Talk:Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine war/Archive 1

Untitled
I have edited this to include a few undisputed "massacres" of Jews to attempt to balance this a bit more (namely three bombings and a riot) and a qualifier discussing the context of the number of casualties on both sides during the partition period. This is still pretty darned biased against the Jewish side, but I didn't want to erase/censor the previous writer, biased though it was.

--66.31.44.110 05:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Mr 4 numbers, I rewrote your changes to the introduction. This is just a list. Dispution of facts should be done on the respective pages of the various massacres. For the same reason, here is out of place: there is very little to dispute in a list of links, and anyway you should use this only if you cannot solve POV problems on the talk page for some time. Gadykozma 14:38, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I forgot to log in - thus the "4 numbers". On your point, this not just a list, however, it is a list of "massacres," an undefined term.  There were numerous killings of both sides, and this list of massacres is only from an Arab perspective, and many of these lack any documentation.  There are NPOV problems with a "list of massacres" that is one-sided, and where some links are controversal, because it creates a clear implication of a campaign of systematic slaughter, which is certainly a point of argument, regardless of your views on the conflict -- after all, 6,000 Jews died during this period, and only about half were combatants.  I am for restoring NPOV, and I am not sure why the introduction was so disputable - can we not list the number of civilian causalties on both sides to provide context?  I have not changed the introduction back, but would like your opinions.


 * Factually, I have also removed the Ayn al-Zaytun massacre, as Benny Morris says one person was killed, not fifty. and Pro-Palestinian sources agree (see http://www.palestineremembered.com/Safad/Ayn-al-Zaytun/), I have added the bombing of the Palestine Post (now Jerusalem Post). GoodOldPolinous


 * I don't like this list much and I'd rather it went away, but as long as it is here, let's keep it nothing more than a list. That's the best way to not duplicate annoying POV discussions from the individual pages for each massacre here. If you want to comment on Benny Morris, do so on his page. The same goes for links. Please put specific links in the articles for the individual massacres (e.g. Deir Yassin massacre), or in other general pages (e.g. Israeli-Palestinian conflict). Put here only links which specifically discuss massacres.


 * As for the "jerusalem-archives" link, pleeeeeease, this is blatantly pro-Israeli. It does not event admit there was a massacre in Deir Yassin! A fact which is well accepted even within the Israeli discourse. Gadykozma 19:23, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Gadykozma, I agree with the jerusalem archives link - sorry, didn't look through the entry on Deir Yassin, not trying to manipulate the sourcing. I removed Ijzim because even strongly pro-Palestinian sites with detailed histories of the fall of the village do not describe a massacre http://palestineremembered.com/Haifa/Ijzim/Ijzim.html.  GoodOldPolinous


 * So, is this only Palestinians massacred by Israelis? AllenHansen (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

-

What's your working definition of "massacre", here? Martin


 * 10+ non-combatant people with deliberate intent. I don't know really because I copied most from other sources. Is it a bad definition? BL


 * Well, sometimes "massacre" can refer to an overwhelming military defeat/victory. Also, it's a rather emotive word, and it implies things about the manner of death that might not be the case. Perhaps civilians killed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war? Or collateral damage in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war?


 * Like Delirium, I'm unconvinced that a straight list is necesarilly the way to go - it seems to me like you'll end up with a lot of stubs. I'll happilly wait to see what you make of it, though. I enjoy being pleasantly surprised.


 * I am glad that you've made a page that lists incidents on both sides on the one page - I've said before why I think this is a good idea. However, two of your sources seem predominantly from the Palestinian side of the conflict - I think it would be good to also use some Israeli sources.


 * The crimes of war site you link to has some general background on why these things happened. I think you need to include something along these lines - I'm quoting here:


 * The Haganah, and subsequently the IDF, overran large Arab-populated areas?some four hundred villages and towns?whereas Arab forces conquered or overran fewer than a dozen Jewish settlements in the course of the war. To this must be added the fact that the civil war in Palestine, which ended in mid-May 1948, raged in a country nominally ruled by a British administration. Neither Jews nor Arabs could legally hold prisoners and, for months, neither had facilities to hold large numbers, so prisoners either were not taken or were shot. fair use


 * Anyhow, good luck :) Martin

It seems kind of odd to single out this war for such a detailed set of sub-pages. If, for example, we were to make a separate page on wikipedia for every single incident in history in which 10+ non-combatant people were killed with deliberate intent, we'd be swamped with literally hundreds of thousands of pages. Just the Bosnian war would take up a good thousand or two, and Chechnya a few hundred more, and so on. I don't object to a single page on "Massacres commited during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war" however, which would hopefully have some discussion in addition to a list. --Delirium 00:38 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * It's my topic of interest, odd as it may be :-). The main reason I added it was for me to have a page from where I could add entries. I am planning to add pages to the table but research takes time. Bandwith is cheap, just look at all counties :-) --BL

This isn't an encyclopedia article, folks. This is agitprop, plain and simple. RK

I agree completely. Also, just from a factual point of view, I find it hard to believe that 94% of "masscares" committed in the war were by Zionist forces. --Alex S 02:22, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * This is the truth believe it or not. The zionists gangs came to Palestine with a main task to accomplish: to evacuate the civilians houses and replace its inhabitants with jewish immigrants from europe and russia. And they did it the Machialivic way. Committing massacres  to terrotrise and force palestinians to leave. Read more from unbiased resources on history for your convenience.

