Talk:David Ben-Gurion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Religion[edit]

It says that Ben-Gurion's religion is Judaism. Is there a source? I mean, of course he was Jewish by nationality, but I heard that he was an atheist/agnostic. -- Northern (talk) 07:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Ben-Gurion was not an atheist. Those sources that say he was may have mistaken his secular lifestyle for atheism.
Here is an interview. At the end, he firmly states he is a believer.--RM (Be my friend) 10:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
RM, in that interview he identifies himself with pantheism and names Baruch Spinoza as another Jewish pantheist. A quick look on Google Books shows that he is often claimed as an atheist, as Northern heard say 1 2 3 4 5. In one 1974 work, Ben-Gurion is called a 'freethinking deist [who] had profound reverence for the Bible' 6. I've not been able to confirm his pantheism anywhere else, but a quote from the man himself should be considered more reliable, even though this may only have been his opinion at the time of the interview (1970). According to source 5, he identified as an atheist during the 1960 census, so perhaps his views changed or were fluctuant. It seems that it's hard to label him as anything, although whatever he was, it looks like he wasn't a theist and rejected traditional religious views of Judaism. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Whether he was or wasn't an atheist doesn't mean that he was Jewish by religion. You can't presume that every Israeli who is Jewish by nationality, is also Jewish by religion. Hence, 'Religion : Judaism' doesn't make sense until we can actually establish that he in fact a practicing Jew. -- Northern (talk) 05:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Why only West Germany?[edit]

Why was it only West Germany that was forced to give money to jews? The East before 1945 had as much to do with the enslavement and persecution of Jews (if that's true as anyone else)? Is it because David was a Communist and wanted Capitalists to pay? (120.149.116.39 (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC))

Minister of Defence[edit]

In the infoboxes it says that he served as prime minister and as minister if defence at the same time. Then in the article it says that he resigned as prime minister and served as minister of defence. They can't both be right. Richard75 (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Interview with morris[edit]

First of all why we need to use counterpounch source?What does it add?Second of all please propose in talk what do you want to add.The addition should properly summirize the view of Morris on Ben Gurion?--Shrike (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Counterpunch carried the interview by Ari Shavit with Morris, originally publishd in Haaretz. Ari Shavit'Survival of the fittest ,' Haaretz 8 January 8, 2004.

"The worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110), Lod (250), Dawayima (hundreds) and perhaps Abu Shusha (70). There is no unequivocal proof of a large-scale massacre at Tantura, but war crimes were perpetrated there. At Jaffa there was a massacre about which nothing had been known until now. The same at Arab al Muwassi, in the north. About half of the acts of massacre were part of Operation Hiram [in the north, in October 1948]: at Safsaf, Saliha, Jish, Eilaboun, Arab al Muwasi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa. In Operation Hiram there was a unusually high concentration of executions of people against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion.That can't be chance. It's a pattern. Apparently, various officers who took part in the operation understood that the expulsion order they received permitted them to do these deeds in order to encourage the population to take to the roads. The fact is that no one was punished for these acts of murder. Ben-Gurion silenced the matter. He covered up for the officers who did the massacres."

Counterpunch doesn't have a paywall, unlike Haaretz, so editors with the former source can verify the matter more easily.There is nothing problematical about a journal lik Counterpunch being used to access an article whose contents are known to be those of an historian of Morris' stature and a journalist of Shavit's notability.Nishidani (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Recruiting 10.000 Men For Ottomans From US. and Europe[edit]

It's an important information. He recruited 10.000 men for Ottoman Empire. Recruits were from US. and Europe. That's an essential information. There are sources like this one confirm the info Why is this missing at the article?--Kafkasmurat (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Your source does not say any such thing. You don't understand it. Zerotalk 12:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Conquering West Bank[edit]

