Talk:Bayt Nattif

Unbalanced

...and nothing happened between year 12 and year 1948? Navel-gazing much? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Seriously; if I could vote for "The worst article on Wikipedia", then this would be a serious contender. Sigh, Huldra (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Huldra, what other aspect of Bayt Nattif would you like to see addressed here, in this article? Perhaps it will entail doing a little bit more research. By the way, I live near Bayt Nattif, and it is a very beautiful region of our country. I have also personally met the archaeologist who has conducted excavations in this old and abandoned town. - Davidbena (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Davidbena I´m afraid that seeing Russia from your front porch does not make you an expert on foreign affairs. For a start: Bayt Nattif had a long Arab history (it was recorded in the 1596-tax records), however, all that is completely missing. It is as if nobody lived there between 1st century and 1948. Yes, when all the Jewish history is mentioned (in minute details) and all the Arab/Palestinian history is completely absent: I call that as unbalanced as it can be. And Bayt Nattif was not "abandoned", that is an euphemism: Morris gives "military assault" as the reason for it being depopulated. Huldra (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Huldra, I agree, my dear Huldra, that Bayt Nattif has also enjoyed a long Arab history, but I know absolutely nothing about it. If you know something about that history, you should add another section in the article and write about it. It is precisely for this reason that I wrote to you that the geographical place will require further research in order to expand on the article. I'm all for expansion. Do you have the literary sources? What do the 1596 Ottoman-Turk tax records tell us about the place? Where are these records today? As for the depopulation of the village, I had initially written about that (including the animosity between Jews and Arabs which led to the deaths of the thirty-five Jewish defense soldiers sent out to help the beleaguered Jews of Hebron), but all this was deleted - not by me, but by somebody else. You see, you may have been a little too over-anxious and zealous which led you to pre-judge the situation. Let's improve this article together, and include in it its Arab history.-Davidbena (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Davidbena: I have added sources to be used in the reference -section. The 1596 Ottoman-Turk tax-records are given in Hütteroth and Abdulfattah, and Toledano. Also, as stated here: "Soldiers killed in battle are not "murdered"" Huldra (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Hulda. I will look into these sources. I have also seen another good book, entitled, "A Survey of Palestine," which brings down much of the land history under the Ottoman-Turks and British Mandate.-Davidbena (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

PS - The 35 Jewish defense soldiers were ambushed near the Arab town of Surif, before they had even arrived at Hebron. Some say they were spotted by a Bedouin, others say by peasant women in or around Bayt Nattif. These men had gone out to defend Jews who were being attacked in Hebron.Davidbena (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe that belongs in Convoy of 35, cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Huldra, have you seen this online page, which treats on Bayt Nattif? - Davidbena (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"The Arab version is that the convoy had attacked Surif deliberately, and had held it for an hour before being driven out.[dubious – discuss]" This "Arab version" is unsourced. It should be removed if a valid source is not forthcoming.Zozoulia (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Bayt Nattif was an Arab village

User:Huldra, Hi. I noticed where earlier you had made the remark in one of your posts on the Jewish moshav, Aviezer: “Aviezer is located on land belonging to the depopulated Palestinian village of Bayt Nattif,” to which you had cited Walid Khalidi, 1992, p. 212.

It is my view, as well as the view of others on Wikipedia, that we (as impartial editors) must first establish this premise before we can engage in any honest and fair editing that treats on the subject of the Arab-Israeli conflict and its outcome, and which said conflict saw the eviction of some Arabs from some of their villages, but not all Arabs. The first premise to establish is that Palestine is a name not given to the country by the Arabs, but rather by the Romans. Jews and Christians and Druze also lived in Palestine. However, there has NEVER been an independent Palestinian State. The Arabs living here, as well as all other peoples, were subject to foreign powers. Before the British Mandate, Arabs and Jews were subject to the Ottoman Turks. Before the Ottoman Turks, Arabs and Jews were subject to the Mamluks; before the Mamluks, the Crusaders; and before the Crusaders, the Ayyubids; these, in turn, were preceded by Crusaders, Arabs, Persians, Arabs, Byzantines and Romans, who, again, were preceded by autonomous Jewish rule.

It is important to understand here that the use of the words “Palestinian-Arab” village for the village of Bayt Nattif can be misleading. Rather, it is more correct to say that the Arab village of Bayt Nattif was depopulated on 28 October 1948. The reason for this correction is because of the simple fact that the village was depopulated some five months AFTER Britain had already agreed to a partition plan where the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan would govern one-part of what was the British Mandate of Palestine (the West Bank of Jordan extending as far as Jerusalem, on its east side), while the Jews – under their new government – would govern the other part of what was the British Mandate of Palestine, extending from Jerusalem’s west side to the Mediterranean Sea (excluding Gaza). This partition had already come into effect. The boundaries of the Arab village of Bayt Nattif fell under the governance of the new Jewish State of Israel, but the Arab citizens living there objected to this status quo, insofar that within their village there operated a local Arab militia, as well as an Arab Liberation Army, as also some fighters comprised of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. This prompted strong Israeli government punitive action, under the new military arm known as the Haganah (later IDF), and which action eventually culminated in the removal of what was seen by them as hostile elements (i.e. the former inhabitants of Bayt Nattif), where they then went and settled in the Jordanian-governed side of the border, viz. Hebron and Bethlehem. (See: History of the Arab–Israeli conflict#War of 1948)

It should be understood here that under British Mandate law, the British government would not have tolerated such undermining forces within the country put under its jurisdiction, much less under new Israeli law to which Arabs – as all other citizens – were supposed to have been submissive. Belligerency can lead to the loss of territorial rights. This is, needless to say, one of the sad outcomes of that conflict, but I see no reason to politicize the issue.Davidbena (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

What you are doing her is pure WP:OR. We follow WP:RS, in this case Khalidi, and he use the word "Palestinian" Huldra (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Walid Khalidi's editorial is entirely pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel. The only reliable data coming out of Khalidi is his enumeration of towns once occupied by Arabs, but which were later forced to evacuate. He does not go into the ramifications or reasons why this was deemed necessary at the time. Everything written by me above can be supported by facts and Israeli documents. Our purpose as editors is to remain neutral, without taking sides, or pushing one's political agenda.- Davidbena (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Khalidi is 100% WP:RS, whatever your personal opinion about him is. Also, you have broken 1RR; please self-revert unless you want to be reported. Huldra (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Huldra, if there are conflicting scholarly opinions about whether Walid Khalidi's editorial vis-à-vis Israel is reliable or not, it would be far better to show neutrality about the matter, in accordance with WP:NPOV, rather than overtly try to lead your readership into thinking that there is some consensus amongst scholars about Israeli military actions at the time. Palestine is, indeed, a country used by all nationalities, and should not be used in this case to imply a recognized governmental body in late 1948, having legal rights of governance over the people of Bayt Nattif. This would be purposely misleading our readers. Davidbena (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Davidbena: you can of course bring in any other source (WP:RS) which mention Bayt Nattif; you haven´t done so. And since you apparently refuse to self-revert, I´m afraid I will report you to WP:AE, Huldra (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Huldra, patience, Huldra, patience. We both know the conflicting opinions here, and I could easily cite them in the main article, but I'm questioning the wisdom of going through the entire Arab-Israeli conflict in an article which does NOT treat on that subject, per se, but only in a passing manner. Here is where we, as editors, ought to be neutral in accordance with Wikipedia policies - especially when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Patience.Davidbena (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Davidbena, you are interpreting "Palestinian" in a political sense, but its very common use with respect to a 1948-period village is in an ethnic sense. It refers to the ethnic nature of the people living there, nothing to do with borders or governments. Zero^talk 01:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take your word for it. No hard feelings. I'm looking forward to working with Ms. Huldra on this article. Hopefully, she too, has no hard feelings.Davidbena (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Just my two pennies' worth that prior to 1948 it was the roughly 600,000 Jews who were living in the British Mandate territories that were known as "Palestinians" -- those were the days before the Zionists invented the name "Israel". In fact until 1948 no one knew what the name of the forthcoming Jewish state would be, many if not most folks assumed it would be named "Judea" for the last Jewish state that had that name there 2,000 years prior and were taken aback that Ben Gurion came up with the "new" name "Israel" that harks back to the time of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, so that it is somewhat disingenuous to "retroactively" label the Arabs living there as being the sole "Palestinians". If anything they were Jordanians or Egyptians or Gazans at most or more accurately the "Fedayeen" which means "farmers" or some such. The new term "Palestinians" as referring to Arabs is a latter-day invention of Arafat and company. And if one wants to be accurate let's call a spade a spade and give the ancient conquering Romans their due who when they abolished Judea after fighting the Jews there to the death renamed the place "Palestina" that had nothing to do with Arabs or modern day PLO&Hamas "Palestinians". Take care, IZAK (talk) 11:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, @IZAK:, but you are simply not correct. Everyone, Jews, Arabs and British, used the word "Palestinians" for all citizens of Palestine during the mandate period. "Palestinian" was a formal status defined by the Nationality Law of 1925. After Palestinian Jews became "Israelis", the term Palestinian became associated only with Palestinian Arabs. This usage appeared even in the Jewish press by 1950 (e.g. Palestine Post, Jan 12, 1950, p1). These days, the use of "Arab" in order to avoid the word "Palestinian" has become a game for activists similar to using "Zionist entity" to avoid the word "Israel". We should follow the predominant neutral usage, which is (Palestinian) "Arab" and "Jew" before 1948, and "Palestinian" and "Israeli" after 1948. Zero^talk 12:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, @IZAK:, and thanks @Zero0000:, for these priceless words! Davidbena (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Zero0000, while I whole-heartedly agree with what you have said, notwithstanding, we should all bear in mind that, today (emphasis on "today"), the word "Palestinian" has a clear political connotation, and is used often by Arab writers with specifically that intent in mind.Davidbena (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@Zero0000: You are making up your own "rules" and "definitions" the very thing you accuse others of doing, overlooking that the British conquest and expulsion of the Turks and assuming "ownership" of Palestine after 1917 & WWI who then gave it over to the Jews affirmed by the Balfour Declaration: "His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." This implies that the "non-Jewish communities in Palestine" are a minority and excluded from the designation of Palestine as a "national homeland for the Jewish people" -- this reinforced by the League of Nations that gave the British the right to rule Palestine as a League of Nations mandate that did not provide for an Arab homeland in that same place, something that the UN took on itself to do with the 1947 partition. The UN is not regarded as a "legal successor" to the League of Nations in international law by the way. IZAK (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@IZAK: Oh dear, I wonder what if any of that is related to what you wrote before. If Arafat invented the term "Palestinians" as referring to Arabs, how come the 3rd Arab Palestine Congress wrote to the League of Nations in 1921 in the name of "the Palestinian People, who existed in Palestine before the war.", complaining that "Palestinians are gradually losing their birthright through Jewish immigration"? Zero^talk 07:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Seems everyone over there seems to think that being called a "Palestinian" is "great" as long as it serves their own ends. Jews like to be called "Palestinians" because they want to show that the "other" Arab-Palestinians are fakes, while the Arabs latch on to the name "Palestinians" because they imagine it gives them some sort of "mightier right" to that place they, and the Jews, call/ed "Palestine" -- which really had nothing to do with either Jews or Arabs but it was a concocted name by the Romans to de-legitimize the Jews or Judea by thumbing their nose at the vanquished Jews 2,000 years ago by reminding them that the land was actually named and harked back to old-time original Philistines whom the Israelites/Jews had long ago conquered and subdued. So it's all an ongoing historical merry go round as each group moves in and grabs the place for itself, Romans, Byzantines, Turks, British and others in between and play around with the Philistine/Palestina/Palestine name/s as a way of getting at either the Arabs or the Jews, or both, as the Jews want to call the same place Judah/Judea/Israel...and as they say...may the best man win! Stay tuned it ain't over til the fat lady sings and she hasn't sung yet, but there are an awefull lot of growing numbers of Jews squeezing up against the present lot of also growing Palestinians (it's very popular to be one, there's money to made from international donors who support this crazy deadly game), who are in turn creating a hell of a row about the whole business setting the world aflame aliyah be damned! What a fascinating show it all is, as all these WP I-P debates, large and small always manage to show! IZAK (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Huldra, I wanted you to know that I have no hard feelings about yesterday and the result of the arbitration where I was penalized. I still want to work with you, and all others, on improving this article, and adding the Arab history of what is known of this village. Perhaps I will be at the Hebrew University library in Jerusalem this coming Sunday and I will look into the books you've mentioned. As for "Palestine/Israel/Canaan/Judea," or whatever, it is all one and the same country. We need not fight over semantics. As for the Arabs that live in this country, they have a place amongst us, just as all Jews have a rightful place here. We cannot forget that Arabs have helped build our country. Let's work on this article, and let us try hard to avoid contentions.Davidbena (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