Yours, May05 09:05, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Also, I just checked up on the sources used. The main one (the bottom link, conveniently), is completely and utterly biased. The message on the site's homepage reads "The world must know that Every Zionist on our homeland Palestine is: colonist stranger, racial, terrorist, immoral, and the US administration is, imperialist, Zionist, racial, terrorist, immoral.." In my opinion sing a site like this for a resource undermines the integrity of Wikipedia, and all information from that site not corroborated by a more NPOV one should be rejected. --Alex S 02:28, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you on the third link; it is dreadful. The first is not too good either. The second (article by Morris) is accurate as is all of Morris's work on this subject. The forthcoming edition of his book "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited" is supposed to have a very detailed study of this issue based on the Israeli archives. As for proportions, the great bulk of the fighting was done in Arab areas and often amongst the Arab population. Comparatively little fighting was done amongst the Jewish population. Moreover, far more Arabs (soldiers and civilians) fell into Jewish hands than vice-versa. So it would be very surprising if the ratio of Arabs to Jews amongst the perpetrators and victims was anything else. Overall this was actually a fairly bloodless war as far as wars go (which is not a great compliment to us humans). --Zero 13:55, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

My main problem is that it seems a little bit far-fetched to call every incident in which nine people died a "massacre". By that definition World War II alone had probably close to a million "massacres", while it is generally recognized to have far fewer. Plus, massacre is sort of an inherently opinionated term&mdash;it conjures images of unarmed women and children being mowed down by army men with machine guns. I'd propose that, like the word "terrorist", we avoid using it except where necessary. My Lai Massacre should be there, because it's nearly universally known as such, but these should be listed somewhere else. --Delirium 10:01, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)

This page does not "call every incident in which nine people died a 'massacre'". Those which I am familiar with consisted of a group of unarmed people being intentionally killed by a group of armed people who knew the first group were unarmed. If there are exceptions they should be identified and removed. They together comprise a small fraction of the total deaths in the war, so your analogue to WW2 is wrong. You have a better case concerning the word "massacre", though I think there is more general agreement on what it means than there is for "terrorism". The disputes that exist in this case are about the basic facts (whether the victims were armed, how many of them were there, etc) and not merely over whether the label "massacre" is appropriate. --Zero 12:10, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I listed this article for deletion. A copy of my post on the deletion page: This list serves no real purpose in terms of illustrating history. It's agitprop. One of the soures listed is 100% non-NPOV, and in my opinion the entire tone of the list promotes a specific politico-historical viewpoint. To me, listing every incident in which "10 or more civilians were killed with purpouseful intent" (as defined by the page creator) is a waste of time and is far too specific. --Alex S 04:24, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

From VfD

 * List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war - This list serves no real purpose in terms of illustrating history. It's basically agitprop. One of the soures listed is 100% non-NPOV, and in my opinion the entire tone of the list promotes a specific politico-historical viewpoint. To me, listing every incident in which "10 or more civilians were killed with purpouseful intent" (as defined by the page creator) is a waste of time and is far too specific. --Alex S 04:21, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is no real argument for deletion given by the proposer.  Poor sources should be replaced by better sources.  Poor balance should be corrected (note that massacres by both sides are listed).  The last sentence above makes no sense at all to me.  Waste of whose time?  Most WP articles are more "specific". --Zero 05:27, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Poor sources: Three are listed. One is the Palestinian Liberation Army, another is the Palestinian National Authority. Poor balance: 93% of the "massacares" listed are listed as done by Jewish forces. The core of this article consists of massacares complied from the PLA and the PNA. It is not an encyclopedic article and because of that it should be deleted. --Alex S 05:46, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Sources at least 2/3 of them are known to me from much better sources (which should of course be listed). Balance: to show that the percentage represents poor balance you have to show that it differs from the facts.  This listing is political and does not make a case for deletion. --Zero 06:13, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's encyclopaedic and useful. If you disagree with the content, edit it. Optim 06:27, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Where to start? Short of deletion, I think the only way to go about such a list is to start from scratch, getting rid of all the entries that come from the Palestinian Liberation Army and the Palestinian National Authority that aren't confirmed by an unbaised source. Personally, I don't have the time or patience for that - but that's still no reason to let a page that has essentially been written by the PLA and PNA stand on Wikipedia. --Alex S 06:50, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Dear Alex, listen: for now do this, as a quick action to resolve the immediate problems/conflict: add another column on the table titled "Source". In the table cells write for each entry: "According to this web site or that book". Then, you can discuss with the others etc how to edit it better etc. Since you are the person who voted/proposed first for the deletion of the list, I think you are the one who should do this edit, as long as your editing is NPOV. If you don't have time, ask another person to do that (maybe I will have time tomorrow to look better at it, but I am not sure so dont take it for granted). BTW I hope you agree that a page essentially been written by the PLA and PNA is the same as a page essentially been written by the Israel and alies. Optim 08:13, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Given that Alex S does not know the source of information in any of the cases, and has no knowledge of the issue at all as far as he has revealed, the action you suggest would not be appropriate. The correct action is to ask for the supporters of the page (primarily its author BL but I will help) to provide better sources.  Actually in most cases (but probably not all, I don't have time to go through the whole list at the moment) the basic facts are supported by the Israeli archives and/or testimony of Israeli veterans. --Zero 09:30, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I would suggest that the source for each atrocity be listed not on this list but on the respective article, many of which have yet to be created. -- Viajero

