Talk:Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine war

COMMENT

This page does need to be improved. It would be good to have more sources on Israeli Masacres than just Benny Morris. The Massacre at Lydda or Lod needs its own page (It currently links to Operation Danny) as there are compelling claims that the only basis for the 250 was an Israeli combat report that includes organized Arab forces that attacked after the Israeli's took control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.119.32 (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Need to be done. Indeed. Ceedjee (talk) 06:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Causes of the massacre

I have put a pov-tag because the Palestinian historians version is not there yet, as well as the one of Ilan Pappé. Ceedjee (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Purity of arms

Avi Shlaim is a wp:rs secondary source. I don't think there is any historian today that claim "Purity of Arms" was a precept respected during the 1948 war. There is no reason to make the sentence sounds as if it was not a "fact" if there is no other source stating something else. I can bring others by the way. And it is only if there is a discussion between current historians about that that topic (but we need wp:rs source of equivalent standing) that we can chose a structure : "A says... while B says...". Ceedjee (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that most historians will agree that in some cases "purity of arms" was not respected, but few will claim that it was not respected generally.Igorb2008 (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so but it doesn't mind.

The best and only way is that we find wp:rs sources from recent historians that claim "purity of arms" is not a myth. I don't think I have any. The only possibility I see would be from Mordechai Bar-On. I check on my side. Ceedjee (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"Traditional version" mentioned, dispute this version. Research of "New histroians" is disputed, and not a fact or only view.So as a controversial, disputed statement, it should be identified as POV of the author. It is also would be also interesting to know if any other "new historians" came to the same conclusions regarding purity of arms issue in war of 1948Igorb2008 (talk) 10:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Research of New historian is not disputed. If you don't know what is disputed or not in their work, study.

In their work, there are facts and points of views.

Not only new historians in fact.

Whatever you want to add, please, provide wp:rs sources.

here are some. Do you know Anita Shapira ? She was one of the most virulent critic of first analysis of Benny Morris's work. Ceedjee (talk) 05:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You add controversial, disputed by traditional version, quote, and present it as a fact. That is the problem. It is even written like a quote and opinion, and not as fact .It says " It has long been taught in Israeli schools", but it is not taught in Israeli schools, no were in Israeli schoolbooks Purity of arms in 1948 war is discussed. It says "used extensively abroad in the quest for legitimacy", legitimacy of what exactly? It says "now considered to be one of the myths of the 1948 war", considered by who? And what are "myths of the 1948 war"? I think this phrase will mean different depending on Israeli or Palestinian narrative of the war. It is Avi Shlaim opinion, his quote, and it must be identified as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorb2008 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That is not Avi Shlaim opinion.

These are facts reported by Avi Shlaim, a wp:rs secondary source.

I have given you references where it is explained the same (not for 1948 it is true) but from opponent to new historians.

If you don't what are the myths of the 1948 war, why do you contribute this topic ?

First study, then talk.

And if something is disputed, then provide a source that disputes this. From what I know, what is written is not disputed.

• Purity of Arms is in the collective Israeli memory; If Shlaim talks about schools, I assume it is because it is one of the place where collective memory is built
• legitimacy of the Israeli policy, as a whole.
• considered by historians

So, first study, bring wp:rs material, and then talk.

Ceedjee (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually the War of Independence is not even taught in Israeli schools except a brief overview, and there's certainly nothing about Purity of Arms there, and can't be because it's a value not made official until 1994. Avi Shlaim is not a WP:RS secondary source, and even if he was, there's no evidence corroborating his vague statement (as Igorb2008 has clarified). In any case, I have several official or semi-official Israeli history books on the war, and none of them makes any mention of Purity of Arms (I looked thoroughly because, if you may remember, we had the same dispute in the article Purity of arms).

In other words, I have no sources directly countering Shlaim's claim, and it is fairly clear that this material is not taught in Israeli schools today. Therefore, while there is no outright proof that Shlaim's claims are wrong, there isn't a shred of other evidence that they are right—certainly a controversial claim like this would be talked about by other historians? Therefore, the claim should probably stay as no one (so far) can prove that it's false, but because of its disputed nature, the clause "According to Avi Shlaim" (or a variation thereof) should also stay (WP:NPOV). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• I showed you "purity of arms" concept existed before in the talk page of that article. Did you forget ?
• look, written in 1986 and talking about before 1948.
• Avi Shlaim is a wp:rs secondary source. Wikipedian editors, you and Igor, are not.
• No source ? Nothing to add.

Ceedjee (talk) 10:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand that what I added might be construed as an interpretation, however, there are millions of theories out there, like the idea that stock prices are moved by the signs of the Zodiac, for which you will find no RS that says that it is bogus, simply because there is no reason to spend time rejecting such silliness. Although I am not putting Shalaim's claims into that category, it is clearly just one school of thought, which if I read the quote as it was in there, one would think is the dominant one (i.e., that the Arab world did not try and remove Israel from the face of the earth in 1948). I am trying to get hold of Aaron Wolf's book, "Purity of Arms", because this almost certainly will discuss the IDF philosophy. The abstract and reviews of the book -- from 1989 I believe -- discuss how "Purity of Arms" is a core concept of the IDF and how difficult it was for IDF members to follow it in practical situations. The bottom line is that outside of that book, and the recent academic debate, nobody has ever heard of purity of arms. Not sure it even belongs in this article. Furthermore, although there are plenty of books that will point out that Irgun et al were far from pure in their methods (I have always argued that they were terrorists, just like Hamas and Hezbollah are), and that there is blame to go around on all sides from the 1948 era (as well as now), the whole paragraph reeked of an attempt to make it look like Shalaim et al's "history" is accepted throughout the world, which it clearly is not. Although Ceedjee has made a valiant attempt to include the commonly accepted history, when the final paragraph states as fact something that is in debate, the whole thing becomes NPOV. It would be like me saying, during Copernicus' lifetime, before the whole world knew him to be correct (notice I am not saying Shalaim is wrong) something like:"Church teachings firmly show that all Heavenly bodies revolve around the Eartha and that the Earth is the center of the Universe. This has been taught for time immemorial. However, as it turns out, the Earth revolves around the Sun." Of course, we all know this to be true, but if it had been on en.medievalwikipedia.com during Copernicus' lifetime, that statement would be 100% misleading and bordering on a lie, since it did represent the common thinking of that time. Shalaim's research may prove to be 100% correct, but that is not what the whole world understands. Until that changes, the paragraph must make it clear that this is the author's opinion only, at a minimum, and really should point out that it is not commonly accepted throughout the majority of the world.Sposer (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It was a Haganah slogan to differentiate their 'Jewish ethical' approach to war from that of the Irgun/Lehi fighters, and drew on Orde Wingate's principles when he trained them back in the late 30s. It became standard in both in the IDF training manuals and propaganda, and the Israeli press, where I have encountered it hundreds of times, as a characteristic of the Israeli army. Shlaim is not a propagandist. He is an Oxford scholar, with a lifetime in Israel, and is saying absolutely nothing controversial. It is a commonplace. The Israeli army is no more or less ethical, or imbued with purity of arms, than any other arguably. Well, it's recent record from 1982 says the opposite actually, but. . armies are armies. What he says in this regard is not an academic polemic, or a perception of an historical school. It is not a personal opinion.Nishidani (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That said, your edit is correct, Sposer.Nishidani (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that Spocer`s last edit is good version that might be accepted by anyone. Igorb2008 (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I am also fine with Sposer's edit, although I removed the "quest for legitimacy" part, which is not clear and doesn't really say anything (although it implies that the actions were illigitimate). I hope that doesn't bother anyone--the paragraph still says the same thing. --Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

A part of Sposer last edit will -of course- being deleted. If there is a debate, provide wp:rs sources that state the contrary.