One more thing, User:Huldra, and this is only for your information: We who are Jews are taught to justify our fate, and whatever bad thing that should ever happen to us, may G-d forbid, we are taught to accept it. The reason being is that whatever G-d does or allows to happen in His world, G-d's judgments are just and righteous altogether. If a man dies, or is killed, or pines away because of hunger or thirst, G-d has determined for that individual this particular trial for his betterment in the end, whether in this life or in the life to come. That is also why we say that G-d is daily involved in judging His creatures - some for good, and others for bad. Everything is for the best, whether or not we can see this at the present because of our own shortsightedness. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Al-Muqaddasi‎

Presently the article refers to Mukaddasi, Description of Syria, Including Palestine, ed. Guy Le Strange, London 1886, pp. 37 91.... but I cannot find Bayt Nattif mentioned on either page. This is not an article for general history of Palestine, Huldra (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I also don't think Bayt Nattif appears in that book. Zero^talk 23:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You are both correct. Al-Muqaddasi is mentioned only in a footnote, and his anecdote is merely used there as a time reference to show that, in this period (i.e. 985 CE) in Palestine, the period of Fatimid (Egyptian) rule, taxes were being levied from places in Palestine which accrued to the colonial power. It is merely a note of reference showing colonial power. If you both sense that it is unnecessary to mention this fact, please feel free to delete that footnote. Perhaps I should have rather mentioned that from the Province of Palestine, according to Al-Muqaddasi, the Fatimid Empire collected annually some 259,000 dinars in tax revenues (Al-Muqaddasi, pp. 91-92).Davidbena (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is there are many articles where this material would fit as well as it fits here. It would be better if it appeared in one place that can be wikilinked to from all the places that are relevant to it. Even if that means writing a new article. An article about the economic life, including taxation, of Ottoman Palestine would be very welcome. Zero^talk 08:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Zero. I will seriously consider writing another article on this subject. The History of land reforms or land tenure laws is a very, very interesting subject, and directly relates to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. I live and work amongst Palestinian Arabs here, in Israel. I often ask them about the surrounding countryside, and about old Hellenistic-Roman-Hasmonaean (Jewish) settlements in this area of our country. One Arab who works with me found a cache of old coins near his village, dating back to the Hasmonaeans. There's plenty to write about if we can only find the time and energy. Here, I'm lucky insofar that I have access to many rare and important books and documents kept at the Hebrew University library in Jerusalem.Davidbena (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I´m removing this whole sections, as it is not about this villge, but about the area in general. Putting it here, in case anyone wats to place it in another article, Huldra (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Literary sources bearing on the history of the village, from the Byzantines to the Arab conquest in 636 under Caliph Omar to the Egyptian conquest in 969 and the Seljuk Turk conquest in 1087, are virtually non-existent. Likewise, no records exist of the village from the long period of foreign conquests (1099 – 1516), until the rise of the Ottoman Empire.

• Mukaddasi (1886). Description of Syria, including Palestine. London: Palestine Pilgrims' Text Society.

References

A Better Suggestion for Style

User:Huldra While your contributions are usually of a very good and pertinent nature, in this case, I have decided that the wording of the first paragraph is better if it were left written: "Bayt Nattif (Arabic: بيت نتّيف‎), (Hebrew: בית נתיף), was an Arab village in the Hebron Subdistrict in Mandatory Palestine," rather than writing "a Palestinian Arab village in the Hebron Subdistrict in Mandatory Palestine", since the word "Palestinian" here is redundant insofar that the same sentence explicitly mentions the village in what was then Mandatory Palestine. Another reason for keeping the sentence simple is for the simple fact that the word "Palestine" was the name of the country during the British Mandate and was the country in which, both, Jews and Arabs, Druze and Christians, lived together, and were all called "Palestinians" or "inhabitants of Palestine" during the British (1917–1948), Ottoman Turk (1517–1917), and many other foreign occupations (1099–1516). Since Bayt Nattif was inhabited in its more recent history strictly by Arabs, it is therefore best to say an "Arab village in Mandatory Palestine," to avoid multiple connotations when using the word "Palestinian".

Prior to 1948, all ethnicities in Palestine were subject to foreign powers, whether they were Jews, Arabs, Christians or Druze. Moreover, as shown by the book, "A Survey of Palestine," published by the British Mandate publishing office in Jerusalem in 1945-1946, as far as semantics is concerned, all citizens living in Palestine - Jews, Arabs, Christians and Druze - were called Palestinians, therefore, it is better here to say "Arab village in Mandatory Palestine." Davidbena (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, no. My version of the lead linked to Palestinian people (piped from "Palestinian Arab"). Your version does not link that article *anywhere*. This is not acceptable. Recall that the standard reference book for the -48-villages is called "All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948" ...and not "All That Remains: The Arab Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948". Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• User:Davidbena: I really would have appreciated if you answered my argument (above) before just reverting. Huldra (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

"Palestinian Arab" is as clear as it could be. It is noted as that (or Palestinian) and has no other meaning, no matter which other groups lived in the country too. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have just now seen your response. Still, the point made in my earlier post was that the word "Palestinian Arab village" is clearly redundant when it comes directly before "in Mandate Palestine," which words already imply that it was in Palestine. It should also be noted here that prior to 1948, the word "Palestine" had no political connotation, but was THE country settled by Jews, Arabs, Druze and Christians alike. Today, however, the word is often used by politicizing its connotation. This should be avoided in our current article as much as possible, especially given the fact that Jews were also called "Palestinians" prior to 1948, before Israel became a State. Unfortunately, today, the word "Palestinian" is often used to expunge every trace of the Jews' natural right and inheritance of the land called "Palestine." This, of course, shouldn't be the aim of editors here on Wikipedia to make that judgment. I'm not saying that User:Huldra made such a judgment, but it can easily be implied that there is a subtle political statement being made here. I stress the fact that when Bayt Nattif was settled by people of Arab ethnicities, Jews living in the same country were wont to call their country "Palestine," without any political connotation whatsoever. Remember that Everyone --- Jews, Arabs and British --- used the word "Palestinians" for ALL citizens of Palestine during the mandate period. "Palestinian" was a formal status defined by the Nationality Law of 1925. After Palestinian Jews became "Israelis", the term Palestinian became associated only with Palestinian Arabs. This usage appeared even in the Jewish press by 1950 (e.g. Palestine Post, Jan 12, 1950, p.1).Davidbena (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Zero0000, I would like to have your feedback on this, and if you think the first line in the first paragraph is redundant: "Bayt Nattif (Arabic: بيت نتّيف‎), (Hebrew: בית נתיף), was a Palestinian Arab village in the Hebron Subdistrict in Mandatory Palestine." ??? My suggestion, for the reasons I've outlined, was to write instead: "Bayt Nattif (Arabic: بيت نتّيف‎), (Hebrew: בית נתיף), was an Arab village in the Hebron Subdistrict in Mandatory Palestine." What do you think?Davidbena (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

User:IRISZOOM, yes, that is correct. It wasn't whichever Arab village, it was Palestinian. However, by saying immediately afterwards "in Mandate Palestine," the article already makes it clear that it was in Palestine. In short, it's redundancy.Davidbena (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

For a reader who is well-versed in the history of the region, the two versions convey the same information. However, I think we should write articles (especially leading sections of articles) with a less knowledgable reader in mind. The logical link from "Mandatory Palestine" (which readers may have only vaguely heard of) to "Palestinian people" (which readers know in a modern context) may seem obvious to us but it is not obvious to everyone. Yet this link is essential for proper understanding of the subject. So I vote to keep "Palestinian Arab" even though it is a wee bit less eloquent. Zero^talk 21:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