This seems like a useful article. So would be one giving lists of bombings of various groups opposed to Israel's current policies or existence, grouped into whether miliary targets or invididuals (including those in the military reserves) were harmed or whether only civilian harm was caused. May need a title change eventually but lets see how it goes for three months or so before worrying about it... Jamesday 22:16, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Listing commented out stuff here:

BL 20:02, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

June 20, 1947 "Haifa massacre"
I removed the entry for the June 20, 1947 "Haifa massacre" for the following reasons: 1. The war is considered to have started on November 29, 1947, and therefore this incident is outside the scope of this list. 2. I couldn't find any reliable source confirming that the incident actually happened. Also, it seems inconsistent with Lehi's ideology at the time - which was anti-British, not anti-Arab. Lehi commenced in actions against Arabs only after the British withdrawal. -- uriber 11:55, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * You are right. I am guessing that someone has confused the year and that this is a reference to an Irgun bomb in Haifa on June 20, 1939. The number of killed is about right. --Zero 12:19, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Since when was there a massacre at Kfar Darom? There was an attack by Egyptian forces that killed many people but that was a military battle not a massacre. If such things are included there are many dozens of others that should be. The remaining defenders escaped so they weren't massacred either. Better show some evidence or it's going to go. --Zero 02:39, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Same question on Revadim, which was attacked but not overrun. I can't even find this as a claim. None of the accounts of the Etzion Bloc attacks that I have read even mentioned a massacre at Revadim. --Zero 03:06, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Given the lack of response, Kfar Darom and Revadim are gone. I'll be reviewing the remainders soon too. --Zero 04:46, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * just now saw the comments... I can't find the source I was using, though. I remember coming across it after looking for a month-by-month recounting of that year.  If I find it again, I'll be sure to include the source ref as well.   But a lot of those other incidents are similarly undocumented.  It's not clear that the deaths at Ayn-al-Zaytun don't include combat deaths; Izjim and Nasir al Din etc need explanation or ref.  +sj+ 15:57, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)
 * Yes, everything on the page needs sources (or a link to a page with sources). I am committed to providing that, but it all takes time.--Zero 21:39, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

One "source": http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Right-Of-Return/Story433.html BL 13:16, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

Al-Lajjun
Al-Lajjun does not seem to be the site of a massacre. A. Rami's description on the Palestinian site Jerusalemites mentions only a pitched battle, no masscre:
 * The New York Times reported earlier that the village was first attacked and captured in mid-April, during the battle around the settlement of Mishmar ha-‘Emeq. The commander of the Arab Liberation Army (ALA) also reported an assault on April 13, when Jewish forces attempted to reach the crossroads at al-Lajjun in an outflanking operation. The attack apparently failed. The Times said that 12 people were killed and fifteen wounded during that offensive. The paper also said that al-Lajjun was occupied a few days later on April 17, twelve days after the attack on Mishmar ha-Emeq had been launched from that village. The account read: “ Lajjun is the most important place taken by the Jews, whose offensive has carried them through ten villages south and east of Mishmar Ha’emek.” The report added that women and children had been removed from the village and that 27 buildings were blown up by the Haganah in al-Lajjun and other villages nearby.

Palestine Remembered similarly does not mention a massacre. I checked the original New York Times article as well, which calls the fighting "the greatest pitched battle yet fought" in the conflict and mentions eleven Arab counterattacks. There seems to be no reference to a masscre. Unless someone can provide som evidence, I will remove it. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lydda/Lod
I deleted the Lydda 'massacre' because it wasn't really a massacre, not like the other ones anyway. Every other massacre listed here involved either of the following:
 * A group of militants gathered a group of civilians and shot them (knowingly), after they had surrendered (Huleh).
 * A group of militants ambushed a group of civilians knowingly (Hadasa convoy).
 * After a battle, in which both civilians and militants were killed, a group of militants shot a group of civilians knowingly (Etzion, Deir Yassin).

Lydda was none of these. Basically it went something like: first battle, then Israelis realized they haven't won yet because Arab militants were still all over the place, they started firing at each other, civilians started running out in panic, they were shot. Basically the main difference is that the civilians here were killed in the middle of the battle and confusion, not after the battle in cold blood. It can hardly be called a massacre. Unfortunately there's no equivalent for the other side so I can't give an example of Arabs killing Jews in this fashion, but that's because they weren't lucky enough to capture a single town that still had civilians. Even so, Lydda battle is quite irrelevant to a list of massacres, IMO. From the article on the word massacre:

''The word massacre has a number of meanings, but most commonly refers to individual events of deliberate and direct mass killing, especially of noncombatant civilians or other innocents, that would often qualify as war crimes or atrocities. Massacres in this sense do not typically apply to combatants except figuratively; the deliberate mass killing of prisoners of war, however, is often considered a massacre.''

This isn't quite what Lydda is. Keep in mind also that 250 is the total death toll, for all we know half of those could be combatants.

Anyway, I think Lydda should be removed. We probably need a few more people to voice their opinions on this though.

-- Ynhockey 12:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I wrote much of the definition of massacre in the current WP article on the subject, so don't take it too seriously ;) But, I do agree with you; there is a difference between the crossfire at Lydda and many of the other massacres.  The problem is where to draw the line, of course.  I would be interested in the opinions of other editors as well.  --Goodoldpolonius2 20:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, why was Ein al-Zeitun removed?--Doron 01:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Two major sources: the main pro-Palestinian one used for this article, and Benny Morris, say that there was only one fatality. That's not a massacre. Although I think in a different text Morris also said there were 50 fatalities, not sure about that. However, if this was really a massacre, I'm sure that site ('Palestine Remembered') would claim it, as well as other sources.
 * No, Morris says there was one civilian killed after he tried to return to the occupied village, but earlier some 70 prisoners where massacred. Haven't read the other two sources. I think killing of a large number of prisoners constitutes a "massacre". Otherwise you can count out Kfar Etzion as well.--Doron 11:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Speaking of which, I think some more massacres should be removed from there due to either too little, or unconvincing evidence. But even so, none have sources claiming a radically different death toll like Ein Al-Zaytun.


