User talk:JaapBoBo

1948 Arab Israeli War

Thank you for your collaboration on the article.
I made some remarks on the talk page. Could you come and give your mind there ?
Thank you, Alithien 08:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tantura massacre

FYI : [1] Alithien 11:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JaapBoBo,

Testimonies found the internet, it is even worse that testimonies fabricated by Katz.

I don't know what happened at Tantura but the fact that Gelber would be "right wing" and Pappé "left wing" is not relevant.

They are assumed to be historians. The question is rather to know who is not and who makes politics.

Here is Benny Morris analysis : [2].

More, both Gelber and Morris describe the numerous massacres (9) that arose during Operation Hiram without denying them and Gelber even describe the activities of Tsahal after the first truce as an ethnic cleansing.

Alithien 06:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be removed; the evidence that it happened or not seems to be in the balance

--JaapBoBo 22:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1948 war

Hello JaapBobo,
I would like to invite you to take more care of the different points of view that may exist on a topic.
What you have written here : [3] is sourced but you should be aware there are many different points of views on the topic among scholars.
In introducing a "controversed" material as a fact, you generate internal problems in wikipedia.
I understand after reading you "user page" you are intersted by the topic of the 1948 Palestine War.
After reading Pappé, I would suggest you read also other historians to get a wider picture of the matter.
Good continuation (and thank you for the grammatical corrections you made to my additions in the article concerning the causes).
Regards, Alithien 15:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JaapBobo,

I share your mind about the three guys except maybe about Pappé but it is not the point : they are all recognised historians on the matter.

Note they are other historians that worked on that topic like Avi Shlaim, Tom Segev, Efraim Karsh or Walid Khalidi and even many others too...

I have nothing against adding information from Pappé but when an information is controversed, I think it is very important to point out it is controversed rather than to write as if it would be a fact agreed by all.

I mean :

Rather than : in february 48, zionists authorities planned the ethnic cleaning<source:Pappé>, I think Pappé finds clues that he considers indicate in ... but other historians such as ... and ... don't share his mind but didn't find any clue that...

Regards, Alithien 06:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are engineer ? Believe what you like but if you want to know who is really neutral or not, proceed like I did and try to gather all the events that arose at that time : [4] Alithien 10:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Causes 1948 exodus

Thx for your contribution to this article. Actually I think this item is not agreed upon by historians: Before the first truce (July 1948) mass flights were mainly the result of the war, both offensives of the Israeli army and the action of irregulars. Around half of the total number of refugees left in this period. Many historians do think large parts of the early exodus were premeditated.--JaapBoBo 10:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I'm lost - what are you trying to say? That large parts of the early exodus was EoF? Or that there was "transfer" gong on well before 15 May 1948?

Interesting that the scales fell from your eyes when you started to examine the creation of Israel. You would be even more horrified if you look back further, there were immigrants travelling to Palestine in 1881/1882 and, right from the beginning, they intended to arm themselves and seize the land from the people who lived there. PalestineRemembered 21:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karsh reliable?

You led us to a statement from Karsh: "[Morris] argues that lack of an official policy made little difference, since "thinking about the possibilities of transfer in the 1930s and 1940s had prepared and conditioned hearts and minds for its implementation in the course of 1948." Morris cites no evidence to support this claim nor could he, for there was never any Zionist attempt to inculcate the "transfer" idea in the hearts and minds of Jews. He could find no evidence of any press campaign, radio broadcasts, public rallies, or political gatherings, for none existed."[5]

That sure doesn't match what Morris claims elsewhere - eg "Righteous Victims" p143. David Ben-Gurion, August 7th 1937, address the 20th Zionist Congress in Zurich. Text from CZA S5-1543, original texts of the speeches: "We must look carefully at the question of whether transfer is possible, necessary, moral and useful. We do not want to dispossess, [but] transfer of populations occured before now, in the [Jezreel] Valley, in the Sharon [that is, the coastal plain] and in other places. You are no doubt aware of the JNF's activities in this regard. Now a transfer of completely different scope will have to be carried out. In many parts of the country new settlement will not be possible without transfering the Arab fellahin ...... it is important that this plan comes from the commission and not from us".

