Talk:1952 raid on Beit Jala

Untitled

Why the removal of 1952. The date gave the significance. As it is the first major reprisal raid. Also it's not in IsraelAshley kennedy3 (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the move, assuming that's what you're talking about. It's not about the importance of the year, it's about clear Wikipedia guidelines called Wikipedia:Naming conventions. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Article for deletion

The person who created this article has already placed this information, plucked verbatim from a book, on the Beit Jala page. The material was contested and removed several times from that page as non-notable, garbled, and put there to deliberately to stir up controversy. Wikpedia is not a garbage dump. The creation of this article follows a pattern that this editor has employed several times, which is to begin new articles with material that has been rejected. I vote for deletion.--Gilabrand (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with many of your concerns. I suggest that you reinstate the AfD notice and create an AfD sub-page to involve the general Wikipedia audience in this, because I don't think we will get anywhere arguing on this talk page. If you do not take this course of action, I will not pursue it either and instead work on improving the article. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I keep promising to stay away from articles that only end up in edit wars with pathetic people who think they can rewrite the history of the world on the strength of some book they have at home. I don't believe this particular article is worthy of anyone's time. It is a "cut & paste" and most probably a copyright violation.--Gilabrand (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps try that AfD again then? So far though, I've made some progress in improving this article. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ynhockey has made a commendable effort to salvage this article, but I think Gilabrand is right. A summary of the incident should be merged into Beit Jala, and the rest of this article should be put out of its misery. -- Nudve (talk) 04:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Guess where I started it off??? but then denial took over and now all you're trying to use is outright POV...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Benny Morris: Israel's Border Wars

This seems to be an important source, but Google Books doesn't have a preview of pages 214-215, which have the bulk of the information on the incident, as far as I can tell. Can someone provide me these pages? Right now I'm reworking parts of this articles based on Morris. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

they're showing up fine for me under Googel books. If you're still having problams seeing them, I can e-mail a screen shot to you. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Names of the officers involved

This article talks at great lengths about the officers involved in this affair, although it only mentions their last names and ranks. If the full names of the officers cannot be established, and notability cannot be asserted, I think that their mentions should be kept to a minimum, once or twice at the most in the entire article. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Elmo Hutchison....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Other rapes, murders section?

What's this have to do with the article? It's pointless, seems like it's making a statement about the "harsh" brutality of the Muslims against the Christians in Beit Jala and is distracting from the main text. It should be either removed or relocated to a different "parent" article rather than this "specific" one. Maybe something on the plight of Christians from the West Bank in the past few decades or from Palestine in the last century. If there is no objection, I will delete the section. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it was a (somewhat disruptive) attempt to make the point raised in the "Article for deletion" section above. -- Nudve (talk) 05:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to remove it. It's completely irrelevant. Look at this:

Other Christians who tried to stop Fatah gunmen in Beit Jala from firing into the Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo in the first years of the intifada later reported that they had been beaten or threatened by the gunmen.

The same gunmen are also responsible for the rape and murder of two Christian teenage sisters from the Amr family. The assailants then claimed that the sisters had been murdered because they were "prostitutes" and had been "collaborating" with Israeli security forces - a claim that has been strongly denied by the victims' relatives and many residents of the town. "The gangsters murdered the two sisters so that they would not tell anyone about the rape," says a family member. "Some of the murderers were later killed by the Israeli army, but others are now living in Europe after they had sought refuge in the Church of Nativity. It's absurd that Muslim men who rape and murder Christian girls are given political asylum in Christian countries like Ireland, Spain and Italy."

C'mon now guys, this is blatant POV and has no relevance to the article at all. What does any of this have to do with an Israeli reprisal raid on a Palestinian city 60 years ago. (BTW, who exactly carried out the raid, IDF, underground group, random Israelis). --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Name of article and perpetrator

It should properly be called 'The Beit Jala raid' to fit NPOV requirements. To add reprisal is to follow Israeli historical usage, which tends to view of actions of this type as reprisals, just as (and it is in the documentation. In a spiral of violence, each side regards its acts as reprisals). This seems commonsensical. By the way Morris plainly says,Al Ameer son, the IDF was behind the raid. It was standard at that time to blame settlers for IDF secret operations (Qibya etc.), and Shertok/Sharett himself acknowledged as much, though he later changed his attitude to these measures rather drastically (1954 onwards)Nishidani (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. In one place (p. 215) Morris says "An IDF platoon attacked", but in another (p.217) he says "Beit Jala left a spoor of uncertainty about its authorship among Western observers". Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Morris is quite precise (See n.16 p.215 on Ben-Gurion's diary entry indicating the idea of a reprisal against Beit Jala, and note 21 p.216, on the inability of, for one, British observers to understand the workings of Israeli decision-making). He opens the section identifying the IDF as the executor. He then shifts to discussing Western observers' perplexity. There is absolutely no contradiction. Read the Qibya page, among several: what the inner circles knew was one thing, what the public and foreigners were told was another. This is standard for most governments, everywhere. We're not to judge. Morris is RS and Morris identifies the IDF as the perpetrator. It should properly be in the lead.Nishidani (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

n.16 p.215 says BG was presented with the idea of a reprisal raid by the IDF, but does not say that BG authorized such action, nor that such action followed. Similarly, n.21 merely says the British ambassador mistakingly thought that Ramati had authorized such action. Neither note says the IDF was responsible, and you are reading too much into something that is not there. In the absense of other evidence, and in the face of Israeli denial and the documented Western observers' uncertainty, the best we can do is say that Morris believes it to be the work of the IDF. But this speculation does not belong in the lead. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's see: Morris says it was the IDF. Nathan Pecovits in The Long Armistice says it was the IDF, according to Google Books.[1] Hutchinson says that the Israelis didn't even bother to deny responsibility, and that Israel didn't launch any search for the mysterious raiders because "People carrying out official orders are seldom brought to trial." A few contemporaneous British and American observers were unsure of who was responsible for the attack. There are no secondary sources raising doubts about the IDF's culpability. To call the IDF involvement "speculation" is wholly unjustified, under both Wikipedia policy and common sense. It's valid information cited to multiple reliable sources. <eleland/talkedits> 03:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Morris says it was the IDF, but also quotes contemporaneous British and American who say, explicitly, that they don't think the IDF did it. Hutchinson says that the Israelis didn't even bother to deny responsibility, but since he gets wrong the actual Israeli statement and vote on this matter, to say his credibility is suspect is putting it mildly. It is instructive to look at a somewhat parallel case, the AMIA Bombing. Not only are there multiple sources that say Hezbollah was responsible, there are actual Hezbollah members who were named and indicted in a court of law for this terrorist act. But does the Wikipedia article state that Hezbollah did it? No, because Hezbollah denies it, despite all evidence to the contrary. When you are ready to edit AMIA Bombing and/or Hezbollah to say they were behind that bombing, we'll modify this article accordingly. Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The AMIA Bombing is a redherring, to use GHcool's favorite idiom. It is sub iudice, and until evidence is in, one cannot write a definitive verdict ('definitive' verdicts were written on Pan Am Flight 103. After new evidence came in, all responsible historians have to go back and change their language, or the certainty of sources predating the emergence of new evidence is suspended). We are dealing with an historical event several decades ago, where the evidence available leads the foremost authority, and several others, to make a call, as the work of an 'IDF platoon'. The IDF hasn't, unlike the brigades blamed for a Tantura massacre, sued the author of the claim, in this case Benny Morris.

Permit me a moment of frankness. Benny Morris, our foremost historian on that period, doesn't write casually. When there is doubt (Tantura) he is absolutely against phrasing inferences in the syntax of certainty. Throughout the Border Wars book, he writes as he has written here, describing in the text the conclusions his archival work has led him to on what really happened(which we are not allowed to challenge, as you appear to do), and then adds details about foreign reactions, often in footnotes, though not with regard to Beit Jala. To give one of many instances, when he discusses the killing of a rabbinical student and his niece in Kiryat Moshe in Jerusalem on April 20, 1953, he identifies the killer as an Arab infiltrator in the text. In the note (92 p.232) to the passage, he adds that the American consulate’s view, based on a close investigation following the case, was that the killers were either infiltrators or a Jewish criminal gang. Morris is sure of the identification, since it is that made by the Jewish archives, and therefore he is explicit in saying 'Arab infiltrator'. He is scrupulous enough however to then remark that that foreigners doubted this version.