 * -- Ynhockey 03:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Ynhockey, I went through all of the various massacres awhile ago, and removed a number that were clearly unsupported, but the remaining ones seemed to be fairly well documented. Which do you think are lacking information?  --Goodoldpolonius2 03:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Basically all the ones that are based solely on the accounts of 2 or 3 eyewitnesses (i.e. Safsaf). I don't deny they happenned, but they don't have the same kind of evidence that some of the others do. Actually, maybe we should make 2 tables instead of one: conclusive evidence, the ones that are based on the eyewitness accounts of many, and/or where the bodies were inspected; and inconclusive, where there are contradicting casualty claims, only a couple eyewitness accounts, etc.


 * Feel free to disregard my comments if you feel that I'm just trying to make the Israeli side look good, but I find it extremely hard to believe the stories about mass rape, because at that time many Arabs (especially Bedouins) sold their women for money, and it was a price an average citizen could pay if they saved up. So an Israeli soldier could buy a woman, screw her a few times and then sell her for the same price to someone else. The need for rape seems minimal.


 * -- Ynhockey 15:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it is sufficient to note that it is disputed (as in Tantura) if there is a serious dispute among scholars, no need for two tables.
 * I'm not sure how I should regard your comment about rape.
 * As for Ein al-Zeitun, since you have not replied to what I wrote, I'm putting it back for now. Please discuss before removing.--Doron 16:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? I have replied. -- Ynhockey 16:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You haven't replied my 11:45 6 October message.--Doron 15:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Here is one source: http://www.palestineremembered.com/Safad/Ayn-al-Zaytun/ it's extremely pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli, but does not mention a massacre, and makes it clear that it used Benny Morris as a source. The user GoodOldPolinous also makes it clear in the beginning of the overall discussion that Morris said there was only one killed. I don't have the book by Morris which deals with this here, but it seems that in two different locations (p. 104 and p. 222, 233), it does not mention a massacre. According to the actual 'massacre' page, there was one eyewitness account, who claimed a massacre (Ben Yehuda), and his testimony was supposedly documented in one of Morris's books. However, it doesn't mention a page and I can't read the book since I don't have it. Can you provide any links which confirm that this is a massacre? If not, it must be deleted because there is a link to a site quoting Morris that says there was only 1 death. -- Ynhockey 17:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * First, Nativa Ben Yehuda is a she, not a he, and she is a very famous War of Independence veteran, so don't discount her testimony so easily. Morris' book is very clear on this, and I have it right in front of me, you can go to the library and see for yourself. You can discuss this at the Ein al-Zeitun massacre talk page.--Doron 20:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Jerusalem Riots of 1947
If I'm not mistaken those 32 Arabs killed in the riots were combatants and not civillians. Since the title of the artical uses the word "massacres" it creates the false impression that these were inoccent lives taken, and not lives taken in self-defense.

this list should be deleted
it serves no purpose or encylopedic value, like previously stated. Amoruso

There's also a problem with the sources since the arab sources list events from 1940's to 1990's and that's misleading since the israeli sources only refer to the 1940's. So I've added another link for recent years since 1993 atleast. Amoruso

This "article" should be deleted
This "article" is absurd. It is factually wrong, serves no purpose, References are biased. There is no distinction between civilian killed in combat and civilians intentionally murdered. Anyway I'm sure there were unlawful killings committed on both sides but that happens in every war - war is not sterile and accidents happen and soldiers kill civilians as revenge etc. Also the numbers are completely random and in every such incident some people claim there were four dead and some claim four hundred. I'm sure there are hundreds of wars in which more civilians were intentionally killed but none have a "list". Maybe someone should list every time 10+ civilians were killed in WW2 - Wikipedia servers will probably crash. The scary part is that someone that doesn't know anything about the subject will see this list as hard fact. At least put the "facts are disputed" thing on top.


 * It was not proved in court, and Morris did not defend it (probably you are thinking of Pappe). --Zerotalk 14:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, I apologize, I've tried to edit it several times but it was always reversed. I'll edit it again, there's no need for incorrect arguments to be presented here. I still don't think Al Tantura should be presented here based only on Katz's research, did anyone else research this subject? It doesn't have an article yet. I think that if someone writes "...many of the facts are disputed. Details will appear on the page devoted to each incident." then every incident included should have an article.


