Talk:Jenin

"false allegations of massacre" is too POV, I think.
Can we change this? I think "Inflated body count" or "death toll exaggerated" or something to that effect. The event certainly took place, and there were certainly defenseless and unresisting people ruthlessly killed. It was a massacre but I do agree the claims of the number of dead may have been exaggerated.

Defining "massacre", my dictionary says: " A savage and indiscriminate killing of human beings, as in warfare, acts of persecution, revenge, etc. ... a a massacre is the killing of those who are defenseless or unresisting, as in barbarous warfare... "  would you prefer the term "slaughter"? which is " ...frequently applied to any great loss of life in battle, riot, etc. ...? Probably not, as the loss of life wasn't great enough to satisfy you that it was a slaughter, I think... perhaps "butchery" stressing the "ruthlessness and wantonness" of the killing, but which "compares the killing of men to the slaughter of cattle."  Maybe the term "carnage" which "retains much of its original sense as heaped up bodies of the slain, and refers to the result, rather than the process of a massacre or slaughter", so the "false allegations of massacre" headline is misleading, as there WAS a massacre.  In interests of NPOV-ness I think it should be changed.Pedant


 * I must agree, the article smells faintly of Israeli propaganda as it stands at the moment. I personally think there remains a question as to whether deliberate indiscriminate killing took place, and to simply label the allegations as 'false' stinks of partiality james gibbon  28 June 2005 16:10 (UTC)


 * ... This is mad. Pretty much every account says there was no massacre. Questions of indiscriminate killings? sure, but but 50 people died in an intense battle that lasted 4 days. I think the bbc summed it up well by saying there appears to be a couple of very questionable incidents, but this is war. I know its cynical but has there ever been a War without any mention of war crimes? These war crimes are mentioned (in both this article and Battle of Jenin 2002), but there was nothing that appears to be inredibly awful. -- Tomhab 29 June 2005 02:07 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Even the Palestinians no longer claim there was a massacre. Jayjg (talk)  29 June 2005 16:51 (UTC)

Have you actually read the accounts? It was not indiscriminate killing. The Palestinians were neither "defenseless" nor "unresisting": they had guns, bombs and boobytraps. One the cited articles mentions that Palestinians admitted that some of them were killed by their own boobytraps. Rcaetano 08:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * And if they surrendered (which from reading several accounts some did)? If they were killed indiscriminately wouldn't that be a massacre? Its important to note that some accounts say that did happen (but only 2-3). Straw man logic doesn't work and thus what you've said is flawed.


 * For the record, whilst I don't like the inclusion of emotive words (such as massacre) in an encyclopaedia, it was the catch word of the time (and also there was no massacre). I personally feel the way its worded is a little too emotive though. I'd prefer it to be along the lines of "exaggerated body count leading to the accusation of a massacre". -- Tomhab 11:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That's an awfully long title. The allegations of a massacre are simply false, why can't we call it what it is? Jayjg (talk)  29 June 2005 16:51 (UTC)

I agree with the guy talking about "false allegations of massacre" being too POV... if the Boston Massacre was a massacre and 5 people were killed after throwing stones, then I think so can Jenin, in technicality.
 * Are you saying that the two-dozen Israeli soldiers killed were massacred? Jayjg (talk) 29 June 2005 16:51 (UTC)

The UN Report is a valid reference
The UN Report is not a Palestinian report as MathKnight continuously and falsely claims. The Israelis obstructed the UN investigation and refused to provide their version of the events. It's still the official UN report on the events in Jenin even if Israelis don't agree with it. It is not proper to delete reference to the UN report and insert the Israeli POV as if the Israeli POV is objectively correct and the rest of the world is wrong. Report of the Secretary-General prepared pursuant to General Assembly resolution ES-10/10 The United Nations today released the Secretary-General’s report on recent events in Jenin and other Palestinian cities. This report was requested by the General Assembly in May (resolution ES-10/10, adopted on 7 May 2002), after the disbandment of the team which the Secretary-General, supported by the Security Council (resolution 1405 of 19 April 2002), had proposed to send to Jenin to establish the facts on the ground. The report was, therefore, written without a visit to Jenin or to the other Palestinian cities. '''It relies, as the Assembly requested, on “available resources and information”, including submissions from six United Nations Member States and Observer Missions, documents in the public domain, and papers submitted by non-governmental organizations from a range of perspectives. The Palestinian Authority did submit information, while the Government of Israel did not. In an effort to present as complete a picture as possible, the report makes use of publicly available information from the Israeli Government.''' The report covers a period running from approximately the beginning of March to 7 May 2002. It sets out the context and background of the situation in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory. It also describes the security, humanitarian and human rights responsibilities of both parties. It briefly charts the rising violence since September 2000, which had, by 7 May 2002, caused the deaths of 441 Israelis and 1,539 Palestinians. " --Alberuni 20:43, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The citation you brought is taken from Palestinian report submitted to the Secretary-General, pursuant to General Assembly resolution ES-10/10 of 7 May 2002, on the recent events in Jenin and in other Palestinian cities, which is not the UN report. MathKnight 09:42, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * UTC, You basis that the UN report is neutral is ludicrous, I do however believe it is possible to integrate the report in this article, however I would only accept it if it was not provided in a light that suggested that the UN is intrinsically neutral when it comes to Israel, perhaps if two situations were explained in which the UN showed biased against Israel. On the other side of the coin, I do not think the report should be shown as intrinsically biased either.-  Khalid Constantine  Al-Silverberg Dayan

To Guy
Guy,

Any reason for removing the info about the first intifada from jenin, the conflict years?

In 67 jenin was occupied by the IDF, this is what the UN resolution 242 says.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 July 2023
this article states that Palestine is a state. This is not a true fact. 73.107.190.184 (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: State of Palestine addresses the matter sufficiently; "state" is correct. —C.Fred (talk) 04:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not correct. The leaders of Palestine have refused to be a official state as long as Israel exists. They insist only on borders "from the river to the Sea". 2600:1700:2000:63F0:B9B0:5299:C111:6A62 (talk) 11:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Question
Why is this listed as "State of Palestine"? It is not recognized by the UN as a full State. What is the criteria for an area being called a State? 2601:1C2:100:D520:31CB:CA65:F13A:546E (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Image of Ferris Wheel?
Why on earth is there a random image of a Ferris wheel at the top of the page when it’s clearly labeled as “Jenin horse”? 2603:7080:9200:D1C2:AD0F:C159:E530:B592 (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The update. The revert. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)