"The bottom line is that outside of that book, and the recent academic debate, nobody has ever heard of purity of arms"

That is false. As proven in the talk page of the article Purity of arms. And you own phrasing proves this. How could it be accepted in the Western world, if only discussed in the academic media.

Ceedjee (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ceedjee, by now you're simply engaging in edit warring against consensus. Stop talking about WP:RS in every post, and start respecting Wikipedia's other non-negotiable policies, such as WP:NPOV and WP:CON. Nishidani, Igor and myself already agreed with Sposer's edit, you shouldn't completely refactor it to suit your needs and present Avi Shlaim as 'academics'. --Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I supported Sposer original edit because of his reformulation of phrasing. I now see that the whole passage has been substantially elided. For the record, there was nothing wrong in the text as thus phrased by Sposer, if sourced as follows. Ceedjee does have a point that is being ignored.

Stop misprenting facts and stop with your propaganda.

I don't care what people agrees or don't. You have to come with wp:rs sources, particularly on a topic you don't know AS PROVEN ENOUGH NOW.

All of you, respect wp:principles and provide ONE current academic who states the contrary and then we will add you POV, which is currently no sustained by no document.

We don't care your feelings about what is pov. NPOV means equilibrium between wp:rs sources.

No wp:rs sources, nothing to add. Ceedjee (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It has long been taught in Israeli schools and used extensively abroad in the "quest for legitimacy" that during the 1948 War, Israel military forces practiced the precept of "Purity of arms" in the quest for legitimacy.

Avi Shlaim is an academic. This should not be questioned. And secondly, Ceedjee is correct in saying that over the last decades, it is accepted in the literature that there was a gross disparity between the slogan of the Haganah, and actual battlefield practice. No army with a record of winning practices 'purity of arms'. It's a vapid empty, extremely embarrassing cliché, violated everyday on the West Bank, and everybody in the IDF knows it.Nishidani (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody disputing that Avi Shlaim is an academic or that his research is notable to be included.What is disputed is that it is presented as fact, even though it is disputed by traditional, commonly accepted version and it is controversial statement, over witch is no consensus. And in Wikipedia articles I seen in such cases it is not presented as fact but written as "according to..." . For example in Allied war crimes during World War II article, on behavior of Allied soldiers in the Pacific war, all the research is written as "according to...", even though opposing views are not presented. Because of all this I consider Spocer`s version good compromise.

I personally would agree with Nishidani , that no army with a record of winning that never violate Purity of arms, but there is a long way from violate Purity of arms, to not practicing it. Every army often violates "Purity of arms" when it contradicts other army values such as "comradeship" for example, ( I don`t think there are many field commanders in any army, that in battle will rather assault with infantry, sniper in a building, rather then calling artillery or air support, possibly hurting civilians). Massacres, that described in the article clearly violates it also. But to say that army does not practice Purity of arms, is to say that army practically does not have policy of taking POW alive, and have no policy of discrimination between combatants and civilians. Which will be untrue for the war. If to check policy on POW for example, Israel held 6306 Arab POW in the end of the war, as opposed to total 8000 to 15000 war casualties from Arab side. In Pacific war for example, ratio of captured to killed mentioned is from 1:20 to 1:7.

As for West Bank now, even though my answer does not belong here,and feel free to delete it,I would like to say, as Israeli, who served in the army, that I disagree with Nishidani. Purity of arms is definitely practiced in the conflict.There were violations of course, and there are problems, as sometimes army cover them up, as any army, or gives very lax sentences, but mostly they are prosecuted. I know a guy who was jailed for picking watermelon in Palestinian farm and smashing it on the ground, so of course criminal violations of Purity of arms are punished. Igorb2008 (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ceedjee writes from sources. We may dispute sources, but only on technical grounds, not by adducing our personal reasons for disagreeing with sources. There are many very good sources I disagree with, but I even add them, or support those who do, because our job here is simply to enrich articles with the best information available from, optimally, academic sources. It is not enough, therefore, to disagree. Either one gives sources that counter these sources one dislikes, or one is obliged to keep searching until one finds those sources.

As to the West Bank, I get daily reports on soldier behavior all over there. All modern armies have a code of ethics, often violated, not only because 5% of soldiers are, as the Marine Corps' studies over time indicate, natural killers. 'Purity of arms' is a cliché that has long outworn its use-by-date. If soldiers behave well, it is not because of some nationalistic cliché. They behave well because they manage to retain their humanity, even while occupying foreign land. It's an individual matter, and no army that boasts of some peculiar morality should be taken at its word. It's an outright invitation to hypocrisy.Nishidani (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Purity of arms is a code of ethics not different from code of ethics of all other modern armies, no better, no worse. But an army that practice code of ethics, often violated, true enough, is not the same as the army that does not practice code of ethics. In my opinion it is not always individual matter. Often education in ethics, in army and before, as well as personal example of commanders and older,more experienced soldiers, also important factor. Igorb2008 (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOAP.

On wikipedia, we report information from wp:rs sources. Go and read. We don't care WP:PR, even if right or clever. Ceedjee (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Problems with the article

I think that article as a whole is cearly not neutral POV, and I think many parts of it are problematic

1)Hadassah medical convoy massacre, explained as possibly result of battle, while there is no such comments in regards to other massacres, despite that there are similar claims for Deir Yassin for example. Operation Danny was a battle. Al-dawayima was investigated by the UN, and no evidence of massacre was found. If this if these events mentioned claimed to be massacres, all of this must be mentioned.

That is what the source say and it is clearly stated why Benny Morris says so. Ceedjee (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

2) Despite their rhetoric, Arab armies committed few atrocities and no large-scale massacre of prisonners while they could have done so when they took the Old City of Jerusalem or the settlements of Atarot, Neve Yaakov, Nitzarim, Gezer and Mishmar Hayarden. On the contrary, on 28 May, when the inhabitants and fighters of the Old City surrendered and while they feared for their lives, the Transjordanian Arab Legion protected them from the mob and even shot dead and wounded other Arabs.

I think that these passage should be removed. Atarot and Neve Yaakov populations were evacuted before they were captured and only in Nitzarim there were more then hundred survivors. In the end,no Jewish population remained in territories under Arab control, while more then 160000 Arabs remained in the territories under Israeli control. So to write about Arab`s unused opportunities to commit massacres, while at the same time writing about " atrocities committed by the IDF" is very distorted and not neutral way to describe the events.

That is what Benny Morris says. Do you have other wp:rs sources ? Ceedjee (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

3)If questioning of Israeli purity of arms concept belongs to this article, then similar concepts of Arab armies, must also be discussed. It would be interesting to know if there are revisionist Arab historians, similar to Israeli "New histroians", and what is their opinion on the matter.

Do you have a wp:rs source about the concept of purity of arms in Arab armies ? The concept for Tsahal has an article in wikipedia. There are numerous wp:rs sources talking about this?