One could question Morris' work (I've personally noted this tendency in his books, but don't allow my perception to worry the articles. It's not properly my business to editorialize) by saying he constantly adopts a line of interpretation which privileges an Israeli perspective. But neither you here, nor (Ashley kennedy3 at Tantura, are doing a service to Wiki by editorializing on Morris's choice of perspective or language, noting something in the RS which might be used to undercut other editors, who simply cite that text. A purblind editor could fuss over the suspicion some entertained that it was an Israeli boyfriend who killed the girl whose death motivated the reprisal, or Jewish thugs in the Kiryat Moshe case. But for the moment, we only have Morris for this, and must respect his call.

Indeed, the lead, when last checked, admits it was the IDF since 'Israeli' is the adjective used to qualify the raid. Perhaps it escaped the editor who put it in, but in such contexts, 'Israeli', 'American', 'Chinese' automatically signifies government institutions, and not the national identity of persons possibly involved. When settlerrs raid off their own bat, it is not an 'Israeli' raid, but a raid by Israelis. When Laszlo Toth smashed into the Pietà, it was not an 'Australian' act of vandalism, it was an act performed by an Australian. When an infiltrator from Jordan killed inside Israel, it was not a 'Jordanian action', it was the work of an infiltrator from Jordan. When Japanese terrorists attacked Lod airport, it was not a 'Japanese raid' but a raid by Japanese terrorists. When Baruch Goldstein murdered 29 Arabs in Hebron, it was not an 'Israeli' action, but the work of an Israeli. When non-state ethnic actors are involved in violence, the rule is different (Tamil raids in Sri Lanka, Kurdish attacks on Turks, Palestinian raids). The text already allows (no one has apparently objected) that this was an 'Israeli' raid. Our primary source (and two others, as Eleland notes) say an Israeli platoon conducted the raid, hence 'Israeli raid'. The reading you dispute from Morris is already implicit in the text, you simply do not wish Morris' actual words to be used. Official cross-border retaliatory raids were part of Israeli policy since September 1949, as Morris documents. To caste doubt on Morris' judgement, by referring to the confused opinions of contemporary outsiders not privy to the inner workings of these actions, is to show partiality for a verdict that suits one side, interferes with RS, and is not conducive to proper editorial drafting.Nishidani (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• I understand your point about Morris and I agree he is not carefull enough.

But I think rather than "systematically" chosing the "Israeli pov", he choses the "cynism" pov's or the "let's-not-be-candid" pov. Eg, for Deir Yassin massacre, he doesn't chose the Israeli perspective and say that people were murdered in the quarry when this information is challenged by others (such as Milstein). In 1948, he even talks about "ethnic cleansing" about some operations of the second half of the exodus (with some nuances - he says : what would be called today an ethnic cleansing).

From both these (important) exemples, I think we can conclude that if he is pov-ed, it is not a pro-Israeli one.

• For the other comments, I agree with you. Ceedjee (talk) 13:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, as often, I mislead people inadvertently by a long argument that meanders a bit. My point was that privately I often get the impression that his otherwise minute and austerely factual historicism reveals a determined sense to read things in one way (favouring Israel) when a superior historian (how few there are!) would give equal weight to alternative readings where they exist. That is Morris' POV, to which he is completely entitled. That his scrupulousness has led him to illuminate many dark aspects that tell badly against the older Zionist narrative is not to be questioned. He hasn't allowed his Zionism to get in the way of showing us whatever the archives reveal, independently of consequences, the mark of an historian of distinction (as opposed to Efraim Karsh!, a good historian, but not a great one). It's a bit like Jabotinsky, for whom, like many 'pro-Palestinians' in the academic world, one entertains considerable respect for, precisely because they call a spade a spade, don't wage useless battles dictated by 'honour' but argue from a strong pragmnatism (I dislike pragmatism, but when reading history, it's best to know that most things happen from the consequences of that pragmatic opportunism which is the secunda natura of the politicians who call the shots). Both do not shilly-shally over every niggling point with that sense that, to yield on something, would mean the whole Zionist narrative will cave in. They were perceptive enough to ignore this: to argue in this extremely defensive way belongs more to the mediocrity of political spindoctoring. Morris' POV is what all historians have, exactly, a POV, and he cannot be held to ransom for that.

A small point on vigilantes. That term is actually not NPOV, but reflects Israeli spin-doctor (ante litteram) language from the period we are discussing, which even Morris thinks plainly 'spurious' (pp.189ff.) In any case in English usage, vigilantes belong to a formally or informally constituted group that consistently acts to patrol areas where security is bad, and not to a spontaneous group carrying out a vendetta, which is the ostensible motivation attributed to the act by contemporary sources that pushed the settlers-did-it line. Amitiés Nishidani (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"Vigilante: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vigilante) If the raid was indeed carried out by citizens and not the IDF, then the word fits perfectly. The border was not properly guarded, there was no Jordanian action to prevent infiltration, and a group of people banded together to take the law into their own hands. By the way, your analysis of Morris was interesting. I like your writing style--Gilabrand (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gilabrand. But I would still insist that the term is not NPOV. Where is the evidence that there was a (I) volunteer committee? (2)that such a committee was established because the IDF which from September 1949 had made reprisals a standard policy did not act in this case, though Ben-Gurion had entertained just such a reprisal? (3). A vigiliante group, as your WM definition shows, is organized to 'suppress and punish crime summarily'. It may appear an obscure nuance of construal but that definitely means in English a coherent group that acts over time, consistently, to put down crime in lieu of proper legal redress, not an impromptu grouping of a few people to retaliate in revenge on one occasion. What has, further, dissatisfaction with due process of law to do with the presumed actions, when these cases were resolved typically according to Morris by IDF actions, often conducted informally even without informing the Foreign Ministry? Write this in another language, but this is an improper use of a term of the time Morris, our source, identifies as almost invariably 'spurious'. It was, Morris argues, standard for the Israeli government in this period to dissociate itself from the reprisals, by attributing them to settlers and vigilantes. To use 'vigilantes' therefore, contextually, is to fish out the cliché du jour at that time used by government spin-doctors to respond to foreign criticism from the government and the IDF. Is my computer screen acting up, or is that Arabic leaflet engaged in an act of vagrancy for roughly a foot to the right? Nishidani (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

After reading almost all of the arguments above, I have to say that I'm not at all convinced that the IDF did it. At the most, we can say that Morris believes that the IDF were responsible. As Candian Monkey stated, Morris's own evidence (namely, that Ben Gurion considered a reprisal raid) do not prove anything, so there is little reason to give Morris's conclusions precedence over the conclusions of contemporary British diplomats or the like. I am willing to write a proper paragraph explaining the dispute behind the perpetrator's identity, but to claim that the IDF did it as fact is a violation of WP:NPOV. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Then we have a classic problem of methodology. We are challenging Morris's description, which is the only one we have, by noting a specious contradiction between what Morris writes, attributing the raid to the IDF, based on archival sources, and a deep familiarity with the intricate history of the period, and what he describes as the impressions of foreign diplomats, appended as a comment because every such act has political consequences for Israel abroad (there was a cutting off of reprisals when Eisenhower was elected: did 'settlers' understand the need to stop being vigilantes because undue reprisals might have created the 'wrong' impression for newly elected members of Congress?) not au fait with the history of Israeli cabinet decisions, IDF policies, and with no profound insider knowledge of the territory and its occupants. To challenge Morris on this is to question his authority and judgement by an improper editorial critique of a pseudo-contradiction, a contradiction that is only apparent to those unfamiliar with his works, which, as can be shown, esp. in that book, he describes incidents according to what his research has revealed, and only then refers to the various perceptions, confusions and differences of judgement made by foreign consular officials. To an outsider it looks, I'm afraid, as though, in this case, Morris is cherrypicked, so that the version that he supports as an authority, our authority and RS, which unequivocably lays the responsability on an organ of the Israeli state, is neatly dodged so that readers get an impression our source has no verdict, and that it may well be, that foreign diplomats observers with limited information at the time perhaps knew more than what a modern historian, fluent in his country's archives, knows. I wrote above about an excess of partriotic defensiveness in wiki-editing. I can't see, my friends, what is to be gained by sideslipping Morris's clear language, other than a misbegotten attempt to keep the state's record clear of unhappy innuendoes. History just isn't written that way, and editors should be as fearless as the Morrises of this world are. Depressing. I suggest, unless people are amenable to revision, that Gilabrand ask Morris directly if he sticks by his identification of the raiders with the IDF, or is willing to revise it in reprints. Nishidani (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

when I wrote vigilantes in the lead, it was mainly to fit to this sentence which is sourced by Morris in the article : "Benny Morris believes the raid was carried out by an IDF platoon, but according to a letter by J.E. Chadwick, a diplomat at the British Embassy in Tel Aviv, the British thought it had been the work of Israeli vigilantes"

I also sent several emails to Benny Morris. He answered at each time but very fast. I doubt he answers a question about such a detail... We should keep the Morris'card for more important matters.