-Concerning my edit :"However, this view is unsubstantiated in both Ben Gurion's diary and in the Cabinet protocol. In the cabinet meeting, Ben Gurion reacted to what he had been just told by a delegation from Jerusalem, and placed a plan that called for a limited action aimed at the conquest of Latrun, and not for an all-out offensive. On other occasions, Ben Gurion statements revealed an ambiguity over this subject." : Those facts are undisputed, so it do not need an attribution.
-The controversy is whether BG proposed at this specific cabinet meeting of the 26 Oct to conquer all / large portion of the west bank, as he uncovered years after the war. Only after the cabinet meeting protocol was declassified, the researchers found that this claim is baseless. It seems that some historians are not updated. However , the Wiki rule is to present both views.
- I am not sure if this Cabinet protocol describes the extent of a possible IDF reaction to an all out Jordanian attack, provoked by the Israeli attack of the Latrun fort.
- During the period of late September and early October 1948, The IDF and BG planned a major attack, and discussed whether it would be against the Jordanian and Iraqi's in Samaria, or against the Egyptians in the Negev. (Morris, "1948", p. 316-318). If the IDF would attack and conquer all / large portion of the west bank (as a response to a Jordanian's full scale military advance provoked by attacking Latrun), then the alternative (Attacking the Egyptians) would be delayed or canceled, because of possible Anglo / USA pressure. Hence, attacking Latrun might had a drawback. BTW Eventually the IDF attacked the Egyptians, in operation Yoav. Ykantor (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Ykantor
That's an interesting question to find which of these historian versions fit at best reality because there are recent books for both pov's.
If we can prove that some historians lack information or are wrong, I think we should not mention their pov. We could mention that another version was believed before anyway. But I don't know which one is the lattest anyway.
Note that Shapira contredicts herself and note that Yoav Gelber is known to be extremely precise, sometimes too much precise. Benny Morris also often go deep into details.
Let's check all this.
Zero0000 : would have some information about this issue ?
Pluto2012 (talk) 08:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Did I hear my name used in vain ;-). As it happens, the last historical column Tom Segev wrote for Haaretz before he retired in 2013 was on exactly this subject. See here or here. Note that, contrary to other claims, the released Cabinet protocol was censored, but Segev has somehow gotten hold of an uncensored copy and quotes from it. BG's proposal was not just to conquer a little bit near Latrun, but "the southern portion of what is now called the West Bank - specifically, from Ramallah to Hebron and west to Latrun, as well as the Jericho region". Even more illuminating, I think, are the following words of BG that were censored:

If war broke out, we would then be able to clear the entire central Galilee with one fell swoop. But we cannot empty the central Galilee - that is, including the [Arab] refugees - without a war going on. The Galilee is full of [Arab] residents; it is not an empty region. If war breaks out throughout the entire country, this would be advantageous for us as far as the Galilee is concerned because, without having to make any major effort - we could use just enough of the force required for the purpose without weakening our military efforts in other parts of the country - we could empty the Galilee completely.

This ought to be quoted on pages related to refugees. Zerotalk 09:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Zero0000,
So he didn't suggest to take the whole West Bank and not just Samaria but in fact the whole territories south of the line Ramallah - Jericho (so half of Samaria and Judea).
1. I think this is an expansionist policy ;-)
2. We have to comply with WP:RS sources but there is a little hypocrisy not stating this means taking the whole West Bank because the bridge linking Jordan to Palestine (and absolutely required to the Arab Legion to control West Bank) is itself controlled by the army that controls Jericho. Controlling "Jericho region" [sic] means preventing the Arab Legion to stay there. I have to check but I think Morris explains this to justify why Glubb put 1/3 of the Arab Legion on the Latrun Salient. I know it is WP:OR but just let me check.
Pluto2012 (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Some days ago, I added to the article a direct link to the cabinet meeting( [1])(Hebrew). The censored Galilee paragraph might be in page 28 (pdf file page numbers and not the protocol page numbers), in the page's dotted portion. Ben Gurion proposal is in pages 24-28, and another one in page 57-63. One can OCR these 12 pages , and Google translate it to English.
- Segev uncovers a Galilee plan but has nothing new concerning the West bank. In the protocol p. 25, BG says that attacking Latrun might cause a war all over the fronts and if this happens he will not be sorry about that. He specified what could Israel do in this case:
----- paragraph A (א ) dotted. apparently the Galilee. (page 28)
----- paragraph B (ב) the Negev and the Egyptians. (page 28-29)
----- paragraph C.(ג ) the west bank. (page 29)
- He says clearly that "if the Arabs won't respond to an Israeli attack on Latrun, we won't expand the war". (p. 61 top)
13 years later, BG revealed a missed opportunity to occupy the West Bank, for his political reasons. But Tal, Bar Yosef (and Shalom in my opinion) say that such a direct plan is unsubstantiated in the Cabinet protocol. Since no one claims otherwise (i.e. the protocol contain such a plan) than the article should say it clearly, without an attribution to a specific wp:rs.
- Segev is a biased Historian.
---- He does not mention that BG expansion plans were conditional (i.e. Arab response with a general war). He does not mentioned that BG himself doubted it very much that the condition would arise. (p. 36, top).(also p. 59 top)
---- Concerning the planned expulsion of the Galilee Arabs, he does not mention that 2 months before this meeting, BG ordered not to expel Nazareth residents, and a month later, The Galilee was occupied by Israel but there was no general expulsion and a lot of Arab villages stayed. (although the residents of some villages were expelled, and some IDF criminal soldiers slaughtered, raped and looted). Ykantor (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
---- Segev does not mention that in this meeting BG said also:
------"At the moment we are full of bitterness toward the Arab world, but they are here and will stay here. we have to worry about the future. Hence it is better to compromise with them rather than with the Christian world. "(Concerning Jerusalem)(p. 26)
------ There are 3 alternative to solve the conflict. The first one is the minimal (territory) one, by an Arab agreement. This alternative has a little chance. The second alternative -which might be slightly better- is by an U.N resolution. The third one is by our armed operation. If there could be a chance of an agreement with the Arabs, I would prefer it, although it (the territory achieved so) is smaller than in the other 2 alternatives. (pages 57-58)
- Ben Gurion was expansionist, but he was pragmatic too. Shalom says (p. 157) "(Concerning the) area intended to pass into Israeli…(Ben Gurions') statements reveal the ambiguity over this subject", and shows examples. Ben Gurion's plans should be quoted, but that should include all his relevant plans during those months with the ambiguity and contradictions included. Ykantor (talk) 11:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Morris (2008) p.317 writes :