But we can discuss this if you have wp:rs sources that discuss this. Ceedjee (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

4)Scale. There is mention of about 800 civilian and POWs killed by the Yashuv. 2400 Jewish civilians killed, and this not counting those killed before 1948 Arab armies invasion, should also be mentioned.Igorb2008 (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No. you are wrong. Ceedjee (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You are correct on all four counts. The state that this article is currently in is a result of the work of several editors who have literature almost exclusively written by New Historians, and they were not acting in bad faith. The main issue here is sources, and I haven't had time to comb through Israeli literature to find any counter-claims (although from personal knowledge, they exist of course). If you have such literature, please add the necessary material, and I will help with stylistic/policy-related changes if needed. Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The state of this article is a real improvement in comparison of what was existing before.

About "a result of the work of several editors who have literature almost exclusively written by New Historians, and they were not acting in bad faith". I developed this article, so I am your target.

I am the only one wikipedia who has sources from all sides and who use them so keep your attack for yourself.

Look at in the history where this article comes from !!!

Ceedjee (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, and this has nothing to do with 'New Historians'. It has everything to do that historians since the 1980s have access to state archives never available to the old Zionist historians. It was well put by Shlaim.

Collectively we came to be called the Israeli revisionists or the new historians. Neither term is entirely satisfactory. The term revisionists in the Zionist lexicon refers to the right-wing followers of Zeev Jabotinsky who broke away from the mainstream Zionism in 1925 whereas the new historians are located on the political map somewhere to the left of the mainstream. On the other hand the term new historians is rather self-congratulatory and dismissive, by implication, of everything written before the new historians appeared on the scene as old and worthless. Professor Yehoshua Porath of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has suggested as alternative terms pre-history and history. But this is only slightly less offensive towards the first category of historians. So, for lack of a better word, I shall use the label 'old' to refer to the proponents of the standard Zionist version on the 1948 War and the label 'new' to the recent left-wing critics of this version, including myself.

The first thing to note about the new historiography is that much of it is not new. Many of the arguments that are central to the new historiography were advanced long ago by Israeli writers, not to mention Palestinian, Arab and Western writers. To list all these Israeli writers is beyond the scope of this article but a few examples might be in place. One common thread that runs through the new historiography is a critical stance towards David Ben-Gurion, the founder of the State of Israel and its first Prime Minister. Whereas the old historians tend to view Ben-Gurion as representative of the consensus among the civilian and military elites, the new historians tend to portray him as the driving force behind Israel's policy in 1948, and particularly the policy of expelling the Palestinians. Many of the recent criticisms of Ben-Gurion, however, are foreshadowed in a book written by former IDF official historian, Lieutenant-Colonel Israel Baer, in prison after he was convicted of spying for the Soviet Union.[8]A significant start in revising the conventional Zionist view of British policy towards the end of the Palestine mandate was made by Gavriel Cohen in a volume with a characteristically old-fashioned title - Hayinu Keholmim, 'we were as dreamers.'[9]Yaacov Shimoni, deputy-director of the Middle East Department in the Foreign Ministry in 1948, published a highly perceptive article on the hesitations, doubts, reservations and differences of opinion that attended the Arab decision to intervene in Palestine in May 1948.[10] This article which is at odds with the dominant Zionist narrative is all the more noteworthy for having been written by an insider. Meir Pail wrote another corrective to the notion of a monolithic Arab world, focusing in particular on the conflict between King Abdullah of Jordan and the Palestinians.[11] The Zionist version about the causes of the Palestinian refugee problem was called into question by a number of Israeli writers and most convincingly by Rony Gabbay.[12] Finally, the argument that Israel's commitment to peace with the Arabs did not match the official rhetoric can be traced to a book published under a pseudonym by two members of the Israeli Communist Party.[13]Although many of the arguments of the new historiography are not new, there is a qualitative difference between this historiography and the bulk of the earlier studies, whether they accepted or contradicted the official Zionist line. The difference, in a nutshell, is that the new historiography is written with access to the official Israeli and Western documents whereas the earlier writers had no access, or only partial access, to the official documents. Nishidani (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Niushdani, in your quote of Shlaim, he himself do not dismiss "old Histroians" research as old or worthless, but view himself and other "new historians" as critics of their version. As you yourself write,many of the arguments that are central to the new historiography existed before access to state archives, alongside "old historiography", and both schools of history still exist after access to state archives. Today`s critics of "new historians" also have access to the archives and they base their criticism on the same documents. So "new historians" views are hardly indisputable or even mainstream.

But, problem with the article, is not that it is based only on research of "new historians", but with styling that make it cearly not neutral POV. If alternate views on Hadassah medical convoy massacre belong here, then alternate views on other massacres belong here. If questioning of Israeli purity of arms concept belongs to this article, then similar concepts of Arab armies, must also be discussed. If Arab non-combatants killed by Yashuv forces are mentioned, then Yashuv non-combatants killed by Arab armies should also be mentioned. And mentioning Arab unused opportunities to commit massacres does not belong here, unless similar very very long list of Arab settlements taken by Israel is added, or unless there is claim in the article that must be rebuked , that Arab forces did not take prisoners and always massacred captured population.Igorb2008 (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• "Today`s critics of "new historians" also have access to the archives and they base their criticism on the same documents"

Then, provide the material. You talked too much up to now, without giving any reference. Ceedjee (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• " is based only on research of "new historians"

It is mainly based on Morris but the analysis of yoav Gelber, who is not a new historian is given. There is also palestinian historian. If you have access to David Tal last book it is welcome.

• "ut with styling that make it cearly not neutral POV"

Where? Give the sentences on the talk page.

• "then alternate views on other massacres belong here"

What are they ? Please provide wp:rs source. Nothing prevents anybody to add information.

• "then Yashuv non-combatants killed by Arab armies should also be mentioned"

It is done from what concerns the massacres.

• "And mentioning Arab unused opportunities to commit massacres does not belong here"

Morris said so in his conclusiosn about massacre; so it belongs to this article.

Ceedjee (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ceedjee, the problem is not much with what is included but with what not included. All what is discussed about Jewish side, must be also discussed for Arab side, in similar way. If alternate views on Hadassah medical convoy massacre by Benny Morris is mentioned, then Uri Milstein alternate views on Deir Yassin massacre must also me mentioned, for example. If Arab unused opportunities to commit massacres is mentioned right after mentioning "Israeli atrocities", then list of Arabs settlements taken by Yashuv should also be added.And so forth on all parts of the article.Igorb2008 (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

You are clearly missing the point that Igorb2008 was trying to make. He is saying that the article is not neutral (i.e. not WP:NPOV), not that it violates WP:RS. I have to completely agree with that, and while the research done for it by you was sound (again, read the previous post before making accusations, I said and were not acting in bad faith), it's a fact that all the sources used, except two mini-paragraphs paraphrased from Gelber, are New Historians: Benny Morris, Tom Segev, Simha Flapan, Avi Shlaim and Ilan Pappé. I agree that ultimately Igorb2008 (any myself for that matter) should look for reliable sources to counterbalance the claims made in the article, but not having them does not give anyone else a license to just use these sources, and give undue weight to claims like the ones made by Shlaim.