"Arab" is not specific enough so that is why "Palestinian Arab" (or "Palestinian") should be there. It doesn't carry any claim whatsoever about ownership etc. It is just a description of which group lived there, which happens to get removed pretty often. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Davidbena: I´m afraid I still don´t agree with you. Firstly, you have not addressed the issue I raised above: namely that this article, with "your" version, would not link to the article Palestinian people anywhere in the article. Look at it from the other side: You "reduce" the Palestinian refugees from these -48 villages to only "Arabs"...totally in line with Golda-there-are-no-Palestinians-Meir, or Ben-the-old-will-die-and-the-young-will-forget-Gurion; they looked at these refugees as just "Arabs", who would easily absorb into the Arab population outside Palestine/Israel. Nearly 70 years on, should we not see that for what it was: wishful thinking? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Huldra, to address your issue about the link, Palestinians, the link is obviously erroneous, since Jews living in Palestine prior to 1948 were also called Palestinians. This is evident by reading the book, "A Survey of Palestine," published by the British Mandate press in 1945-1946. Nothing in the world will change that fact. Your use of it, however, tends to expunge that one fact. Besides, is it not clear to every person who reads the article that "an Arab village in Palestine" is the same as that which you have been trying to convey, although without the subtle political connotations? I disagree with our friend, User:Zero0000, since the import which Huldra is trying to convey in the article is still PRESERVED, and does so without making use of redundancy, and is also true to semantics. I think it is best that we seek a neutral resolution of this dispute through mediation.Davidbena (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Davidbena: Ah, yes, many people lived side by side in The British Mandate of Palestine, as indeed some do today in Israel. But you forget: The Jews of the British Mandate were not expelled. Most of those who are today called the Palestinian people (or their ancestors) were. Huldra (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Davidbena, this time you are clearly wrong. Linking "Palestinian Arab" to the article which is most directly concerned with Palestinian Arabs is standard practice. If we avoided making a link just because the linked article mentions something else as well, half the links in Wikipedia would disappear. If "Palestinian Arab" became merely "Palestinian", the link would still be highly appropriate. I'm also not impressed by your mention of "subtle political connotations", since the use of just "Arab" carries a political connotation as Huldra pointed out. Faced with a choice between more precise and less precise, I tend to go with the former. Zero^talk 23:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Zero0000, let me alleviate all concerns or worries here. I am NOT speaking about other articles where the word "Palestinian" is used to signify only the Palestinian Arabs. Rather, I'm referring specifically to this article and its obvious redundancy, and how that "an Arab village in Palestine" is the better way of saying "a Palestinian Arab village in Mandate Palestine." Besides, let's not forget that this article is read by Jews and Arabs alike. Why use a style that can easily be misconstrued, when you can say the EXACT SAME THING without construing its meaning? I sincerely feel that I am in the right here, and that impartial Wikipedia mediators will see what is proper and what is improper. By the way, in my view, the word "Arab" does not carry a political connotation. It is merely an ethnic group.Davidbena (talk) 23:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Huldra, I wish to reassure you that the article plainly makes mention of the fact that the Arab inhabitants of Bayt Nattif were expelled from their village. One does not need to write "Palestinian Arab" in order to understand that some Arabs living in Palestine were evicted from their homes or villages. You see, you admit that your reason for writing the word "Palestinian" was to convey a certain political message.Davidbena (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Davidbena, I have no idea how "Palestinian Arab village in Mandatory Palestine" can be misconstrued. I don't think you have made a case for that. The only case I see from you is that the wording is redundant, which I agree with. However, sometimes redundancy is an aid for the casual reader, as I wrote in my first contribution to this section. If I was writing a book on this subject, where everything is carefully explained at length, I would also probably write just "Arab" here. However encyclopedia articles have different style requirements; in particular the leading section has to be self-contained and information-rich. Redundancy helps with that. Zero^talk 23:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Zero0000, I think that any good editor can see here that there is no good reason for this leading section to be redundant, since the emphasis here is on the Arab inhabitants who lived in the village, and which village happened to be in Palestine. Therefore, it is sufficient to say "Arab village in Mandate Palestine, etc." By saying that they were "Palestinian Arabs in Mandate Palestine," the statement carries a subtle political connotation, just as User:Huldra so effectually affirmed when she said that the word "Palestinians," for her, means the people who were evicted from their homes, that is to say, based on today's widely understood use of the word "Palestinian." Of course, there is no denial that this ever happened, and it has been duly addressed in the main article. However, putting it here, in the forefront of the article, is an affront to Jews in Israel, those who actually live the Israeli-Palestinian experience and who may read this article and who do not wish to be drawn suddenly into a political morass by the use of such subtleties and which can be dealt-with openly and candidly elsewhere, in their proper place, just as we have done. I hope that I've clarified myself.Davidbena (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Davidbena, actually the association between this former village and the people who now call themselves Palestinians is one of the most notable things about this place. I bet that the majority of references to the village in sources of the past decades make the connection one way or another. Purely by the rules of Wikipedia, it should be there. To be honest, I find your assertion that the word "Palestinian" is an "affront to Jews in Israel" to be a more political statement of purpose than anyone else has made in this thread. Zero^talk 03:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Zero0000, I'll let it stand for now, but I can only conclude that you do not know how the word is used here, in Israel, with a subtle political meaning attached, as admitted by our friend Huldra. Besides, it is plainly redundant. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Davidbena: The fact remains that most, if not all, the WP:RS dealing with these depopulated 1948-villages (like Khalidi, Morris) calls the inhabitants for "Palestinian". What they were called in the British Mandate era is really not that relevant. We don´t call, say, African American who lived in the 19 century for "negros", even if they were called so at the time. Huldra (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You make a good point, User:Huldra. So, if that is the rule of practice that we should all be following, would you agree that today, given the fact that Israelis no longer call their country by the old names of Canaan, Judea or Palestine, that we should all forget those old appellations and mention the country and/or town only by its latest nomenclature, namely, "the Israeli-Arab village of Um al-Faham? I'm just being facetious here (smile). Be well.Davidbena (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, we can smile, but in fact there has been arb.com cases about the Judea /Samaria names: some were insisting on calling part of the West Bank that. The end result was that the Judea /Samaria names should not be used outside the describing the Biblical era. There is a rule for just about everything on Wikipedia! Huldra (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent additions

User:Davidbena: your recent additions breaks the normal reference style of the article. At least, you should add to the Biblio:

• Rogan, Eugene L.; Avi Shlaim, eds. (2007). War in Palestine, 1948: Strategy and diplomacy. London: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-5218-7598-6. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Unknown parameter |editorlink2= ignored (|editor-link2= suggested) (help)
• Tal, David (2004). War in Palestine, 1948: Strategy and diplomacy. London: Routledge. ISBN 1-1357-7512-5.

...and use "Rogan and Shlaim, 2007, p. 99" and "Tal, 2004, p. 153" to the article.

Also, I would like to confirm with you; under what name does Bayt Nattif occur in those two books? Is it "Bayt Nattif" or "Beit Nattif"....or what? Huldra (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I will add the bibliography, User:Huldra. Thanks. The books mentioned above speak about general hostilities and "cleaning-up operations" after the founding of the Jewish State, since the paragraph itself originally spoke only about Arab villages in general. Bayt Nattif, being one of the depopulated villages, was no exception. Davidbena (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you telling me, that Bayt Nattif is not mentioned in either book? Huldra (talk)

No, I'm not saying that at all. I am saying that the depopulated Arab villages (some 418 in number) are mentioned together, which would include Bayt Nattif. The reason given for the continued hostilities in late 1948 was to purge these villages from the confederate Arab militias operating in them, and to ensure that they would not return. At first, the writer of our paragraph expunged this one fact. As the books are no longer before me, I would have to return to the public library in Jerusalem if you are interested in specific citations or the names of villages. Thus far, what we have cited from the book concerns the Arab-Israeli war of 1948 and the reason for the Haganah's continued pursuit of what it saw as belligerent elements operating in those villages, namely, Arab militias from several Arab countries.Davidbena (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Sigh: each of those village were depopulated for *specific* reason: Now, if Bayt Nattif is not even mentioned in those books: they should not be included for some facts about Bayt Nattif....I thought that should be obvious? Huldra (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Huldra is correct. This is how the rules work. Zero^talk 22:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I am all for deleting the paragraph altogether, since the original paragraph mentioned depopulation of many Arab villages (without stating the reason), and made it appear as though there was no reason behind it. At least these two books give the reason for the continued hostilities late in 1948. So, I'll delete the paragraph.Davidbena (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

No, what you did id´s simply not correct. First you added general stuff, *not* mentioning Bayt Nattif, then, when challenged, you write "I am all for deleting the paragraph altogether"...and proceeds to do so. And in doing so, you also remove stuff directly about this place: not good. Will reinsert. Huldra (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Davidbena: makes this edit, with the edit-line "Each of those village were depopulated for *specific* reason, and the way that it is currently suggests that the Haganah had no justified reason for doing so." Well, the *sourced* material tells *why*: "in order to block the villagers return". Seriously; you cannot remove sourced material because "youdon´tlikeit"!! Huldra (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

No, that is NOT a valid reason for every village. What prompted the IDF to decide that these villagers should not return is not stated in the footnote. That reason, of course, is very important. As it was worded, it makes the IDF seem cruel to innocent people.Davidbena (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Huldra it was actually you who objected to my earlier edit about the connection between hostilities in late 1948 and what happened to Bayt Nattif in October of that year, saying that each village is different in its reason for depopulation. Look again at your comment: Huldra's comment. Davidbena (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Davidbena: I stand by my above comment: you were trying to insert sources in the article which did not mention Bayt Nattif: not good. What you then did: removing sourced material as "it makes the IDF seem cruel to innocent people."....is equally bad. Again: Do NOT remove sourced material, Huldra (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Davidbena: please self-revert: now you have even introduced a "Cite error" in the article... Huldra (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Davidbena: I see that you are back to your old habit of cherry-picking stuff and sources which do not mention "Bayt Nattif". All that will have to go. We have the articles like 1948 Arab–Israeli War for that general stuff: you really should know that very well, by now, Huldra (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

No, that is incorrect. I was merely trying to show a connection between hostilities in late 1948 and events that occurred in October of that year in Bayt Nattif. But since Bayt Nattif could not be cited explicitly by me, I decided to drop it. Your edit, however, was worse in that it tried to say that villagers were expelled from villages, without showing why the IDF decided to expel these specific villagers.Davidbena (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

If we don´t have a source which say *why* the inhabitants of a specific village were expelled, we are simply not allowed to cherry-pick a general reason, and say that *this* was the reason here! It violates all sorts of Wikipedia rules, SYNT, OR, you name it. Huldra (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. What is clear is that there were hostilities between Jews and Arabs during the Arab-Israeli war of 1948.Davidbena (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Lol, you don´t say. So why have you cherry-picked, say, this into the article: ''However, Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution<ref name="Morris2008p66">Morris, 2008, pp. 66, 67, 72</ref> and indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division.<ref name="Morris2008p73">{{cite book|author=Benny Morris|title=1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=J5jtAAAAMAAJ|accessdate=24 July 2013|year=2008|publisher=Yale University Press|pages=73|quote="p73 All paid lip service to Arab unity and the Palestine Arab cause, and all opposed partition... ; p. 396 The immediate trigger of the 1948 War was the November 1947 UN partition resolution. … The Palestinian Arabs, along with the rest of the Arab world, said a flat “no”… The Arabs refused to accept the establishment of a Jewish state in any part of Palestine. And, consistently with that “no,” the Palestinian Arabs, in November–December 1947, and the Arab states in May 1948, launched hostilities to scupper the resolution’s implementation ; p. 409 The mindset characterized both the public and the ruling elites. All vilified the ''Yishuv'' (the expansion of Jewish settlements) and opposed the existence of a Jewish state on “their” (sacred Islamic) soil, and all sought its extirpation, albeit with varying degrees of bloody-mindedness.”}}</ref>'' ?? The sources never mentions Bayt Natif. This *must* be removed; you know that; Huldra (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Btw; it is one of those typical Ykantor edits that he had spread out over many articles, ...and you continue to copy him...not good, Huldra (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You say "cherry-picked." Lol. I have given a sense of balance to the article, since in reality it was never agreed by the Arabs to divide the land. Therefore, it is only logical that we point-out this fact. Since we're talking about the general area that incorporates Bayt Nattif within it, there is no reason to remove the edit.Davidbena (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

No, no and no: as Zero0000 also stated above; you cannot pick out sources which do not mention Bayt Natif; how difficult is that to understand? And by "general area" you apparently mean Israel/Palestine. If I was to edit like you, I could insert something about the Deir Yassin massacre into each and every article about a -48 village..... Seriously; these rules are here for a reason. Now please self-revert Huldra (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong, Huldra. The edit before mine had mentioned - without naming Bayt Nattif - that in the 1947 UN Partition Plan, it (Bayt Nattif) was designated as part of the Arab state. It went on to cite a reference, showing a map of the general area, which, as noted, includes within it Bayt Nattif. See: map of UN Partition Plan.Davidbena (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

While I agree a map is not a splendid reference, it is still *quite* different from cherry-picking "However, Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution and indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division". It was far more complicated than that, which is why we have articles about the war, where those nuances can be discussed. This has 0 chance of surviving in the article, if you let it stay it will only give you a reputation as a POV-pusher, Not to mention the fact that you removed *sourced * content, as it "makes the IDF seem cruel to innocent people". Huldra (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, no one is "cherry-picking." The previous edit would have left a wrong impression about the status of Bayt Nattif. Now, with my edit, no one will be confused about Bayt Nattif's status. There is no reason to be disruptive while working on this article, or to expunge vital information from our readers with regard to the town's true status.Davidbena (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry David, but you are working against Wikipedia rules here. It is not up to you to decide what the "status" of Bayt Nattif was, nor up to you to decide which description of the background is appropriate. You are only allowed to report those things from reliable sources. As it is you added stuff that is actively misleading, such as mention of the Iraqi army which was nowhere near Bayt Nattif. You are also presenting an Israel-centric view that makes Israel's actions only a response to Arab actions, which is a neutrality violation. If you can find a source stating what forces were in Bayt Nattif when it was attacked, feel free to add that information. Zero^talk 11:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

..and yet again...