Rgds, amitiés, Shalom, Salam, A+ LOL Ceedjee (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, you seem to be implying that WP:RS overrides WP:NPOV. FYI, it really does not. When there is a dispute about a certain fact, both sides should always be represented, per WP:NPOV. The only exception is WP:UNDUE, which does not fit here, because Morris is the only person who states that the IDF conducted the raid. If Morris wasn't such an authorative historian, I'd even write off his version as undue weight and suggest we stuck to the official version. However, because Morris is a good historian, his version should be taken into account and represented in this dispute - nothing more, nothing less. Morris's claim that the IDF did it, as far as I can tell, is the only one of its kind, so we can explain what the contemporary observers thought as well as what Morris believes. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Ynhockey. When you write:'there is little reason to give Morris's conclusions precedence over the conclusions of contemporary British diplomats'.

I refer to what our mutual friend Ceedjee insists on, the primacy of secondary over primary sources for editors in Wiki. If the principle you enunciate were correct, it would mean, mutatis mutandis that in writing of the Roman period, we should treat Ronald Syme's views in his various masterpieces, The Roman Revolution or The Augustan Aristocracy as having no precedence over say, Tacitus's testimony. Do this, and all intelligent historiography goes up in flames.

It means many things, the idea you invoke. For example, the text runs:

According to Israel, the perpetrators were Said Salah Jam'an, Jamil Muhammad Mujarrab and Muhammad Mansi, three residents of Beit Jala.[2]

If your intepretation is correct, then one is obliged to add the other evidence from Benny Morris, and round it off thus.

'According to Israel, the perpetrators were Said Salah Jam'an, Jamil Muhammad Mujarrab and Muhammad Mansi, three residents of Beit Jala. Western diplomats were not convinced infiltrators were responsible. The US consul-general wrote that ’It was never shown that the act was not committed by her Israeli boy-friend’

Nishidani (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it was the IDF is not undisputable, as the IDF never assumed responsibility. Since Morris is our only secondary source, it shouldn't necessarily be accepted as the absolute truth. However, "Benny Morris believes" implies that he's merely speculating. Better phrasing might be "According to historian Benny Morris" or "Historian Benny Morris writes".

I also agree that it should be renamed, per Nishidani. -- Nudve (talk) 03:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Nathan Pecovits in The Long Armistice also says it was the IDF.[2] <eleland/talkedits> 03:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Indent. I also agree with Nudve and Nishidani about the rename to Beit Jala raid. "Reprisal raid" is like saying in revenge of the murder of an Israeli woman by Arabs the Israelis had to respond by killing 7 Arab civilians mostly women and children in their homes. Whether Israelis or others thought it was justified or not it's still presenting a pro-Israeli POV of the incident. Likewise, naming it the Beit Jala massacre (over 4 civilians were intentionally killed) is a pro-Palestinian POV of the incident. Beit Jala raid is as NPOV and honest as it gets. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Generally, I think relying on snapshots of books should be avoided. However, since it does seem to be a historical consensus, I retract my suggestion until other sources are provided.

As for the name change, I agree with Al Ameer son, although my reasoning was lack of historical context to explain the selection of the word "reprisal". -- Nudve (talk) 04:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

If all secondary sources say it was an Israeli raid performed by Israeli soldiers, then we cannot discuss this.

We have to respect NPoV between all wp:rs secondary sources.

We don't have the knowledge to judge by ourselves such this or that primary sources should have been taken into account by this or that historian or scholar.

If he rejected this, we must have his reasons.

In case of reasonnable doubt, as maybe here, I would then write as suggested : "Benny Morris writes..." or "According to Benny Morris, ...".

In such cases, I sometimes add a section named "controversies". Here we could add one about the perpetrators and explain *at the time* there were disagreement whether to know if they were vigilantes or soldiers.

Ceedjee (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well (1) Does anyone have objections to a change of title, simply to the 'Beit Jala raid'? I think Nudve, Al Ameer son, myself, and I presume Eleland, see this as a reasonable NPOV requirement, but it would be nice to see a solid consensus on this. Ynhockey? Gilabrand? Ceedjee? Canadian monkey? (4/4)

Nudve, Al Ameer son, Nishidani, Eleland, Ceedjee, Canadian monkey, (see below) have no objection to a name change removing 'reprisal'.

(2)Morris (twice actually: earlier he refers to an 'IDF retaliatory raid' p.61), Nathan Pecovits and Hutchison are 3 secondary sources that identify the raid as an IDF operation. Do we have any secondary sources that still argue the 'vigilante' theory? (Nudve, from Morris's account the IDF never assumed much public responsibility for many raids they did perform. Arguments from silence can go both ways, naturally)
Nishidani (talk) 10:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be left as is. The term "Reprisal raids" is associated with a specific period in the Arab-Israeli conflict (Benny Morris, as you can see, has devoted a whole book to them). From the outset, I thought the material here should be incorporated in the Beit Jala article, but since others opposed this, I worked on it to provide context and a more balanced picture. To change the name of the article to "Beit Jala raid" a) removes it from that historical context and b)creates a disambiguation problem. There was another IDF operation in Beit Jala to stop the shooting on Gilo a couple of years ago.--Gilabrand (talk) 11:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

'1952 Beit Jala Raid', then? Personally I have no opinion one way or another on the merge or separate page issue, and would not vote on it either way. There is no denying that in Israeli policy these acts were judged as reprisals. Since, as Morris documents, these raids were designed as reactions to hit 'Arabs' rather indiscriminately, and often did not, with any rational consistency, kill or injure the terrorists or gangs whose activities justified the 'retaliation' but killed or maimed the civilian population, which was held responsible collectively for the behaviour of criminal elements in its midst, from an Arab perspective, they aren't read as reprisals. Glubb and the Jordanians and even foreign observers interpreted the policy at times as an attempt to provoke war, not as some governmental eye-for-eye retaliatory practice (which paradoxically, as Morris fails to note while noting it, was what the new wave of Mizraim settled on the frontiers would have thought just, according to the condescending Ben-Gurion who failed to note how ironical this attitude to the new aliyah underclass was, given the nature of his reprisal policy). They were, to many who got in the way of Israeli actions, cross-border assaults often more murderous than the cross-border infiltrations into Israel. The 'reprisals' were, Morris notes, not particularly 'efficient' but kept up as a 'deterrence' against an imagined large-scale return of the Palestinian diaspora that might have escalated, in IDF thinking, had constant Israeli 'retaliations' not been sustained. They were signals sent to various governments. To use the word 'reprisal' in the title is to repeat the Israeli POV, and suppress a non-Israeli reading of that period. It is as patent a violation of NPOV as one can get, in my view, to introduce an article with a title that comes directly from the accepted Israeli description of the event. (Personally I found the book disappointing. Not up to his snuff. I am working on the Amin al-Husayni page, and if you examine the way Morris deals with the archival evidence pp.57ff., which cover an extensive series of annotations that, as he says, presume that figure had a hand in everything, you cannot but note that, in 4 detailed pages, Morris scrupulously documents the usual suspicions, without coming up with a grain of conclusive evidence. Anyone can see the problem. Al-Husayni is the standard Moriarty of the piece, as Morris acknowledges, but Morris's own Sherlockian perspicacity, raking over the iinnumerable spoors of evidence, still fails to bring up a smoking gun. Yet this failure doesn't stop Morris from drawing the same conclusion made by the Zionist literature on al-Husayni which he is otherwise explicitly sardonic about. He can't see past his Zionist upbringing, he just fine-tunes it with footnotes, that nuance it with a certain latitudinarian complacency). Regards Nishidani (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no probelm with the proposed name change. As to the question of who were the perpetrators, we have Isreal's explcit denial of IDF involvement (not, as Nishidani incorrectly states, "Arguments from silence"), we have Morris noting the contemporary observers believed it to be the work of vigilantes, so we can't state as fcat that the IDF did it. We can stae that some concluded it was the IDf, while others believed it was not the IDF. Nishidani's protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, the AMIA Bombing is a veyr close parallel for how we handle these things on Wikipedia. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. You refer to primary sources and analyse them. We need WP:RS secondary sources that would attribute this to vigilantes. Else this remains a (little) controversy and anecdotical.