Moreover, we both know that 'old' historians tend to usually ignore any information about the massacres, except sometimes the Deir Yassin Massacre, speaking of which, Uri Milstein who is at least as notable and credible as either Pappé or Shlaim, wrote an entire book saying that it was not a massacre. There is zero mention of his perspective in the article (I unfortunately don't have the book to cite it). --Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The cliché about 'New historians' (i.e., harvesting material from one school, as opposed to another = undue weight) is just that, a cliché. A break occurred in Israeli historiography with the expiration of the 30 year rule. It opened archives, many young historians stepped in, and were bundled up as 'New historians'. Their work is no longer that of a school, since their disagreements (Pappé and Morris/Shapira and Morris/) are substantial, indeed often radical, Pappé being an antiZionist, Morris a Zionist. Their work has been assimilated by all area specialists. Secondly no I/P article is 'neutral': They are just (a) badly written mainly (b) poorly sourced (c) in a state of (de)composition. To interpret generically an article in the state of construction as not adequate in terms of NPOV is neither here nor there, since the simple thing to do is to roll up one's sleeves, and improve the article by further sourcing, which is precisely what Ceedjee is requesting. Nishidani (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't miss anything. You just don't undertand NPOV and your react with your know-how of the topic.

Your problem, as well as Igor's, it that NPOV means bringing information from WP:RS sources and giving them with due:weight. Not reporting what collective memory reminds about a topic.

Study the topic before accusing me of pov and alledgely using new historians [only]. I am not responsible if there is not information concerning these issues in traditionnal litterature. Note that Israeli historians don't deny the massacres. For exemples, what occured at Lydda and Ramle is described in [old] Rabin's memoirs (without censorship) and the ones of Galilea lead to trials at the time. Some have just recently been discovered (or imagined by Pappe) but that is not the real issue.

This issue is just, quite logically, that the Israeli collective memory didn't "remind" these events and you are frustrated because you discover this information.

You are looking for : Uri Milstein, Blood Libel at Deir Yassin. The consensus is that it is not considered a wp:rs source for wikipedia. I tried to introduce this book at least in the "see also" section in the article about Deir Yassin massacre at the time (you see, I had a pro-Israeli attitude) but that was rejected. Reason is that this book is self published, without echo in the academic level and that he denies the massacre at the quarry. Note that the article about Deir Yassin is not neutral, because if 100 people were killed that day, only a few were massacred. Deir yassin was a battle and after, there has been a massacre of around 20 people. But that is WP:PR, that is not the wording historians use, unfortunately for real neutrality.

Concerning your accusation. It is true you didn't write I was acting by bad faith. But that is even worse. I would be unvoluntary manipulated by my readings ? Who are you making fun of ? I even read non wp:rs sources from Israeli historians. On your side, did you ever read any book/article on the topic written after 1990 ? Ceedjee (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

One could add that Milstein's book constitutes, explicitly, a political programme since he explains he write it in the following words:

I pray that for the sake of the survival of the State of Israel, the readership of this book will mass together into a war camp that will neutralize the internal threat; a blighted regime, a foundering security establishment and its subculture; and they will lead Israel to a Copernican revolution.

So much for NPOV and respect for quality sources. What have we here? a call to arms to save Israel?Nishidani (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

propaganda

• "Ceedjee, by now you're simply engaging in edit warring against consensus."

There is of course no consensus. A consensus is 100% agreement.
I am fed up discussing with people who didn't carry EVEN ONLY ONE WP:RS SOURCES when I brought 3 in more of all the former ones.
Next step is third opinion, then dispute resolution. Stop your propaganda. Ceedjee (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Study

• Anita Shapira, Land and Power, p.252,357
• Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948, p.291.

Ceedjee (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

According to a GROWING NUMBER of academic

Please, provide just one who disagrees. Just one.
Anyway, this is admitted at least since 1992 with Anita Shapira publication. Ceedjee (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you really don't, since, as I said, people don't bother to disagree with things like the Zodiac changes prices in the stock market, at least not in academic papers. That said, my issue isn't with the academic part. Remove "growing number". My point is the whole "purity of arms" stuff and the idea that the Israeli forces did not at least attempt, more than many other armies, to avoid civilian casualties, is not generally accepted maybe outside of academia during 1948 (outside of from distortions in the Arab world I gather). I am not saying they were perfect and do not doubt that there were many horrible things done by both sides, but Haganah generally tried to stay away from the unecessary. I never heard of the "purity of arms" before I saw it here, but I am no expert on this.Sposer (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sposer, Ceedjee provides sources. Neither you nor anyone else opposing him is. You cannot challenge a reliable source on personal grounds. Shlaim makes 'purity of arms' one of the three features of a 'popular-heroic-moralistic version of the 1948 war (which) is the one which is taught in Israeli schools and used extensively in the quest for legitimacy abroad'. I have therefore reverted you. I don't know what you read, but ever since I got interested, decades ago, in the history of the region, 'purity of arms' comes up constantly: it is part and parcel of IDF ideology, as opposed to practice, and is everywhere in the literature, and in newspapers like Haaretz.Nishidani (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c232_a12521/Special_Sections/Literary_Guides.html Review of Morris book which discusses purity of arms and summarizes Hagana vs. Arab behavior during the war (not calling it RS since I am sure it is biased). Shapira also does not say Haganah did not practice it in general, but says that it did not always, at least the way I read it on google books. Get rid of growing number if you like, as I said before. Just don't call it the Israeli version unless it is clear that is what Schlaim called it (my latest edit). I've requested the Aaron Wolf book, "A Purity of Arms" as well from my local library. Once I've read it, I will come back. Until then, I am not going to edit this article any longer. Sposer (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In the various versions tussled over, the only technical point that could have been raised in objection was WP:SYNTH. I have therefore avoided all ambiguity by using only Shlaim's words. I hope this puts an end to contention. Far too many edits have been made revising and rewriting this section without precise reference to the easily accessible passage in Shlaim.Nishidani (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A little bit. Indeed. That is not always easy. I want to underline that this article was originally a list and the former title was list of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War... Ceedjee (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Attn: Sposer

• "[Benny Morris] considers too that belligerents behaved reasonably well and that the "1948 [war] is noteworthy for the relatively small number of civilian casualties both in the battles themselves and in the atrocities that accompanied them" in comparison, for example, "with the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s or the Sudanese civil wars of the past fifty years".[1]"

• Morris estimates that "Yishuv troops probably murdered some 800 hundred civilians and prisoners of war".[1] Most of these killings and massacres occurred in the context of the capture of villages during Second phase of the Civil War, Operation Dani, Operation Hiram and Operation Yoav.[1] According to Benny Morris, "worst cases" were Saliha massacre with 70 to 80 killed, Deir Yassin massacre with around 100, Lydda massacre with around 250, Al-Dawayima massacre with hundreds and Abu Shusha massacre with 70.[2]

Massacres of Jews outside Palestine and threats

• Additionnaly, two majors actions of violence were performed against Jews outside Palestine. In Aden, 82 Jews were slaughtered during riots and 130 Jews were massacred in Tripolitania. Well... Efraim Karsh considered it was important to state so in his book about the 1948 war. These are massacres and killings and they occured during the war... They are referred in Israeli traditionnal historiography for what concerns the "Arab atrocities" of the "independence war" and I never read anything denying this... So, I would keep this material, maybe somewhere else anyway if a better place can be found...
• there is this too.