1. Using the word “depopulated”: this is compromise, between those who wants to use “ethnically cleansed” and those who want to use “abandoned”. You can be sure of one thing: if editors start using the word “abandoned” (especially in cases like this, where there was a military assault), then we will soon have editors starting to use the words “ethnically cleansed” —> permanent edit-wars. Seriously: just stop it.
2. This is not the article about the Tribe of Judah!! For the nth time: if a source does not mention Bayt Nattif, then we cannot cherry-pick it into the article. Huldra (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Huldra, we are concerned with history here, in these sub-sections. As for your first point, Benny Morris, in the book that you so frequently quote from, uses the words " abandoned Arab villages," when referring specifically to the demolition of houses in selected Arab villages. This is important, insofar that we should not be under any false-assumptions that the inhabitants of those villages were still in those houses while they were being destroyed. As for your second point, we are interested solely in the history of Bayt Nattif and its immediate environs. Since, from a historical context, the present locale known as "Bayt Nattif" belonged to another ethnic group of peoples between circa 1250 BCE - 422 BCE, this warrants our mentioning this very important historical fact. There is no reason to expunge the Israelite history from the region known as Bayt Nattif, along with the town's suburbs (the Elah Valley). Bayt Nattif is incorporated within the butts and bounds of the tribal inheritance of Judah, without it being necessary to specifically mention its name. Similarly we find that Bayt Nattif is also incorporated within the proposed 1947 UN partition plan of the so-called "Arab state," without having to mention its name.Davidbena (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

...and there are several others who use the word “ethnically cleansed” (take Pappe, Nur Masala): you are being seriously disruptive here, if you try to use the word "abandoned". "Depopulated" *also* implies that the villages were empty when the houses were blown up, so that is really not an argument. If there are sources saying Bayt Nattif belonged to the Tribe of Judah, please do add them. The rest will be removed. Also; having the history of a place based on Biblical history is really not cool, the minimum would be to say a´that "according to" etc. Yes; we are concerned with history here, not theological myths. Huldra (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, edits like this, firstly it breaks with the "standard" style of the article, secondly adds the text: Benny Marshak, the 'Education Officer' of the Palmah, frequently spoke in favour of the destruction of {usually hostile) clusters of abandoned villages, including those in the Jerusalem Corridor., referenced to Morris, p. 355; note 98...the problem is the note 98 do NOT mention Bayt Nattif! Seriously, you cannot cherry-picking facts like this! ::::Also, insisting on that the Palestinians "abandoned" the village, while at the same time having a sourced statement in the article saying "On 5 November, Harel Brigade raided the area south of Bayt Nattif, driving out any Palestinian refugee they could find" ...it is totally surreal, Huldra (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

My dear Huldra, the words "ethnically cleansed" are used very disparagingly. I would avoid it in articles treating on villages that were caught-up in the Arab-Israeli conflict, since its use takes us into the causes of the war and what each side was actually thinking, or trying to promote.

If you remove the section about the early Israelite history of the region in discussion, you will then be considered disruptive and I will make my complaint before the appropriate administrators. That, in my opinion, would be "cherry-picking" in order to press your own "Palestinian" agenda. As you have noticed, I have given due weight to, both, Palestinian Arab and ancient Israeli history. Most of the Arab histories in this article were posted by me, in accordance with WP policies that editors in contentious subjects or disputed subjects are to be neutral.

As for your claim that adding the excerpt from Morris' book about the Palmah officer, Benny Marshak, and it breaking away from the style, can you suggest a better edit? I'm open to suggestions. The only reason why I added it is to give balance, namely, that his view was that these villages whose houses were demolishded by the IDF were viewed by him as "hostile," using his own words.Davidbena (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

One more thing: Note # 98 on page 400 of Morris' book directs us to the source where we can read the protocol with the words or suggestions made by Benny Marshak, and where his advice to destroy houses in abandoned villages was only related to what he viewed as "hostile" elements in those villages.Davidbena (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I have read the note, and that is the problem: Benny Marshak never mentions Bayt Nattif. I will continue to remove material and sources which do not mention Bayt Nattif, if you want to report me for that: then please go ahead, as I am not changing my mind. I agree about one thing, though: it should be "In the proposed 1947", in fact, I´m not too sure about that whole sentence at all, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Benny Marshak's proposals were general, in nature, and included demolishing the houses in any Arab village that was deemed by him to be hostile. If the houses in Bayt Nattif were demolished (which they were), let us not forget that it came after the death of 35 Jews in that convoy who passed by Bayt Nattif while en route to Hebron, and which town (Bayt Nattif), according to the Jewish version of events, was complicit in the murder of these 35 Jews. Again, these are details that we ought not to go into.Davidbena (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

And why is the "general proposals" from an 'Education Officer' of the Palmah, notable? This is cherry-picking, and nothing else. As for the Convoy of 35, I think it is fairly described in the article; both the Arab and the Jewish view. And yes, they passed Bayt Nattif, but were mostly killed in Surif. Huldra (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

That presents no difficulty, Huldra, since the allegation was that person(s) from Bayt Nattif informed the people of Surif about the Jewish convoy en route to Hebron. They were merely intercepted, after their location was disclosed.Davidbena (talk) 04:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

This is pure speculation, nothing else, Huldra (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, that is how it is reported from the Israeli side. Only God knows what happened. By the way, I've been thinking about our past disagreements and I've reached the conclusion that we can learn to work together in an atmosphere of cooperation, while taking into consideration each other's ideas, concerns, and suggestions from a historical point of view, so as improve this article. The first step in the right direction is to be balanced when writing about a city that has historical importance to, both, Jews and Arabs. I see that you do much work, and good work at that, in your specialty on the Arab villages here, in Israel. I suspect that, perhaps, you may be married to an Arab (which is Okay)... lol. I have nothing against that, and I respect all people. It's just that we should judge historical data impartially. Cheers.Davidbena (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry for being blunt, but what really *is* a problem here, is that you have some pretty strong pre-conceived ideas, both about me (like this and this)..…which you then continue here (“I suspect that, perhaps, you may be married to an Arab”) No: I am not married to an Arab. And this is not about me. This is about what *sources* say. And just as you “assume” things about me, you “assume” things about Bayt Nattif. But worse; in the case of Bayt Nattif: you put it into the article.
• I think we both agree: Bayt Nattif has a long, long history. *If* we were allowed to cherry-pick sources which “suits us”, say “supported our views” (whatever those views are), then we could make a, very, very biased article. (I would argue there is a bias in any case, as there are far more Israeli sources than Palestinian, in general).
• I will gladly work with you to improve the article. But if you want to put statements into the article which you just “assume” is right (but where the sources never mention Bayt Nattif): then I will argue against that.
• If you want to take this to a dispute resolution board: I will not object. In fact, I think it is a good idea to get “outside eyes” on this subject. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you tell me which statement I have put into the article which I only "assume" is right? I strongly object to this premise, and I have given valid references to prove every statement made in this, my most recent edits which, by the way, give more balance to the article.Davidbena (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The section I removed; here, where none of the sources mentioned Bayt Nattif. Basically stuff which could belong in, say, the Tribe of Judah-article, but not in each and every article about a place in the region. Huldra (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

We could try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard; but before we approach them, we should be absolutely clear as to what we dispute, Huldra (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Please don´t edit-war to get general history into the article, as I have said; I´m willing to accept outside views on this; are you? Huldra (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Unbalanced, 1948 section

Davidbena; one should always open a discussion on talk, when one add an "unbalanced" tag. Please spell out why you think the 1948-section is unbalanced. Huldra (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Without question, the section is "unbalanced," just as I have previously shown through the cited source of Benny Morris, viz. that a Palmach officer in mid-1948 had given specific orders to destroy the houses in those abandoned villages which were then known, by his judgment, to be hostile. The section expunges this fact, while wrongly portraying events as if the inhabitants of Bayt Nattif were merely "conquered," instead of "abandoned," when the demolition of houses in the village actually occurred. The village inhabitants were no longer there. Since the section omits mentioning the fact that village houses, according to the Palmach officer, were only to be destroyed in villages that were deemed hostile, including villages in the Jerusalem Corridor (where Bayt Nattif lies), it is most fitting to add this bit of history to give a sense of balance to our article.Davidbena (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I am absolutely astonished that you can write this. Can you see what Morris writes on pp. 517-519? Have you read it? That was ethnic cleansing, pure and simple. Arabs found in the south are either killed or sent to POV-camps; quote: “The Arabs encountered were to be “dispersed” or taken captive”. And it was an very efficient campaign, too. The orders and reports from the period speak for themselves. Again, we can let “outsiders” look at it, if you like, Huldra (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing is a derogatory phrase and it is better used in an article that deals specifically in the overall context of the Israeli-Palestinian Arab conflict, rather than insert this "political remark" in the Bayt Nattif article. IMHO. Of course, you are "cherry picking" statements written in Morris' book to besmear Israel. That, and that alone, is not only a violation of tendentious editing, but also a violation of WP:POV. Besides, obviously, you have overlooked what Morris writes about "hostilities" between Jews and Arabs when it was decided to demolish houses in "abandoned" Arab villages. A reminder, see: Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, Cambridge University Press 2004, p. 356; ibid., footnote # 98 on p.400.Davidbena (talk) 12:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

If you think I am in violation of some Wikipedia policy, then feel free to report me. And footnote # 98 does NOT mention Bayt Natif, and will therefore be removed. And you seem to argue that these villages were both "abandoned" . ..and were "hostile": that seems like a contradiction to me. Again, for the n´th time: shall we get "outsiders" to look at this? Huldra (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

That is exactly what is implied in Benny Morris' quote, taken from the Palmah officer, being very general and without mentioning the names of the specific villages. The villages destroyed were those that were, both, abandoned, and whose inhabitants were deemed by the Palmah as "hostile." But does your edit where you purport that the inhabitants were evicted from conquered Arab villages so as not to be given an opportunity to return, does it mention specifically the inhabitants of Bayt Nattif? It too is a generalization.Davidbena (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Davidbena, they do. Each and every source I have inserted in the article mentions Bayt Nattif; if I have made a mistake anywhere (and inadvertently have inserted a source, not mentioning Bayt Natif), then please inform me, and of course: feel free to remove such a source. Huldra (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

While the sources you have quoted do mention the destruction of Bayt Nattif, you have added (in the section "1948 war, and depopulation") the words "in order to block the villagers return," which is a general statement that does NOT specifically mention "preventing the return of the inhabitants of Bayt Nattif." If you think this should be mentioned in the context of Bayt Nattif (although Bayt Nattif's inhabitants being barred from return is not specifically addressed in your sources), then it is only right and fair to bring balance to our article by mentioning, in a general manner, that the advice to destroy houses in abandoned villages were villages thought to be hostile, in accordance with our source, Benny Morris; see: Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, Cambridge University Press 2004, p. 356; ibid., footnote # 98 on p.400. Can we get User:EdJohnston's feedback on this? Is there a smear campaign in these edits, to make the IDF look bad? Please, your advice.Davidbena (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