For the title change, I don't think it minds much. raid or reprisal : everything is in the core of the article. Ceedjee (talk) 06:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

We have a secondary source, Morris, which is the source I am referring to. He analyzed primary sources (British and American communications of the time) - and notes that their conclusion is different than his. In addition, we have Israeli denial. Under these circumstances - we can't state as fact that the IDF did it - see AMIA Bombing for a similar example. Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

We have 3 secondary sources identifying the IDF as responsible. If you argument is correct and stands, however, you have to add to the text by adhering coherently to the principle enunciated, as I remarked to Ynhockey, that a foreign source or two was not convinced the rapists were outsiders, and noted her Israeli boyfriend had not been cleared of suspicion. So the text you are proposing is (a) Benny Morris, Hutchison & Pecovits lay the responsibility on the IDF, but foreigners were not convinced (2) Israeli police identified the killers as Mansi gang, but foreigners were not convinced it was not her boyfriend. Correct me if I am wrong, in these deductions, for consistency of principle is of the essence. Nishidani (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, that's the way we do things on Wikipedia. I have a few tweaks to the text you propose above (e.g.: in the case of the raid, it's not "foreigners were not convinced", but "Israel denied responsibility, and foreigners were believed it was vigilantes"), but in principle, that is how it needs to be phrased. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

In addition to what Canadian Monkey said, I'd like to add that I cannot find any instance where Hutchison (the original source we used for this article) lays the responsibility on the IDF. That was one of my reasons for objection in fact, that even the pro-Arab Hutchison doesn't lay the blame on the IDF, and provides the whole context. Can you point to the page where Hutchison claims that it's the IDF? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Mea culpa, Ynhockey. Sheer unexcusable lapse on my part, vaguely confusing Elelend's list of three, when he says Morris and Pecovits confirm it was the IDF, and Hutchison only said the IDF did not deny responsibility. So, you are warmly invited to imagine myself akimbo at a virtual wall, and plug away (headshot please, that is the real culprit!). Apologies if my amnesia caused you to waste further time checking Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean that we must now include lots of information on armed Israeli attacks to show that it could also be armed Israelis rather than IDF, although no other armed Israeli attack by civilian Israeli included the use of machine guns and demolition charges...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

45 armed men infiltrating Jordanian territory on a raid and leaving notices behind showing it was a reprisal raid in their eyes. Some one organised the printing, someone organised the machine guns, someone organised the demolition charges, and someone organised the men.... Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

We're just saying what a slew of secondary sources say. For more information, please read WP:SYNTH. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

About the title, does anyone still object to it? It's clearly POV. I don't want to be redundant, but having "reprisal" in the name is saying Israel had to avenge the death of an innocent Jewish woman by killing 7 innocent Arab civilians who had nothing to do with the murder of the woman. The reader should decide whether it was a reprisal or not. Does anyone object to the move to "1952 Beit Jala raid"? I honestly don't see why anyone would object to a perfectly neutral and accurate title. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As the Israeli line is that it was in reprisal for the tittle is an accurate reflection of facts and clearly NPOV. It is POV to call it anything else....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Irony, of course, and a caricature of Wiki NPOV, which is a neutral synthesis of opposing views, and requires that the title itself reflect neither of the (two) perspectives in the body of the article. I think, on last count, Nudve, Al Ameer son, Nishidani, Eleland, Ceedjee, Canadian monkey. Gilabrand is opposed. Unless I've missed something, Ynhockey has not yet formally decided either way. I think this is a fairly straightforward issue, and 'reprisal' should be removed as reflecting the Israeli perspective.Nishidani (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, it was Ashley, who has set herself up as the saviour and redeemer of Arab honor, is the one who named the article in the first place.--Gilabrand (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The plot thickens! You and Ashley, from opposed positions, then, defend the minority view, which not only I, but a majority think, is not in conformity with NPOV. I hope you both reconsider, particularly since those six or seven of us who would take out 'reprisal' are more or less equally on opposite sides in regard to the general worldviews informing editors on I/P articles. Nishidani (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As even Morris uses the term "revenge" and tals of the pricipal of "yetzer" in relation to the Israeli raiding from 1950 to 1956. Avi Shlaim uses the terms "revenge", "retaliation" and "retribution". The leaflets reflect the retaliatory nature of the raid.....speeches in the UN use the term "retaliation" in relation to the whole series of raids....General Bennike speaks of "retaliation", "retaliatory action", "cycle of reprisals", "reprisal raids", "chain reaction of retaliatory measures", etc....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Would it be uncalled for if I went ahead and moved the article to 1952 Beit Jala raid? The majority of editors from both "sides" (or whatever you would call it) agree that we should and only 2 editors (which surprisingly have completely different views) disagree. I'll move it now and we could discuss it from there. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Just adding a bit of even handedness

Seeing as the article was only from one POV, I've added a few things to balance it up. Out of the 5 armed Israeli incursions up to 1953 none used demolition charges, grenades and machine guns.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 02:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Morris

Morris was referring to the years 1949 to 1956 not to the years 1949 to 1952. The proposals were made in 1953 when the Israeli raids were getting larger.

Please read Morris with un-preconceived POV. It was also brought up that Israel should reduce the armed raids but Morris doesn't really go into that side of the meetings...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not your place to decide where Morris is right, where he is wrong and where he should have written something else. Your edits fall in the category of WP:SYN. Your disruptive editing has been reported.--Gilabrand (talk) 11:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is...... The primary source clearly states 24 November 1953. Morris is clearly using spin....or getting sever trouble with his dates. 1953 came in between 1949 and 1956 yet was later than the Beit Jala raid, Morris' brackets on dates by using "at this time" is for 1949-1956 and not for the Beit Jala raid.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

As Gilabrand says, it is not your job (or mine) to decide whether Morris was right. At the most, his views can be written as 'according to Morris' if there are opposing statements from other secondary sources. Primary sources don't count in this argument, as I told you on numerous occasions - even Eleland and Nishidani agree with this. If you provide other reliable secondary sources disputing Morris's claims, I'll glady agree to represent all views (except in cases of undue weight). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is "my job". Mindless un-questioning obedience leads to flat worlds and creationist theories. Morris' interpretations and loose wording can be challenged at any time. Other scholars have also noted that Benny is prone to errors....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Israeli POV

NPOV does not, nor ever has meant only the official Israel version as the only acceptable version. In fact the official Israeli version is POV because by definition it is only one point of view...Benny is not a NPOV source....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

What's your point? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead section; you're parading the Israeli version as though it is the official version. The official version is that the Israelis would have been better employed investigating the rape on the Israeli side of the ceasefire line. Your POV is showing, as is Benny's....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 06:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

Ashley Kennedy just reverted my edits to the lead with a misleading explanation (for example, no explanation was provided as to why the casualties elaboration was restored). Here are the reasons I made the changes to the lead (already stated in edit summary, but I will clairfy further):

1. The reason I removed the word 'Palestinian' was because it's an anachronism in this case. Today those people would've been known as Palestinians, but at the time mostly Palestinian Jews were referred to as Palestinians, while Arabs were referred to as Arabs. Also, the civilians killed in this raid might have been as Jordanian as they were Palestinians (no distinction was made at the time). But don't take my word for it: consider that none of the sources we used for the article mention the word 'Palestinian' in relation to the killed civilians. I will stand corrected of course if I had missed something and this is shown to be false.
2. The reason I removed the precise casualty description is because these things don't go in lead sections. It mostly has to do with Wikipedia conventions and consistency. Consider Operation Entebbe, Ma'alot massacre, Qibya massacre, and many more.