Ceedjee (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It would set a bad precedent, Ceedjee. I can imagine a huge section ballooning out on this in which a specific infra-regional war Israeli/Palestine is annotated extensively with large injections of Arab riots, anti-Semitic protests, Jews killed in revenge all over the world. Efraim Karsh may consider this relevant. How many other historians do? Are we to add the dreadful trials of the Tunisian and Moroccan Jewish communities to every article dealing with Palestine in WW2? I know in some quarters doing this is a rhetorical numbers game or balancing act to even out figures to parity. It is, however, not historical in the pure sense, but rather a use of history towards an historian's POV. One reason for me to admire Morris is that he does not descend to this 'tactical' historiography (at least consciously). I am reminded of Anita Shapira's remark that the showcasing of the 1920 Palestinian riots (actually negligible, and not worth that grandiose title, comes from the fact that many new immigrants came from Eastern Europe where 1000 pogroms took place in 1917-1918, of unbelievable organized slaughter. No mention of this in that wiki article, though this mentality did indeed account for the hysteria that made of a minor riot a major historical incident. It was used to attribute to Palestinians, who were to be the victims of an imperial project, the same mentality that governed Petliura in the Ukraine. Nishidani (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be described as thoroughly as Karsh describes it, but a note should be added somewhere. It's the same issue as the whole Purity of Arms dispute, and should be given due weight as Karsh is a notable academic in the field. --Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The article deals with massacres occurring between Arabs and Israelis in Palestine in 1948. How the introduction of material about massacres of Jews from Aden and Tripolitana, in countries that played no role in the conflict, can be considered pertinent is not clear (well it is, of course, but such an instrumental use of far-flung incidents can only serve to raise 2/3 massacres of Jews to 4/5 as against 24/68. I find this numbers gaming distasteful). As to Karsh, one does not include everything written by every notable scholar. Ceedjee may have a point if Gelber, Morris, Sela, and several other scholars writing of the period raise the same point. If he can produce such evidence that this is a commonplace in frontranking scholarship, one must reconsider.Nishidani (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It's funny you should say that, because I said the exact same thing for the removal of Shlaim's claim, and you vehemently opposed. If we keep every opinion from historians like Shlaim, then there's no reason not to keep every opinion from historians like Karsh. Keep in mind that I didn't suggest a connection of these massacres with the ones in Palestine, Karsh did. I never said we should have a huge section about this, but a mention is definitely warranted. --Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

@Nishidani : the main reason for me to add this material are that : 1. these were wide massacres (many people; civilians) ; 2. they occured during the 48 war and are closely linked to this ; 3. They are reported in a book about the '48 war from a wp:rs secondary source ; 4. they are not contested, such as eg Tantura

@Ynhockey : Avi Shlaim gives an analysis but Efraim Karsh reports a fact. So Karsh material is even less disussable than Shlaim's... Note that I recently added exactly the analysis but from Morris. So now, we have material from Shlaim, Morris, Gelber and Shapira in the context of purity of arms. I wonder if there could be a more significant consensus among scholars who would refuse to be in the same room.

@both. I added a new paragraph about this topic in the section Arab declarations. Feel free to move this on the talk page if you disagree. Ceedjee (talk) 08:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No Ceedjee. Karsh cannot be accepted, my friend. I hinted why above, and in my edit ('extraneous'), I alluded not only to a geographical fact but a chronological fact. I suppose I will have to be more explicit as to what Karsh was doing ('I know in some quarters doing this is a rhetorical numbers game or balancing act to even out figures to parity.'). Karsh was up to no good. The Aden massacre occurred in Dec 1947 as a reaction to the UN declaration, while the Tripolitana massacre alluded to is completely out of chronological synch, and Karsh had to go back to November 1945 (from memory) for that one, to get two incidents where the numbers of Jewish victims could be thus placed against the similar numbers killed by Jewish/Israeli forces in 1948. The title of the articles in killings and massacres in the 1948 Palestinian war. One must use reliable sources, but not when they are patently using history to create a false impression (which convinced both of you), as here, that the two events in Aden and Tripolitana were contemporary with the '48 massacres of Palestinians. This gaming is one of the things Morris disliked about Karsh.

Ynhockey, apart from your not checking what a source says (one should do this always by the way: some reliable sources still cite 250 victims for Deir Yassin, but informed students know this is wrong, and the figure is 100-120. I don't know what WP policy is, but mine is to make sure that WP:RSs are not just cited for POV, but for accuracy. Only this checking and care for historical relevance and accuracy will secure the reputation of this encyclopedia, which is in the I/P area in a very poor state and requires very strict standards. The analogy between Shlaim ands Karsh is misbegotten. Shlaim makes a generalization for which I can provide several independent sources by other historians. He doesn't even use his own idiom, if you check. Karsh on the other hand pulls out of the rabbit's hat, idiosyncratically, a few pieces of irrelevant data unconnected to the events of 1948, whereas no other historian I know of does the same sleight-of-hand. He apparently did this to confuse readers with the impression the Aden and Tripolitana events were coterminous with Deir Yassin and other massacres. Indeed here he managed to pull the wool over the eyes of two editors who are known for a certain meticulous care. That alone is proof enough we should not imitate Karsh's confusion-sowing in a neutral encyclopedia.Nishidani (talk) 10:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. "I felt in the trap" for Tripolitania ! I am not familiar with these events. Concerning Aden, they aroused during the war (after Nov30 1947 but they may not have been a "big massacre" but rather an accumulation of murders... We need wp:rs sources. I look for that. Ceedjee (talk) 10:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

more material

• Yitschak Ben Gad, Politics, lies and videotapes, 1991 pp.320-... gives a list of "violence" and attacks against Jews in Arab lands... This is maybe not a wp:rs sources for wikipedia (I haven't checked yet) but anyway I think the information is reliable and could be crosschecked Ceedjee (talk) 10:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

I suggest to move to the historiographical controversies section the analysis of Morris concerning Hadassah medical convoy.
There would be added too the analysis of Picoudou about the fact there were both a battle and a massacre at Deir Yassin [and that both are often mixed], which is the same analysis as the one of Morris concerning Hadassah.
I think also we have to add the one of Uri Milstein BUT in emphasing that addtionnally, he denies a massacre occured in the quarry AFTER the battle.
Eventually, al-Tantura section could be fused with that one, even if I think al-Tantura deserve more wp:due weight than the other points, given it has been highly mediatised.
What do you think ? Ceedjee (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You might compare this account with the Hadassah medical convey massacre page to note how much key information is missing (of course, suffice it to check the notes used to compile that page to understand the poverty of good secondary sources, and the use of primary sources instead)

