the UN report relied on secondary sources and offers its opinion that the casualty figures reported therein do not indicate a massacre but point to the problems of urban fighting.
In other words, no full investigation into what happened in Jenin has every really been carried out. AI and HRW found evidence of war crimes but no hard evidence to substantiate claims of a massacre true, but both called for further investigations. Given that Israel prevented people from entering the camp throughout the invasion, and prevented the UN from carrying out its mission, we will never really know what happened there. Reports of bodies having been removed before outsider observers were allowed in will forever leave questions in people's minds. We don't allude to any of that POV in the lead. I'm not currently suggesting that we should for the time being. But I think we have to be aware of what allowed the rumors of massacres to spread (i.e. the sealing off of the camp and the widespread use of bulldozers, the curfew, etc, etc.) And I think we need to represent the equivocal nature of the conclusions. Which is why the joining of the sentences is important, besides it being the way that mainstream sources have summarized the conclusions. Tiamuttalk 16:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Lets have some proportion, and remind editors that whilst some war crimes were committed, there was no planned genocide. Period.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Bodies decompose under rubble.[edit]

Two IPs and one registered editor have attempted to add the following passage, and it's been removed without satisfactory reason ("removing contradictory text" and "The sources proving this wrong are in the article, in the aftermath section" and "these claims were proven false") and without, that I can tell, any discussion. All the reports appear to be contemporaneous and validly cited from good RS. (I have checked all references and updated the "verified" entry).

The reason that this entry is important is that the current article describes the uncertain fate of bodies removed from the camp, but not the quite well documented fate of uncollected bodies within the camp.

(Bodies decompose under rubble)

According to ex-MK and campaigner Uri Avnery in a commentary piece on 20th Apr "There is full agreement ... on only one thing. ... foreign journalists and IDF soldiers ... all report that a terrible stench of decomposing bodies lingers everywhere."[1]

From the New York Times (16th Apr) "the smell of decomposing bodies hung over at least six heaps of rubble",[2] the Guardian (16th) "permeated with the stench of rotting corpses",[3] an Amnesty delegate (17th) quoted in the UN report "there is a smell of death under the rubble",[4] the BBC (17th) "the smell of death pervades the Jenin refugee camp",[5] the UN Coordinator, Roed-Larsen on CNN (18th) "decaying corpses below the rubble."[6] and the BBC (18th) "the stench of death is horrible",[7] and the Telegraph (21st) "stench of decaying bodies hung over the Jenin refugee camp",[8],

  1. ^ The Truth Lies under the Rubble Uri Avnery, 20th Apr 2002. Verified 8th June 2010.
  2. ^ The smell of decomposing bodies hung over at least six heaps of rubble New York Times 16 Apr 2002. Verified 8th June 2010.
  3. ^ The lunar landscape that was the Jenin refugee camp 16 Apr 2002. Verified 8th June 2010.
  4. ^ There is a smell of death under the rubble. Amnesty delegate quoted by UN. 17th Apr 2002. Verified 8th June 2010.
  5. ^ The smell of death pervades the Jenin refugee camp BBC 17th Apr 2002. Verified 8th June 2010.
  6. ^ 'Horrifying' scene at Jenin, UN envoy says CNN 18th April 2002. Verified 8th June 2010.
  7. ^ Jenin camp 'horrific beyond belief' BBC 18 Apr 2002. Verified 8th June 2010.
  8. ^ Bad things did happen - we had no choice Telegraph 21 Apr 2002. Verified 8th June 2010.