....except that source appears in a chapter (#6) called "BLOCKING A RETURN", (see the top of the page), Huldra (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

But if Bayt Nattif's inhabitants aren't specifically mentioned there, you are merely generalizing. In this case, we ought to omit the addition, "in order to block the villagers return," or else keep it, but add the reason for the IDF's decision to destroy houses, based on Morris' quote from the Palmah officer.Davidbena (talk) 00:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice: What I see on the page cited by you (in chapter 6, "Blocking a Return," in the book, "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited", p. 341) is this: "These processes were the gradual destruction of the abandoned Arab villages, the cultivation or destruction of Arab fields and the share-out of Arab lands to Jewish settlements, the establishment of new settlements, on abandoned lands and sites and the settlement of Jewish immigrants in empty Arab housing in the countryside and in urban neighborhoods. Taken together, they assured that the refugees would have nowhere, and nothing to return to." As you can see it is only a general statement without any specific reference to Bayt Nattif's inhabitants not being allowed to return. Since the author speaks only in general terms, by the same logic we can say that, in general terms, those villages whose houses were deemed worthy of being demolished were those villages seen as hostile, as cited by the Palmah officer who was quoted by Morris.Davidbena (talk) 02:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Huldra, it is important to use the words "abandoned Arab villages" in the article Bayt Nattif, instead of "conquered Arab villages" (the current wording), for the simple reason that the words, "conquered Arab villages," leave the reader with the impression that the town's inhabitants were still present in the towns when their houses were destroyed.Davidbena (talk) 03:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Pal.rem

We cannot use the Pal.rem as a source. As EL (External link), yes, but, as I explained here:

"Palestine Remembered is a private web-site, a blog if you like, and that is not WP:RS. I have been fighting tooth and nail to keep it in the "External links"-section, pr WP:EL, I most of all appreciate their pictures: very valuable. Everything else from Pal.Rem which you could put into Wikipedia can much better be sourced to the original source. So, you use Barron, 1923, for the 1922 data, and Mills, 1932, for the 1931 data, and Hütteroth and Abdulfattah for the 1596 data. Yes: it is more work, but it is more reliable in the end. If you want to totally waste your time on edit-warring putting "ethnically cleansed" into leads; that is you choice (& then you will be blocked: I have seen it happen countless times.),

Davidbena: I feel I´m not getting through to you (undoubtedly you feel the same about me!) Isn´t it time to take this to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard? Huldra (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that our edit disputes can be resolved between us; with a little will to find a way (compromise).Davidbena (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

QUESTION: Is it an official Wikipedia policy not to use Pal.rem. as a source in Wikipedia articles?Davidbena (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It has been discussed several times, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_91#palestineremembered.com. As I wrote on my talk-page, I have been fighting "tooth and nail to keep it in the "External links"-section, pr WP:EL". And mostly; these days, this is accepted. Huldra (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Huldra.Davidbena (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Pictures

Davidbena: I am very grateful for the pictures you publish about this place. May I ask you a favour? Could you please publish them directly on commons, so they are easily available to our "sister-projects"? (There are articles about this place on the Hebrew and Polish Wikipedias). I have made a commons category here, Huldra (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I will do that. In the past, I had some difficulties with Commons.Davidbena (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Have you had problems with the "File Upload Wizard"? I´m not an expert, but I would gladly help, if I can. Huldra (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

No, with Commons itself. At one time, I had no luck in uploading to Commons.Davidbena (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I´sorry, I don´t understand you; I use the "Upload Wizard" on Commons, is there any special reason why you cannot use it? Huldra (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I just had technical difficulties using it in the past.Davidbena (talk) 02:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit and infringement on Wiki policy

• I see a discussion among editors about content of an article, but administrators have no more say in content disputes than any other editors. I do not see any request for any action which requires an administrator to perform it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

---

The most-recent edit should and ought to be reverted, for the reason of infringement of "undue weight" (WP:Due), which in a nut-shell states that since this article in its larger context deals with a village, anything that moves away from the general view by directing our readers' attention to a subsidiary issue of Palestinian-Israeli relations and how others on the outside might view this issue, is, by nature, bringing a distantly related side-issue into the picture; the suggested edit would, in fact, steer us away from the main agenda, namely: describing a village and its history. Any reference to a person's personal feelings resulting over the current political situation in Israel, or else over Arab-Israeli relations, or over events that transpired in the country 68 years ago, with a view to discredit one side, especially as they are seen by outsiders, would be giving undue weight to this article and to its primary theme, viz. a general description of a village that was once settled by Jews, and later by Arabs. (BTW: The suggested edit, can, in fact, be added to a different article that treats specifically on the Palestian-Israeli issue and how it plays out in relations with the outside-world).Davidbena (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

How is it undue weight? The idea that we should not include something because it is political is a non-starter, and in case you havent noticed much of this article is about the Israeli Palestinian conflict and that seems fairly obvious given it was a Palestinian village destroyed by the Israeli army. I dont see how a single sentence related to the current status as a forest managed by the JNF, a status that is included in the article, is undue weight. UNDUE is a part of NPOV, which requires presenting all significant viewpoints proportionally. It does not mean not discussing topics because they are political. DUE weight requires this material, not the other way around. nableezy - 19:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Nearly everything in Israel/Palestine has a Jewish/Christian/Muslim/ and often pagan history, and therefore any site that can be documented as bearing some relation to any of these traditions should carry that information. To call any note regarding the non-Jewish/non-Israeli cultures political is inane, David. No one is protesting that I am now doing numerous articles, restoring to the Australian landscape the pre-white histories conserved by tradition and rediscovered by scholarship, and no one should be grinding their teeth if the same applies here.Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I think a mention of it can be here, but it should be pared down. I also added "what he called Ethnic..." since it's a quote from the source. I also removed the mention of RBS-Gimmel since it's unclear from the article why it's in there. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Im fine with that for the most part, might reword it a bit. Ive never been a fan of "what he called '...'" nableezy - 22:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

A man who was honored by Israel, but whose son dislikes Israel, should not be a subject of discussion on a site that speaks about a Jewish and Arab village. It is a flagrant violation of ethical behavior, not to mention a violation of WP:Pov. One of the roles of a good administrator is to ensure the upkeep of Wikipedia policy.Davidbena (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Not liking that consensus is against your position isnt really a reason to request admin help, but feel free. That person's parents name is memorialized in a place where he feels it is inappropriate. That has received coverage in reliable sources such as The Forward, The Independent and Haaretz. WP:NPOV requires us to include all significant viewpoints, WP:DUE requires giving weight proportional to their coverage. How is that satisfied by your proposed solution of giving 0 weight to it and not including that viewpoint that is on its face significant, given the person's relationship and his views coverage in reliable sources. It is directly related to the topic of this article and to the sentence that is immediately preceding it. All significant viewpoints must be included, despite an editors dislike for one of those viewpoints. nableezy - 22:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

My friend, having received coverage in newspapers that have special sections on the Palestinian-Israeli issues is all fine and dandy, but is inappropriate in this article, unless you wish to change the article's title and call it "Palestinian-Israeli misgivings, as viewed by outsiders." Again, here, such a debate is totally irrelevant, and tends to infringe upon WP:Due as well as WP:Pov.Davidbena (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

David, saying a son's comments about his father's values as expressed in WW2 during the Shoah are immaterial, is a very dangerous road to walk down. It's call the use of memory. Here, one side, justly, commemorated a man for saving Jewish lives. His son disliked the fact that that commemoration's site was a place of ethnic cleansing of another society, seeing this as a contradiction of the very principles which guided his father's actions in saving 200 Jews. I'm sure, if you stop to think this through logically, that the son's remark should be respected. Sir Joseph has made a sensible compromise. History, the history that teaches us deeply, is never unilateral: no one has a unique claim on tragedy or pathos.Nishidani (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a son commenting about his father's values, such as expressed in WW2 during the Holocaust, or wherever such comments are applicable. The question, however, that we should be asking ourselves is whether or not this edit, in this article, is in keeping with Wikipedia's objectives, policies and goals. I see it as an infringement of WP:Due and WP:Pov.Davidbena (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

He is commenting specifically on the use of his parents name on the site of this razed Palestinian village and how it offends him to have his parents memories marked in such a place. To repeat, he is commenting on this place, and as such it belongs in the article covering this place, ie this article. nableezy - 23:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

While it is true that he (Eric Ader) is commenting about this place (a memorial of his father who helped save Jews), but is it appropriate in this particular article? What purpose does it serve? To incite bitter feelings against Israelis, or against Israeli government policies!? That, my friend, is best written in its appropriate place, namely: in a separate article that discusses the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, misgivings and world opinion. It does not belong here. Look again at WP:Due. Such statements here are best addressed elsewhere. That is plain to me as daylight.Davidbena (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

David, one victim of the Holocaust was one of the finest historians of the 20th century Marc Bloch, whose motto about what historians should do runs:'Le bon historien, lui, resemble a l'ogre de la legende. Là ou il flaire la chair humaine, il sait que là est son gibier'). The cancer of modern opinion is that, rather than think to the facts, everybody is persuaded to think about the political consequences if these facts emerge. It's pure insanity, and explains why this area is unworkable. Few care for the full record: too many waste time weighing in the balance whether the facts stumbled on will make Israel/Palestine look good/bad. Well, frankly, no serious scholar gives a fuck for that kind of anxiety. Nishidani (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe this will help drive home my point. Recently, one of America's famous football players, Colin Kaepernick, staged a protest against what he believed to be injustice in America's legal system by refusing to stand-up during the unfurling of the flag, during a preseason game. Now, let's say that I mentioned this fact in the WP article that treats on the city where this stadium is built, the backlash would be one of WP:Due (undo weight), and editors would say to me that it is better to mention Colin Kaepernick's antics in an article dealing with America's injustice, or racial problems, or something similar, rather than in an article that treats on a city.Davidbena (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

That isnt even close to being analogous. Not even a little bit. if for example at the site of some massacre of Native Americans a mall was erected and a memorial to somebody who helped save some group was installed there, and that person's child objected to that specific memorial being at that specific site, the article on the site where it mentions the memorial would also include that objection. nableezy - 01:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

How about this. Quote what exactly from WP:DUE you think disallows this material. Your assertion that it is violated has been challenged by now three other editors. Forgive me, but I cant just take your assertion that the policy is violated. Quote from the policy and explain how this violates it. nableezy - 01:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Why, of course! The WP:Due policy states explicitly, among other things: "...the views of tiny minorities (in our case, the solitary protester and his cry of injustice) should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views (meaning, in a different article that speaks specifically about that problem). For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it." There you have it. This man's protestations are out-of-place in an article that deals at large with the Jewish and Arab history of Bayt Nattif. We could always cite incidents of public sentiment about past aggression, or hostilities, but what good will it do to an article whose main agenda is not to talk about current sentiments over the wrongs or misgivings of the past, but simply mention the events of the past? You see, while some might see the eviction of local residents from this region as cruel and heartless (even though they were not massacred), others may view their eviction as an expedient military tactic at that time because of anti-Jewish feelings by the local Arab population. You see, there are two-sides to every coin. If you mention this aspect of private sentiment, you invite others to mention their private sentiment as well, regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict. But, as I said, this is NOT the article for such outspoken sentiments - which tend more to divide than heal our society's ills.Davidbena (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