'Le 14 avril, un convoi médical portant l'enseigne du bouclier de David (emblème non reconnu par la Croix-Rouge) et protégé par des combattants part pour enclave du mont Scopus. LKes combattants du quartier arabe que le convoi doit traverser, prévenus à l'avance de ce passage par un officier australien qui leur a affirmé che les hommes de la Haganah ont pour mission d'utiliser l'enclave pour attaquer les quartiers arabes et couper la route de Ramallah, tendent une embuscade. La route est bloquée et la bataille dure plusiers heures. Les sionistes y voient une violation ders conventions, mais le convoi comportait aussie des renforts et des munitions à destination de l'enclave. Les Britanniques finissent par dégager la position et par faire sortir les survivants. Les pertes s'élèvent à 76 morts. Reynier obtient qu'à l'avenir les convois humanitaires soient sans protection militaire et passent sous le drapeau et l'autorité de la Croix-Rouge, ce qui se fait dans les jours qui suivent. En revanche, il pose comme condition, pour mettre l'hôpital de la Hadassah et l'Université hébraïque sous protection du drapeau de la Cropix-Rouge, le retrait de la garnison juive de l'enclave, ce que les autorités sionistes refusent. Ces dernières ne se sont d'ailleurs pas aperçues qu'elles en avaient le droit en tant qu'institution médicale militaire.' Henry Laurens, La Question de Palestine: L'accomplissement des prophéties, 1947-1967, (tome 3) Fayard, Paris, 2007 p.76

Excuse typing errors, still only can write with one hand. Nishidani (talk) 12:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Faked quote on Jerusalem Post website

• On the Jpost website, it is written the Egyptian delegate at the United Nations stated :

"The proposed solution might endanger a million Jews living in the Muslim countries. Partition of Palestine might create in those countries an anti-Semitism even more difficult to root out than Nazism" (The Forgotten Exodus)

• In Malka Hillel Shulewitz (2000), p.84 it is written he stated :

"The proposed solution might endanger a million Jews living in the Muslim countries. Partition of Palestine might create in those countries an anti-Semitism even more difficult to root out than the antisemitism which the Allies tried to eradicate in Germany."

Ceedjee (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Indivdual killings

I have moved the material concerning individual killings here. I think it is not exactly the topic of the article. More, there have been a lot of individual killings, we should nearly refer to each death of the war... Ceedjee (talk) 09:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Can you suggest somewhere I could put it? But I don't feel the Hadassah Convoy belongs here either. Or if it does why not include the al-Kabri Convoy (28 March/49 killed)? I see mention of un-armed soldiers. Is there no space for the British soldiers killed in the train bombing outside Rehovoth Cairo–Haifa train bombings 1948?Padres Hana (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the difference between the Hadassah convoy and both other ones is that the 1st one was mainly one of civil (escorted by soldiers) while both others were convoys of soldiers.

Ceedjee (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

moved material

Individual killings

Thomas C. Wasson : US Consul General in Jerusalem, 1948

Count Bernadotte : UN Mediator.

Other underground killings Palestine/Israel 1948

January 14th: 'believed to have been 'executed' by a Jewish firing squad, the body of a 30 year old Pole was found in the Handassah Gardens in Tel Aviv, ealier today.'

February 27th: Two anti-Communist residents of Jerusalem murdered by Stern Gang 'terrorists' who claimed the Poles were 'pro-Arab'.

April 26th: Jewess married to a Christian Arab taken by the Haganah and not seen again.

March 29th: Vera Ducas

May 21st: 'A Jew and a Pole caught spying a few weeks ago tried by Haganah, and shot'

June 30th: Meyer Tobiansky shot after a 'Field General Court Martial' organised by Lieut-Colonel Isser Beray

July 8th: Stern Group poster announce execution of Mrs Rosa B. 'on charges of revealing Jewish Military positions to the enemy'

Other deaths

March 31st: Mrs Thompson, a well known Government Social Worker, was shot dead by 'Jewish snipers' whilst driving back from the Arab hospital at Beit Safafa to Jerusalem. She 'shouted in a loud voice that she was British, where upon, ... a further burst of fire riddled the car'.

Context 'Irgun is in fact rapidly becoming the 'SS' of the new state. There is also a strong 'Gestapo' - but no-one knows who is in it.' 'The shopkeepers are afraid not so much of shells as of raids by Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern Gang. These young toughs, who are beyond whatever law there is have cleaned out most private houses of the richer classes & started to prey upon the shopkeepers.' Clare Hollingworth reporting on West Jerusalem June 2nd 1948

A US Military Intelligence report, dated January 1948, described Irgun recruiting tactics amongst Displaced Persons (DP) in the camps across Germany: 'Irgun ... seems to be concentrating on the DP police force. This is an old technique in Eastern Europe and in all police states. By controlling the police, a small, unscrupulous group of determined people can impose its will on a peaceful and inarticulate majority; it is done by threats, intimidation, by violence and if need be bloodshed ... they have embarked upon a course of violence within the camps.'

VERA DUCAS 1912-1948

Born to 'a good' Jewish Family in Austria-Hungary/Czechoslovakia, Vera Ducas fled the Nazi invasion with husband and child. They lived in Turkey for several years before arriving in Palestine. Eva didn't speak Hebrew and was unable to find work. She is alledged to have become an informer for the British CID.

According to The Scotsman on Sunday 29th March 1948 she was 'kidnapped from one of the main cafes of Jerusalem's Jewish Quarter' and her body found on a patch of waste ground, shot through the head. Their correspondent reported that the Stern Gang had announced that they had killed her, accusing her of spying for the British.

Putting list of events into a table

I am planning to enter the list below but should I include the Haganah bombing of the Abu Laban farm which killed 12, including six children? It occured on 15 August 1947 and is thought to be the Haganah's first post - World War II terrorist attack. Just spotted it in Walid Khalidi's 'Before Their Diaspora'. ISBN 0 88728 143 5. 1984. Page 252.Padres Hana (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Events

Date	Event	Victims	Notes
14 December 1947	Beit Nabala, al Ramla	Convoy
18 December 1947	Al Khisas, Safad	Villagers	10 dead including five children
30 December 1947	Haifa Oil Refinery	Workers	Following Irgun bomb outrage
31 December 1947	Balad al-Shaykh, Haifa	Villagers
5 January 1948	Jaffa Town Hall	Civilians
5 January 1948	Semiramis Hotel bombing, Jerusalem	Civilians
8 January 1948	Jaffa Gate, Jerusalem	Civilians
22 Febuary 1948	Ben Yehuda Street, Jerusalem	Civilians
13 & 16 March 1948	Al-Husayniyya, Safad	Villagers	'the total death toll was put at dozens by Israeli sources
9 April 1948	Deir Yassin, Jerusalem	Villagers
13 April 1948	Hadassah Hospital convoy, Jerusalem	Convoy
1 May 1948	Ein al Zeitun, Safad	Villagers
13 May 1948	Kfar Etzion, Hebron	Settlers
13 - 19 May 1948	Abu Shusha, Haifa	Villagers
20 May 1948	Al-Kabri, Acre	Villagers
23 May 1948	Al-Tantura, Haifa	Villagers
11 July 1948	Lydda	Civilians
24-28 August 1948	'Arab Suqrir, Gaza	Bedouin	"ten Arabs who tried to escape were killed."
28 October 1948	Al-Dawayima, Hebron	Villagers
29 October 1948	Saf Saf, Safad	Between 52 and 70 men shot	Villagers
30 October 1948	Saliha, Safad	Villagers
30 October 1948	Eilabun, Tiberias	Villagers	Appears to be different from 2 November event
30 October 1948	Sa'Sa', Safad	Villagers	"mass murder" Israel Galili
31 October 1948	Hula, Lebanon	Villagers
2 November 1948	Arab al-Mawasi, Tiberias	Bedouin	15 men taken to Eilabun and shot.