Templar98 (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC) - banned user

As fair as I can tell, the reason for the repeated removal of this section is Ynhockey (talk · contribs) and Breein1007 (talk · contribs) possessing obvious POV issues and pushing them under the guise of objectivity, as demonstrated here: 'anti-Israel fanatics', But I can't bring myself to give up and allow the propaganda to win the war here, even if they have worked up quite the impressive system and have won their fair share of battles.' (Breein1007), and by Ynhockey's support for the ultra-nationalist Yisrael Beiteninu party. —Andrensath
All the articles are irrelevant, as they written during the time that claims about a massacre of hundreds in Jenin were common, and Jenin was closed and so no one knew what's happening there, and all information was based on rumors and Palestinian lies. It took some time until investigtation by the UN and human right organizations found that no massacre occured and that stories of hundreds of rottening bodies were incorrect. As such, all articles that say that was massacre are incorrect, and therefor not a RS. MathKnight 17:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Concur with MK. Cited articles were written at a time when facts were sketchy at best. Later accounts debunked allegations of hundreds rotting corpses.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
MK, please stop pushing your POV about 'Palestinian lies'. The articles are RS that accusations of a massacre existed, and that Israel didn't allow journalists, the UN, or human rights NGOs in to prove or disprove it until their PR machine was well set up to broadcast their version of events. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 20:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Andrensath, please cease your personal attacks against other editors, such as Breenin1007, MathKnight and myself. If you have any content- or policy-based arguments to make, please do so. —Ynhockey (Talk) 20:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I find it rather telling that you choose to completely ignore the content-based argument I did make in my previous comment, in favour of a false accusation of 'personal attacks'. Please cite where I made any (and no, whichever IP editor accused you of being a 'war criminal' is not me)? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 20:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Saying that "Ynhockey and Breein1007 possessing obvious POV issues and pushing them under the guise of objectivity" is a personal attack. As for content argument, your comment is interesting but it is not based in reliable sources; MathKnight's comment is backed by many sources currently in the article and the timing of the events. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Fair cop; I apologise for accusing you and Breein1007 of pushing your POV under the guise of objectivity. However, my argument is based on RS, for starters the very first article linked by Templar98. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 22:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Apology accepted. As for the argument; first of all, Uri Avnery is not an RS—he's a well-known pro-Palestinian activist, generally considered far-left. Secondly, as MathKnight pointed out, "all the articles are irrelevant, as they written[sic] during the time that claims about a massacre[sic] of hundreds in Jenin were common". Basically, everything that was published before some basic facts were known should be discounted, although if it's notable enough, I have no objection that it goes into the Massacre allegations section. The problem is, the section is already too large (possibly undue weight) so maybe some of these allegations need to substitute current text in the section. —Ynhockey (Talk) 17:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah; I didn't know that, I was just going off the ex-MK part. However, I disagree that being pro-Palestine, far-left, or both should disqualify somebody from being RS; it just means you have to be more careful about taking them at face-value, just like you would for a pro-Israel and/or far-right activist.
That said, I take the point about not making the Massacre allegations section even larger. Maybe spin it out into a separate article titled Massacre accusations in Battle of Jenin or something similar? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 21:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
A word of caution Andrensath, WP:POVFORK--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I am aware of that guideline. In case clarification is needed, my suggestion was intended to be inclusive of both the allegations that a massacre occurred and the articles refuting said allegations. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 01:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Andrensath, please have a look at these;
--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
...I'm not sure what you're trying to say here? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 03:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Great care was taken not to harm civilians at risk to IDF personnel. The operation could have been preceeded by heavy aerial bombardment but that option was removed from the table. Palestinian deaths were limited to between 52 and 56 and the majority of these were combatants. No massacres. No decomposing bodies. No war crimes. Just tough urban combat that ended with a hard-fought Israeli victory. BTW, you also might find this from TIME magazine interesting.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and? I never said that a massacre took place. What I did say was that there were allegations that one did and that we should document those allegations, not just the debunking of said allegations. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 04:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Andrensath, we do document those allegations, in the introduction to the article. Kaisershatner (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
This part of the story has nothing to do with "allegations of a massacre", it concerns the aftermath of a battle in which it is reported by many witnesses that some numbers of bodies were left to decompose under the rubble. These reports are amongst the very most direct and personal witness evidence we have and obviously need inclusion. If this was not a battle with large numbers of Palestinian fighters killed then it is difficult to understand why the article says there was a battle. Templar98 (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC) - banned user
Hi Templar98. I am trying to understand your argument; it may be "obvious" to you that these reports "need inclusion," but it isn't to me, so help me out. This was a battle in which about 50 Palestinians and 25 Israelis were killed, according to several independent counts. How does including the allegations improve the article, in your opinion? Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
There are no independent sources for the death toll being this low, while there are numerous independent sources for the death toll being much higher - there is even an Israeli claiming he carried out undocumented killings. Even if we prefere not to believe there was a mass killing, the story is hopelessly incomplete if we censor the first words of the BBC, NYT, UN etc when they finally got into the camp. (talk) 11:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no reliable source (RS) that claims that hundreds Palestinian corpses decomposed under the rubbles. All sources, including Palestinian ones, agreed on death toll of around 52-56 people. It was explained that the reports from the end of April 2002 were based only on rumors and missinformation, and that evantuallt retracted they claims and concured with UN and other organizations reports. Time Magazine concluded it explicitly: "There was no massacre in Jenin." Since you insist on inserting wrong facts (and against concensus in the talk page). MathKnight 12:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
It's difficult to AGF an editor who claims on his UserPage that a specific D9 bulldozer "saves many lives" - when observers call it an instrument of terror that Caterpillar is under pressure not to sell to Israel. Cumbria4 (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
1. Your Ad hominem is not related to this discussion. 2. The armored D9 do saves lives: when it goes over a 500 kg IED capable of destroying tanks or gets a direct hit by an AT-3 Sagger ATGM and Israeli crewmen survive these encounters unscratched - I definitely call these "saving lives". 3. I know the D9 actions in the Second Intifada were controversial. The Israelis think they were justified, the Palestinian think otherwise. The boycott attempts againt Caterpillar Inc. never managed to lift themselves and were flatly rejected by a very large majority (over 96%) of the share-holders. 4. The D9 did killed Palestinians, the vast majority of them were armed terrorists and not innocence civilians. MathKnight 21:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Lets have some proportion, and remind editors that whilst some war crimes were committed, there was no planned genocide. Period.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Why does the article claim there was no massacre when everyone knows there were several? Shootings went on for days (at least until the 12th) when the last surrenders were on the 10th. (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Please provide a reliable source for what "everyone knows." Thanks. Kaisershatner (talk) 01:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Casualty figures[edit]