If no objections are given, I will restore my edits.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ynhockey here. "Seven Arab civilians were killed" should suffice as a lead statement; more specificity on causalities are described later in the article body. Remember, it's just a lead. As for the "Palestinian" portion, I'd rather remove it. It's a sort of difficult issue since "Palestinian" is not describing an ethnic group but a national group and since Beit Jala and the West Bank were a part of Jordan at that time, someone could argue that they were "Jordanian Arabs". I think just saying they were "Arabs" is the safest way to go. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The lead section should not have the Israeli version of events, but you still put it there. While the lead section had as much rapist POV then the age sex of the targets should also be noted. The POV throughout the article giving only the Israeli version was outrageous. If the article is to be about only the Israeli claim then please start a new article call the Israeli claims about the Beit Jala reprisal raid. The number of words that had been devoted to the purely Israeli version far exceeded the official version. The presumption in the opening section that the Israeli version is the only version should be shrunk to less than the official version. I have very strong objections to Israelicentric POV being paraded as though it is NPOV. It should be made clear as to what is Israeli version and what is the official version.

The use of the term Palestinian Arab. The modern term is Palestinian. The British Mandate term is Palestinian Arab. The anachronistic term is Syrian. From the British Mandate there were Palestinian Jews and Palestinian Arabs. The particular clan who had been conducting raids in the Jerusalem/Hebron corridor were refugees from the area that became Israel, there were not a Beit Jala clan. The people should be referred to as "Palestinian Arabs" to denote the refugee status from Walaja. It is anachronistic to refer to "Arabs" as it signifies only Arabic speakers and not cultural background. It is akin to calling Israeli Druze; Hebrews as they speak Hebrew. Referring to "Arabs" is neither correct nor descriptive.

Beit Jala was not part of Jordan. The attempt at annexation was halted by none recognition. Or in the same way you would be referring to Palestinians as Israelis from the six day war....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

I suggest this lead :

The Beit Jala reprisal raid was an Israeli attack on Beit Jala, an Arab town on the border between Jordan and Israel (today part of the Palestinian territories) on January 6, 1952. The attack was performed in retaliation for the rape and murder of a Jewish girl that Israelis found to have been carried out by infiltrators from the town. Seven Palestinian Arab civilians were killed while in their homes.

Note there is no doubt that it was a relaliation (in the Israeli mind), even if there is doubt that the perpretators were the ones given by the Israelis. But there is no reason either to claim the Israeli lied. So, it should be enough just to state that they found this.

Note, there is no official version that claim the perpetrator was either the boyfriend (???) or an Israeli. Hutchinson just reports in his book this hypothesis made by one of his colleague.

Ceedjee (talk) 09:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is. There is the official UN version which if you read the whole of Elmo's book gives the boyfriend as the probable perpetrator and then there is Israeli version. As you have noted yourself Benny gives the Israeli version...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

And Morris is the only 2nd wp:rs source in this article.

At what page is this written in Hutchinson's book ?

Ceedjee (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

He's only seconded because I got rid of the outrageous POV...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't know what is a secondary source ? This is the only type of source we can legitimately use in an article.

At what page is what you report written in Hutchison's book ?

Ceedjee (talk) 10:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No it is not, the stats from the UN reports are eminently usable. Primary sources may also be used when no opinion based on the primary source is offered. If an opinion is offered then that should be backed by a reliable published secondary source. As Benny only uses Israeli documentary sources every thing by benny should have the qualifier that it is the Israeli claim and not the official version. Palumbo criticises Morris' choice of sources. Palumbo says Morris disregards the more neutral archives of the UN. And Guess what Palumbo is entirely correct. Because in my research of UN archives I have found Benny to be incorrect on many points. See that I've just used original research and backed it with a reliable published source....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ashley, that seems to be a very strange understanding of Wikipedia policy. I think I've told you this at least 3 times in the past, you have little right to judge whether Benny Morris is a biased source or not. You can suggest this, but if every other editor believes he's a neutral source (and editors from both sides on Wikipedia have used Morris's statements as fact extensively), then you should just accept consensus and focus on improving the article. Arguing for the use of primary sources in place of secondary sources for the article impedes its improvement and violates Wikipedia policy. If you want to make changes in policy, you're better off talking it out at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources and other similar pages.

About Ceedjee's suggestion: Overall I have no objections, except for the term Palestinian. As I said before (as well as Al Ameer son), the precise nationality of the victims is quite unclear, as well as their identification (i.e. even if they were technically Palestinian Arabs, did they self-refer as such? Did others refer to them as such?) Because no source (either primary or secondary) lists them as Palestinians, I don't think we have any right to say that ourselves, per WP:OR.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ashley has every right to judge Morris as biased or otherwise. Where she errs is in using her personal critique to get round him, by engaging in inferences that constitute WP:OR or WP:SYN violations. That Morris is both a historian of distinction and strongly motivated to reground Zionist historiography on more ostensible persuasive principles is widely recognized. Morris's research results can be cited with equanimity as 'facts' (so far ascertained), his statements are just that, nothing more than informed personal judgements by one of many historians, hotly contested by his peers to the Zionist right and ant-Zionist 'left'. As such, as distinct from the interpretative cast he gives to his data (all historians do this) those 'statements' are not historical facts, but part of Morris' intellectual biography.

I have discussed at length the secondary source problem with Ceedjee. Generally Ceedjee has convinced me that we must privilege secondary sources. I think, and this is one of our few disagreements, that his position is somewhat extreme in holding we can refer to no other. We cannot totally exclude primary sources in the public domain. They are frequently used by both parties when the evidence of the primary source backs the editor's POV, unfortunately (but then this is true also of the use of secondary sources). If one has read widely in any one specific topic, it becomes clear that quite a good many of the secondary sources show a systemic bias: in particular one could argue (privately) that Morris's use of primary sources is queerly selective. I now have access to an historian, Henry Laurens who has ranged far and wide in the Arabic archives as well as all the others and, in his writing of that period, he comes up with many perspectives invisible in Morris's work, which is almost wholly focused on an Israeli perspective. Ashley's discontent is therefore understandable, but rules are rules, and for the moment, we have to deal with a literature that shows consistent Israeli bias. I don't expect this fact to move one inch Israeli editors, but it nonetheless remains true: the sources are poor for this article, as for many others, and what we have so far gives varieties of an Israeli reading. Laurens for example on the Beit Jala episode simply solves the whole point re reprisal/IDF/settlers, by calling it an 'Israeli raid'.

We who come from a different and non-national perspective just have to work harder, and, above all, not, as Ashley often does, succumb to the temptation to correct an obvious historical bias by recourse to synthetic proto-historical research and judgements not proper to wiki editing.Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with your statements here, and won't go into detail because it's not relevant to this discussion. So far, my main problem has been Ashley's unilateral disruptive editing. While we are trying to reach consensus on the use of the word Palestinian, as well as other fine points of balance/NPOV in the article and lead especially, Ashley has been busy rewriting the lead section to "The Beit Jala reprisal raid was an Israeli attack on Beit Jala, a Palestinian Arab town on the border between Jordan and Israel (today part of the Palestinian territories) on January 6, 1952. Seven Palestinians Arab unarmed civilians were killed in the attack.". This kind of editing goes contrary to the dispute resolution process and I'm sure also annoys most other editors.