As to the center of the country, it is not completely clear whether Ben-Gurion wanted the IDF to conquer the whole of the West Bank or only a large part of it, with or without East Jerusalem. In the course of the 26 September meetings, he said different things. ... Ben-Gurion seemed to be saying that the IDF should conquer the western edges of the West Bank, thus widening the Jewish-held Coastal Plain, and expand the Israeli-held Jezreel Valley southward, perhaps as far as Nablus, but leave in Arab hands the hilly spine from Nablus through Ramallah to East Jerusalem.

Tom Segev (link provided by Zero0000) writes :

On September 26, 1948, the Israeli cabinet discussed Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion's proposal that the Israel Defense Forces capture the southern portion of what is now called the West Bank - specifically, from Ramallah to Hebron and west to Latrun, as well as the Jericho region.

Except for the question of Ramallah, they refer to the same.
I cannot read Hebrew but that should be in the cabinet meeting minutes. What do they say about this ?
Pluto2012 (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Segev wrote his piece in 2013. He was, apparently, referring to details that are not in the censored version. The historians you cite wrote on the basis, presumably, of what the public censored version states. What Segev revealed in 2013 has to be taken as based on information that might not have been available to the other scholars, unless otherwise indicated. If the earlier scholars Shalom (2002) were arguing from the purely censored version, their deductions have less weight, since based on a less complete access to the full record than Segev had.Nishidani (talk) 10:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Debresser- violated the wp:1RR[edit]

- @Debresser: You violated the wp:1RR. Please undo yourself.

- Moreover, you are out of the concensus. Ykantor (talk)

You also posted on my talkpage. Why? Or here, or there. Anyways, let me just copy my reply from there.
Yes, there is a 1RR rule on that page, but since the issue is a technical one, related to how to represent sources in a citation template, and has nothing to do with the Arab-Israel conflict, you are just trying to use that rule to push through your opinion, which is not something I am willing to stand for. That is called WP:Wikilawyering.
As to the actual issue, 1. we do not, and I repeat, we simply do not, put page number in the actual quote. That is not how citation templates are used. 2. The specific quote is three fragments from different pages, whose context and connection can not be understood, followed by a whole sentence from one page, which has some meaning, and which I therefore left. I simply improved the reference. Debresser (talk) 10:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- A civilized person can express his criticism in the talk page before the taking extreme step of deletion.
- @Debresser: You violated the wp:1RR. Please undo yourself. This is the second and last reminder.
- Moreover, you are out of the consensus. Ykantor (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleting part of a quote inside a citation template is a minor step, and not something that needs to be discussed on a talkpage. May I remind you that people do major rewrites of articles without discussing them first.
I already replied regarding the 1RR rule above and am not in need of reminders. Please don't get all bloated up about a few fragments inside a quote inside a citation template!
I am not familiar with the expression "being out of the consensus", but if you are referring to the fact that another editor also undid my revert, that doesn't yet establish consensus. In addition, the edit is so obviously inferior, that if the issue were raised at any forum, I am sure the result would be that it should not be kept. You might want to try that before you claim consensus. Debresser (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Debresser,
You should take into account that I supported Ykantor (despite we have a disagreement on the content). He did his job perfectly and I appreciate a lot that he is so precise (here) so that we can check everything carefully.
By the way, you have been reverted by Warkosign too.
As Ykantor says, you are out of the consensus, meaning you make an edit war alone against 2 (now 3) editors and don't care to hear what they say to you.
Pluto2012 (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
In my personal opinion, Debresser has a point. I think putting three fragments together as a single citation feels like WP:OR. That having been said, if the page consensus is that all three fragments should all be there, then if you divide those into three citations, each with its own page number, you are probably fine. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Debresser may be correct, however once the edit was reverted, per WP:BLD the proper way to handle it is to discuss is until there is a consensus rather than edit war over it. Citing 1RR is not WP:Wikilawyering or an empty technicality, it is a limitation that other editors of this article abide by, and so must Debresser. WarKosign 06:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Unacceptable usage of quotation template[edit]