You should read the end of that part of WP:DUE. It's gives comparing numbers killed in the Holocaust by having a known Holocaust denier's numbers along with a respected source on the topic. That is not the case here, and that is easily disproven by it having been covered in sources from multiple countries. It is directly relevant to the topic of this article. The article deals with the village, its history, and the aftermath of its destruction. One of those aspects is the memorial to this person's parents, an aspect you see apparently agree is fit to mention. Multiple reliable sources agree that this is indeed a significant viewpoint and have published it. We on Wikipedia are obligated to include it. There is so far unanimous agreement against your position, and I will not be drawn in to the debate that you seem interested in having. nableezy - 03:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I saw this story in the press (in a different newspaper). If the memorial is mentioned (and why not?), the objection of the son should also be mentioned. Also, I don't see any other article more appropriate than this one. So on balance I favor inclusion of the one-sentence extent. Zero^talk 04:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Full disclosure: looking at the categories on my user page should inform you of my natural POV, but, as always, I'll do my best to approach this neutrally in accordance with Wiki's policies and guidelines. My initial thoughts are that this isn't really so simple. There are two questions which are interrelated: that of whether Ader's statements belong in Wikiepdia and if so, where. I'll address the second first. If the article was about the memorial (The Forest of the 35/ יער הל"ה) then it would be the proper location. However, the article is not about the memorial, but about the village. A case can be made that Ader's issues have nothing to do with the village of Bayt Nattif per se. However, as there is no separate article on the memorial, only a section in this article, should Ader's views be sufficiently prominent, this article would be the logical place for them as of now. The remaining question is one of appropriateness. Notability guidelines govern article suitability; article content need not be notable as long as the content policies (NPOV, UNDUE, etc.) are met. In the history of this memorial, we now have one person related to someone memorialized who dislikes that. The fact that he is quoted in the news may not be enough to take it out of fringe and put it into minor (see bullet points at WP:NPOV#Undue weight). How many people are memorialized there? Are any living? Have they had issues? Have any other family members had issues? The forest has been there since the late 60's; Erik Ader is the first person to provide any significant coverage about the memorial. My personal suggestion would be to consider Ader's views to not be sufficiently prominent enough in and of themselves IF the memorial has other people besides Bastiaan Jan Ader. If the memorial is exclusive to the elder Ader, then I would consider that Bastiaan's family are pretty much the only ones who have any standing to complain, and it would not be undue. An analogue in my mind would be the Vietnam Veterans Memorial (although that is much, much more famous). Nowhere in our article do we (or should we) bring anti-war, anti-US, anti-imperialistic, etc. statements of family members of any of the 58K+ veterans listed there, although there are plenty family members of veterans (deceased or otherwise) who are against US war policies (see Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Military Families Speak Out, Veterans for Peace, Gold Star Families for Peace, etc.). It isn't cut and dried though, and I would very much appreciate hearing other opinion from uninvolved people. As always, I reserve the right to change my mind if persuaded by suitably strong and convincing arguments. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 04:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The image in the Haaretz article shows only a plaque with "Ds Bastiaan Jan Ader" on it and mentions no other people. However it isn't possible to be sure from the image that there are no other plaques nearby. Zero^talk 05:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

If I were to compromise here, I would suggest that we also cite the very end of that article (posted here by User:Zero0000), and where it says: "the Jewish National Fund expressed its respect for the actions of Ader’s parents, adding that the monument was legally constructed on state-owned lands." The obvious reference here is to Miri = feudal or State land, but can also specifically refer to vacant State land, private usufruct State land (as once managed by Britain under the British Mandate of Palestine, but now by the Israel Land Administration). In other words, the forest land was actually never under private ownership, as the village itself was.Davidbena (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Miri has nothing to do with the logic of war. The land is in Israel, and Israel is fully entitled to define its territory in any way it thinks fit. I think we have a compromise, through the good offices of Sir Joe. Looked at in the context of what happened in 1948, some further details regarding which I added (leaving out interviews with the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon who were driven out) it is quite appropriate. I was studying the Djiru recently, who once inhabited Dunk Island, and read an old classic on the island by E. J. Banfield, who never really mentions them. Since his time, 1911, folks downunder have come to realize it is good manners, apart from showing respect for history, to admit that indigenous people preexisted the establishment of the commonwealth of Australia: every church I accompanied my wife to, I noticed while smoking outside waiting for the Catholic mass to end, had a commemoratory plaque alluding to the original tribe that owned the land on which the modern buildings are raised. Israeli nationalism may be too young and insecure to be comfortable with the full breadth of the land's integral history, but this will happen there too, if it is to strengthen its democracy.Nishidani (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Im fine adding the quote from the JNF. Avi, I dont think your analogy fits either, but if we can settle this with adding a line from the JNF there really aint a pressing need to go into detail on that. nableezy - 17:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Done!Davidbena (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I just moved the ref to the end of the paragraph as it looked odd having a sentence with no reference to end the paragraph. All of us content with this? @Avraham:, you cool with this? If so can you remove the undue-inline tag? nableezy - 18:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Well done, gentlemen. This again is how this place should work.Nishidani (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Works for me too, and I echo Nishidani's sentiment. -- Avi (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Given that Israel refers to all the "abandoned property" of refugees as "state land", we cannot know what its legal status actually was from these words. We don't know it was 'miri' land (which doesn't translate adequately to 'state land' anyway). I changed "JNF ... adding" to "JNF ... stating" because the word 'adding' can be taken as agreeing with them in Wikipedia's voice. Zero^talk 00:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Bayt Nattif and the "Green-Line"

User:Huldra, since you've asked for documentation that Bayt Nattif is recognized as being in the "Green-Line", I have provided it. The result of the campaign to expand the Jerusalem Corridor as far as the western foothills of the Judean mountains, freeing it from pockets of resistance, helped, in the final analysis, to determine the border of Israel with Jordan during the 1949 Armistice Agreement. That is what is explicitly stated in the book, Har’el: Palmach brigade in Jerusalem, by Zvi Dror (ed. Nathan Shoḥam), Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishers: Benei Barak 2005, p. 273. If you wish, you can revert your edit and add the footnote, or else I will do this tomorrow night. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Besides the above reference (documentation), I wish to remind you that I live in this region of the country and all of the old-timers here have pointed out to me the "Green-line," which was occupied by Jordan until 1967. Bayt Nattif was not occupied by Jordan in 1949, but was rather within the agreed upon "Green-line."Davidbena (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Davidbena, first, could you please link Green Line, when you refer to it in an article? It is more informative than just linking to 1949 Armistice Agreements.

Second, what old-timers have pointed out to you, doesnt hold as WP:RS, as I’m sure you know. As for "all of the old-timers here have pointed out to me the "Green-line," which was occupied by Jordan until 1967," read, say Dayr Ayyub.

Third, I don't think anyone has said that Bayt Nattif was occupied by Jordan in 1948, or 1949....if it had been, then surely the Palestinian population would not have been driven out by Israel.

Fourth, I know there were Palestinian villages inside the Green Line which were depopulated in 1948/49, say, Dayr Ayyub, but the Green Line wasn't that big, there is a limited number of places which could have been there (it was only supposed to be a line on the map, after all!)....are you sure the source doesn't say part of the village was in the Green Line?

Fifth, I think I’ m calling User:Zero0000 to check the maps on these villages, Huldra (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's forget what I said about the "old-timers," and let us resort only to documented references. Yes, I can link "Green-line" in the article. I can also bring down other related sources. And, no, the source is explicit. All the places captured by the Israeli army in 1948 along the Jerusalem Corridor were made subject to the 1949 Armistice Agreement, besides only a few places that the Israeli army withdrew from (such as the village Husan). Bayt Nattif, as well as Mata, Aviezer and Neve Michael, which last three became Jewish settlements are built further eastward toward the Jordanian line, were also within the "Green-line," how much more then Bayt Nattif which lies further westward.Davidbena (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Huldra:. To editor Davidbena:, I don't think you are using the phrase "Green Line" according to its standard English meaning. Namely, it is an informal name for the line drawn by the armistice agreement between Israel and Transjordan. It isn't a region; it's a line. Bayt Nattif was about 5-6km away from the green line, on the Israeli side. I suspect your sources use "within the Green Line" to mean "on the Israeli side of the Green Line", which is how it should be phrased to avoid Israel-centric language. Also, apart from the consequences of being under Israeli control by virtue of being on the Israeli side of the Green Line, the armistice agreement has nothing to say about it. Zero^talk 00:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Zero0000, yes, that is what I meant to say. I was only describing the informal name for the line drawn by the armistice agreement between Israel and Jordan, a line "agreement" showing their respective areas of governance and to which the two parties involved agreed in 1949 until the issue at hand could be further resolved, and as defined in 42 U.N.T.S. 303, no. 656; 4 U.N. SCOR, Spec. Supp. 1, U.N. Doc. S/1302/Rev. 1 (1949). It happens to be the only legal instrument at that time which regulated the relationship between Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. As is known, the Armistice Agreement came in response to U.N. Security Council resolution of 16 November 1948, and which called upon the parties involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict, "as a further provisional measure under Article 40 of the Charter of the United Nations, to seek agreement forthwith."Davidbena (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The origin of the name "Bayt Nattif" as cited in the Bible and rabbinic literature rejected by User:Zero0000

1. There are two Netofot (Netofa in the plural) mentioned in the Bible. One, which User:Zero0000 know about, is in the Galilee, but the other is clearly defined as "near Bethlehem" in the Midrash -- as well as in Wikipedia! (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netophah). I added these references to the text but they were rejected by User:Zero0000 as being "unsourced" even though I provided the exact Midrashic reference (as well as Biblical and Talmudic references, including chapters and pages).

2. II Chronicles 2:54 states (in the classic English translation): "The sons of Salma: Bethlehem, and the Netophathites [(in Hebrew = נטופתי = Netofati = someone from a place that would be pronounced either as Netofa or Netof)], Atroth-beth-joab, and half of the Manahathites, the Zorites." This is the origin of the following place names: 1) Bethlehem, 2) Netofa or Netof 3) Atarot (exact location unknown, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ataroth), and 4) Manahat (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malha) and Zorah (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zorah). Leaving aside Ataroth, whose exact location west of the Jordan is presumed to be north of Jerusalem but still debated, all the others are, as stated in the Midrash, in the Bethlehem area. Not in the Galilee. I added this Biblical citation but it was rejected by User:Zero0000 as being, again, "unsourced."

3. I also added an explanation of the Semitic root n-t-f, which likewise was rejected by User:Zero0000, again, as "unsourced." I would cite as a reference "A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature" by Marcus Jastrow, Ph.D. Litt.D., the classic source on the subject, originally published in Philadelphia in 1903 by the Jewish Publication Society of America, page 898 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Jastrow).

4. An earlier addition I made regarding oil lamps found near Bayt Nattif decorated with the menorah of the Second Temple was retained by User:Zero0000 after I cited as my source an article in The Jerusalem Post, replacing my initial citation of a book written by Dr. Rivka Shpak-Lissak, who User:Zero0000 rejected as an "unreliable extremist." Dr. Shpak-Lissak is holds a Ph.D. in history and has been published by, inter alia, the University of Chicago Press and the Magnes Press of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Question: What makes someone an "unreliable extremist" and who gets to decide that? By my reading Walid Khalidi is much more of an unreliable extremist (he has been criticized in academia for inadequate field work), and yet he is liberally cited as a source in virtually every Wikipedia article on depopulated Palestinian villages, including this one.