Other than not following basic Wikipedia policies like WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:DR, Ashley also insists on overriding consensus, and as we know, consensus overrides most policies (except copyright). I'd really rather not open an RfC/RfM and WP:ANI complaints, because they are time-consuming and tiresome, and in the same limited time I have, I could be improving the article (or even better, other more important articles). Hopefully Ashley responds to everyone's concerns without making more unilateral and/or disruptive edits. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ynhockey, what would you suggest instead of Palestinian Arabs ?

Nishidani, between 1. you or any other wikipedia editor and 2. Morris, who has the most chance and who is the most widely recognized around the world of having a clear, global and fair view of such historical topics and being able to see what primary source is reliable and which one is not ?

Nobody here has the scholar authority to use and select primary sources for any other reason than illustrating a wp:rs secondary source analysis.

If somebody wants to challenge a wp:rs secondayr source, he absolutely needs another wp:rs secondary source who does the job.

You can disagree. That is the only way wikipedia can work. Else, this is wp:personal research (we say in French unpublished work).

About Ashley, this is even worse. She even modifies what Hutchinson writes and extrapolates (even from primary sources!). This is not acceptable and her disruptive attitude starts going over the limit. Ceedjee (talk) 06:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

nb: Nishidani. The critics you write about Morris were not sent to him at the time he wrote Border's wars ! but later... If you want to critic what Morris writes about a given topic, you have to provide other wp:rs secondary sources where there is disagreement with him on that issue. That is not extremist analysis. That is professionalism and wp:npov.

In "border Wars" Benny only uses Israeli sources you can tell this by the way that the official sources disagree with Benny and only the Israeli version is given. And I do believe that him not being able to read Arabic now covers him for the time of writing "Border Wars"....The UN sources disagree with Benny's basic facts let alone any interpretation and as Benny's basic facts are in error, one could say that Benny should not be used except with extreme circumspection.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 02:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Benny Morris uses numerous sources in Borders Wars and not only IDF and at least all the ones he could have access to.

The fact you disagree with Morris is not relevant : you are an anonymous editor; he is a recognized scholar on the period.

Use only wp:rs secondary sources to comment him.

The fact he doens't read arabic didn't prevent him to ask people who do to translate available documents in Arabic.

Ceedjee (talk) 07:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If Benny didn't do it, then say benny didn't do it....Don't attribute to Benny something he can't do....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This information is wp:or related to this topic and wp:undue weight. What scholar said Border Wars was biaised because Morris didn't read arab ? Ceedjee (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

benny used israeli sources as he is unable to read Arabic.... Benny can't translate and Benny did not use UN sources...In all benny is a one source merchant. and the POV displayed by yourself and other shows in the select pieces from Border wars....where is the reference to it being only the Israeli version? where is the reference to the US not believing the Israeli version? where is the reference to the UN not believing the Israeli version?....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Background

References are given to incidents during the 1950-1953 period as well as 4 measures that seem to have been taken by resolution 101 (even if this is personal research more than Morris's work).
Whathever, I suggest we remove this from the background given this occured later.
In the background, I suggest we add some facts pointed out by Morris :

• the infiltrators (most of them were former refugees of 1948), the border which was difficult to secure.
• the border (green line) was chaotic and difficult to secure
• jordanian actions taken to stop infiltration was considered inefficient by Israeli who decided to shift to retaliation (maybe this occured later)
• Israel was settling the borders with jewish new immigrants and the unsecurity there was harmful for the project.

What do you think ? Ceedjee (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Try the Jordanian conference June July 1951 5 June 1950. Held due to the increasing Israeli raids. But Benny wouldn't know about that as he does not read Arabic (your citation about a Benny Translation needs amending). The retaliation raids started earlier but on the whole were counter-productive, the attacks were on buildings such as the 1st Qabiliya raid (October 1951) the first retaliatory raid being on Falama and Sharafat February 1951. The main tool that Israel employed against infiltration was the "Free Fire" policy...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That is what Morris says, indeed.

If you permit to criticize Morris, provide wp:rs secondary sources. Ceedjee (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

pov

Until all 1st sources given without reference to wp:rs 2nd sources are given, the article will not fit wikipedia policy of npov. Ceedjee (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

As Morris is used it will never reach NPOV standard What Happened to Palestine? The Revisionists Revisited by Michael Palumbo September – October 1990....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget to amend the translation tag for Morris There are plenty of Arab and Palestinian documents, but Morris who cannot read Arabic, will not be able to use them. [3]...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 07:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please, focus on questions and facts.

• Palumbo didn't write about Beit Jala reprisal raid.
• How could you know/guess/evaluate Palumbo, who is no more active and only published a few articles would be more or less neutral that Morris. You are jsut influenced by your mind, which is not the one of a scholar.

Do you understand that you use electronicintifida as a source to prove whatever about the reliabilibity of the most quoted (by his peers) scholar on the topic of the PAlestinian refugee ?

Ceedjee (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You're using an Israeli only source....I only used that in Discussion not in the article. You're using Benny in the article, who uses only Israeli sources. That makes you POV and Benny still can't read Arabic....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Benny Morris is an historian.

Ceedjee (talk) 07:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a very good one, as he uses one source.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

disturbing behaviour

Ashley, please stop : [4]. Ceedjee (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

1. The Israeli version differs from the official version.

2. The official version is that the Israelis should look in Israel for the perpetrators.

3.Benny uses only Israeli sources and is therefore POV....

4. Please stop using POV..

5. Use neutral sources...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

So far you're POV has used Benny 14 times as opposed to 11 other source references and you are still trying to cut the use of other sources down to allow Israeli POV to be paramount?...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

As has been told you many times : we can only use wp:rs secondary sources.

Your mind and analysis are OR and not welcome in wikipedia's article.

For the last time, I ask you to comply to wp:policy.

Ceedjee (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As I've told you I haven't. Your use of Israeli only version is POV. Since when did the 4 children and 2 of the women have any chance of taking part in any rape? For the last time I ask you to abide by NPOV.....As you yourself noted in previous discussions Benny gives the Israeli version....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Israeli POV

firstly I don't like the use of Benny as he is a one source merchant and consequently full of POV.

Secondly I started this article off...not you....So please try not to tell me what I can or cannot do with my article...

thirdly if you add POV I will make sure that it is heavily noted as POV.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to get too involved in this but there's no such thing as "my article". See WP:OWN. Also Benny is used a lot for wikipedia articles and through a general consensus has been considered a reliable and neutral source. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And I have noticed that it is not made clear that Benny is a one source merchant.... It should, to conform to NPOV, be made clear that Benny only uses Israeli sources. Benny is not nor ever has been a neutral source.....trying to put Benny in place of neutral sources is POV...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems clear that you don't understand wp:policy.

See wp:own.

Benny Morris doesn't only use israeli sources, even for the topic of this article as can be seen in the 3 pages related to this in his book.

Benny Morris is an historian. He had access to numerous sources (far more than you or I will never have access to), cross-checked them, is a scholar on the period, is Prof. of history and published peer-reviewed books and articles.

On your side, you added your own analysis (wp:or) for the (very few) primary sources you add access to "put forward" your own analysis. Now, enough is enough. Nobody minds if you disagree with Morris. If something else must be added, find wp:rs secondary sources that state other pov's or analysis. That's all.