All due respect, the number of casualties has been counted a tad different by a couple sources doesn't mean we can write the number is not known. That just leaves room to silly speculations. The UN source uses 56, while a newspaper citing Jenin governor Qadoura Moussa states 54. I don't know what source was used for 52 but both the original phrasing of "at least 52" and the current one, suggested by CJCurrie, of "not known" are irresponsible writing considering we have clear cut reports with enough time away from the incident and the odious rumor mill. JaakobouChalk Talk 00:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC) From the current article body:

Subsequent investigations and reports by the United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Time Magazine, and the BBC all concluded there was no massacre of civilians, with estimated death tolls of 46–55 people among reports by the IDF, the Jenin office of the United Nations, and the Jenin Hospital.[75] A team of four Palestinian-appointed investigators reporting to Fatah numbered total casualties of 56,[63] as disclosed by Kadoura Mousa Kadoura, the director of Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement for the northern West Bank.

I'm open to suggestions on how to summarize this into the lead. I got the numbers mixed a bit -- Qadoura said 56, and the UN said 'at least 52'. EU said 55 on the same report. JaakobouChalk Talk 00:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

What I actually wrote is that the exact number was not known. I stand by this, and I completely reject the suggestion that it constitutes "irresponsible editing." Anyway, I'm going to try another alternate wording in a moment. CJCurrie (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I detailed above three main sources and you've made a faulty mix and match between the EU and the UN where you took the highest number (EU) and the worst civilian estimation (UN). Are you sure that taking the worst case estimations and painting a picture that there's allegedly a plethora of bodies left -- which is surely why a Palestinian ended up with 56 as their final toll -- is the proper way of summarizing the 3 sources in the lead?
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 12:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I Also note that you removed the word 'massacre' and wrote things as though the UN was the only one who found no evidence. "Around 52 Palestinians were killed, mostly gunmen, despite false claims of a massacre." - Jpost 2010 It's been enough time after the 'massacre' and there were no hundreds of bodies or a massacre. Let's write this properly please, not giving undue credence to blood libels. That is irresponsible editing.
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 12:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Improving neutrality in introduction/Unjustified undo made by AndresHarutJaim[edit]

Recently my re-write of the introduction to this article was "undone" without any attempt at explanation. I re-wrote the introduction to this page in a way that I intended would point the reader to the detailed discussions of the massacre claims in the main body of the article. This is important because as it stands, the introduction gives no hint of the massive question-marks that still stand around this issue. Instead, it presents the official Israeli stance as "the stance," with subsequent analysis framed as possibilities. This is a similar style to the structure of Wikipedia pages that are maintained by the PR personnel of large institutions, which frame the entire article according to their point-of-view, then marginalise all the other opinions in a section labelled "Criticism."

I also think it's undisputable that there should be a phrase along the lines of "The Battle of Jenin, also known as/known to some as the Massacre of Jenin/Jenin Massacre." I personally had never heard of the "Battle of Jenin" before I came to this page, although I admit that I respect that perspective having read through all the information that's here.

My proposed introduction is below. References are omitted for clarity. Please note that I am making no claim to holding definitive information. "The Battle of Jenin (April 1–11, 2002), also known as the Jenin Massacre, took place in the Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank. Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) entered the camp, and other areas under the administration of the Palestinian Authority, during the Second Intifada, as part of Operation Defensive Shield. The Jenin camp was targeted after Israeli intelligence reports that it had "served as a launch site for numerous terrorist attacks against both Israeli civilians and Israeli towns and villages in the area."