@Zero0000: Zozoulia (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page

1. There are two Netofot (Netofa in the plural) mentioned in the Bible. One indeed is in the Galilee, the other clearly labeled as "near Bethlehem" in the Midrash. Unsourced? I provided the exact Midrashic reference (as well as Biblical and Talmudic references, including chapters and pages). Do you even read Hebrew? If not, I request that you verify this with someone who can.

2. II Chronicles 2:54 states (in the classic English translation): "The sons of Salma: Bethlehem, and the Netophathites, Atroth-beth-joab, and half of the Manahathites, the Zorites." This is the origin of the name places of 1) Bethlehem, 2) Netofa (in Hebrew = נטופתי = Netofati = someone from a place that would be pronounced either as Netofa or Netof), 3) Atarot (exact location unknown, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ataroth), and 4) Manahat (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malha) and Zorah (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zorah). With the exception of the unclear location of Ataroth, all the others are, as stated in the Midrash, in the Bethlehem area. Not the Galilee.

3. Regarding the Semitic root n-t-f, I would cite as a reference "A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature" by Marcus Jastrow, Ph.D. Litt.D., the classic source on the subject, originally published in Philadelphia in 1903 by the Jewish Publication Society of America, page 898 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Jastrow).

Zozoulia (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Zozoulia: You can't use Midrash and Bible as your only sources for modern identifications. It is a textbook case of original research. You have to cite a reliable secondary source for your claims. Now, you are correct that there was a Netopha (but not Beit Netopha) mentioned in Judea, but modern scholars have given up trying to fit Beit Nattif to it. I looked quite hard and found no modern scholarly sources that identify Beit Nattif with Netopha. Albright thought Netopha might be Ramat Rachel, but that was disproved by excavation. Now there are two or three other suggested sites for Judean Netopha in the Jeruslam-Bethlehem area (which Beit Nattif isn't). Also, I could find no source at all that places "Biqat Beit Netofa" anywhere except the Galilee. You need a reliable secondary source before you can add that one, too. You can't do your own identifications. Zero^talk 02:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

As for Shpak-Lissak, I don't know of any qualifications she has regarding pottery, but anyway I consider her an unreliable extremist because she writes like an unreliable extremist. Her book "When and How the Jewish Majority in the Land of Israel Was Eliminated" is an atrocious polemic, as anyone who knows the subject well will see immediately. My personal opinion aside, it is a self-published source and so ineligible by Wikipedia policy (Xlibris is a company which will publish anything for a price). Zero^talk 02:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand, Jastrow is a standard reference and is reliable on Wikipedia. But for this again it is you and not Jastrow who is connecting the semitic root n-t-f to the name of this place. You have to cite reliable sources that make such a connection and you have to cite reliable sources that identify which aspects of n-t-f are relevant to this place. What I can find in modern scholarly sources suggests that there is no connection at all and that the original name was most likely Bethletepha with an L, as used with variations by Josephus and many other writers. See for example, Emil Schürer, Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (Revised Edition, 2014), Vol. 2, p191. (As an aside, please give page numbers for book references.) Zero^talk 02:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Historical geographer, Edward Robinson, who visited the Land of Israel in 1838, during the Ottoman rule of Palestine, wrote the following account in his Biblical Researches in Palestine (vol. 2), London 1856, p. 17: "The name Beit Nettif itself has probably come down from the Hebrew; but I have been able to find no ancient place corresponding to it. A village Netopha is indeed mentioned in Scripture; it lay, however, somewhere between Bethlehem and Anathoth (cites: Ezra 2,22. Neh. 7, 26. Reland Palæst. p. 909). The Rabbins speak also of a valley called Beth Netopha; but the present place is on a high hill." (End Quote). Whatever may have been the town's old appellation at the time of Joshua is now unbeknownst to us. What is known, however, is that the town bore the name Beit Lettif or Beit Lettifon during the Roman period.Davidbena (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Clarification of the Status of the 1949 "Green-Line"

To all those who may not know the full implications of the term "Green-line" with respect to Bayt Nattif, it is another word for the "Demarcation line" between Israel and Jordan, also known as the "cease-fire line." All towns and villages captured by Israel during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War (e.g. Bayt Nattif, Allar, Deir Abban, etc.) and which were to the west of the "Green-line," they came under the terms of the Israeli-Jordanian armistice agreement. This has absolutely nothing to do with the distance these towns were actually located from the "Green-line," but rather, that they were formerly contended by the Arabs for control, but came under Israeli control immediately following the war in 1948 and after the signing of the Armistice Agreement in 1949. As for the first map, I could find no better map, although it is still legible. "Beit Nettif" and "Allar" are both mentioned in the map. The "Green-line" is also shown in the map. All towns to the left of the "Green-line" (i.e. West of the "Green-line") and which were formerly contended by the Arabs for control, after the Armistice Agreement in 1949, became "officially" under Israeli-control. The Six-Day War of 1967 cancelled the 1949 Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan, and the situation remained so until other implements were made between the Palestinians and Israel. Even so, Bayt Nattif remained under complete Israeli control. Davidbena (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Other names

User:Davidbena: When I add names like Bet Netif, it is because that is the way is is spelled in the source. Now, if you want to standardise the spelling in the article: fine. But could you please create a redir from the old name in the future? (I’ve already created a redir for Bet Netif), Huldra (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, there's nothing wrong with spelling a name as you found it written in a book, but if it is a quotation, you should at least put the sentence in quotation marks. If not, another alternative might be to put after the awkward spelling the word (sic), which shows that you are using the spelling of the author.Davidbena (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Huh?? If you take a look at the sources, Socin and Hartmann, you will see that A: the sources are in German, B: they do not give their numbers in sentences, just in tables, Huldra (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Still, that presents no problem. When you translate sources from one language into another, as often I do, we still can use quotation marks for their translated remarks.Davidbena (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

?? Again, have you looked at the source??? ....there are only numbers in tables!!Huldra (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

So, in this case, if it is not a direct quote, you do NOT have to keep their spelling of Bet Netif, when our article spells the name Bayt Nattif. Conformity in spelling does not take away from your source. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Sigh, I have never insisted on having Bet Netif in the article, I only said that if you remove it, you should create a redir, (so that other people reading the original source can come to wikipedia and easily find which article the source is talking about) Huldra (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't remove "Bet Netif," but only altered its spelling to conform with the rest of the article, and which was right to do in this situation. We often find variant spellings in place names, especially when translating from one language to another. For example, Beirut is sometimes spelled Beyrout, and, therefore, if the majority of the spellings in a text wrote "Beirut," a Wiki editor when translating would be expected to write "Beirut," even though the French text may have had Beyrout.Davidbena (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but you will also note that if anyone writes Beyrout ...then they will be redirected to Beirut, as someone has made a redir of Beyrout. And it is the same here, if you want only one spelling of the name in the article; fine. Just please make a redir of the alternative names you remove from an article. Huldra (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is always good to have a redirect in such cases. Here, I concede with you. But if you use the more conventional spelling there is no need for a redirect. Moreover, when the article is entitled "Bayt Nattif", and you wish to mention this name explicitly, you cannot make a link for that name in the article which bears that name.Davidbena (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I think we simply cannot have too many redirs, even for very similar sounding names. I have cleaned up too many articles, where there have been 2 articles about the same place, to think differently. I agree with you about the second point, obviously having a link inside the article, pointing to itself is just silly/unnecessary. Huldra (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Revert Re: descendants of Esau

User:Sir Joseph, you recently reverted an edit of mine, reintroducing the claim that the inhabitants of the region were descendants of Esau: [1]. As I said in my edit summary, there is no reliable source tracing the inhabitants of the area back to Edom. Please provide a reliable source, or else the claim should be removed. To be clear, the claim you need to defend is that the people who lived in the area surrounding Bayt Nattif, two thousand years ago, were the descendants of a man named Esau, who lived about four thousand years ago. Alephb (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Josephus (Antiquities 13.9.1) is our source. There, he speaks about how John Hyrcanus converted the race of the Idumeans (Edom) living directly to the south and southwest of Jerusalem, in places such as Dora and Marissa. It was known to this historian that Esau's descendants had by the 2nd-century BCE migrated to places in Palestine/Israel proper. In fact, Herod the Great was one of these descendants.---Davidbena (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Correct, that entire sentence came out of the Josephus quote. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Wait, are the two of you seriously arguing that Josephus, a man writing two thousand years ago, is a reliable source for saying that the Idumeans were descended from a man named Esau, who lived fifteen hundred years earlier? As it stands now, the article is presenting the idea of Esau as the ancestor of Idumeans as if it were an actual known fact. I've read the Antiquities. Is Josephus also a reliable source when he says that a worldwide flood occurred when Noah was six hundred years old, two thousand six hundred and fifty-six years after the creation of the world? Alephb (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The article is not saying that Esau is the ancestor of Edom, it is saying that Josephus is saying that. There is a distinction. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. There is an "According to Josephus" at the very top of the paragraph, but I wish it was a little more clear that the Esau claim is just Josephus. Oh well. I won't argue it any further. Alephb (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Josephus, when writing about Upper Idumaea, speaks of towns and villages immediately to the south and southwest of Jerusalem, such as Hebron (Antiq. 12.8.6,Wars 4.9.7), Halhul, in Greek called Alurus (Wars 4.9.6), Bethsura (Antiq. 12.9.4), Marissa (Antiq. 13.9.1, Wars 1.2.5), Dura (Adorayim) (Antiq. 13.9.1, Wars 1.2.5), Caphethra (Wars 4.9.9) and Bethletephon (Wars 4.8.1). These places were given the name of Idumaea by Jews living in Judea in the early 1st-century CE. You might question the reason why, or even Josephus' source for calling these inhabitants "Idumaeans," but that would almost verge on an infringement of WP:NOR. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, no. I have absolutely no problem with the area being called Idumea. My only concern was that the article could be read as saying that the Idumeans are descended from Esau. But given that the wording looks right to both of you, I won't raise any further objection. At least as I read it, the "According to Josephus" wording didn't clearly cover the whole paragraph, but if neither of you sees a similar concern I'll just assume that was my own idiosyncratic reading of it. If you both read the article as being clear enough about separating the claims of Josephus from the claims of the article, that's good enough for me. Alephb (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Commons Media Template

User:Huldra, I think that the Commons Media template is still vitally important at the bottom of the article, since it directs one's attention directly to the option of viewing other photos, even though the option is also brought down in the left-hand column of the page, among a myriad of other options. Bear in mind that in nearly ALL articles, especially those related to major cities, plants, etc. the option is also posted independently at the bottom of the page.Davidbena (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think it gives the article an unnecessary cluttered and more messy look. It is very clear direct link on the left: in other projects. And that link is also there in all the languages, with a Commons Media template you have to put it in each and every article: in he.wikipedia, ar.wikipedia etc. Commons Media template is just so yesteryear.....Huldra (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, since the template is VERY small, and is placed at the very bottom of the sub-sections. Besides, it is used in, literally, thousands of articles here, on Wikipedia, being both a common and accepted practice to use in articles treating on towns and villages, plants, medicines, personalities, etc., in spite of there being a clear direct on the left (which, by the way, is hardly noticeable to someone unaware of the fact that the link brings one directly to other images of the title of the given article). Here, however, it is very plain that the link takes one to photos of the article's title, as it specifically names the category of the photographs one may be looking for. Huldra, I know that your edit here was well-intended (done in Good Faith), but I can't help but disagree with you here. With that said, let there be no doubt that your overall contribution here on Wikipedia is very good and ought to be commended.Davidbena (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Non-Muslim Residents of Bayt Nattif

User:Huldra, shalom. I noticed where you deleted the recent edit mentioning the non-Muslim residents of Bayt Nattif in 1596, which were (according to Hütteroth's seminal work, Historical Geography of Palestine, etc.) ten heads of households. These figures are obtained from Hütteroth and Abdulfattah, 1977, p. 114. There, towards the very end of their book there is a legend explaining the meanings of the numbers used for every entry. For example, 8 = "family heads/ bachelors of Moslem population", whereas 11 = "total number of heads of household (of Moslems, Christians and Jews together, if occurring)".