I have left out Majd al-Krum because I can find no references and Al-Kabri because the account I have found is of exstensive demolition of buildings but not neccessarly of mass killing. I think it is well established that 'something' happened at Al-Tantura. There are also several more entries to add.Padres Hana (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

We can do that :-)

I suggest we replace the third column by one titled comments where we would give the important points concerning each case.

If there is no article in wikipédia, I would also suggest to link provide a wp:rs secondary sources.

Ceedjee (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Pov tag

Sposer,
you write the article only lists massacres "performed by zionists". What event lacks according to you ? I remind you that we only focus on the death of civils or unarmed soldiers.
Ceedjee (talk) 06:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I certainly can't see any reason for the tag. Ian Pitchford (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the "consequence section" is too small and should be expanded with at least material from Benny Morris, Ilan Pappé and Saleh Abd al-Jawad.

Ceedjee (talk) 10:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No rationale reason being given, I remove the tag. Ceedjee (talk) 06:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, that is a bit rude (saying no rational reason). I have given reasons here and on my talk page where you told me I was just angry. This whole article is wrong-headed and out o context. I see no articles with lists of every attack by the FALN, the IRA, Al Quaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. Because it wasn't news, every Arab attack (for which many of the Jewish terrorist groups were exacting revenge) are not listed here either. I fixed the POV a little, after you stopped reverting my changes on Haganah military operation on the Semiramis Hotel. However, that really doesn't belong in there IMO as it was a military action that even Morris says probably got its targets, but unfortunately, killed civilians as well. It was not an intended massacre and it wasn't a terrorist action. The only way to remove the POV of this article, is to remove the article, or for somebody to start going through the idiocy of finding every Arab murder of Jews during the period, which wouldn't be fair to the Arabs either.Sposer (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all. When I asked a reason, you never answered. But now that I removed the tag, you answer and put it back and you are wp:uncivil.

As a consequence, I remove the tag and we will put it back if 15 days if we don't find any agreement in between. If you put it back I will revert you.

The only issue for you to go faster is to ask for a WP:Third opinion.

Now, about your comments :

• "This whole article is wrong-headed and out o context." I don't agree but what context would you add ?
• "I see no articles with lists of". You are bad faith. This article was a pure list two months ago. You intervened and never put any tag. More, you are wrong. They are many : List of Irgun members; List of Irgun attacks. Finally, this article is not a list.

Coming with that on a talk page is a WP:POINT.

• "However, that really doesn't belong in there IMO as it was a military action that even Morris says probably got its target". So it is just because of Semiramis that you lost your temper as you pointed out just here above. Take a break and distance with this topic. Civilians were killed, as I told you. The fact you refuse to read this and you go on is a WP:POINT. I will clarify this, as stated before.
• "The only way to remove the POV of this article, is to remove the article". You are not happy with Semiramis and so the whole article must be deleted. You can start the process. Feel free. The topic is covered in the conclusions of Benny Morris (2008), so the case is close even before it is starting.

Ceedjee (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

My apology was for reverting when it could have been 3RR. I gave reasons why on my talk page when you asked me. I should have put it here (I did briefly explain in my edits). The context is exactly as I said above. It covers attacks that in many cases were reprisals for other Arab actions, but the Arab actions are not noted (maybe because in those days, such attacks were not notable nor were they as well organized as Irgun and Lehi were). I am not condoning the actions either (Irgun&Lehi), and it is possible that the Arab actions did not always involve civilians. The problem is that is probably almost impossible to find RS sources of Arab attacks, which makes it almost impossible for a fair and balance article. At least a list doesn't further embellish an already questionable piece. The article morphed over time from a list of Killings to this. I don't want the article removed, but I want the context added or just keep the table and remove the text.

You further prove my point about NPOV. There is a list of Irgun attacks, but none of FALN, IRA, Al Quaeda, Hezbollah, etc. As a list, the article was less heinous. I noticed the growing number of Jewish vs. non-Jewish attacks, but then as the words got twisted, and attempts to correctly quote even Morris in the case of Haganah were edited out, it was apparent that there was no desire for a balanced approach to the article. Maybe that is because you were angry with me?

As far as your point regarding civilians being killed, civilians are killed all the time in war unfortunately. The fact is that Haganah went out of its way to avoid killing civilians, while other Arab and Jewish groups may have targeted them. A massacre is a deliberate act of killing civilians, and there's no proof that Semiramis was that.

So far, one person said that he didn't see why there was a POV issue, and I say there is. You have no right to remove the tag.Sposer (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Apology for last revert

I will stay off for a day or so, as that prob puts me at 3RR. (I would have self-reverted, but it was already edited.) I will take a breather. That doesn't change the fact that what I replaced is misleading and pure POV. It doesn't make right what some of the militia did, but to imply that is how Haganah acted is an out and out fabrication. Sposer (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I am convinced you are bad faith in that apology.

What is important is not what you write but your actions.

You behaviour with the tag, your acts, prove this.

Now, let's discuss the matter on content. Only. Ceedjee (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

First sentence

Could someone direct me to where Benny Morris 2008 (pp. 404-406) says that, "Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine War resulted in the death of about 1,000 civilians and unarmed soldiers"? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't say that precisely word for word.

It is the addition of the number he gives :

• roughly 800 hundreds Palestinians
• 39 Jews at Haifa + 125 at Kfar Etzion + 79 for Hadassah convoy.

The words : "killings and massacres" and the definition with "cilivans and unarmed soliders" are from him.

Ceedjee (talk) 06:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I see where he says 800 civilians and POWs (p. 406), but he cites no source. On the same page, he says no one knows how many civilians and armed irregulars were killed -- he cites one claim in the 1950s that it was 12,000. He says that 400 Arab villages were captured from April to November 1948: it's unlikely that only two civilians were killed on average in each. I wonder if we should find multiple sources for the figures. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you mix 2 things.

• 800 is not the number of victims. It is the number of people who were massacred. That is not at all the same. On around 20-70 villages where massacres occured, an average of 800 / 20 (or 70) = 40 (12) people massacred at each time, is more "logical".

Note also that Lydda is a city and not a village. So, these calculation you make are hasardous...

• The 800 has no source. He is one of the first historian to have studied this issue. What would be his source. Morris just added the number of victims of each massacre. I didn't make the exercice. Another source on the topic is Saleh Abd al-Jawad. I don't know if he makes the addition.
• Concerning the total number of Palestinian deaths, as he points out, numbers are not clear at all and there is no statisctic at all. And they will never be. The total number of death is not something that could appear from a document. That is an evaluation. Around 12,000 Palestinians.

Generally speaking, Morris is very reliable, even in his wordings to make it clear when the information is not precise.

I think the wordings : "around 1000 were massacred" in the lead fits his idea and mixing Jewish and Arab victims fits better our policy of npov. But that can be discussed.

That is excellent you have this book. I think this is currently the best one on the 1948 war. You can read Yoav Gelber critic of the book here : [1].

Ceedjee (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hadassah Convoy

Virtually every source I have says it was an attack on unarmed doctors and nurses and virtually all use massacre. Morris in 2009 uses "slaughtered". The one Arab book I found says that they killed 100 Jews and complains that the British eventually (after hours) came to their aid, even though they didn't come to the aid of Deir Yassin. If you have sources that outright can claim it wasn't a massacre (the ICON book of quotes defines it as a massacre for writers and authors, along with Deir Yassin), you can change. I am noting that the attack was a reprisal, which, though still ghastly, explains the motivation.