Gilabrand systematically reverts you and is right to do. Ceedjee (talk) 07:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Benny is a one source merchant. And since when did 4 children and 2 women have any chance to take part in a rape? You presume far far to much.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ashley, you don't listen. You have it in for Benny Morris, who is a 'one source merchant' (you're welcome to your opinion, but it is untrue. He works in many archives, not just those in Hebrew), and display a marked tendency to reconstruct an alternative reading of events by synthesizing reliable sources, and using inferences from them. I may well, privately, share your own interpretation of events like this, but my private take on it is not relevant to the page, and I cannot edit from my private perspective, even if I am sure the RS in question is biased or partial, or partisan (as is often the case in most of the secondary literature on these subjects) because if you edit in Wikipedia you are bound by its rules which are not those governing thesis-or doctoral composition at a university, or the drafting of background articles as a researcher at the NYT. Your style undoes the very position you want to edit in. The intransigence you display mirrors that of the numerous editors on the other side who will not lend an ear to rational objections, but simply toe the party line, and feign respect for the project of neutrality. It is hard to edit when one's POV must be presented within the perspectives provided predominantly by scholars with an opposed POV, but this requires stoicism and hard work, not devious attempts to game the system by jiggering one's way around the rules that may well favour your adversaries in this or that case (overall, with patience and hard work, they will favour no side). It's a matter of honour to play by the rules, even if they are absurdly restrictive, and this means losing many a match because the rules and evidence are weighed against one. For they are restrictive for a good reason: if we apply Rafferty's rules, out of a conviction that only thus will justice be done, the whole project goes up in smoke Nishidani (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

He very rarely uses any other source than Israeli sources. For the other sources he is selective to suit the reaffirmation of Israeli sources even though the bulk of alternative sources clearly oppose such interpretation.... The POV displayed at only putting an extremist version of events, that even you noted with the exclusion of the US envoys notes omission suggests that the hard line Israeli version was to be put up. With such extremist opinions being used in the article is it any wonder that alternatives to Benny should be sought....I have absolutely no problem with alternatives being written up and incorporated within the article. However it should be noted that one is the Israeli version and the other the official version. Time and again the official version has been found later on to be correct and the Israeli version incorrect.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Check again. He uses Public Office Archives in the UK, UN archives,the US national archives etc. etc. Of course he basically uses Isrtaeli archives, for which we are in his debt. He gives too much information from various archives that undercut his own interpretation for your accusations to stand. Benny Morris's politics lie in his organization of the material, not in his selection and repression of material. But all this has nothing to do with the fact that he is authorized as a source, we are not. I'm not going to edit this page, but I have seen enough in Morris to enable any editor to harvest it thoroughly so that a NPOV article can be written, not to speak of the evidence from Hutchison and others. It's all there, the doubts on the IDF/gov versions etc. I really do not see why you are prepossessed by Morris. Read him well, and you can, with the material he provides assisted with other sources, write a perfectly neutral account, though this requires collaborating with other editors.Nishidani (talk) 10:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a small reflection, that helps contextualise one's reading of these things. There was a Zionist and revisionist policy of 'infiltration' throughout the mid thirties to the the foundation of the state, and much of the success of the infiltrations, and the terrible tragedies of some of them, when blocked, forms a center piece of Israeli historiography. The post-1948 discourse on 'infiltrations' i.e., mainly of people endeavouring desperately to return to their home villages, and not to a new foreign land, is transformed into a discourse of peril for the new state, built partially on infiltration.Nishidani (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Again the POV is being put out that guilt has been ascertained by the mere fact of an Israeli claim which was probably politically motivated as the previous raid on Beit Jala had been cancelled in 1950....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong in suggesting I want to edit in only one view. What I do however want is to remove the controversial pieces that are only Israeli versions, to their proper place which is certainly not in the lead. Put aspersions in the lead and I will remove them. Put it under the Israeli version and they can stay but not in the main body....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

By a none Arabic reader?

Nice trick if you can do that....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversial

Dubious claims never go in the lead section..... Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the dubious claim ?

Where is the wikipedian rule that claims this ?

Ceedjee (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV rules. The presumption that the Israeli version is the only version...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

NPoV

I added the pov-flag.
Could you list here all the points you consider are should not be in the article and those in the article you consider should not be there. Ceedjee (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead sections should not have unsubstantiated Israeli POV claims. They go under controversy. Otherwise to give both sides the vigilantes; as they were uncontrolled according to the Israeli POV. mindless savages slaughtering innocent mother and 4 children up close with grenades and sub-machine guns with Israel not bothering, because of racist tendencies, to find the murderers....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want POV then it gets both POVs the note already say about the rape the rape is already included in the witness section and now you want a 3rd bite at the cherry in the lead??? and the dead get one curt sentence??? your POV is extreme.. The alternative is to keep it to facts; simple facts no over elaboration.....your POV metre is running at 90:10...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You removed all that Morris explained with the alleged perpetrators. All this from a wp:rs secondary source who analysis primary sources explain why Israelis thought or claimed perpetrators came from Beit Jala. The fact you don't like this will not change anything.

I am tired. You don't answer question and everytime next to them. You refuse dialogue. No more time to lose with you. Ceedjee (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

I added the POV tag due to the Israeli only version POV.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I see you went for 100% Israeli POV....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Nathan Albert Pelcovits;(1993) “The Long Armistice: UN Peacekeeping and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1948-1960”; ISBN 0813384834 p 50. “Beit Jala On January 6, 1952, an Israeli military unit raided Beit Jala (Beit Jolla), a village near Bethlehem.” Benny Morris, (1993). "Israel's Border Wars, 1949-1956; Arab Infiltration, Israeli Retaliation and the Countdown to the Suez War"; Oxford Clarendon Press, ISBN 0198292627 note 16 p.215 ‘Western diplomats were not convinced that the Feistinger rape-murder was the work of infiltrators. In Apr.1953 the US consul-general in Jerusalem wrote: ’It was never shown that the act was not committed by her Israeli boy-friend’{{cite book|author=Hutchison, E. H.|title=Violent Truce - A Military Observer Looks at the Arab-Israeli Conflict 1951–1955|pages=pp. 12-16 Loreaux reported that he saw no evidence of Jordanian infiltration and suggested that the Israeli police investigate the murder.|url=http://ia301304.us.archive.org/3/items/violenttruceara When the demolition charges failed at the third house the attackers used grenades and sub-machine guns to kill a mother, her two daughters, aged 7 and 12 and her two sons aged 6 and 14 Benny Morris, (1993). "Israel's Border Wars, 1949-1956; Arab Infiltration, Israeli Retaliation and the Countdown to the Suez War"; Oxford Clarendon Press, ISBN 0198292627 note 16 p.216 Hutchison investigated the Jordanian complaint of a violation of the General Armistice agreement at Beit Jala on behalf of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation (UNTSO) He searched the vicinity for evidence and interrogated witnesses. An adult male occupant of the second house was brought in for questioning. He said that seconds after the blast that demolished his neighbor's house, the wall of his own home was blown in. He grabbed a rifle and told his wife to take their daughter to the main part of the village where they would be safer. The wife, who was eight-months pregnant, had just exited the back door when the gunmen firing from behind a stone wall aimed in her direction. The fetus was killed but the woman survived. Benny Morris believes the raid was carried out by an IDF platoon, but according to a letter by J.E. Chadwick, a diplomat at the British Embassy in Tel Aviv, the British thought it had been the work of Israeli [[vigilantes Hutchison says the demolition charges had Israeli markings and machine-guns were used

Can ceedjee get more POV, I doubt it his POV metre stands at 90:10...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ashley,

I am tired by your personal attacks.

Only 2 sentences in the text you give here above refer to the issue.

Nonoby denies that nobody is sure that the real perpetrator was not the boy friend.

But that doesn't change anything to the fact it was performed in revenge or claimed to have been performed in revenge.

There are also arguments in favor of this thesis : as the fact 2 families attacked was of the clan of the guy suspected to have killed and raped the girl and who had also be recognised guilty.

I cannot do anything any more for you.

Please, find a solution with all other editors involved.

Ceedjee (talk) 08:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee is not a tendentiously POV editor, and to say so goes against his record. Ashley's editing style has been at times abrasive. Yet, I think, looking over the record, that Ashley does have a legitimate point or two, which has been missed in the rapid crossfire of editorial interventions, and that the weight of pro-Israeli editors against him/her, even when legitimate documentation has been adduced that is appropriate to the page, accounts for some of the exasperation. This is not about Benny Morris's stature as an historian. The page ought to include all relevant, well-sourced (mainly secondary sources) information pertinent to the incident, and this has been, rather systematically, questioned. So I suggest a little cooling down, that all dispense with animosities, and return to evaluate the additional evidence Ashley brings to bear with great equanimity. A word to Ashley, without I hope appearing condescending. I've seen a good many people with positive contributions to make, burn themselves out because of a certain intensity of commitment. I have criticized you because your style does strike others as brash (it's a question of tone, and my reading is subjective of course), and because in the earlier edits you did appear to me to run dangerously close to violating WP:OR, which is, naturally enough, along with attacks of Morris's credibility, something that raises hackles, particularly with my friend Ceedjee, who is perfectly in his rights to insist this not occur. Editors are often are burned out by frustration at what seems collective gaming of the system. That this occurs is also true. I've seen a lot of it. But Ceedjee is not someone who plays that game. He is an empirical formalist, and disagree with him as you will, but his objections almost invariably relate to this criterion. All wiki pages, to achieve stability, require rather long negotiation and patience. Nishidani (talk) 10:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani I doubt I will suffer from burn out. I have heard every single argument repeatedly for 3 years this is probably why my style is now brash. I am not attacking Benny's credibility merely pointing out where his speciality lies and the areas where Benny is lacking. As to long negotiations and patience, I have seen no negotiations only demands for acquiescence.

1. Benny Translation...Benny can't read Arabic attributing a translation to Benny is therefore both misleading to any reader and incorrect. Why misleading... because it may lead a reader to assume that Benny uses Arabic sources. Translated for... not by Benny.

2. US consul and the greater majority of the none Israeli world had great reservations about Israeli claims about the rapist/s. Therefore the presumed in the lead is incorrect. It was only presumed by the Israeli papers and not by the greater majority in the world.

3. The Mansi clan from Walaja (strictly speaking the raid was on the refugee camp and not the town) were violent and did carry out raids in the Jerusalem/Hebron corridor, they also carried out raids in the West Bank against Arab Legion soldiers. They were not nice people and I do not defend their actions.

4. Benny Morris states, directly that it was an IDF raid, Nathan Albert Pelcovits also says directly it was an IDF raid. Benny also says that BG authorised the Beit Jala raid.

5. All the Israeli POV points directly to it being the first collective punishment raid. but that's going in the direction of OR....

6. I am open to negotiation but not to the snow job that was perpetrated. There was no negotiation merely blatant POV. And as for Gilabrand, one week ago Gilabrand had never heard of the Beit Jala raid (YnHockey included in that, they went for Delete article, fictitious event) so somehow I do not see Gilabrand as being an expert overnight....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

problematic sources

A) The major source for this article is problematic because it is being used as "the truth" when the author himself states: "The opinions and assertions contained herein are my own and are not to be construed as official or reflecting the views of the Navy -Department or the naval service at large. E. H. HUTCHISON Commander, USNR" B}The Benny Morris references are both dead links.--Gilabrand (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well lets see what opinions of Elmo are used....erh none... the US consul and the boyfriend from Benny.

And morris still can't speak arabic.

The relevant pages from benny were never on the limited preview.....

Benny also states it was an IDF raid. Benny further states that BG authorised the raid. Also the other supplied reference stated it was an IDF raid....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Colonel McAninch's Foreword THE NEWS that Commander E. H. Hutchison had written a book on his experiences as a United Nations Military Observer in Palestine has given me a pronounced feeling of pleasant anticipation. That I should be requested to write a foreword for this book is an honour which I can only hope I may adequately discharge. I know full well that any such writing, and especially done by the Commander, will invite the closest examination from those individuals and groups who resent any attempt to muffle the slightest criticism of the State of Israel or World Zionism. I have, therefore, paid meticulous attention to this publication and have searched for any detail that might give justification. I found nothing to justify the label of "anti-Semitic" or "Levantine." The incidents reported in this book are true. The dispassionate recital of the facts is supported by the official records of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization Palestine (UNTSO). As the Military Assistant to the Chief of Staff of UNTSO, and on the basis of my personal knowledge, I believe Commander Hutchison's reports and opinions, are "ultra" conservative.

...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

All this is genuine.

To what must this be compared ?

• To the apology of Anita Shapira to Efraim Karsh's work or
• To the praise of Walid Khalidi to Ilan Pappé's work ?

But, above all, the 4 latest are scholars in that field and from the academic world : ie secondary sources. Hutchinson is a primary source.

The 4 scholars are wp:rs secondary sources because they published in peer-review books.

What to think about Hutchinson ? Pro-Israelis will say that the fact his life had been threatened by Israelis and that he had to be escorted by bodyguards each time he entered Israel makes he is not reliable. Pro-Palestinians will say that the fact he was american makes he is not reliable. So what ? We cannot use him as a source at the exception of excerpts analysed by scholars from the academic world. And -of course- we cannot cherry pick the TRUTH in all these publications.

Read WP:TRUTH.

Ceedjee (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

1. As Hutchison is only used as events eyewitness and not for opinions you are therefore playing a red herring card.

2. Anita Shapira is not considered a new historian.

3. I've used your beloved benny. So you again are incorrect....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Chess is a more clever game than card

2. Tzvi Shapira is a founder of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

3. Why are you using Benny, he is not a wp:rs ? You are completely out of the topic.

Ceedjee (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee the article is based on Israeli POV by cherry picking from Morris who himself cherry picks....The boyfriend angle has been omitted as has any criticism of the raid by international bodies or Governments...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

problematic POV editing, cherry picking and inaccuracies

Washington, on the other hand, went ahead with formal representations to Tel Aviv, the American consul in Jerusalem called the raid ‘open, organized and provocative brutality’. The State Department told Israel that, while the US understood its difficulties stemming from infiltration, the ‘military incursions by Israel into Jordan or other neighbouring states (for the) purpose (of) shooting people or destroying property appeared to dept as extremely grave violations Armistice Agreement which c(ould) not be justified under any circumstances.’ Dean Acheson spoke of ‘brutal . .terror tactics’ US Ambassador Tel Aviv Monnett Davis initially said IDF got upper hand over avowed policy of government, since the ‘dominant military clique’ held a cynical view of moderates’ efforts to make peace. Benny Morris, Border Wars p. 218-219

Yet according to the article everything was hunky dory in international reactions???

Benny says attack 3 blew up 2 article says blew up 3

From the article:-

On January 6, 1952, three houses in Beit Jala were rigged with explosives and blown up.

What does benny actually say:-

An IDF platoon attacked three of Beit Jala’s outlying houses with light weapons and grenades, and then blew up two of the houses while their occupants were still inside. Benny Morris, Border Wars p.215

...Benny agrees with Hutchison's description...article agrees with no one

from the article:-

presumed to be revenge for the rape and murder of a Jewish girl by infiltrators from Beit Jala.

Presumed by who??????

By the US:-

‘Western diplomats were not convinced that the Feistinger rape-murder was the work of infiltrators. In Apr.1953 the US consul-general in Jerusalem wrote: ’It was never shown that the act was not committed by her Israeli boy-friend’Benny Morris, Border Wars n 16 p.215

By the UN:-

Major Loreaux expressed the opinion that the Israeli police would have a better chance of finding the killer than the Arabs would.

looks like the presumption is OR POV...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I have removed the NPOV tag, as I have read the article, and the talk page, and found nothing to suport claims of one POV being pushed over another. Furthermore, it appears that a consensus has already been reached, minus Ashley kennedy3. One final point, the discussions have turned stale, and do not fit into the category of Articles currently under NPOV dispute. If the dispute arises again, contact me and point out specific parts of the article that push a POV before adding an NPOV tag again.D^rew S^mith 02:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/017eefb458011c9d05256722005e5499!OpenDocument
  • In 1949 Armistice Agreements on 2011-05-25 03:24:07, 404 Not Found
  • In 1949 Armistice Agreements on 2011-06-04 17:09:09, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://ia301304.us.archive.org/3/items/violenttrucearab006617mbp/violenttrucearab006617mbp.pdf
  • In 1952 Beit Jala Raid on 2011-05-25 03:28:35, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 1952 Beit Jala Raid on 2011-06-04 17:42:42, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1952 Beit Jala Raid. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080209192923/http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/017eefb458011c9d05256722005e5499%21OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/017eefb458011c9d05256722005e5499%21OpenDocument
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ia301304.us.archive.org/3/items/violenttrucearab006617mbp/violenttrucearab006617mbp.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Article title

I'm not entirely sure why the article was moved. The new title seems awkward. What is the reasoning behind it? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The previous title had "Raid" which should be "raid", but the new title is simply bad grammar. I'm moving it to 1952 Beit Jala raid. Zero^talk 11:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)