Since entry number 8 lists for Bayt Nattif a total of 94 Muslim householders, followed by a slash with the number 10, meaning that there were 10 bachelors among the previous number, and then in entry number 11 it states unequivocally that the total number of householders for the same village were 104, it follows that the remaining 10 were non-Muslims (either Christians or Jews). Is there a reason why you feel that this information is not important? Please explain.Davidbena (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Davidbena No, that is not how it is counted. We agree that the Bayt Nattif gives: 8)94/10 11)104

If you look under the "Explanation of abbrevations", it says

8) hana/mujarrad (family heads/bachelors) of moslem popula­tion, or hana only, if no mujarrad is mentioned

11) Total of hana and mujarrad (of Moslems, Christians and Jews together, if occuring)

.....so the number given in 11) adds up both the households, and the bachelors, in this case 94+10 =104...all mentioned under 8), that is, Muslim. Huldra (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

That is incorrect. If you look at other entries, for example Nahalin (p. 118), there you will see that number 11 is independent of number 8, and brings down the additional home owners not previously mentioned in number 8. It had a population of 40 Muslim households and 16 Christian households! The slash in number 8 refers to bachelors already numbered in number 8. What caused you to err is that, in Bayt Nattif's case, it just so happens that the number of bachelors equals the number of non-Muslim resident homeowners. Davidbena (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Number 8 mentions ONLY Muslims. Number 11 mentions both Muslims and non-Muslims.Davidbena (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, 11) adds all, Muslim, Christian, Jews, households and bachelors. Basically 11) is the total number of "taxable units". So for Nahalin, which gives 8)40 9)16 11)56 (that is, 40 Muslim families and 16 Christian families) we get 40+16 =56 taxable units. Huldra (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Btw, there are relatively few places with counted bachelors in the Hebron district, or in most other districts...there is one exception: Nablus Sanjak! Now why there were so many bachelor in that district is a thing that keeps historians occupied..... Also, Hütteroth does have typos.... and then we are really in trouble. Look at Talk:Julis, where Zero and I have tried to sort things out...(it is still just speculations, though), Huldra (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This goes clear across the board. Wherever 8 mentions a number, followed by a slash and another number, the aggregate number is still the same (i.e. the number before the slash). The entry in number 11 represents all taxable householders - both, Muslim and non-Muslim. As for "typos" it is plain that whoever wrote "Ayn al-Mayya" meant "Aid el-Miah", based on Hütteroth's location of P-17 in his map. That, my friend, is the conclusion of academics.Davidbena (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

So, you're saying that the number written after the slash in number 8 is independent of the number before the slash? So why mention non-Jewish householders in number 11 at all? Were they all bachelors?! Davidbena (talk) 23:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Huldra, I may be mistaken, but to prove my point, look at the entry for Kafr 'Inan (p. 178). There, the 1596 Ottoman tax registry has 21 Muslim heads of household, eight of whom were bachelors, while another 16 heads of households were Jewish, 2 of whom were bachelors, while another 10 were of some other religion. Now compare the aggregates brought down in number 11. Am I correct, or am I mistaken? Please explain.Davidbena (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Kafr 'Inan has 8)21/8 10)16/2 11)47, that is 21 households and 8 bachelors who were Muslim, 16 households and 2 bachelors who were Jewish, 21+8 +16+2 =47 (x 5,5=258,5~ 259 ....Khalidi never gives religion, and he multiplied the total number of taxable units with 5,5, which is the normal number historians us to get the total number of inhabitants), Huldra (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Huldra, you're skirting the question. We're not talking here about total number of inhabitants, nor are we talking about Khalidi, but only about "heads of households" who were also taxable in the 1596 Ottoman tax registry, both Muslims and non-Muslims, as also bachelors among their numbers. So, I was correct. The number following the slash in 8) is not necessarily the number mentioned in 11), but is added thereto along with the other taxable home owners.Davidbena (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

No, you are not correct, in Kafr 'Inan there were a total of 29 taxable Muslim units; 21 households and 8 bachelors, (not a total of 21, as you write). And there were 18 taxable Jewish units; 16 households and 2 bachelors. Also, in these tax records everyone were either classified as a Muslim, a Jew or a Christian. There were none of "unknown" religion. And the Muslims are counted under post 8), the Christians under 9), and the Jews under 10). And they were all counted together under post 11). OK? Huldra (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

So, since 11) brings down a total of 47, I stand corrected that the number after the slash in 8) is to be added to the aggregate. Thanks for being patient in explaining the system of reckoning this data.Davidbena (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Implausible statement based on invisible citation

Regarding the Convoy of 35/Surif incident of January 16, 1948, the article now states that:

"The Arab version is that the convoy had attacked Surif deliberately, and had held it for an hour before being driven out", indicating as source Khalidi p. 212. This is twofold problematic.

1) The event has been thoroughly researched, and the details seem to me to have been clarified in a very reliable way. According to all I could read, the Jewish convoy was running against time, of which, after a few unlucky turns, they clearly didn't have enough to make it up the slope before sunrise. Under the given circumstances, attacking and holding a large village sounds like total, suicidal nonsense. The group included some experienced members and and least a couple sound like highly intelligent and somewhat interested in staying alive. In 1945 Surif had 2,190 inhabitants, and in those days many men had at least some old hunting rifle under the bed, not to mention the militias active in the area. If the statement from the article is accurate and such a claim was indeed made at the time, I see two possibilities: Either the inhabitants did perceive the presence of the Jewish fighters as an attack, or this was the spin given afterwards to the events, which is what everybody does during wartime. I think I know what to believe, but I'm not a quotable "reliable source" :)))

2) Khalidi is not accessible online. It shouldn't be a problem for some of the more active editors on I/P to pull out their copy from the shelf and type in the relevant paragraph for everybody's benefit. An invitation in this regard has been on the page for almost 5 years in the shape of a "dubious" tag (18 Dec 2015), until it was removed w/o the quote being provided (27 Aug 2020). I've placed the tag back in, with a more diplomatic wording than what came out 2015, when I was new here & more tempestuous. Having the quote would allow us to see a) if the claim is correct, and maybe b) to glance from it how it came to be made. Arminden (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

What is cited to Khalidi is a reasonable match to what is there. However, we should take the lamed hey connection to this page from a more specialist source. What Khalidi has comes from contemporary NYT reports. As you know, reports on disputed events in the immediate aftermath tend to be less reliable than later reports based on consolidation of more evidence.
NYT Jan 18, pp1,27, has "Jerusalem, Jan 17 — Another Zionist "punitive expedition" attacked three villages in the Hebron hills southeast of Jerusalem, official sources reported tonight. The Arabs reported that about 100 Haganah "troops" still were fighting nearly thwenty-four hours after they attacked the Arab villages of Zacharia, Bet Netif and Deraban. The Haganah version was that...the Haganah group...set out during Thursday night to circle the fighting area and reach the beleagured settlement [Kfar Etzion] through a gully that would cover their approach. They were believed to have taken a wrong turn...and to have walked into a village where an ambush had been prepared... The Arab version of the fighting was that the Jews were in a party of 100 who attacked Surif village at daylight and held it for more than an hour."
NYT Jan 19, p2, has "Jerusalem, Jan 18 — The ambush by Arab fighters of a Jewish shock force send to aid the settlement of Kfar Etzion was confirmed today with the discovery of thirty-five bodies near the Arab village of Surif... Tonight the police said that three Arab villages, Deiraban, Beit Natif and Zakariye, were reported surrounded by armed Jews, but they have not yet verified the report... Jews and Arabs gave conflicting versions of the Surif fight, the Jews saying that "their party walked into a trap," while the Arabs reported it as a Jewish attack on the village.
Incidentally, ownership of guns was still illegal in 1948 and the huge British effort to confiscate guns from Arabs during the 1936–9 revolt meant that most villages had few. It is perfectly plausible that 35 trained soldiers could hold a large village for a while (but I don't think any such thing happened in this case). Zero^talk 03:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Zero, and thanks. Starting to get somewhere. Nine years after the revolt, with porous borders, 1939 wasn't too relevant in this regard anymore. Kawuqji even marched in with dozens of trucks some five weeks after this event coming via the Allenby Bridge (!), and was using armoured vehicles while the Brits were still there. Abdul Qader al-Husseini, with a few hundred armed men, had his headquarters right at Surik and the neighbouring villages, where they were training recruits, and it was mainly them who finished off the 35-men Jewish resupplying team. The Scottish officer who did the investigation was found in 1967 or thereabout and he offered a lot of details to the Israelis. I think to remember that the same was the case with one of the two mukhtars from 1948, so not much has remained unclarified. The very fact of what occurred there, and about the same time at the Etzion Bloc, shows how well armed the Arab fighters were. How arms were smuggled in is even better known from Jewish sources, and the Irgun and the Stern Gang managed to sustain a prolongued armed insurgency against the Brits themselves. The Brits had long lost the appetite to expose their soldiers in a place they were looking forward to leave behind. The resupplying platoon was carrying as much stuff as they could, and actually more, which slowed them down, their mission was clear, they had no business attacking anything. Surik WAS full of armed irregulars - whether the Haganah platoon knew the specifics, I don't know, but the Etzion kibbutzim were surrounded at the time, that was the very background and reason of the mission, and the reason they tried to move up through a relatively hidden valley and under the full cover of dark. After dawn and being discovered, they might have taken shelter in some building for a while, but no crack team of 35 (and as a whole they were not: they only had SOME experienced fighters among them; they totally botched it in the end, and that also proves the point) couldn't and wouldn't go on a rampage in a village of more than 2000 inhabitants. On foot! Think Deir Yassin or Lod as a comparison, in terms of numbers, preparations an equipment, including vehicles. The number quoted by the Arab side, 100 Jewish fighters, is also inflated by 3 to 1. And they did have the corpses to count. This shows exactly what I thought it was. Sure, good sources would be welcome. The overall picture seems quite clear though. The title "A bridge too far" would fit here too. Cheers, and a happy New Year to you! Arminden (talk) 09:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

History and archaeology burying the rest :) With issues of their own

• Beit Nattif lamps: very important discussion, relevant for entire Shephelah & Jerusalem Mountains, but takes a lot of space.
• Early Muslim building: only one source, and a VERY poor one at that. I would have never used it if there'd been any alternative. Needs to be followed up, not even clear if for real. The workshop and the B.N. oil lamps were and are always described as "3rd century", maybe "3rd-4th century". Now there's talk in this incredibly poor article of 7th-11th c. oil lamps. Another workshop (kiln & all) at the same place? A continuation nobody spotted until now? Or did the article scribbler mix up two different sites? Arminden (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)