Which of these can be right - or is Karsh guilty of trickery, ignoring these statements because they're in front of a "private" audience? There are other statements concerning seizing the land from the natives, going right back to 1881/82. PalestineRemembered 07:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the contradiction here. Transfer was not publicly advocated by the Zionists, but it was discussed and supported in closed meetings. Karsh probably doesn't lie, because then people wouldn't take him serious any more (in science circles), but he does present things with a big bias. --JaapBoBo 19:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ..... when Karsh says "never any Zionist attempt to inculcate the "transfer" idea in the hearts and minds of Jews" it sounds to me like a pretty cynical play on words. If they didn't "inculcate the idea of transfer" then it was only because the idea of transfer was already deeply inculcated. PalestineRemembered 19:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. In fact Finkelstein describes just that in the first chapter of 'image and reality of the israel-palestine conflict'. Finkelstein argues that transferist thinking is close to the core of Zionist thinking. Zionism claims for the Jews a prevalent right to Israel, their historical homeland, and accedes the Arabs only rights as incidental residents. --JaapBoBo 19:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have that book and found it difficult to read. I can remember how full it seemed to be of really good comparisons, but not remember it mentioning that one. But, now you mention it, I'm sure he's right on that link! PalestineRemembered 20:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JaapBoBo - Your comment caused me to pick up Finkelstein "Beyond Chutzpah" again, and wonder why I put it down. Finkelstein says that the ADL is the equivalent of the Communist Party, except the ADL is beholden to Mother-Israel, while the CPUSA was beholden to Mother-Russia. No wonder the ADL hate him! PR^talk(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 18:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know what ADL means. According to Wikipedia it is the Arabic word for justice. Rather ironic, because from you I get the impression that it's some Jewish pressure group in the USA??? From Finkelstein I only read the first three chapters of 'Myth ...', but, his intellect is very impressing. I like his writing. And I found out he's totally right about Morris. He says in 'Birth ...' Morris's conclusions are skewed compared to the evidence he gives, and above that he blurs conclusions that are bad for Israel. In Birth Revisited I found this: On page 65 Morris states 'Strategically speaking the period December 1947 - March 1948 was marked by Arab initiatives and attacks and Jewish defensiveness increasingly punctuated by Jewish reprisals'. On the next page he states 'At the same time, the IZL and LHI [Irgun and Lehi], acting independently, beginning already in early December 1947, reverted to their 1937-1939 strategy of placing bombs in crowded markets and bus stops. The Arabs retaliated by exploding bombs of their own in Jewish population centres in February and March ...'. As to who started the attacks and who retaliated the second citation, specifying facts, asserts the opposite of the first citation, specifying a conclusion. Nice he? --JaapBoBo 19:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ADL is the "Anti-Defamation League", the people who were sued for and lost a defamation law-suit for $10 million. (Actually, I shouldn't say that, the story I've seen on this suggested that the ADL had been right, and the judgement against them was perverse).

I'm disappointed with Morris too, because I have the same impression as you, the Yishuv was heavily armed and raring for a fight. But Morris sort of tells us the same thing - here is Righteous Victims p 139 "That night passed in the Yishuv's towns and settlements in noisy public rejoicing. ... The young poured into the streets and danced and celebrated around bonfires through the night. ... some, like Yosef Nahmani ... "in my heart," he told his diary, "there was joy mixed with sadness ... that we lost half the country, Judea and Samaria, and, in addition, that we [would] have [in our state] 400,000 Arabs." ... Ben-Gurion ... "I could not dance, I could not sing that night. I looked at them so happy dancing, and I could only think that they were all going to war." ... Not far from each celebrating Jewish throng was an Arab village or neighborhood where the mood was grim. What the Palestinians had most feared had now come to pass. The initial reactions were spontaneous and explosive, and apparently unorganized. On the morning of November 30 a band of Arabs ambushed a bus near Kfar Syrkin, killing five Jews and wounding several others. Twenty-five minutes later they let loose at a second bus, killing two more people. It is unclear whether the ambushes were triggered by the passage of the UN resolution or by a desire to avenge an earlier LHI raid, which had left five Arabs dead". PR^talk(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 19:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you have time, read this : [6]. Of course this is a direct "primary source". You can have an idea of the GLOBAL situation in Palestine at that time. That could be better than performing -like the Finkelstein- textual analysis of Morris's works to try to understand what happened and concludes he "lies" if there are contradictions you are unable to understand when you know nothing on the context. Alithien 18:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1948 War

You seem to have a deep understanding of wikipedia policy.
Good.
How did you learn this ?
Did you edit under another name ? Which one ?

If you ask me what should be added in the section related to Yishuv objectives, it is :

whether you don't know the material and so you don't know the topic
or you don't want to write this and try to push pov.
maybe there is a third explanation.

What is the exact one ? Alithien 08:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments were already made on the talk page of the article. You will see there how to improve this but this is only a beginning.
By the way, you claim there is no policy that orders you to write for the enemy. Perfect, there is no policy that prevents me reverting material non neutral.
You don't want to be constructive. That is a pity it is your choice. Alithien 15:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My user page

Dear JaapBoBo:
Please don't write comments to me on my user page. I hope you will use my talk page for this purpose in the future.
To answer your question, I did not delete any footnotes on purpose. --GHcool 23:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JaapBoBo,
All pov's flag I added were properly justified.
I have explained to you patiently and many times the reasons why most of you edits were pov's.
You behaviour didn't change and I have no choice that adding flags when required.
Alithien 08:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There must be a misunderstanding somewhere. They were all justified. Alithien 16:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP

You clearly doesn't understand that rule. Now it is enough. It is sourced and from Morris himself. Take a break and respect wikipedia policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.244.46.93 (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[7].