The IDF employed infantry, commando forces, and assault helicopters. Palestinian militants had prepared for a fight, booby trapping the camp, and after an Israeli column walked into an ambush, the army began to rely more heavily on the use of armored bulldozers to clear out booby traps laid inside the camp. On April 11, Palestinian militants began to surrender. Israeli troops began withdrawing from the camp on April 18.

With Jenin sealed for several days after the events, massacre (Massacre of Jenin) claims began to circulate in the media. Stories of hundreds or thousands of civilians being killed in their homes as they were demolished spread throughout the international media. Subsequent investigations found no evidence to substantiate claims of a massacre, though the initial refusal of the Israeli government to allow a UN investigation means that the true nature of the events remains in question. Official totals indicated that between 52 and 54 Palestinians, mostly gunmen, and 23 IDF soldiers were killed in the fighting."

I'll give several days for respones from AndresHarutJaim and anyone else following this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You were justfully reverted. In your re-write you implied (hinted) that there was a massacre in Jenin, and that Israel and the UN covered it up.[1] That there was no massacre is a known fact, trying to imply otherwise is inserting wrong information. Wrong information should be removed. MathKnight 11:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I started this section, and I'll continue... In hindsight, I accept that I did not understand the semantics of "massacre" and "war crimes" in use. To me, personally, summary executions, civilians killed by bulldozers and numerous rockets fired into civilian areas (as documented by Human Rights Watch) resulting in dozens of people being killed constitutes a massacre. That's my understanding of the term. At the same time, it's obviously valid to differentiate the account from the claims that hundreds of innocent civilians were gunned down and buried in mass graves. I accept that this was the way the term "massacre" was used in the context of Jenin Nonetheless I stand by my original criticisms of the tone of the introduction. It presents the operation as textbook and morally flawless, when this is clearly not the case, which is precisely the reason the events became so widely known. I believe that the war crimes committed at Jenin need to be included in the introduction because they are a definitive fact about the "...... of Jenin." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thectexperience (talkcontribs) 14:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As Time Magazine concludes: "Time investigation concludes that there was no wanton massacre in Jenin, no deliberate slaughter of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers. But the 12 days of fighting took a severe toll on the camp." [1], [2] What was going there was a battle of a western army against armed militants who used civilian people and infrastructure as cover. As such, it is natutal that civilians might be hurt during the battle. No urban warfare battle has ended without civilian casualties. The events were widely knowns because of three main reasons:

  1. The false allegations of massacre.
  2. The use of IDF Caterpillar D9 armored bulldozers to win the battle by detonating booby traps and bulldozing buildings.
  3. The April 9 2002 ambush which killed 13 Israeli soldiers.

I think the lead is OK as it is. MathKnight 19:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I've made a very small revert that acknowledges that this event is often called the "Jenin Massacre"--as evidenced by the discussions here, as well as the fact that "jenin massacre" has enough searches to be tracked on Google Trends[3], while "battle of jenin" does not[4]. "Jenin massacre" redirects to this page, so clearly there is a significant association, disagreements about its applicability notwitshtanding. This should not be controversial; it is not a commentary on disputes about what happened, but a neutral recognition of common usage. I made sure to use conservative language to this end ("sometimes referred to as" rather than "also known as"). Skadowski (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are guided by reliable sources. No reliable sources use the name "Jenin Massacre". You are saying that it is "often called the "Jenin Massacre" yet providing no reliable source backing this fact. The lead already discusses the massacre allegations. Marokwitz (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I've provided a citation to support this revert, from Israeli historian Ilan Pappé, professor of history and director of the European Center for Palestine Studies at the University of Exeter. I believe that qualifies as a reliable source.--Skadowski (talk) 00:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