I changed a quote from

<ref name="Shalom2002p155">{{cite book...|pages=155|quote="(p. 155) A great satisfaction with the armistice borders…area intended to pass into Israeli…(p. 157) statements reveal the ambiguity over this subject… (p. 160) if BG had been fully convinced that the IDF should have fought more aggressively for Jerusalem and the surrounding area, then Sharet's opposition would not have stood in the way of government consent.}}</ref>

to

<ref name="Shalom2002p155">{{cite book...|pages=160|quote=if BG had been fully convinced that the IDF should have fought more aggressively for Jerusalem and the surrounding area, then Sharet's opposition would not have stood in the way of government consent.}}</ref>

My edit has been reverted by three editors, without anybody even bothering to address my reasons, just implementing WP:WIKILAWYERING and reverting me because of WP:1RR. Since I am an experienced editor, I think that they are wrong.

My reasons were and are that:

  1. Page numbers shouldn't be part of the quotation. Citation templates have many parameters, and the parameter for page numbers is "page" and the parameter for text is "quote". These shouldn't be mixed.
  2. This so-called "quote" is actually a collage of a few very short fragments from different pages, and the one quote from page 160 which I left. The fragments do not shed any light on the statement they come to source, and even if they do, the quote from page 160 is enough in itself and the fragments superfluous.
  3. To collect fragments of sentences from different pages and make them into one statement is what is called "taking things out of context". With that method anything can be proven, and an encyclopedia can not engage in synthesizing fragments from different pages of a book into one "source". This is a big faux pas in a serious work like Wikipedia.

For the above reasons I ask the community to express its opinion to the editors who undid my edit, that the present text is not fit for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, and to restore my edit. Debresser (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

An RFC for this, really? Just remove the quotes completely from the cite. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
You re-instated your edit twice after it has been reverted without bothering to explain your reasons, this is why nobody bothered to address them. Now that you have, people can respond. I think the RfC is quite premature, without a discussion preceding it.
Indeed, {{cite book}} template has only one quote= field, which implies that the normal use case is a single quotation. If we need several quotations from the same book, how about having several {{cite book}} tags, each with a single quote ? I think that indeed first two partial quotes lack context, we should either expand or remove them. For example, first partial quote could be replaced with "BG viewed the border map as Israel's greatest achievement of the war." from the same page, and the second with "After consultation with IDF officers, he ordered the army to advance into territory east of the armistice lines. In later testimony, however, the exact size and location of the area intended to pass into Israeli sovereignty was not given." WarKosign 06:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- As for the unclear fragments, it can be extended in my opinion.
---Initial: (p. 155) A great satisfaction with the armistice borders. To be replaced with: "BG viewed the border map as Israel's greatest achievement of the war...Under BG's dominating sway, Israel appeared content with its new borders and had no plan for territorial expansion"
---Initial: (p. 157) area intended to pass into Israeli… statements reveal the ambiguity over this subject. Replacement: (Concerning the)area intended to pass into Israeli… (Ben Gurions') statements reveal the ambiguity over this subject. The reason: During this period, when Ben Gurion related to what part of the west bank should be conquered, his statements were ambiguous and contradicting. It is important, since at this specific cabinet meeting he proposed attacking Latrun only, but added that if the enemy would react in full scale, then the IDF will conquer specified large parts of the west bank.
- As for the section beginning, I proposed a modified text: After the ten-day campaign during the 1948 war, the Israelis were military superior to their enemies and the Cabinet subsequently considered where and when to attack next. On 24 September, an incursion made by the Palestinian irregulars in the Latrun sector (killing 23 Israeli soldiers) precipitated the debate. On 26 September, David Ben-Gurion put his argument to the Cabinet to conquer Latrun, and if the enemy would react in full scale, then the IDF will conquer specified large parts of the west bank. The motion was rejected by 5 votes to 7 after discussions. Some sources claim that in this meeting Ben Gurion proposed conquering large part or all of the west bank. Thirteen years later, Ben Burion described the cabinet's decision as bechiya ledorot (« a source of lament for generations ») considering Israel may have lost forever the Old City of Jerusalem.