"Every source I have"

Just give one. That is all that is asked you.

You know this but you prefer use wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND.

You can virtually kill me. That will not modify the history.

Ceedjee (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight

This is useless : "The massacre was said to be in retaliation for the Deir Yassin massacre perpetrated by Irgun." Who cares why it was perpetrated. This articles is not dedicated to develop each case. Readers is sent to each article if he wants to know more. Ceedjee (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem if you remove it. I was trying to balance the item and though I do not consider revenge a valid reason for murder, highlighting why it was done (much as many of the Irgun attacks, although many were just meant to frighten the Arabs into leaving) would make you happier. Doesn't change that the attack is pretty much universally called a massacre, but at least it explains why. Sposer (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sposer,

Excellent. Next step is that you don't only use google and read these books.

When you give references, give the page number. That is better. Particularly if you copy/paste excerpts from different pages.

Nevertheless, please, TRY TO AWAKE. When you write "I do not consider revenge a valid reason for murder". We don't care your mind. WE DON'T CARE IT. We only care information from wp:rs sources.

And we don't care I am "happy" or "happier".

The wordings used before don't change anything to what you add. The only issue it that you cannot take distance with the content of the article.

10 days ago, I corrected the issue with Hadassah on the French wikipedia. And transferring Morris's view in the controversy section, only referring to the massacre in the core of the article. That doesn't change much but that fits your claim.

I have just translated this in that article. Nevertheless, style and nuances must be brought. Reason why I added the pov tag.

I asked Nishidani to correct my mistakes.

Ceedjee (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Lots of conflicting info on the convoy, since this is the only source I've seen that doesn't says it was "unarmed" (the Nuwar book implies it since it says I think some sort of armored vehicle(s?) was destroyed). Some Morris books discuss it as a massacre, so it seems that he isn't sure how he wanted to call it. So even Morris uses that term (and he calls it a slaughter in "1948", which is no different than a massacre). The Nuwab book I referenced gives a different excuse for the Arab act too, which is that they were told there were "Jewish gangs". Also, the hospital, according to some books, treated Arabs as well. I am not arguing here, just presenting some of the conflicting info. I doubt I will edit your stuff, since you put POV on it anyway.

Your wording is a bit confusing, but I don't want to change it since my French isn't good enough (as in, I last took French 40 years ago). I think you were trying to say that the British were asked for help from the (largely or completely depending on the source) unarmed convoy, and refused to help for several hours (i.e., after the massacre was largely completed). Sposer (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've copyedited strictly according to the information in the book Ceedjee cites, per Ceedjee's request.Nishidani (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Nishidani for the translation.

Thanks you for the comments Sposer. But I am not sure to understand what you write. Did I write it was an "unarmed convoy" ? Maybe I don't understand you.

• Concerning massacre/battle. Here is what Morris write in the conclusions of his book on the 1948 war :

(...) Some commentators add a third "massacre," the destruction of the convoy of doctors and nurses to Mount Scopus in Jerusalem in mid-April 1948, but this was actually a battle, involving Haganah and Palestine Arab militiamen, though it included, or was followed by, the mass killing of the occupants of a Jewish but, most of whom were unarmed medical personnel".

What I write in English to translate his view could be nuanced.

"he calls it a slaughter in "1948", which is no different than a massacre"

Could you give me the page number ? Because I have the book but don't have access to the book on google book (mystery of the copyright rules)... Thx.

Anyway, most important -I think- and that lacks now is an excellent reference (book or article written by a recent scholar, published in an Universitary Press, describing the events and referring to them as a massacre). Ceedjee (talk) 08:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The Lydda entry needs to be divided into two. For Morris classifies the raid on the 11th of July by Dayan's 89th Battalion in which perhaps as many as 200 Arabs were killed, as perhaps 'a death-dispensing dash tyhrough Lydda combin(ing) elements of a battle and a massacre', since the troops machin-gunned everyone they saw (there is an extensive excerpt from a soldier telling us that this is how they operated).(Morris 426)

Later that night, the Yiftah Brigade's 3rd Battalion took up position, and the day after, 12th July, a massacre occurred or at least'dozens of unarmed detainees in one mosque compound, the Dahaimash Mosque were shot and killed' p.428

Two different companies, two different incidents.Nishidani (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I work on that. Thank you for the information ! Ceedjee (talk) 08:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Article written by Abd al-Jawad

The material from this paper should be added in the article. It will take time... Ceedjee (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing attention to Abd al-Jawad's work. To be honest I am not a fan of the massacre list but am more interested in the time-line. e.g. why is there a cluster 28 Oct to 1 Nov? I also suspect that individual villagers were killed in cold blood in most villages after their capture - 'pour encourage les autres'....My understanding of the Haganah and later IDF tactics is:
- softening up with mortar bombardment.
- overcome resistance (if any)
- kill 'of the men' to facilitate the departure of inhabitants
- blow up houses
- in many cases systematic leveling occured in following weeks.
In some ways the destruction of buildings is just as revealing of the underlying intent as the killing of individuals.

I think the table of killings should be about the larger events, more than ten deaths. But there are lots of questions. e.g. Do you include 'a dozen people blown up in a house'. Or the street bomb outrages? Personally I would include the al-Kabri convoy. Would it be useful to include estimates of the numbers killed in the list?
Padres Hana (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

In his article, he discusses the definition of massacres and answers some of your questions.

He also gives consequences of the massacres and explain why he sees in them a "proof" of the "ethnic cleansing of Palestine".

Ceedjee (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Too much reliance on Benny Morris and other "new historians"

I note there is an undue reliance on Benny Morris' opinions or assertions, without a real counter, the intro for example. I think there needs to be a change, or at least a more pro-Israel counterpart. The whole article is almost entirely "new historians." Efraim Karsh and others should be used more than they are if Morris is gonna get so much play.Tallicfan20 (talk) 05:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to insert new material to improve the diversity of sources, by all means go ahead. But I don't see how removing sourced, relevant material that has been accepted by consensus for a long time because you happen to dislike the source is meant to improve wikipedia. Xotn (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"accepted by consensus?" What consensus? Morris' work is highly contested and criticized except by him, other "new historians," and general supporters of Israel. He's even changed his tune from years of past. He is known to look at a few original documents, omit tons of others, distrort words and speechs, leave things out, take things out of context, but its not that he just does this, but he does it so brazenly. For example, the Hadassah massacre IS truly seen as a massacre, except by hardcore Arabists, New Historians, and Morris himself.Tallicfan20 (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Benny Morris is rightly accepted as a WP:RS and has been time and time again in Wikipedia discussions about reliable sources to use Israeli/Palestinian history, look them up. The source you are attempting to use ("Jewish Virtual Library" website) is NOT an academically accepted source amongst historians. Please read the WP:RS guidelines as to which sources are preferable. Xotn (talk) 03:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree that there is too much reliance on Morris, who is definitely not the only historian in the field. However, this is an issue that most historians in the field care a lot less about (except fringe "historians"). I have unfortunately not been able to acquire a single materials by Karsh, so if you have his materials, please add new information! —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)