I wondered if the word battle should be used in a conflict between the IDF, one of the most powerful armies in the world, and a refugee camp, even if 2-300 of the inhabitants were armed. I see that Arafat has called it a a battle, and I do understand that the hawks on the Israeli side would like to call it a battle, but for those who try to remain objective in this highly emotional conflict, there might be a better word? I will leave it up to more creative spirits to come up with a suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrikha (talkcontribs) 15:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The term "Battle" should be replaced by a neutral descriptive term (not "Massacre"). Maybe "Jenin Incident" or something similar. ---Dagme (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Even asymmetrical warfare is warfare. The Palestinian militants there used thousand of explosives and booby traps (which were successufuly countered by the IDF Caterpillar D9 armored bulldozers), hundreds of armed militant and a supporting enviorment in civilian infrastructure. That was a battle, the Palestinians fought back, they lost. MathKnight 19:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Of course it was not a battle - this was a cold blooded massacre of refugees. Numerous journalists and the special rapporteur of the UN reported that the camp stank of unburied and decomposing bodies when the IDF eventually allowed them in. From the New York Times (16th Apr) "the smell of decomposing bodies hung over at least six heaps of rubble",[2] the Guardian (16th) "permeated with the stench of rotting corpses",[3] an Amnesty delegate (17th) quoted in the UN report "there is a smell of death under the rubble",[4] the BBC (17th) "the smell of death pervades the Jenin refugee camp",[5] the UN Coordinator, Roed-Larsen on CNN (18th) "decaying corpses below the rubble."[6] and the BBC (18th) "the stench of death is horrible",[7] and the Telegraph (21st) "stench of decaying bodies hung over the Jenin refugee camp",[8]
But of course, the actual reports of people who actually verified this massacre are not going to be allowed to appear in the article, are they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Read the talk page and the above paragraphes. The quotations you brought were early reports when nothing was known and the rummors of massacre were spread by the Palestinians. Evantually, everyone of them retracted these reports and issued corrections that there was no massacre in Jenin. Even the UN and Amnesty International and HRW, not fonders of Israel but hostile to it, concluded that there was no massacre in Jenin. Even the Palestinian leadership evantually admited in that and lowered the death toll to 56 people. MathKnight 17:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Again, MathKnight, you are using the defence that there was no massacre without mentioning the important caveat that your definition of "massacre" requires hundreds of people being shot. You are right to say that Amnesty and HRW agreed there was no "massacre". They did, however, report indiscriminate rocket fire, unannounced demolitions of homes with bulldozers, and summary executions. These events were rightly termed "war crimes" rather than a "massacre." I reiterate my claim that the introduction needs to be rewritten with mention of the war crimes that occurred at Jenin. The only rebuttal you have offered thus far to this argument is a quote from Time Magazine. Time is a major establishment publication in the United States, the most consistently partisan player in the Arab-Israeli conflict behind Israel itself. Time is not a reliable source and does not stand against the first-hand reports of both Amnesty and HRW — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
To massacre is "to kill indiscriminately or in large numbers" (Collins Online but all dictionaries will say something similar). Neither criterion was met here, and the most likely source of the story was planned misinformation by parties who wish Israel ill. Owing to the enthusiastic support given to the allegations by sections of the Western media, the term "Jenin Massacre" is in the public consciousness, so the current position is about right - if a user looks up "Jenin Massacre" s/he is directed to this page which calls it a "battle" (I would have no problems with "incident" either) and discusses the massacre allegations in detail. BTW after leaving office S-G Kofi Annan (quoted in this article) acknowledged that the UN was anti-Israel, and MathKnight is also correct in questioning the impartiality of AI and HRW, at least at that time. The unpalatable fact is that there are NO absolutely trustworthy sources for Israel/Palestine in the period under discussion, including so-called "newspapers of record" and major supranational organisations and NGOs. IMHO the article presents the Palestinian case more strongly than the Israeli, but is about as good as can be achieved. Chrismorey (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Result in infobox[edit]

I've removed it for now. It's an unsourced statement of fact in the encyclopedia's voice. It needs to reflect what a reasonable sample of RS say and cite sources that support the view (or diversity of views) so that readers can verify it. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutral POV[edit]

1. Given that the international consensus is that no "Jenin massacre" took place, excessive space has been given to those who continue to insist it did and I've tried to correct that. While WP tries to cover all POVs it surely isn't necessary to give equal space to discredited ones. There are those who believe the earth is flat, or that we live on the inside of the globe, but they don't get equal space for their POV, and that is as it should be. Ditto insistence on a massacre in the face of all the evidence.

IMHO the article is still written primarily from the Palestinian-Arab POV, but it does makes some attempts to be fair.

2. Numerous references are cited to an article in the UK Independent by one Justin Huggler. The Independent is not a reliable source on any matter to do with the Middle East, and on a number of other subjects on which it holds extreme views, since it is prone to intrude editorial opinion into ostensibly-factual articles. It has fallen foul of UK media regulators for this on several occasions. Its opinion, background or feature articles make no pretence of balance, and do not need to under UK rules which allow titles to hold "partisan" viewpoints. Chrismorey (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The Independent is regarded as reliable source in Wikipedia including on issues related to the Middle East. Do not remove citations to the Independent based on your personal views of the source if you would like to continue editing Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I didn't know that you was appointed to tell what are reliable sources we may use on Wikipedia, when was that? --aad_Dira (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC).