Talk:Kfar Etzion massacre

Untitled

I would like the author to indicate the sources were to verify the following:

a) That there were Legionaires present when the killing started; b) That the officer who saved Eliza also "finished off" wonded. I am familiar with this episode and never saw this "finishing of wounded" anywhere (so, please, the source).

Peace

The only edit I made was the reference that the Jordan Legion was present and initiated the massacre. Source: "Tisha Kabin" (9 Measures), Ma'arachot IDF Publishing--Ministry of Defense

Fair use rationale for Image:EtzionPrisoners.jpg

Image:EtzionPrisoners.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Article content

I am having trouble understanding why does the article say at the end that Israel has "recaptured" the settlement after 1967 war. Has it ever captured the settlement before? Does "recapture" indicate that by the quality of being a settlement it was Israel, then it was lost, and then Israel recaptured it? I might have gotten it all wrong, my history is a bit weaker than it should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.16.225.98 (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Huge problems

There are huge POV and RS problems in this article. Without being an expert, and without triggering more of the rank falsification that occurred the last time I tried to edit (and which remains in the article, see below), some of the problems evident are as follows:

1. The Kfar Etzion massacre was an act committed by Arab armed forces on May 13, 1948, the day before the Declaration of Independence of the state of Israel. Highly misleading lead, exactly as if an Arab army (or a hate-filled mob, or terrorists) descended on a virtually unarmed village and massacred them. That is absolutely not the case, as we see from glimpses in the rest of the article.
2. Kfar Etzion was a religious kibbutz[1] This is simply a falsification, the reference (which is nowhere near an RS) doesn't say or indicate that was the case. And in 1948 it's most unlikely as well.
3. The position of the Etzion Bloc on the important Jerusalem-Hebron road made it an important flash-point. Highly POV, this strategic position far from the partition was in the hands of either armed settlers or criminals. Or was a forward base for a military force, it certainly had soldiers in it.
4. At times, the Jewish forces even ambushed Arab military convoys, (and, according to Morris, also Arab civilian traffic and British military convoys) on the road between Jerusalem and Hebron. Proper weight would require that this be one of the first things mentioned. It's almost the only thing we're using from a real RS (though still a very hard-line Zionist) and tells us just how lawlessly this settlement was really operating.
5. although they had very few arms almost absurdly unlikely - and the source given has apparently only ever been reviewed by the notorious Daniel Pipes! (He thinks it's totally one-sided but very good anyway).
6. Starting early in May, the Arab Legion, together with thousands of irregulars who were mostly local Arab villagers began a series of massive assaults on the Etzion settlements. ... On May 12, the final assault on Kfar Etzion began with overwhelming force. Massive assaults? Overwhelming force? The POV language serves to whip-up sympathy for a group that, by any standards, needed to be moved.
   

The article does improve as it goes on, but not much - what's this supposed to mean: The Legion had armored cars and artillery, to which the Jewish defenders had no effective answer. Are we supposed to understand that ordinary people's homes could no longer resist an army? PR^talk 14:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

1. This is an accurate descrption of the events.
2. The JVL is a reliable source, but this is a verifiable fact from many esources, see this as one example. Calling this "simply a falsification" is an indication of how little you know of the subject matter.
3. Calling the Etzion bloc settlers "criminals" is not really worthy of reply. Please keep your POV saopboxing out of this article, and be mindful that as some of the original bloc settlers are still alive, that is also a BLO-violation that will get you blocked should you repeat it.
4. This detail, properly sourced, might be mentioned in the background section.
5. Sourced to a reliable source. Your opinions of a reviewer of that source are not interesting and irrelevant. Calling him 'notorious' is yet another BLP violation, Don't do it again. NoCal100 (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Factual and neutral
7. We are supposed to understand that homes are not a match for Armour and artillery. NoCal100 (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know mutch about these issues but the wiki page on Daniel Pipes reports him as "a supporter of Israel in the Israel-Palestine conflict" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pipes#Israel-Palestine_conflict). Is he still considered as a reliable source? should the article cite the source used by Daniel Pipes and not Daniel Pipes himself? Zetla (talk) 08:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes's views on Muslims are well known, stirring up a storm when he proudly advertised that he "was encouraged" that "nearly half" of "Americans believe that government authorities should direct special attention toward Muslims ... either by registering their whereabouts, profiling them, monitoring their mosques, or infiltrating their organizations". (See the poll quoted - a more realistic interpretation of the figures is that "little more than a quarter" of Americans feel this way). This in an article entitled "Why the Japanese Internment Still Matters" where he appears to suggest the internment was necessary and proper. Americans have volunteered in person to me how embarrassing that still is to them!

However, most people probably think it was Islamophobic smears such as this a few days before the election that were most threatening to the US way of life and democracy: "let us review a related subject - Obama's connections and even indebtedness, throughout his career, to extremist Islam. Specifically, he has longstanding, if indirect ties to two institutions, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), listed by the U.S. government in 2007 as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-funding trial; and the Nation of Islam (NoI), condemned by the Anti-Defamation League for its "consistent record of racism and anti-Semitism."

Finally, the concern of another editor for factual accuracy might be more convincing if he'd picked up on and corrected the false reference in the first line of the first section of this article. The present state is a disgrace. PR^talk 15:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinions of Pipes, but his book is a reliable source. we don;t disqualify sources because they are "a supporter of Israel in the Israel-Palestine conflict". NoCal100 (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, NoCal100, Pipes's book is not what's being discussed. What's being discussed is a book by Mark Daryl Erickson, Joseph E. Goldberg, Stephen H. Gotowicki, Bernard Reich, and Sanford R. Silverburg that Daniel Pipes reviewed. Pipes's reputation (of which I am personally not a fan) is a complete non-sequitur; PalestineRemembered's argument is an example of guilt by association. --GHcool (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

What are the estimates of the number killed in the massacre and what was the breakdown between civilians and non-civilians? Shouldn't this be in the opening paragraph? --86.155.231.129 (talk) 12:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not clear. Martin Gilbert, in Jerusalem - Illustrated History Atlas has "15 Jews were machine gunned to death after they had surrendered, and were being photographed by their captors". Page 93, part of a caption that states "12 May 100 Jews killed. Only four survived". But on page 97 in the same book there is a caption : "14 May - Arabs destroy Etzion Bloc, 232 Jews killed, 268 taken prisoner". Yigal Allon, in Shield of David - The Story of Israel's Armed Force writes "There were only fifteen Jews alive in Kfar Etzion and they were shot on surrendering; late that afternoon, the Red Cross arranged for the settlers of Masuot, Revadim and Ein Tsurim to be driven into Arab captivity". Page 196. Considering the background of these two sources I would suggest this article overstates the number slaughtered.Padres Hana (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Neutral words and irregulars

Jim, it is hard to take seriously your claim that you are applying the "pillars" of WP's neutral words policy, when your edits includes things like changing "massacre" to "allegations of massacre" or "killed" to 'attacked" - those are POV changes.
There are two problems with your change of "irregulars" to "fighters" and "soldiers" to fighters. One is that it creates ambiguity: when you change "Arab irregular forces continued small-scale attacks against the bloc" to "Arab forces continued small-scale attacks against the bloc"- we lose the context of who was attacking - the Arab legion, or the irregulars. The second problem is that the Haganah troops are referred to as soldiers by almost all reliable sources, as was pointed out to you by several editors. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 02:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a blatant mass-edit. The article clearly contains pictures with the text "Arab Legion Major Abdullah el Tell (far right) with Captain Hikmat Mihyar (far left) pose with two of the four Jewish survivors of the Fall of Gush Etzion. Around May 13, 1948". This should be enough (photographic!) evidence that the Arab Legion participated in this battle. 79.179.193.36 (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Are the coordinates exact or approximate? They point to the current center of Kfar Etzion, was that really the site of the massacre? I should read a bit more on the subject, but for now a clarification would be much appreciated. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Does this aerial photo indicate the location? Zero^talk 04:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The question is, where did the massacre take place? The aerial photo is similar to what we can see in Google Earth (although it's higher quality, which will likely help us). But did the massacre really take place on the site of central modern Kfar Etzion? That is unclear. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not manage to find a map showing the original building locations, but I have one more place to look. The story in "O Jerusalem" refers to the "little square" outside the "command post", which doesn't help much. Zero^talk 01:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Some progress on this. I found on my computer a Word file "Struggling with the Land and For It. The Story of Gush Ezion. A Conceptual Proposal for the Renovation of the Visitors' Center. December 2003". It contains a detailed description of tours that were, or were proposed to be, conducted from the visitor's center. It contains:

The German Convent. This renovated stone building, dating from the first period of settlement, is where the last defenders of the Ezion Bloc positioned themselves for the final battle. The building now houses a presentation about the story of Gush Ezion, from the first settlers to that final battle, as well as a memorial, the actual bunker, and offices.

The Lawn. It was in this open area opposite the "German Convent" that the final defenders of Kfar Ezion were slaughtered. The area is now a large, grassy lawn with no reminder of the drama that took place here during the War of Independence.

So we know that the location was on the lawn opposite the "German Convent". But where was that? I cannot find it on any map. However, the document appears to say that the "German Convent" is now (in 2003) part of the visitors' center and this map shows where the visitors' center is. As close as I can pick it, "the lawn" must be one of the grassy areas near where אכסניה (hostel?) is marked on the aerial photo. Say at 31°38′52″N 35°6′55″E. Zero^talk 12:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

(This is maybe now obsolete:) There is a "Russian Monastery" about 1km east of the city center and a former convent "Dayr Sha'ar" 0.5km east of that, but I don't know if either of those are related. They are marked at Amudanan. However, there is an contradiction about the identifications: On a 1936 topographic map I have, "Deir Sha'ar" is marked at exactly the same place that "Russian Monastery" is marked at Amudanan. The 1936 map does not show a monastery. Zero^talk 12:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

to Nishidani, why have you deleted the sentence

please avoid personal attacks like: "You are trying to make a general case, not state what RS say on this specific event"

If you think that is a personal attack, you have a very curious notion of what WP:NPA means.Nishidani (talk) 09:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

the massacre of Kfar Etzion after their surrender

the first sentence is "The Kfar Etzion massacre refers to a massacre that took place after a two-day battle between Jewish settlers and soldiers of Kibbutz Kfar Etzion and a combined force of the Arab Legion and Arab villagers, on May 13, 1948, the day before the Israeli Declaration of Independence. "

you deleted the previous first sentence : "The Kfar Etzion massacre refers to the massacre of Kibbutz Kfar Etzion members and soldiers, on May 13, 1948, to the Arab Legion and Arab villagers, who attacked their village, Kfar Etzion. "

in my opinion, the first sentence is not clear ,miss important info, and include facts of secondary importance. What is the reasons to replace the previous better sentence with the present one?

The word massacre was used of 129 members of the kibbutz earlier. I did not delete the sentence, I remodulated it to give a fuller opening definition. The reason for this is that the whole page was utterly confused about who, when and how the massacre took place, and the sources themselves are very dissonant. Neither Laurens nor Morris appear to classify it as a massacre (though in my personal book, the killing of 15 at least was such). 'after their surrender'. Some sources say, among the assembled men and women, some fled when shooting began, and took up arms (which is no justification for their being killed: it does alter, however, the classification of their deaths) In the Arab Legion version, a pseudo-surrender took place. Therefore you have two POVs generally, and several contradictions in one of them (the Israeli versions.Benvenisti mentions 50 people blown up in a cellar, every other source mentions 20, and it is not at all clear in what context, surrender or renewed fighting. I'm surprised no historian we can access has teased all of the conflicting reports in sources out and tried to make cogent sense of them. Nishidani (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Your reply is right, but the question is limited to the first sentence only. The first sentence does not clarify where it happened, and who has attacked. The previous sentence includes this info, but omit the "two-day battle","the day before the Israeli Declaration of Independence" who are of secondary importance in my opinion, but it may be re added if you wish to.
• Concerning the term "after their surrender", we may consult with Zero or someone else, whether it correctly describe the event. Ykantor (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

After their surrender means it is factually established they surrendered, taking the Jewish version as the historically correct facts of the case. The Arab Legion version says the surrender was a feint. I don't believe either case, and think we just can't know. But since there are two accounts, we cannot endorse one of them in favour of another on wikipedia, which is what your version does. You are quite correct, that Zero should serve as our ultimate arbiter on nearly all of these disputes, and I have almost never had reason to contradict me when his judgement overrules an edit I make. Nishidani (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• yours:"The Arab Legion version says the surrender was a feint" . Morris, 1948 p. 170) "Not all the Legionnaires participated in the massacre. Indeed, the Legion subsequently variously denied that there had been a massacre or ascribed the slaughter to the local militiamen.(321)", p. 454, "(321). Ya'akobson, “Etzion Bloc,” 130; Tall, Memoirs, 42; Kirkbride to FO, 14 May 1948, PRO CO 537-3904; Glubb, Soldier, 78. Abu Nowar, Jordanian-Israeli War, 61, goes one better and blames the duplicitous Jews for the massacre, which he doesn’t explicitly admit occurred, by writing: “The Haganah raised some white flags, but as soon as the [Arab] assault troops came within range, they resumed firing at the advancing troops.” The Arab troops then assaulted the kibbutz and took it in “fierce fighting.”
• According to Morris (The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews By Benny Morris, p. 140) "In his autobiography, Glubb was at pains to argue that if a massacre had taken place in Kfar Etzion, it was not perpetrated by Legionnaires"
• It seems that (according to Morris) the Legion had 2 versions, where one of them ascribed the slaughter to the local militiamen".
• The Jewish female soldier, that was saved by a Legion officer,said that "the officer, while taking her to safety, shot dead with his pistol wounded jews who showed signs of life" (The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews By Benny Morris, p. 139). Ykantor (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the discussion is stuck, and the next step is wp:drn. The argument is:

• Is the term "After their surrender" correct?
• The first sentence should include important facts ( who attacked, where was it) and possibly exclude less important information (the date relatively to the independence declaration).

Will you cooperate in the wp:drn ?

Editing is simple. You determine first rate RS on an event, add all of the details, and provide all of the narrative angles according to the respective POV of the historical actors, keeping in mind WP:Undue. If you do that, fine. You protest at my sentence. Look at the sentence it replaced:

"The Kfar Etzion massacre refers to the massacre of Kibbutz Kfar Etzion members and soldiers, on May 13, 1948, to the Arab Legion and Arab villagers, who attacked their village, Kfar Etzion. "

That is, frankly, dreadful writing, for many reasons ('The Kfar Etzion massacre refers to . .the Arab Legion and Arab villagers'!!! Kfat Etzion is repeated 3 times, hammering at the name while dessicating the text of nuance and crucial details, etc. It says nothing, and garbles everything. You're a decent chap, and do, thank the tetragram, work hard. But, hell, these kind of oversights really make working with you somewhat exasperating at times. There are simpler ways of collaborating. It would help if you could see that careful balancing of words is important historically and narratively. Nishidani (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Your English is better than mine, and you can re-write the sentence as you wish. The problem is the content. I repeat:

• Is the term "After their surrender" correct?
• The first sentence should include important facts ( who attacked, where was it) and possibly exclude less important information (the date relatively to the independence declaration).

Why will not you rewrite it with this content? Ykantor (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

"The Kfar Etzion massacre refers to a massacre that took place after (apparently) a two-day battle between Jewish settlers and soldiers of Kibbutz Kfar Etzion and a combined force of the Arab Legion and Arab villagers, on May 13, 1948, the day before the Israeli Declaration of Independence."

Who attacked? The Kfar Etzion's function was to attack and disrupt the Jer-Hebron supply road. It was attacked, and a battle took place. One attack led to another. The date is important for several reasons. You simply rewrote this, cancelling it, and supplied a poor substitute, and now start asking me why I don't rewrite your version? That is rather odd procedure. Nishidani (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You complained that my sentence is garbled, so I offered you to re-write it. Sorry, but we are not advancing. I will open a wp:drn and a volunteer will guide us to a compromise. Ykantor (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I told you my proposal. You said in the wp:drn that "the talk page is productively engaged in resolving the questions mentioned". So what is your proposal? Ykantor (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I may be wrong but I think that Nishidani took the initiative to write his proposal in the article and in that case, I endorse this. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

there were atrocities committed by Arabs even before the Deir Yassin episode

the deleted sentence: "Although some sources suggest that these attacks were an attempt to take revenge for the slaughter at Deir Yassin, there were atrocities committed by Arabs even before the Deir Yassin episode. [qt 1] "

The deleted sentence is nearly identical to the source words. What is the reasons to delete a RS words? Ykantor (talk) 09:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Look. You messed up the lede, with clumsy English, and by taking out the carefully nuanced and source-responsive phrasing. One example:-

129 Haganah soldiers and Jewish combatant Kibbutz members who died during the defense of the settlement, both Martin Gilbert and Yigal Allon state that fifteen were murdered on surrendering.[1][2]

Those two sentences are not syntactically correct, and who demands that the following sentence complement the subject, which it doesn't. It's garbage writing.

As to my eliding your large iontrusive 'explanatory note' which violates WP:Undue in order, obviously, to make a case, this time against the Arabs, I'll make several points, one of which Pluto elsewhere also made.

The massacres imputed to Arabs amount in Israeli narratives to three, this, the Hadassah medical convoy massacre and the (Haifa Oil Refinery massacre, two of which are disputed in sources like Morris, as massacres, since they took place in the vicious context of battles.

All sources that give a serious account state that the village irregulars yelled 'Deir Yassin' (13 May), as they did in the Hadassah medical convoy massacre (April 13). Before that the most famous atrocity attributed to Arabs was the revenge for their massacre at (Haifa Oil Refinery massacre for a tit for tat set of massacres) unless, as I suspect, the idea is to suggest massacres were typical of 'Arabs'. This is what Tessler is suggesting, with his careful selection of mostly irrelevant quotes. In the period, it was, if anything, rather 'typical' of the Irgun, Lehi, Palmach and Haganah, whose known massacres of civilians run from 24 (Morris, a conservative Israeli archival estimate) to 68 (Saleh Abdel Jawad) using Arab memoirs and oral traditions. (See Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine War). How does Tessler manage this? Well, (a) he says:'Instances of so-called (i.e. improperly named) Jewish terrorism were consequently limited in relative as well as absolute terms,; (b) 'the Arab exodus' was due to rumors and exaggerated reports about Zionist massacres spread by the Arab media', a fact which has been repeatedly shown to be untrue since 1961, when the myth was utterly demolished by showing the role of Jewish propaganda in spreading panic rumours among the Arabs; (c)the use of Christopher Sykes 1965, a text which accepted what EErskine Childers and others had shown to be a myth 4 years earlier.(d) citing Abba Eban's use of the Azzam Pasha quotation after the Kfar Etzion incident, as evidence Arabs were hell-bent on wreaking atrocities like this one. The Azzam Pasha quotation, long known to Jewish authorities, suddenly began to be circulated and showcased two days after the fall of Kfar Etzion. One assumes the point was to suggest to the world that the Arabs at Kfar Etzion were behaving like the predicted (misinterpreted) massacres of the Mongol hordes. (e) Uri Avnery's memoirs of the effect images of decapitated heads in Jerusalem (nothing to do apparently with this incident) had on himself and others in the Givati Brigade in operations after May 15 on the southern, Egyptian front (in the 'early stages of the fighting' refers to the war, by the looks of it, not to the period December-May 47-8, though I will happily stand corrected if this is not the case).

Tessler, in other words, musters his material to deny what all specific accounts of the incident register, that for the irregular villagers who apparently were mainly responsible for murdering the POWs, Deir Yassin was a motivation. His alternative explanation is that it was very much typical of the Arabs to massacre and mutilate, while acts attributed to Jewish terrorism were misnomers for things that were relatively rare. That's one of several passages where he drops his historian's guard against manipulating evidence in order to sustain a myth or engineer readerly sympathies for one side of his narrative. It is quarter-baked as a specific source for the event we are describing.

Characterizations of events in the war in terms of primitive labels defining a people as given by culture to certain evil habits is alien to both scholarship and wikipedia, and sources which use this hackneyed rhetorical device should not be taken seriously.

The serious editing of this page ignores things like the tragic details of the fact several of the Jews killed at Kfar Etzion had miraculously survived the Holocaust only to end up dying there, etc. Rather than engage in egging the Zionist pud or pro-Arab pancake, let's try to focus on the specific reports, the details of the battle, the conflict in the narratives, and the background details of those involved. When you describe tragedies, you do well not to adopt an apologetic voice, for anyone of those involved. Nishidani (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• concerning "clumsy english" , it is not mine ( although generally my english could be better). All I have done is:
  • I have re-written the first sentence ( see previous section). Is its syntax OK?
  • I have deleted the "of" and replaced "kibutsnik" with "kibutz member" in the 2nd sentence. (your example). The rest is not mine.
  • I have added the last sentence, which you deleted. Is its syntax OK?
• Concerning the large explanatory note, it is rather long but it helps initially. Later on it can be concised. However, Pluto tend to completely delete those explanatory (long) quotes, which does not make sense in my opinion. It has a benefit for the (few) curious readers, and help to keep the article itself clean and concised. personally I would like to have many more of those explanatory notes.
• concerning my editing content, if the most of it seems to be pro-Israeli, the reason is that when I read an article, I find some errors and POV and try to rectify it. Since I discover a lot of anti Israeli sentences here, then naturally my contribution is usually pro Israeli. However, the motive is to rectify and not to spread a propaganda. e.g. Traherleven wrote about the Arab league reasons for the invasion, based on a primary sourse. If I would have done that, Pluto would have immediatelly delete it. My attitude is different. I have put there a warning tag since I believe that the mentioned primary source is correct. I'll continue later. Ykantor (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• yours: I suspect, the idea is to suggest massacres were typical of 'Arabs". Tessler does not suggest that. If you read his words, he quotes :in the early stages of the fighting “Arab irregulars and primitive villagers. .. Killed and mutilated every Hebrew who fell into their hands.". According to Morris (1948, p. 111) ...It set out from Kibbutz Hulda on the morning of 31 March...others, though, were stuck and under ferocious attack. The occupants of one vehicle committed suicide with dynamite rather than fall into Arab hands. (Jews captured in convoy battles were normally put to death and mutilated.)". Both sides committed atrocities, but only the Arabs irregulars normally killed and mutilated .

• yours:citing Abba Eban's use of the Azzam Pasha quotation". There is nothing special concerning Azam Pasha quotation. Other Arab leaders said so as well.
  • (Morris ,1948, p. 50)The UNSCOP majority arrived at their recommendations mainly because they could see no better alternative...The Arab reaction was just as predictable: “The blood will flow like rivers in the Middle East,” promised Jamal Husseini".
  • (Morris ,1948, p. 61)mid-August 1947, Fawzi al-Qawuqji—soon to be named the head of the Arab League’s volunteer army in Palestine, the Arab Liberation Army (ALA)—threatened that, should the vote go the wrong way, “we will have to initiate total war. We will murder, wreck and ruin everything standing in our way, be it English, American or Jewish"

• yours: the conflict in the narratives". As said, there is one truth only. Sometime there are unknown facts and historians have different interpretations. But here, there are sufficiently known facts and the discussion should converge into one truth only. Ykantor (talk) 06:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

As I said, if you believe 'there is only one truth only' (in the context of a page where 95% of the used archival material is written from an Israeli perspective) then you violate one of the pillars of wikipedia, which obliges all editors to accept that they must be neutral with regard to a plurality of narratives, which we are all expected to recognize. I am not going to answer the rest of your comments. It is true that Arab irregulars either often mutilated corpses, or were reported to do so. It is true that massacring innocent civilians was standard practice for many Jewish formations, and rape was widespread. But I am not interested in generalizations like that on these articles, and I regard people who read history for what its lurid angles might be taken to intimate about ethnic behaviour or mentalities with deep suspicion.Nishidani (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• As I said- Wikipedia:Five pillars:"Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view:.... In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context". In our case, the facts are generally known, and we should not accept more than one truth.
• Do you have a source for " massacring innocent civilians was standard practice for many Jewish formations"? While Israeli soldiers committed atrocities, I am not aware that it was a standard practice. An example of the opposite case: "Carmeli then shelled and stormed Acre, which raised a white flag on 18 May. The town was ripe for the taking, thoroughly demoralized by the fall of Haifa the previous month and by repeated attacks on its outskirts....By 7 May, there was “no electricity or fuel. . . . There was an outbreak of typhus. . …The locals wanted a ceasefire but the AHC refused to permit it and by 11 May most of the NC members had fled…. when Carmel’s troops attacked late on 16 May, the inhabitants responded promptly to the brigade’s demand to surrender (otherwise “we will destroy you to the last man and utterly”). Shortly after midnight, between 17 and 18 May, a party of notables appeared at Carmeli’s forward HQ and signed an instrument of unconditional surrender. On 18 May, the troops moved in and scoured the town for weapons and militiamen: “The town . . . looked like after a war. [There were] bodies everywhere. Their number is estimated at 60.” …Some officers suggested that Acre’s inhabitants be expelled. But this was never acted on. Four soldiers of Carmeli’s Twenty-second Battalion raped an Arab girl and murdered her father (they were later sentenced to three years in jail). Otherwise, the Israeli military government rapidly reorganized the town’s services and a substantial population stayed put, becoming Israeli citizens" (Morris, 1948, p. 164) Ykantor (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks . e.g "You messed up the lede, with clumsy English, and by taking out the carefully nuanced and source-responsive phrasing.". BTW since you blamed me for nothing (It is not my text), it make sense for you to apologize. Ykantor (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack. I noted that your 'rewriting' screwed up a perfectly normal English sentence. Nishidani (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• As I wrote, You blame me for someone else contribution. Ykantor (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Section The Massacre: firing from an armoured car

An unsourced sentence in the section, The Massacre, reads:

"In another account, after the 133 defenders had assembled, they were photographed by a man in a kaffiyeh, and then an armored car apparently belonging to the Arab Legion opened fire with its machine gun, and then Arab irregulars joined in."

I think that's a misinterpretation of the account. In the version I've seen, which was quoted, I think, in one of Benny Morris's books, it said that firing started after an armoured car arrived. But, it did not say that any of the shooting emanated from the armoured car. The sentence bears investigation. Also, a citation should be provided.

    ←   ZScarpia   23:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

"the IDF historian of the affair:...The Legion's armoured cars opened up with machinegun fire, either taking part in the massacre or in order to stop it (as they told the [jewish] prisoners afterwards)" (Benny Morris,The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews, p. 139) Ykantor (talk) 05:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Yigal Allon

I think it is wrong to delete Allon as a reference to the version that says (only) 15 prisoners were killed. Yigal Allon,Shield of David - The Story of Israel's Armed Forces. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1970 p.196. The reason given is that he is not a historian. It is more important that he was a senior commander at the time of the event and I would think he is reflecting the IDF version of the number of dead. Also having two references to 15 killed, neither from critics of Israel, does give the version some credibility - which is important because of some of the larger numbers this article devotes so much time to.Padres Hana (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Well... I deleted the information and I totally disagree.

Allon is not at all a reference for this and I even wanted to remove Gilbert. I hope that we have many other sources than Allon (a protagonist) and Gilbert (a generalist historian). If Gilbert is the only one who reports this, it is highly probable that he refers to Allon and in that case, this information would be totally fringe because reported by no other one. In other words, it Gilbert (and Allon) are the only one to refer to this "number" old of 65 years, it is highly probable that it is because nobody would have followed them. And if other have followed them, then it is useless to state it is Martin and Allon who states so because they have nothing particular in comparison with all the others...

I check in other sources about this. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm

• Gelber (2006) p.116 refers to the "massacre of 240 Jews at Gush Etzion after its surrender..."
• Nicole Picaudou (2006) p.113 says the same.
• Morris (2003) p.138, referring to an IDF historian, talks about "dozens in the courtyard" and "[at total] 127 persons including 21 women".
• Morris (2004) p.300, doesn't give any number.
• Laurens (2007) doesn't give any number.

I think that sources disagree. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Gelber made a slip, repeating a meme, and worse still abusing the facts by extending 'massacre' to include casualties of war (this is one thing Morris is scrupulously careful in avoiding, both on this and the Hadassah convoy incident, and why he, and Laurens, refuse to accept the usual versions). The figure of 240 is the total for casualties from the Etzion bloc's 4 kibbutzim. This is well known, and is confirmed by Amia Lieblich in her study, which is based on close interviews with the second generation, the wives, widows and children who were evacuated or survived.

Amia Lieblich, 'The Place of Religion in the Experience of War-Orphans as Constructed in their Life Stories,' in 'Jacob A. Belzen, Antoon Geels (eds.) Autobiography and the Psychological Study of Religious Lives,Rodopi Amsterdam, 2008 pp.239-253, p.240.

'Among the 240 casualties of these bloody days, seventy members of the kibbutz (i.e., Kfar Etzion), most of them men, were killed in battle, while they tried to defend their settlement. Many of them were slaughtered after their surrender.'

Daniel Mandel, H V Evatt and the Establishment of Israel: The Undercover Zionist, Routledge 2004 p.164

'Over 100 Jews defending the bloc died, and the Arab irregulars who had taken it summarily shot more than a score who surrendered.'

None of this is definitive of course. But there is a very strong tendency in reports that are patently false, of (a)confusing the casualties of Kfar Etzion with those of the Etzion Bloc (b) conflating the number of those reported to have been massacred (i)either in a cellar with handgrenades(ii) or in the courtyard by machine-gun fire, with the total number of the defenders of Kfar Etzion during the two days, the assumption being that almost no defenders died in battle, in the various areas where they had positions, but all died after a surrender. In the actual battle accounts, many died during the battle. Again, I suggest someone with access to it, consult Milstein, who usually has details the official or academic accounts ignore. Nishidani (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree it is obvious that the "240" of Gelber and Picaudou refers to those who died during and after the battle and probably for the 4 kibboutzim.

Note that we have the same issue for Deir Yassin where the 100-110 refers to the total number of victims during and after the battle and not to those who were massacred after they surrendered (ie in the quarry).

I don't have access to Milstein but he may (as usual) give full details of this event (if he reports it). Referring precisely to the firing of the prisoners, Morris reports the account of the IDF historian talking about "dozens" and 127 at the end but he doesn't confirm he agrees or disagrees.

My point is that nobody knows so giving weight to Allon because Gilbert gives weight to him when Morris and Laurens prefer avoiding to give numbers and Gelber just reports the "myth" is a mistake from us.

Pluto2012 (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I only put in 15 when I found, after so many sources disagreed on everything, that (a) one historians and (b) an ex-Palmach leader intimate with the battles of that war concurred. I think it is WP:OR to say Gilbert got it from Allon, however, though the problem remains. Hope Zero can help here.Nishidani (talk) 06:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It is even more than a WP:OR. I didn't check. It is just a guess. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time at the moment to get much involved here, so I'll just mention a few things.

• Milstein's four volumes stop in April so don't cover this.
• David Ohana, Kfar Etzion: The Community of Memory and the Myth of Return, Israel Studies, Volume 7, Number 2, Summer 2002, pp. 145-174 says "The last battle in Gush Etzion took place on 12 and 13 May 1948. ... The Arab villagers massacred the Israeli fighters who were captured: 127 of them fell on that day and only four remained alive. In all, 240 fighters and settlers fell in the battles of Gush Etzion". Note he doesn't say that the 127 were all massacred. In fact nobody knows what fraction of the total were killed after surrender. O Jerusalem (notable as a detailed account based on interviews with the four survivors) says it was about 50. Ohana gives multiple Hebrew sources.
• Yitzhak, Ronen(2011) 'Transjordan's attack on the Etzion Bloc during the 1948 war', Israel Affairs, 17: 2, 194–207 (this is not a very good journal and only publishes papers from right-wing authors, the editor being Ephraim Karsh) says "At about 19:00, after their surrender, the people of Kfar Etzion were concentrated in the centre of the village. The Arabs opened fire, massacring 127 people, among them 21 women." Later he says that 233 was the total Jewish death toll for the four locations. Note the prejudice visible in the choice of words "people of Kfar Etzion" as if they weren't all combatants (the rest had been evacuated earlier, as Morris documents).
• Note footnote 398 in Morris, Road to Jerusalem: "It would seem that Yakobson [who wrote the official IDF history] included in the '127' both those who died in the battles of 12-13 May and those who died in the subsequent massacre".

Zero^talk 12:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

So O Jerusalem is a source and Allon/Gilbert not!! O Jerusalem which somehow manages to omit the death of Thomas C. Wasson! Sorry must stop - to much red wine and I am likely to write something I will regret.Padres Hana (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't investigate Allon or Gilbert and so didn't comment on them. The testimony of the four survivors is important since in reality they are the only sources of the massacre story. We should be very suspicious of claims that the massacre was worse than what the Jewish eye-witnesses reported. Zero^talk 23:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Did somebody check Allon's book p.196 ? Because this is a 1970 book that cannot be read from google book (only excerpts) and the little I can read from google book p.196 talks about 14 deaths during Nachshon operation... ?

Well. Same question regarding Gilbert. It is not a book, it is an "atlas". Whatever, I cannot read p.93 with google. When I type "Etzion" I get a white page. Does someone have access to the precise information given by Gilbert ?

In any case : "Of the 129 Haganah soldiers and Jewish combatant kibbutzniks who died during the defence of the settlement, Martin Gilbert states that fifteen were murdered on surrendering." is at best just one mind and cannot be in the lead. All other sources talk about 240 fighthers (not Haganah, there were kibboutzim and Palmach soldiers) who died during the defence and 127 who were massacred.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is the text of Gilbert p93. It is in a text box appearing on a map.
"KFAR ETZION. 20-30 April Jews repel repeated Arab attacks. 4 May Arab attacks beaten off; 12 Arabs killed. 12 May Several hundred Arabs renew the attack. 100 Jews killed. Only 4 survived. 15 Jews were machine-gunned to death after they had surrendered, and were being photographed by their captors."
Gilbert doesn't give a source and overall I don't think this is a good source. Zero^talk 12:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources WP:OR discussion

Looking for data, I thought about Palestine Post's archives. And quite surprizindly, in an article of 1950, there are "only" 85 casualities reported at Kfar Etzion... And it is even not talked about a massacre. That would fit Allon's testimony more but is in contradiction to what majority of historians states : Jerusalem Post.

Before quarrelling about numbers and what is reliable or not, I would suggest everybody to read the lead of Battles of Latrun (1948) and then this section of the article that starts by a wonderfull totally reliable source that talks about 2000 deaths at Latrun. The remaining of the section explains why 168 become 2000... The historigraphy of the Battle of Latrun is a wonderful exemple to teach everybody that we never check enough.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense. Much of Gilbert's work in this area (as in his other books) draws directly on local news reports. That is why he gave 59 for the number massacred at Hebron in 1929 (in another book), the reason being that that is the figure mentioned in The Palestine Post the day after the slaughter (some died of wounds over the next weeks, while two died of shock-induced heart attacks). I don't think we can casually dismiss Gilbert as a source because it came from an Atlas. He says this in two distinct books.

Martin Gilbert,Israel: A History, Doubleday Religious Publishing Group, 1998 pp.183-184, p.184:’There then occurred an incident that has scarred the memory of that time until today. When an Arab Legion officer called for a cease-fire, fifteen of the defenders piled their arms and, as order to do so by the officer who wished to take a photograph of the surrender, lined up in a row.

Martin Gilbert,Exile and return: the struggle for a Jewish homeland, Lippincott,1978 p.307'Fifteen Jews captured at Kfar Etzion were machine-gunned to death after they had surrendered, while being photographed by their captors.'

One can almost be certain MG is quoting a contemporary Palestine Post or local Israeli (by then) newspaper when he cites that figure (which however does not make it definitive). Obviously we should take our time with this. Once we've untangled it, the lead should be modified to give a range of figures, from 15 onwards. My original point is that we should certainly not employ sources that, for whatever motive, classify the total dead as massacred - that spurious assertion accounts for why I intervened in the first place. Nishidani (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Another mention of 15 in a pro-Israeli book. A Clash of Destinies: The Arab-Jewish War and the Founding of the State of Israel, By: Jon Kimche; David Kimche, p140.

An officer of the Legion called on the defenders to surrender, and some fifteen men came out and gave up their arms. As they stood in a row at the command of the officer, who wished to photograph them, a local Arab stepped forward with a sub-machine-gun and mowed down the line of men, despite the protests of the officer. Altogether, of the whole population of the village, only three men and a girl succeeded in getting out alive; the rest were all killed.

Zero^talk 13:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It's perhaps neither here nor there, but in my experience, the Kimches were highly well informed on all sorts of intimate details, and Jon Kimche was certainly an accomplished historian of the period, with a very keen sense of the complexities of war. This is the most visually focused report I've encountered so far. Morris has it in for Glubb and is rather sceptical of the Jordanian version: the Kimches associate it with a local villager (not villagers and or Arab Legion). Perhaps we should form a work section that lists in full reportage the many various accounts, so we can have the essential information necessary to describe the many versions? It is the only way to avoid slipping into partisan language for one side or another for the whole duration of the battle and aftermath.Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.

On my side, I think it's worth contacting a professionnal historian about this... That is in contradiction with what I wrote above but I have the feeling the 15 is the "real story" and the 127 (240) is a kind of inflation... I send an email to Laurens this WE.

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. We should cast out nets widely to fix this. Amia Lieblich is I believe a prof emeritus, maybe someone could email her on this. She has very good contacts in the Gush Etzion community, having interviewed them all (other statistics she gives markedly differ, I think 74-9 men, and 29 women if I remember, less than 127-129-133. I'm bewildered when I see so often, on key events, that no historians trouble to fix the mess in the records, or explain, at least, how the figures grew). The story is utterly tragic - a large number of those men and women managed to survive the murder fields of East Europe and the Holocaust, only to end up positioned where their chances of survival were minimal. One can't but admire the guts and courage, less so the commanders who, fully aware of these facts, put them out on that fragile limb. (WP:OR). They deserve a very closely worked article, their names, backgrounds etc., included.Nishidani (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The fifteen figure is also given by Karsh as regarding the number killed after surrender. He then jumbles it up with the rhetorical point-pushing memes. Efraim Karsh, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: The 1948 War, The Rosen Publishing Group2008 p.49

Fifteen defenders, who had laid down their weapons, were summarily slaughtered, together with dozens of other defenders and civilians.

Here this refers clearly to a group that surrendered. So that makes Karsh, the Kimche, Gilbert, Allon (all in no way indictable as critics of Israel) agreeing, undoubtedly reflecting some very early source. But that's not what interests me in Karsh's account. It's rather the fact that he adds that among the victims at Kfar Etzion was an Arab family that was living on the kibbutz, an interesting fact in itself, which of course would also enter into any final calculation of the actual numbers (a) at Kfar Etzion before the 12-13 May attack (b) the numbers killed in the two day battle (c) those killed on surrender at one spot (courtyard or cellar) (d)those killed while fleeing or found wounded as the survivors testified. Tomorrow I will create a section where we can list and cite sources for the various versions on this and any other point, and transfer the material so far gathered there.Nishidani (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the Arab family: Once I read that during every summer, a big Bedoin tribe (called "Taamri") moved to the area and routinely attacked (or robbed) the Arab farmers. During the Turkish rule it was a well known problem all over the country. A lone and more vulnerable Arab farmer (who happened to live very close to the Kibutz) decided that he will be better protected if he collaborate with the Kibutz. I do not remember whether he was there on 1948 as well. Ykantor (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Quote's interest

I don't think that this quote had an added value. The reference is enough from my point of view :

"Henry Laurens, La Question de Palestine, vol.2, Fayard 2007 p.96.:'According to the Arab Legion version, the Jordanian soldiers arrived too late to impede the massacre by villagers who were keen to avenge Deir Yassin and the losses they had sustained since November (it should be kept in mind that it was the colony that opened hostilities in December by destroying a nearby village)'.(Selon la version de la Légion, les soldats jordaniens sont arrivés trop tard pour empêcher le massacre de la part des villageois désireux de venger Deir Yassin et leurs pertes depuis le mois de novembre (il faut rappeler que c'est la colonie qui a ouvert les hostilités en décembre en détruisant un village voisin).' Laurens adds:'Le plus probable est que tout se soit passé dans la plus grande confusion' (Most probably, everything took place in a situation of enormous confusion.)"

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It's a momentary sop to Ykantor, who keeps posting {cn} remarks because either he doubts my good faith, or refuses to understand RS. I will remove it when he has finally understood the point. I think however, come to think of it, that 'According to Laurens, the colony had started the conflict in December 1947 by destroying a local Arab village' should be added. This is just Laurens's opinion, and I would think other sources, which we should look at, might well challenge this interpretation of the etiology, and if we can muster them, they too must be added in some relevant overview section. Of the several Israelocentric sources I examined, the narratives almost invariably selected as an implicit starting point some Arab attack on undefined 'convoys' in January.Nishidani (talk) 10:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• It is better to look at it as is rather than searching for a hidden motivation. To my knowledge, the first Haganah destructed Arab village was the Quastel at Apr 1948, and the Deir Yassin massacre happened around the same time. Laurens claim that an Arab village was destroyed in Dec 1947, which is too early and conflicting. So I put a question mark here. If you can provide the alleged destroyed vilage name, it will be easier to verify.

1. BTW Arabs abandoned there village even before Apr 1948, but the issue here is a destroyed village, which is not the same.
2. BTW The Arabs destroyed Kfar Etzion (and its predecessors) at 1929 and at 1936. Hence, even if Kfar Etsion residents has indeed destroyed an Arab village, it should be balanced by mentioning their prior experience too. Ykantor (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You still haven't understood how wiki works. Perhaps the foremost historian of modern Palestine makes a statement. You query it because you haven't heard of this in any other source. Well, one just has to keep digging. What you are asking for is proof that Laurens was right or wrong. That is not our brief as editors. Read WP:V. As to your second points, it's likewise quite simple. If you have good academic sources which date the origins of the Kfar Etzioon conflict to 1929 and 1936, by all means introduce them, i.e., sources that in addressing the massacre refer to prior episodes as related to the conflict at hand. I'm removing your cit needed, because it is a violation of the rule book.Nishidani (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I see it has been removed. I should note that if Kfar Etzion was established in 1943, mentioning Migdal Eder and El Ha-Har, as you seem to imply, is totally irrelevant.Nishidani (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at the pro Palestinian site, [http://zochrot.org/en/category/districts/%D7%90%D7%9C-%D7%A7%D7%93%D7%A1-%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%9D zochrot.org). I could not find there an Arab village which was destructed before Apr 1948. Do you think that the site has a mistake? Ykantor (talk) 16:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm as keen as you are in eventually identifying this village. Laurens is not God, and historians can make errors. He is certainly scrupulously more objective in his narrative voice than Morris or Gelber (Arabs defending their land are not 'bandits', 'snipers', 'gangs', 'irregulars', 'plunderers', 'jihadi hotheads,' or mobs answering the call for a Faz'a only because it promises them filthy lucre, which is how most academic sources relate events occurring on land designated Arab yet resolutely asserted by settlers outside their borders as part of the new Jewish state). Laurens also has at his finger tips the whole Arabic-language memorial literature, and uses it extensively. We have a personal right to seek precision, but we cannot hold his failure to name the village up as reason for rejecting that notice, which is attributed. It's a technical point, and you have, as elsewhere, consistently failed to distinguish what RS say from what the truth might be. The former is how this encyclopedia is built: the latter often cannot be known, even if it were to exist.Nishidani (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yours:"and you have, as elsewhere, consistently failed to distinguish what RS say from what the truth might be". I consider it as a personal compliment. If other pro Palestinian sources would not mention such a village, than it is possibly a Laurens's mistake. As said , it could happen to every respected historian. Ykantor (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
• "irregulars " is a classification. "Sniper" is a military profession. even the usage of "Mob" is sometime justified. Ykantor (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I had mistaken the problem. I didn't get the point that Laurens was talking about a village that would have been destroyed in december 1947.

I don't see either to which village Laurens refers to but as Nishidani points out, Laurens is a wp:rs source. I never caught Laurens in making mistake. On the contrary, he often brings interesting information that many other historians missed. In this case, we should try to find of what village he talks about if we want to keep this information...

Pluto2012 (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Laurens is not 'pro-Palestinian'. He is an Arabist who makes a strenuous attempt to give what his reading of all of the relevant sources suggests to be a balanced account, which is, in my reading, very rare. We cannot challenge an impeccable RS source because we suspect it may contain an error unless we have clear evidence that an error has been made. Suspicion gets nowhere here. I have added Gelber specifically on Dec 7 (though he says 'Gush Etzion' (which could refer to any of three other kibbutzim) not Kfar Etzion) to implicitly seed in the reader's mind a reflection on the preceding statement by Laurens. We should keep our eyes peeled to run this down, but, in lieu of evidence undermining Laurens's statement, it is perfectly legitimate to retain the text. If anything, it is a spur to further study.Nishidani (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Added a POV statement tag. we could not find any other wp:rs that mention such a destruction. Ykantor (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

As reported at WP:RSN, Pluto solved the problem. It was Beit Zakariya (Khirbet Beit Sakariya on British survey maps) located just south of Rosh Tsurim in the middle of the Etzion Block. Milstein describes it at page 335 of his Volume 2 (not Vol 1, Pluto), calling it Hirbet-Zakariya. The residents fled after a convoy attack in December, the Jews seized it, and it became a site of battles (pp. 343–348). My proposal is to drop Laurens' reference to this and use Milstein's instead, since Milstein provides more detail. Zero^talk 12:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Pluto, you have done a great research job. Well done. ( A copy is placed in the wp:rsn) Ykantor (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Rosh Tsurim figures quite a bit in the Kfar Etzion story. Al-Qader tried to make it a base. The only point that requires clarification is the notice I list from Milstein below.

'a police pick-up truck arrived in the first week of war in December 1947 and was shot at after it forced a makeshift roadblock, and capsized. A squad of Jewish cadets raided Bedouin tents (in reprisal) that night. (This notice p.333, suggests an incident between 1-6 of December, before the convoy of 10 incident)

This is before both the Convoy of Ten incident (11th December), where four bloc members died, and the immediate evacuation (in Milstein) of the Arabs of Beit Zakariya, which the Palmach then occupied. There is no mention in Milstein of the destruction of a village Laurens refers to. The only thing resembling this I have found in Milstein refers to the event described above, which occurred a week earlier than both the Convoy of Ten incident, and the abandonment of the Khribet Zakariya village. It is therefore not to be excluded a priori that Laurens may be referring to the raid by (Palmach?) cadets on a Bedouin encampment in that locality, somewhere in that immediate vicinity. It is not to be excluded that by 'village' Laurens might be referring to this tented settlement. One should be extremely wary, on wikipedia, of WP:SYNTH. We are drawing a conclusion, (based on Pluto's ingenious suggestion) in either case. This is why I think, having reflected on the new text, that we must retain Laurens, who in any case is mentioned with attribution. I agree with Zero that Milstein ought to be used, whatever the RSN had to say about him. He has a level of detail ignored by more mainstream sources, and if editors use him intelligently, I see no reason why he should be held hostage to POV scruples. Nishidani (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

On balance I still think that Zakariya is the village referred to by Laurens. It matches perfectly with question mark over the description "destroyed", which is neither supported nor contradicted by Milstein. After the residents left, it was taken over and fortified, with multiple battles fought over it. Given that it was a tiny place, what sort of state would it have been in by May? "Destroyed" is likely to be an arguable description. Zero^talk 09:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

en décembre en détruisant un village voisin specifically says the (hostilities were opened by the destruction of a neighbouring village in December. If this is Zakariya then Laurens is saying it was destroyed in December, not May. The mosque and buildings were occupied and the former used as a watchtower or observation point in the succeeding months, so it was not 'destroyed'. Both Pluto and yourself may be right, but this means that Laurens is wrong, certainly in his choice of terms and narrative comment.Nishidani (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem to interpret "destroyed" as "flattened". I don't see that. Major damage to the dwellings would be called destruction by many reasonable people. Zero^talk 09:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I will defer instinctively to whatever Pluto and yourself agree to. I have no case to prove. The problem is that Milstein says residents of Hirbet-Zakariya fled (making this the first Arab village to be abandoned by its inhabitants in the War of Independence). Small HISH and Palmach units seized the village and "Yellow Hill," while Arabs who attempted to tend fields near the block were chased off by gunfire.

I.e. Villagers fled, and the village was occupied. It suffered no attack from Jews. It became a key defensive bastion for months, and was attacked by Arabs. A month later (Jan 14) Jewish spotters were using the top of the mosque at Zakariya as an observation post, and upper houses were intact (Milstein 1997 vol.2 p.344)

Laurens says the the village was 'destroyed' by the Jews in December. The verb 'détruire' in French, when used of buildings, refers to 'razing to the ground' 'burning down'. Milstein contradicts this - the village was empty, abandoned when its buildings and mosque were occupied by the Palmach in December, without fight. So this is a source contradiction if Laurens is alluding to Khirbet-Zakariya, since Milstein does not mention any destruction or damage; to the contrary. There is, however, no source contradiction if by 'village', Laurens had in mind the Bedouin encampment which was attacked in the first week of December. They took it intact in Milstein, whereas they laid waste to it in Laurens. The inference both Pluto and you make is legitimate, but it makes Laurens out to be nodding, which is quite possible. There is no certainty on this, however, because Milstein mentions an assault on a Bedouin encampment earlier than both the Convoy of 10 incident and the Zakariya occupation. Since this is a consensual thing, if the consensus allows this inference to be made, and thinks the source contradiction unproblematical, I won't oppose the elision of Laurens on this. But at the same time, I think, since we now have Milstein, that we should exploit this opportunity to form an event time-line of the background battles, from the Bedouin incident, to the Convoy of 10, Zakariya in December, and the successive conflicts from January to May, simply listing the events. The reader can make up his mind.Nishidani (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, Khirbet Beit Zakariyyah is now started, and is in dire need of some WP:RS about 1948. I find nothing in Morris. If anyone of you can help, it would be great, Huldra (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nishidani and Zero0000: I just came across this interesting thread. But I couldn't see anything about it in the article - perhaps it has been removed in subsequent years? I couldn't see Milstein or Khirbet Beit Zakariyyah anywhere. I have just added a reference to it at Gush Etzion, but I would like to ensure this is dealt with properly. It should also be at List of towns and villages depopulated during the 1947–1949 Palestine war, and at 1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine#Beginning of the Civil War (30 November 1947 – 1 April 1948), particularly if it really was the first village depopulated in the conflict. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

RSN discussion pasted and to be continued here

Page 65 of the Benni Morris source seems to confirm that Arab villages were being destroyed from December 1947 onwards: ".. the period December 1947 - March 1948 was marked by Arab initiatives and attacks and Jewish defensiveness, increasingly punctuated by Jewish reprisals. ... The Haganah initially retaliated by specifically and accurately targeting the offending terrorist, militia group or village...". The cited map doesn't have a description but judging by the key seems to be "abandoned" Arab settlements, and there are some with "unknown" dates. There are a number of possibilities why a December 1947 "destruction" isn't listed (it could be one of the "unknown" ones, the list might not be 100% complete, the list might start in March 1948 and the village was already destroyed, people might have remained at the village until later so it's "abandoned" date was later than the initial attack etc. etc.). I don't see a direct contradiction between the two sources here, it's much more likely that Ykantor's "no villages destroyed before March 1948" is a (mistaken) assumption. Tobus2 (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Laurens may refer eg to the Balad al-Shaykh massacre. 20 to 70 people of this village were massacred during the night from 31.12.47 to 1.1.48 and a part of the population left the village in the afterwards. I would have expected a village in the Jerusalem area but I could not identify this. Maybe he refers to a village in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. We could ask him but I don't want to disturb this historian for such a futility.

Anyway, I agree with Nishidani that Ykantor's behaviour has become a persisting problem.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Nishidani, please stop personal attacks. The question is accurately presented.
• Tobus2, it would be beneficial if you spend your time verifying Laurens claim, rather than trying to prove that Morris is not really against the claim. Please read the cited discussion, and find that even a pro Palestinian site, does not claim for such an early destruction.
• AioftheStorm, thank you for raising this great yet simple initiative to contact the author. I should have done it earlier. Could someone find out his email address ? I could not find it in his page. Ykantor (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Contact him if you want to, but be aware that editors will want to scrutinise the authenticity of any reply you receive. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Nitaf, also known as Khirbet Nataf, was depopulated on April 15 one month earlier. It was in the Jerusalem district about 1km from the present Israeli town of Nataf. I don't know if this is what Laurens had in mind but it fits the description. Saris, depopulated and largely destroyed on April 6, fits even better. It was 10km from Kfar Etzion. There were other possibilities slightly further away, like Khulda that was completely leveled in April. There is no basis to this objection whatever. And, yes, Ykantor's behavior is a serious problem. Zero^talk 08:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Itsmejudith: I will appreciate it if you advise me how to email him in a verified method? To my knowledge, there is no such a method. Hence it does not worth to ask him, since the reply might not be accepted here. It might be better that someone else will ask Prof. Laurence.

• Zero: it would be beneficial if you read the source before writing your opinion. It is rather frustrating to be blamed for irrelevant evidence. Laurens says that this Arab vilage was supposedly destroyed on Dec 1947, while you mention destroyed villages during another and not relevant time frame. Ykantor (talk) 08:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Zero's information was very enlightening, but does not resolve the crux, since Laurens writes:'c'est la colonie qui a ouvert les hostilités en décembre en détruisant un village voisin' (It was the colony (Kfar Etzion) which opened hostilities in December by destroying a village).

Where Ykantor goes wildly wrong is in making the header here read: 'respected RS has a factual mistake?' That is a total twisting of the state of the argument, which, by the way, is not appropriate for discussion on this page. Ykantor suspects Henry Laurens made a factual mistake, i.e. he asserts that a palmary RS by a leading expert gets this wrong but, at the same time, has no evidence to show Laurens is wrong. All we have then, is Ykantor's suspicion. No evidence. Since we have several editors active on the page who delight in resolving mysteries like this, and don't care which side new evidence favours (Pluto, Zero), this issue can be returned to the talk page. We'll all try to identify by name the village near Kfar Etzion alluded to. None of this affects, for the moment, however, the notice in Laurens. Lastly, this is given as the 'Arab legion' version, not as a 'fact', something Ykantor overlooks. Laurens is not necessarily stating the facts, he is reporting the versions by both sides. So, Ykantor, stop abusing several notice boards with false representations of issues best discussed on the various talk pages. Nishidani (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

It is a pity that user:Nishidani write incorrect statements.

• user:Nishidani:"All we have then, is Ykantor's suspicion. No evidence". This is not true. I have provided an evidence. I suggest user:Nishidani to read the section before writing.

1. As I already said here, Morris abandoned villages map, does specify the date for each village, and I could not find a village that was abandoned on Dec 1947 as stated by Laurence. Moreover, the earliest date seems to be as late as April 1948
2. As already said in the talkpage, even a pro Palestinian (but probably not a RS) internet site, does not list any village around Jerusalem that was destroyed before (as late as) Apr 1948.

• user:Nishidani: " this is given as the 'Arab legion' version, not as a 'fact'. This is an interesting idea. I would like to hear the experts here, when a respected RS quote a third party, what kind of responsibilty (if at all) he has to the quote's content? Ykantor (talk) 12:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You don't know what you are talking about. Your understanding of the rules is, to put a fine gloss on it, is chaotic and subjective.Nishidani (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I missed the "December" aspect. There was a village depopulated near Jaffa in December, and some other stuff, but as far as I know Kfar Etzion was only attacking traffic on the nearby roads. If indeed Laurens is just reporting a story put out by a party to the conflict, that's only an error if that party didn't say it, and not a problem for us if we report the claim correctly as a claim. All sides to this conflict told whoppers. Does Laurens give a source? I can consult "A Soldier with the Arabs" if it might be there. Zero^talk 12:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I checked the very detailled map of Palestine in 1948 that you provided to us some time ago.

Except a village north of Kfar Etzion for which no name is given and that I could not identify, all the other ones were depopulated much later.

Pluto2012 (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I too exaggerated. I'm editing today between teabreaks while cutting timber and pruning a neighbour's overgrown garden, so I didn't have time to check Laurens, but relied on my memory. Let's reexamine it:

'le massacre de la part des villageois désireux de venger Deir Yassin et leur pertes depuis le mois de novembre (il faut rappeler que c'est la colonie qui a ouvert les hostilités en décembre en détruisant un village voisin).

So Laurens says the Arab Legion version has the villagers motivated by a desire to revenge both Deir Yassin and 'their losses since Novembre' and then adds his own judgement as a historian, adding in parentheses: 'One should recall that it was the colony which had opened the hostilities in December by destroying a nearby village). So the second part is not in the Legion's Arab version, it is Laurens's comment.

From the notes it looks like he is drawing on David Tal, War in Palestine, 1948 pp.434-461and FRUS (Foreign Relations of (the) United States) 1948 V. pp.1680-1685. If you could chuck a shufti at the latter, then Robert would be a very close affine. I've just edited in Royal Institute of International Affairs. Perhaps their yearbook for 47 should also be consulted. Nishidani (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

FRUS has nothing on it. Other interesting stuff though, like Bevin telling the Americans that Israel would be a communist state within 5 years. I can't find my copy of Tal at the moment... One thing to note is that bedouin communities were not counted as villages on maps or in official documents even when they were quite large and had been in the same place for a long time. So that is a possibility for what Laurens meant. Zero^talk 23:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hadn't thought of that, but on reflection, yes, it is a very good possibility. He uses Arif al-Arif extensively, even in this chapter, and he diligently collected and collated a huge quantity of oral testimony, which most other researchers only waited until the 80s to glean.Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Henry Laurens must refer to the village of Hirbet-Zakariya. This "village" is right in the middle of Gush Eztion. Uri Milstein talks about it p.335 of his first book about the '48 war. According to the Israeli version, population (2 extended families) fled and it was conquered by "small HISH and Palmach" units in reprisal of the "convoy of the ten" massacre on 11 december. There had been no trouble with them ever; on the contrary. Milstein refers to it as the first village of the 1948 war that was depopulated.

Maybe Laurens is not 100 % neutral when he states that in these circumstances, the Gush Etzion settlers started the hostilities given the massacre of the 10 is an act of war but both these families should not have felt guilty either : it doesn't seem there is evidence they would have participated.

From my point of view, this is just another illustration of the spark of the spiral of violence mechanism to whom all scholars refer when they describe the events of the beginning of the '48 war.

Even if the information is correct, I think we should remove the reference to this village made by Laurens because per WP:NPoV it becomes hard to state who started the hostilities around Gush Eztion, as everywhere in Palestine. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Brilliant piece of detective work, Pluto. To understand Laurens' argument one would have to clarify the links between the families at Hirbet-Zakariya and the villagers who attacked Kfar Etzion. I don't know if 'neutrality' in an RS can be adduced though. I don't think Gelber and Morris, our main sources, are neutral either, but it doesn't bother me to use them. Their narrative voice, at least in terms of the differentiating language they habitually employ, (particularly Gelber) is cogged to justify the Zionist version. Laurens is talking about the 'start' of their participation, not the start of the war. And, it is illuminating that the convoy of 10 incident was prior, but which Palestinian groups participated in that? In any case, I will defer to Zero's judgement, which will probably back you.Nishidani (talk) 07:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I've examined Milstein now. Much of this depends on how we regard him. I remember at the Deir Yassin page he was challenged as RS. What he does say is that

• (1) forward planning for the war, before the Yishuv had been declared the State of Israel, the Gush Etzion bloc was to serve as a 'forward position to suppress outbreaks and hold off forces of local Arabs supplemented by foreign stages in the early stages of the war'(p.328) It was to shield Jerusalem, and, for the Palmach, also to attack Mt. Hebron.
• (2) 'Initially, they had agreed to live in an Arab state; when it became clear that the bloc would cease to exist except as part of the Jewish state, and that the Jerusalem command was neighter willing nor able to allocate sufficient resources for their defense, many of them were already suffering from a Masada complex. Despite the certainty of defeat, they stayed on their settlements to the bitter end'. (320)
• (3)The Palmach said GE residents were opposed to fortifications saying that was the Haganah's job, preferring agriculture. They wer likened to Ein Gedi residents at the Bar-Kochba revolt.
• (4)The bloc began to be fortified in April, when the Palmach left and command was given to Moshe Zilberschmidt. A Palmach platoon arrived, but had a hard time getting on with the kibbutzniks there and clashed with them. They trusted God would look after them. At Kfar Etzion resistance to militarization was justified by one who commented "We want to preserve the way of life we have as a civilian settlement'. This version coming from military personnel present at the time, was later (35 years later) dismissed by residents who survived.p.332
• (5) a police pick-up truck arrived in the first week of war in December 1947 and was shot at after it forced a makeshift roadblock, and capsized. A squad of Jewish cadets raided Bedouin tents (in reprisal) that night. (This notice p.333, suggests an incident between 1-6 of December, before the convoy of 10 incident)
• (6) December 6, Yehoshua Globerman took H Company and Palmach reserves, and one platoon under Dani Mass was directed to Gush-Etzion, where he was in command. They arrived on a Sabbath.
• (7) December 7 'Arab bandits waylaid a car from the bloc and robbed the passengers of their money near the main road.' (p.334)
• (8) December 10 Two weddings were held at Kfar-Etzion on December 10, and the mukhtar and other friends from Beit-Umar was invited. He informed two Jews that agitators had called on village residents to attack the Jews, and advised them to return to the bloc. They were stoned as they left his home. Other informers told of further incitement in other villagers, and of a meeting between Abd-e-Kader and delegates from 10 towns. Four reps from those 10 towns expressed a readiness to fight, four refused, two wavered.(p.334)
• (9)These are the events prior to the Convoy of 10 incident on December 11, 1947 where six of the 10 were bloc members. Milstein comments: 'In the wake of the conoy tragedy, most Arab peasants, fearing revenge, ceased working fields near Jewish settlements and shut themselves up in their villages. Residents of Hirbet-Zakariya fled (making this the first Arab village to be abandoned by its inhabitants in the War of Independence). Small HISH and Palmach units seized the village and "Yellow Hill," while Arabs who attempted to tend fields near the block were chased off by gunfire.
• (10)12-13 December, a reprisal (from the bloc) took place on an Arab bus at Kilometer 25 on the Hebron-Jerusalem route, near Emek Habracha. It was machine-gunned, killing 4 Arabs, but British intervention put an end to the ambush, and the official sources suppressed the incidentNishidani (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailled record of the events.

• regarding Milstein, I think he is like Pappé : what they wrote at the beginning of their carreer is worth using ; what they wrote more recently should be avoided if possible even if we cannot discard it. The 4 books that Milstein wrote about the '48 war are as far as I know considered as references by all scholars.
• regarding the "who shot first" around Kfar Etzion or anywhere else in Palestine, my analysis of all WP:RS sources is that the events cannot be described with one agressor and one defender. And Laurens shares my mind (or I should say that I share Laurens's mind). Using his words, protagonists where in a context of Zero-sum game and Self-fulfilling prophecy. Both positions were legitimate or at least enough rationale so that they were convinced the rightness was on their side and in building a fence against what they feared, they provocated their reaction that they feared from their "advesary"... With these glasses, the different sparks, sometimes not related to the global conflict, sometimes directly related to it, generated reprisals and counter-reprisals that lead to a terrible civil war. Many sources, if not all, talk about a spiral of violence to described the December and January events...

So, from my point of view, per WP:NPoV, if we want to enter in the debate of who shot first, we shouldt give all points of view, ie why A considered B shot first and why B considered it was A and why scholars today consider it is neither A or B who forget some events. This becomes complex and discussable. So, per WP:Undue, I consider we should avoid these considerations regarding "who shot first" and avoid the topic because it gives a bad (and not reliable) lighting on the events.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I've answered this, (mostly) above. But I think articles should have a strict and complete chronology, even if only the bare facts, for each incident at a minimum. One certainly should not go round plunking a generalization about 'who shot first' irrespective of events. Many pages do have mentions of who shot first, from memory, and the point hasn't been problematized until I raised the idea of mentioning Laurens's remark on Kfar Etzion. Kfar Etzion shouldn't be the exception. Ultimately we go by what sources say of each episode (most of our best sources say the Yishuv (a) planned for war before 29 November 1947) (b) and then the narratives use the language of 'reprisal', 'retaliation' to describe Israel's 'response'. Notwithstanding that, I confirm the principle, even if I think the main and best histories have a distinct Zionocentric tilt in this regard. In any case, I have no problems with whatever decision the consensus turns out to be. I'll be away for a few days. Cheers, Pluto, and thanks for the Milstein clue. Very good. Nishidani (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.

Nish : "point hasn't been problematized until I raised the idea of mentioning Laurens's remark on Kfar Etzion"

We both together (but me more) opposed to Ykantor who wants that in both articles dedicated to the '48 war first events, we emphasize that Arabs [would have] shot first" [and as Morris points out, bear the responsability of the consequences...].

I would rather be anti-revisionnist narrative here. ;-)

I discussed this ad nauseam with him.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• This is not accurate. I am not dealing with the question whether the Palestinians "bear the responsibility for the consequences" . It is a very complicated issue. e.g. according to a new book about Battle of Mishmar HaEmek, the kibutz had very good relations with some of the surrounding Arab villages (because of an socialist ideology). On early 1948 , during of one of the kibutz members visit in an Arab village, some Arab youngsters told them that they are not welcomed any more, and their friends, the Arab elders, are not any more in charge. So, should all this village Arabs be blamed? of course not all of them. I have a sympathy to the suffering ordinary people of both sides, unlike the Arab leaders, who brought a disaster upon their people. We, Israelis, were lucky to have Ben Gurion as a leader. Without his leadership, we might have lost the war.
• The argument is not limited to who was the first to shoot. The Arabs continued initiating shooting and killing while the Haganah wanted to calm the situation. It is very important to understand the rational of both sides. The Arab Higher Committee planned to repeat their 1937 success, where their revolt caused the U.K to withdraw from Peel partition plan. The Yishuv purpose was to pacify the situation, for the same rational but in the opposite direction- to keep the partition plan alive. Actually, the Arab leaders nearly succeeded when the USA withdrew it's support to the partition plan which was causing a bloodshed. Ykantor (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

IZL, LHI, Haganah or Palmach didn't "calm don't the situation". On the contrary they perpetrated several bombings attacks. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Problems with the lead

The current lead fail short of WP:NPV and is full of tendentious claims. The residents of Kfar Etzion were described as "soldiers and Jewish settlers" although the term "Jewish settlers "in the context of West Bank imply to Israeli citizens settled there after 1967, all residents killed there, were in fact citizens of Mandatory Palestine. This has to be changed as it undermines the objectivity of entire article. If no objections is raised I will correct this based on my proposal reverted by Nishidani.Tritomex (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The term "Jewish settlers" doesn't imply that we talk about "Israeli citizens settled in West Bank after 1967" and the fact that this article refers to events of 1948 makes things obvious.

I add that the kibbutzim were all fighters (militiamen).

Pluto2012 (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

This was discussed at great length, Tritomex, and the lead as we have it was arrived at as a consensual arrangement by all parties, and several of us, though seeing the issues from nuanced perspectives, concluded that this was a fair description. It was no so much 'my' edit but an edit made on behalf of those editors. Leads that have stabilized, esp. on difficult articles, should not be tampered with lightly, but via collegial discussion and perhaps redress on the talk page.Nishidani (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

'Jordanian War Crimes'

Involvement of Arab Legion is disputed, I see no reason why to add the 'Jordanian War Crimes' category.--Makeandtoss (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

For the same reason that we put the Qibya massacre in the category of "Operations involving Israeli special forces", and describe it as a massacre by the IDF, despite Ben Gurion's contemporary denials and claims that it was an act by Israeli civilians. Epson Salts (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Who were the Israeli irregulars, and kibbutznikim among the special forces operating with the IDF in the Qibya massacre? Nishidani (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

So basically your logic is: someone added BS about Israel, now we can BS about other countries? --Makeandtoss (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

No, the logic is: perpetrators of crimes always deny it, but we don't those treat those denials as credible.. Epson Salts (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If historians and scholars treat those denials as credible, you have nothing to do here. --Makeandtoss (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

But that's the point- historians do not treat either denial as credible. They just note the denial. Epson Salts (talk)

Nonsense

The participation in this massacre by the Arab Legion is documented in the article by reputable historians such as Morris. Why would it be "nonsense" to note this ? Epson Salts (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Read the page. Historians dispute this.Nishidani (talk) 07:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Which historians dispute this? Epson Salts (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

There were some legionnaires present, but the extent to which they participated in the actual massacre is disputed. Morris and others describe this dispute. Nobody doubts that the much larger number of Arab irregulars who were there participated. The weight of evidence is for some degree of Legion involvement, but you can't just write perpetrators=Arab Legion as if that's a undisputed fact. Zero^talk 13:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the extent of their participation is subject to dispute, but not the participation itself. How about we note that the perpetrators were "Arab irregulars and some Legionnaires'? Epson Salts (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Palmach and Haganah forces were present, and active, during the Deir Yassin Massacre. The perpetrators are exclusively designated as Irgun and Lehi. Unless you can nail it down as an historical fact, it remains a disputed inference. The company that, at Calley's direction, perpetrated the Mai Lai Massacre belonged to the Ist battalion of the 20th Infantry Regiment. In the infobox, the latter doesn't figure. We have his company and Calley. We can't pin down anything certain in this present case, or in most of the scores of massacres at that time (at Ein al-Zeitun massacre would can't have an infobox with Palmach as perpetrators because the record is not absolutely clear. Do you attribute to the IDF or Palmach all instances where units or one or several soldiers went berzerk?)Nishidani (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Most of our articles abut massacres which have info boxes do in fact put as perpetrators the entire army or corps responsible- see for example Kafr Qasim massacre or Qana massacre - so what is the problem in doing it here? If you want to specify the exact sub-unit of the Arab Legion which did this, and you have the information , we can do that, too. Epson Salts (talk)

Infobox (2)

The only dispute about the perpetrators is if it was done entirely by Arab irregulars, or by Arab irregulars with participation of the Arab Legion. How is it less vague to say "disputed" than to say "Arab forces"? What is the policy -based objection to putting "Arab forces" in the box? Epson Salts (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Forces and irregulars dont work together. Forces imply part of an organized armed forces. Irregulars arent that. nableezy - 18:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that "forces" implies organized armed forces , but, accepting your position for now, can we put "Arab irregulars" or "Arab Irregular forces" in there? Epson Salts (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

"Arab" is also vague lol. Arabs=Palestinians? Jordanians? Both? --Makeandtoss (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

How is it vague? Are Palestinians not Arab? Jordanians not Arab? The term covers both, and is certainly more informative than "disputed". But here's anpther option: we put in "Arab irregulars or Arab Legion" Epson Salts (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

"Arab irregulars or Arab Legion", as if the probability of one of them being the perpetuator is equal. As I said, the involvement of the legion is disputed, you still want to include both?--Makeandtoss (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright, how about we put in ""Arab irregulars" then, as I suggested a couple of edits up? Or is this game going to continue for a while, using any pretext to avoid saying Arabs did it? Epson Salts (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead --Makeandtoss (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

How is killing soldiers a massacre?

Killing soldiers in a battle isn't a massacre Farbne (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Correct, but killing soldiers who have laid down their weapons and surrendered is a massacre. If you read all the argument above, you'll see that it is by no means simple to disentangle all the contradictory accounts. Zero^talk 01:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Date clarification?

In the background, the sentence "On two occasions, April 12 and May 3, Arab Legion units were ambushed, and several legionnaires killed or wounded[14] by the bloc militias, - Kfar Etzion soldiers being directly involved in the incident on April 12[15]" is sourced to "Chronology of International Events and Documents, Volume 4 Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1947 p.270".

Is this an indication that this event occurred in 1947? It's entirely unclear in the description that it is discussing something which happened a year before this event. Is it possible the dates in the backround could be clarified?2601:249:8180:28D0:3583:8758:4230:714D (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I have fixed this and added a url. The events were in 1948. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)