The "bechiya ledorot" issue is unsubstantiated in both Ben Gurion's diary and in the Cabinet protocol. In the cabinet meeting, Ben Gurion reacted to what he had been just told by a delegation from Jerusalem, and placed a plan that called for a limited action aimed at the conquest of Latrun, and not for an all-out offensive. On other occasions, Ben Gurion statements revealed an ambiguity over this subject.

- The reasons:
---- The "bechiya ledorot" raised by Ben Gurion 13 years after the war, for his political reasons. Since the cabinet meeting protocol was not available at the time, the historians adapted this claim of BG. However, the cabinet protocols were uncovered during the 80's, and the historians realized the big difference. i.e. Ben Gurion proposed a limited attack on Latrun , and in case of a full scale enemy response, conquering specific large parts of the west bank.
---- Apparently some historians are not updated, and still following the "bechiya ledorot" version, so those 2 versions should be presented in the article. However, it is undisputed that the "bechiya ledorot" issue was not mentioned in the cabinet protocol and in BG diaries, thus there is no need to attribute it to a specific [[wp:rs]. (unsigned edit by Ykantor 12:27, July 23, 2015‎)
Either make these into separate and full quotes, or remove the fragments, whatever, but I think it is clear and agreed that the quote as it stands now is not good. Debresser (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
This was done, thank you WarKosign. Do we need to keep this Rfc, or all understand now that this is not the way to use citation templates? Debresser (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you can withdraw it yourself as the nominator. There doesn't seem to be anyone else objecting. WarKosign 06:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with the modifications that are suggested by Ykantor.
Zero0000 has given the primary source 2 sections above. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

No citations in the final paragraph on his tenure as Prime Minister[edit]

It's been a real wiki-walk to get here at 2:30 AM. I noticed that there are no cited sources for the paragraph about him resigning for personal reasons. I would add a citation needed but due to the Arbcom thing I cannot- I do, for the record, agree with the Arbcom decision, seems like a very good call. I would however like to know more about his personal reasons either through elaboration on the wiki itself or citing sources. Thanks to anyone who can help! FPTI (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Here it says "David Ben-Gurion did not fully explain why he was quitting the government". There are speculations but no definite answer. WarKosign 09:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Ben-Gurion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit request: 1st Prime Minister of Israel[edit]

Per the comment on Talk:Benjamin Netanyahu, please amend the infobox so that it describes Ben-Gurion as the 1st Prime Minister (not the 1st and 3rd). This will make it consistent with Wikipedia practice for other parliamentary democracies (e.g. Canada, Australia, India, Italy) whereby the number assigned to a prime minister reflects the fact that the subject is the Nth different individual to hold the office. I am requesting similar edits to Netanyahu and Rabin to ensure consistency.JayZed (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, as a suggestion, it might be better to write in the InfoBox: "1st Prime-Minister of Israel (served two, non-consecutive terms)". I will let someone else do this edit if they agree with the proposal. Cheers.Davidbena (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 April 2017[edit]

Per source, I ask somebody to complete the sentence: "Though supportive of Zionism, David also described himself as an irreligious person who developed atheism in his youth and who demonstrated no great sympathy for the elements of traditional Judaism, though he quoted the Bible extensively in his speeches and writings.[1]"--Nimbleron88 (talk) 05:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Debresser (talk)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 April 2017[edit]

He was a believer. Please somebody remove the category "Jewish atheist" per text in article: In later time, Ben-Gurion refused to define himself as "secular," and he regarded himself a believer in God. In a 1970 interview, he described himself as a pantheist, and stated that "I don't know if there's an afterlife. I think there is."[1] During an interview with the Leftist weekly Hotam two years before his death, he revealed, "I too have a deep faith in the Almighty. I believe in one God, the omnipotent Creator. My consciousness is aware of the existence of material and spirit . . . [But] I cannot understand how order reigns in nature, in the world and universe – unless there exists a superior force. This supreme Creator is beyond my comprehension . . . but it directs everything."[2]--181.95.28.35 (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Based on that interview, I wouldn't say he "described himself as a pantheist". The second source needs a subscription, so we should use {{Subscription required}}. I updated the references a bit. Debresser (talk) 07:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Lester Kinsolving (January 31, 1970). "An Interview with David Ben-Gurion". Retrieved April 14, 2017. 
  2. ^ Zvi Zameret (Fall 1999). "Judaism in Israel: Ben-Gurion's Private Beliefs and Public Policy". Israel Studies. 4 (2): 64–89. doi:10.1353/is.1999.0016.  (subscription required)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Ben-Gurion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)