 * indeed. Someone do it. Amoruso 14:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is well researched and accurate. Too bad who doesn't like it. --Zerotalk 09:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The definition of "massacre" is: "individual [event] of deliberate and direct mass killing, especially of noncombatant civilians or other innocents without any reasonable means of defense." The questions are: do the incidents listed here qualify as massacres based on their being both deliberate and mass and is their description as massacres sufficiently well-established in scholarly literature to be used in Wikipedia as well? The impression one gets from the number of casualties in many incidents is that they do not pass the "mass" test, at least. Pecher Talk 10:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * indeed. they don't. which is why this article is stupid, biased and has no justficiation no matter what the excuses are. Every war has its incidents, disputed or otherwise. A massacre like you say is simply a plural term of murder of innocent people. And the incidents like Dir Yasseen for example are most definitely not massacres but simply battles with collateral damages. I don't see any lists of such sorts about other wars. Deletion and the quickest the better, because the article is also very badly written and poorly organised. Amoruso 11:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you expect to find this sort of thing described by Shmuel Katz? The facts of events like this are always difficult to ascertain but as far as serious historial research goes this page stands up as well as could be expected. You are obviously upset that it doesn't fit your far-right point of view, but that's your problem.  --Zerotalk 12:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Shmuel Katz is a famous historian who reports facts, not fanatasies which are based on nothing, so no he won't write this. But Morris who is the only one who found conclusions like this and was attacked by every other historian in the world, that's disputed, and it should be noted. therefore, article should be deleted or tagged for extreme bias. Amoruso 13:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Also Please abide by WP:NPA and cite evidence in support of your claim that this article is balanced enough. Amoruso 13:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of historical incidents that have seen fewer fatalities that are termed "massacres". The Boston Massacre, for instance: only 6 people. I think it's absolutely fine to use the word "massacre" in this context, provided that a clear definition is provided. We've set the definition as ten inidividuals who were either civilian noncombatants or captured, unarmed military personnel who were deliberately killed in violation of the Laws of War. We could call them "ham sandwich" if we defined that ten murders constitutes a "ham sandwich".

User: Crimson Phantom 6:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

since all facts here are disputed and biased like many users have noted
I demand there will be the POV and unbalanced tags on top of the page, thank you. Amoruso 08:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You have not given any serious reasons except general statements of dislike. They don't count.  --Zerotalk 12:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * read all discussion above. Benny Morris one man research is very disputed and the article is biased. Amoruso 13:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

small changes
added the convoy massacre, changed jaffa bombing to 26 which is what I know was reported Amoruso 02:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Convoy of 35
Yes it was indeed a massacre of unarmed soldiers (like it states in the lead of the article). For those who don't remember, Deir Yassin was also a military battle (I think 6 Irgun soldiers died), until 26 unarmed civilians were shot at the quarry nearby. However, it would help to know how many soldiers were killed during the battle and how many after it (although it's likely that no one knows). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 09:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * you are correct. I'll try to research this fact. And I changed the 35 number to "?" for the reason you wrote . Amoruso 10:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence that unarmed soldiers were killed. How could there be such evidence when they were all killed, anyway? The standard story is that they "fought to the last man". This is ridiculous. --Zerotalk 12:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There is strong evidence to support the fact that the captives were killed and then their bodies mutilated. This was from the reports of the arabs and the brittish. Photos of this was taken as well as an intercepted telephone call proving this. It was all researched in Yochanan Ben Yaakov's thesis and by the historian Dr. Yossi Avneri., . The 35 convoy requires cleanup to distinguish the fight and the massacre, but it's verfied and will be told, and included in this list. Amoruso 16:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Killed and then mutilated does not make a massacre. To be a massacre, they have to be killed after being captured and disarmed.  To get on this page you also need to show that at least 10 people were in that category.  Btw, bulletin boards are not admissible, see WP:RS. --Zerotalk 11:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * there's no bulletin board, it's a report from Haaretz, Mekor Rishon and other papers. We don't know if they were 10, but also other massacres on the list have unknown numbers. So that doesn't cut it. Killed while being disarmed is what the report said, that's killed while being captured. If you have nothing more to add, it will be added to the list then with "?" as to the number killed. Amoruso 12:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You need a reliable source which states that the number of people killed after being captured was at least 10. You can't just add it on the off-chance.  Otherwise there are dozens of additional incidents which can be added.  --Zerotalk 13:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * the thesis of the professor in bar ilan is a reliable source reliable source which states that many of the 35 were actually killed while being injured and disarmed. The exact number is unknown, therefore "?" . also there's no reliable source saying there were 10 dead in "al kabri" massacre for instance. it might have been 6+3 according to that article. maybe we should delete that one, but this one is keep. Amoruso 13:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso is correct this time, according to reliable sources there were a multitude of unarmed or injured soldiers killed. Also correct in the case of al-Kabri. The Convoy of 35 massacre should be re-added. There can always be an endnote or separate article regarding the controversy, but it should not interfere with the item's placement on this list. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 09:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * He may well be right about this incident and I personally would not be surprised if there were illegal killings. That doesn't remove the requirement to provide reliable and verifiable sources to support the theory.  What is there besides the supposed overheard phonecall? --Zerotalk 16:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * you still fail to understand. this is not an overhead call. But intercepted call. The etzel tapped lines. The call was recorded and therefore it's the ultimate proof. The research is huge of course, and was referenced to. Amoruso 17:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So where is it, and where can I read a transcript? It is not the mode of interception that matters but the verifiability of the claim.  --Zerotalk 14:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You'll have to read the thesis stated in the convoy of 35 for details. It's very verfiable since it's a research, spanning many years one of whom dedicated to it the entire sphere of work, of scholars in the university. Amoruso 14:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, you didn't comment on Al-kabri like mentioned above. That in itself is reason enough to add convoy of 35 to the list. Amoruso 14:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Like Ynhockey mentioned, "There can always be an endnote or separate article regarding the controversy, but it should not interfere with the item's placement on this list". So I'm going to place it if there isn't a different sort of objection . Amoruso 14:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You still have not given a verifiable source. You can't just claim it is in some place that you never even looked at. --Zerotalk 14:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The reliable and verifiable source was given and explained. Just because you say it's not a verifiable/reliable source out of the blue without explaining yourself, doesn't make it an unreliable source. I think everyone can see that. I understand then that besides this baseless accusation against the thesis, there are no formal objections. Good. Amoruso 17:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Having checked the sources you gave, I found that my suspicions were well-founded. The only statements in there about killing captured soldiers were made by the reporter for Arutz Sheva, an extremist "newsagency" that is not a reliable source for anything.  Your report on Yochanan Ben Yaakov was mostly deception. --Zerotalk 00:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear Zero, your violation of no peronsal attacks and WP:NPOV is not the stuff of legends. You should read the thesis like I did. Amoruso 07:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is moved to Talk:Convoy of 35. --Zerotalk 13:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit war resolution
It is clear from the page history that there is an edit war going on here. Have you two exhausted wikipedia's dispute resolution process? There are objective third parties you can reach at Third_opinion - Asteron 20:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it was settled so far at current version. Amoruso 20:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, wikipedia really is full of bigots... 66.246.72.108

Reliable sources
Please don't use sites like www.doublestandards.org, which is a personal website that doesn't even qualify as an external link, or the database of the "University College Cork Palestine Solidarity Campaign", a partisan website with no editorial oversight. Neither qualifies as a reliable source. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That goes for www.palestine-encyclopedia.com, the self-published website of Issa Nakhleh a lawyer who "for the last 40 years was representing the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine in New York City." Why not try some real history books for a change, rather than whatever partisan junk you can scrape up on the web? Jayjg (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you please stop reverting all of my edits and place fact needed citations instead? You are deleting material that I have added links for and that were on the page without sources for months. Now all of a sudden because I am adding material to them, you decide that they don't belong there? And why aren't you deleting the other unsourced listings like the Jerusalem Riots? We can discuss the reliabhility sources one by one, and I can oblige you by finding sources that better suit your very narrow interpretation of WP:RS or WP:ATT. The Issa Nakhleh site compiles information from the London Public Office archives. I think this qualifies as a reliable source. If you disagree, please restore my edits, remove the links to the Nakhleh site, place fact needed citations, and give me the chance to locate the original source. Thanks. Tiamut 17:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't insert controversial claims unless you can attribute them to reliable sources. Self-published websites with no oversight don't count as reliable sources. The unsourced items that are already there are bad enough, and by all rights I should delete them too, but that's no license to insert even more. And I haven't reverted all your edits, just the ones that were based on unreliable sources. As for items like the Jerusalem Riots, the list links to an article that is sourced. Jayjg (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The website you're talking about by Issa Nakhleh is a Internet edition of the book, Encyclopedia of the Palestine Problem, published in 1991 by Intercontinental books. The sources for the events described are UN reports and the Public Office in London. You can't get any more WP:RS than this. Additionally, you deleted the links to the Centre for Defense & International Security Studies. Why? Do they fail WP:RS too? Exactly who passes? I disagree with your assessment and politely ask you to stop reverting material that meets WP:ATT. Tiamut 17:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Issa Nakhleh is a lawyer and Palestinian advocate, not a historian. "Intercontinental books" is apparently a vanity press that has only published that one book. It ranks approximately 2,000,000 on Amazon. I think we can safely say it's not a particularly reliable source. As for the links to the Centre for Defense & International Security Studies, I certainly didn't delete all of them, and I clearly explained why I deleted the two that I did. The 1948 Arab-Israeli war started at the earliest on 29 November 1947, the day following the adoption of the U.N. resolution. The items you inserted (unsurprisingly, of Zionist "massacres"), were well before then. This is an article about massacres committed during the 1948 war, not before or after. Jayjg (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In most Palestinian historical narratives, al-Nakba started long before November 1947. But I accept that the parameters of the article confine us to those dates. Thanks for clarifying that the source was not the problem in that case, but rather the time frame. I disagree about Issa Nakhleh though. His book is widely used as a source because it draws on extensive primary sources from the period in question. You first took issue with his work by claiming it was self-published. It's not. Even the Internet edition is published by another source (Nakhleh's dead now, it can't be him that put it out in electronic form) and the introduction is by international lawyer Francis C. Boyle. Whether the press that originally published it is a "big time" player or not is pretty irrelevant. As I said, the sources he uses are UN reports and public archives in London. Should we ask for outside input? Sorry, I'm not convinced that Nakhleh isn't a reliable source here. Tiamut 19:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Using Google, I can't find a single book that "Intercontinental Books" has published beside Nakhleh's Encyclopedia, which very strongly suggests that it was self-published by a vanity press. See WP:SELFPUB for an explanation why it can't be used as a reference.


 * Some of the material in the Encyclopedia is made up of direct quotes from other sources. Try to locate those original sources if you can. Look for other sources that include those quotes that might satisfy Wikipedia policies, and remember that reliable sources don't necessarily have to be on the internet. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 20:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean Francis A. Boyle, who is a strong Palestinian advocate and has been their chief legal adviser for the past 20 years. I'm sure he approved of the work, but that's hardly an indication that it is a reliable history work either. Jayjg (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The "Encyclopedia of the Palestine Problem" is a handy source of citations, but it is not a reliable source. Several times I have pursued some piece of information I found in there and discovered it was wrong or presented in a misleading fashion. Overall the quality is about the same as "Myths and Facts", which is also very easy to find errors and distortions in. We don't need polemic works like those because there is such a large literature of better quality available. --Zerotalk 23:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Getting carried away
Tiamut, aren't you getting a little carried away adding massacres which, while proven, have not even happenned within the timeframe of the 1948 war, such as the King David Hotel bombing and the Haifa police station bombing? It is also questionable whether some of the other massacres were made within the scope of the war, or within the framework of Aliya B and the Jewish anti-colonial struggle, a completely different endeavor. Even though the argument so far has been about your difficulty to provide reliable sources, please don't assume that reliable sources are the sole criterion for inclusion in this article. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Given the currect title and scope, this page ought to be limited to events between the UN partition vote and the last armistice agreement. --Zerotalk 23:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. The lede says "committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war." That article describes the war as starting on the morning of November 29, 1947 and ending on July 20, 1949, so this article should be limited to those dates as well. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 23:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Who's getting carried away exactly? If you notice above that once Jayjg explained what the time frame for inclusion was (after repeatedly reverting without bringing up that point), I acknowledged his point, and stopped adding bombings that preceded November 1947. So I don't really see the point of this subsection, except to make an issue out of something that was already settled. Regarding, Zero's comments above, I accept that a better source can be found that the Encyclopedia of Palestine and will work to find it. Thanks for your input. Tiamut 11:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not "repeatedly revert" the information "without bringing up that point". In fact, I removed it exactly once, and clearly stated the reason why in my edit summary: the war started at the end of November 1947. Please retract your false claim. Jayjg (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You reverted to exclude information I added that fell outside the timeframe for inclusion in this article twice: and . I didn't notice the byline on your second revert between the other five edits you made that also deleted information from the article. Granted that I should have read the editing bylines more closely. I wouldn't have tried to include such information a second time though if you had said something on the talk about the timeframe the first time. In fact, in general it might be nice to see you could exhibit a little more patience with the process of discussion before simply throwing people's work in the garbage, even when it's something that is patently obvious to you. It helps lessen the blow to fellow editors and prevents us from getting our backs up. It also helps people to understand why information is being excluded and on what bases, so as to be able to come to amicable compromises whenever possible. Conversely, you could just continue to treat people and their work in exactly the same way, and the tone of our interaction will be stuck on this broken-subtlely-snarky record that we seem to play when we catch sight of one another. What do you say? Tiamut 18:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The other revert was because the sources used were not reliable, as the edit summary clearly explained, and in any event didn't involve those two specific incidents. The timeframe issue was only relevant for properly sourced items. Thanks for your other comments, I'll try to be more patient. Jayjg (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments too. And thank you for being more patient and discussing your concerns on the talk before reverting additions whose sourcing you find quesitonable. I do appreciate it. Tiamut 12:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The Palestine Chronicle - reliable source, or partisan website?
Is The Palestine Chronicle a reliable source or a partisan website? Should it really be trusted for secondary references? Jayjg (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The site's outlook is obviously pro-Palestinian, but in my experience its writers are journalists, not partisans. Of course nobody can vouch for everything on any site. The three references cited in this article not only cite books but page numbers. To me, that's an indication that they're a reliable source. If you're skeptical, pick a book or two that they cite and see if they're being straight. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 04:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's as good as its sources, which are mixed. For example Palumbo, who is a serious author but rather biased.  Better sources ought to be sought for these examples.  For Eilabun, which is a Maronite village: according to Morris, Revisited p479-480, the severed heads of two IDF soldiers were found nearby and in reprisal 12 men of the village were shot.   Most of the villagers were expelled but later allowed back.  Morris gives archival references.  For Majd al Krum, Morris mentions 9 killed (p478) so maybe this one falls below the page criterion. That village was not depopulated.  The case of Acre needs more work.  --Zerotalk 10:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Malik Shabazz and Zero that Palestine Chronicle can serve as a reliable source depending on the author and the sources used. I would appreciate it if Zero could help by providing better sources from books (I don't have access to these kind of books at present and rely on Internet resources which are rather poor on this subject). But I caution Zero against viewing all additions here as being related to village depopulations only. It is not relevant if Majd al-Krum was depopulated or not, what it relevant to the list is whether 10 or more unarmed individuals were killed there with deliberate intent. Before delisting Majd al-Krum based on Benny Morris' number of dead (9), let's look around a little more and see if there are different assessments that either back the 12 dead of Palumbo or the 9 dead cited by Morris. Thanks. Tiamut 12:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I only mentioned the depopulation issue in passing since I came across that information. Of course it is not revelant to this particular page. --Zerotalk 12:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for misunderstanding and thanks for clarifying. Tiamut 14:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem Riots
Do the Jerusalem Riots belong in this page listing? The December 2 call for a 3-day general strike in opposition to the partition plan did lead to clashes between Arabs and Jews, in which both died in quite large numbers between December 2 and 11 1947. But I wonder whether this meets the criteria for listing on the page since the killings went both ways and do not seem to have been organized (based on the sources available). What are the opinions of others on this subject? Tiamut 14:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Since nobody would say it was a single massacre of 14 people, 8 Jews and 6 Arabs, the best it could be is two massacres, neither of which pass the minimum of 10 needed for this page (even if they otherwise qualify, which is arguable). So it doesn't qualify. --Zerotalk 09:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Help with fact-checking
I would like to add this entry to the list:


 * [Ashdod|[Suqrir]]
 * 29 August 1948
 * Givati Brigade of the IDF
 * 10

An internet site cites this as being sourced in Walid Khalidi’s All That Remains on pp. 80 – 81 & in Benny Morris’ The Birth …. p.215 (when a Givati officer the incident but without citing the name Suqrir). Can anyone with a copy of the books confirm this and if so, could you fill in the appropriate bibliographical information so we can add this to the list? Thanks. Tiamut 15:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So as to save duplicate efforts, I wanted to let others know that MalikShabazz found the Morris page in question online, and it says 10 people were killed fleeing by the Givati Brigade in the area bounded by "Yibna, An Nabi Rubin, and Khribet Sukreir, the camping grounds of the Bedouin tribes of Arab Sukreir"? This could definitely be a match with the name "Suqrir"? Its consistent on the Givati Brigade as the responsible party and the number of civilians killed. If someone has a copy of Khalidi's book and can check pages 80 and 81 for similar info, that would be great. I tried to check at Amazon (following MalikShabazz's tip), but the inside of the book is not available there. By the way, this is the internet source for all that info:  I'm not using it as a source because of the disclaimer at the top of the page saying this is research in progress. But it might be useful to pursuing further leads to books, if you are interested. Tiamut 18:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Khalidi says the same but gives Morris as a source. That is the original book of Morris.  the second edition says the same on p444 (fn 189), also says it was Aug 28. --Zerotalk 09:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

alleged Acre massacre of May 18
I have investigate the claimed massacre of 100 Arabs in Acre on May 18. The source given is Palumbo, who cites the report of a UN officer. Looking at Palumbo, he quotes the UN guy as referring not to a single event but some undefined period of days that followed the conquest of Acre by the Hagana. The UN guy also suggested it was not done according to plan but by soldiers acting without orders. Next I consulted Morris Revisited. Morris, who is not known to hide evidence of such things, says that many people died during the battle, but there was no massacre (he says this quite explicitly on p231). Turning next to the partisan source PalestineRemembered, we read "The massacre of 79 Palestinians soon after occupation. No further information is available, so please do not hesitate to share with us any information about this unknown massacre."  Sorry, but this isn't good enough; I'm deleting the entry. It more information surfaces, we can reconsider. --Zerotalk 09:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I can accept that better sources are required to meet the criteria for inclusion. Thanks for looking into it so thoroughly. Tiamut 10:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed some of the events that either have no assertion of massacre (in this case, they actually state that the intention was to attack a military target), or whose sources were weak (Palumbo et al).  Tewfik Talk 01:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree in principle, but some examples were massacres regardless. For example, the Lehi bombing in Jaffa was directed against the Arab national committee offices (a civilian organisation but could be argued to be a military target), but the form of the attack was to park a truck loaded with explosives in an alley surrounded by buildings having nothing to do with the target and populated by people having nothing to do with the national committee.  It would have been obvious to the bombers that most of the victims were going to be unlucky civilians and in the event all of the fatalities were unlucky civilians.  A massacre by any reasonable assessment. Compare it to blowing up a bus because a few of the passengers are soldiers. --Zerotalk 11:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Compare this to the March 11 bombing of the Jewish Agency buildings, which involved a car bomb in the courtyard of the JA compound surrounded by only JA buildings including the Haganah headquarters. Only JA buildings were damaged and only JA (or JA-related, such as Vaad Leumi) personnel were killed (except for one person who was visiting as the messenger of a newspaper).  Clearly a military operation. --Zerotalk 11:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you would remove the JA bombing while restoring the Jaffa bombing, since that isn't consistent with the rationale above. However, while you raise an interesting point, I would only really be convinced if you could show that the JA bombing was intended for a military target. The source clearly says that the Jaffa bomb was directed at the Arab Higher Committee (which it also clearly states was a military target). As bad as "collateral damage" is, there is still a difference between an aerial bombardment that kills civilians and one that specifically targets them.  Tewfik Talk 16:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The Jewish Agency had the same general nature as the Arab Higher Committee, namely it was a civilian governing body whose role included oversight of the military departments under it. Such bodies are usually regarded as military targets in times of war.  Anyway, I can provide a more direct citation:  Milstein's account (English edition: Vol III, p113-118) says in the second sentence, "They intended not only to blow up Hagana headquarters but to kill David She'altiel and his staff".  The difficulty with this type of argument, as I expect you will acknowledge, is that essentially all attacks by both sides in this conflict were portrayed by the attackers as having a military purpose.  The attackers of Deir Yassin claimed that.  The bombers of Ben Yehuda Street claimed that. (The Palmach convoy escorts known as the Furmans lived there but were absent at the time.)  Unless we want to eliminate the classification of massacre altogether, we have to apply some common sense.  I would draw the line somewhere between blowing up a bus full of soldiers and blowing up a bus with a few soldiers sitting amongst a lot of civilians.  That's how I see the difference between the Jaffa bomb and the JA bomb.  --Zerotalk 01:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That is exactly why I was puzzled by your replacing of the JA bombing with the AHC. As for where to draw the line, if the sources say clearly that Husseini was only going for the military part of the JA complex, then neither should be listed.  Tewfik Talk 04:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Lydda-Ramle
Morris details how two or three Arab League armored cars entered Lydda after the town's surrender, resulting in a 30 minute fire fight before the armored cars withdrew. Some Lydda residents heard the gunfire and thought that the Arab League was counter-attacking, and attempted to assist by sniping. The Israeli commander Kelman ordered his troops to suppress the sniping (which some Israeli historians refer to as an uprising) and to shoot at anyone seen on the streets. Morris further cites dozens of unarmed detainees being shot and killed at a mosque and a church. Kurzman, writing in his book Genesis 1948, says that the mosque was the site of armed resistance. Lydda residents claim they were told by the Israeli soldiers that they would be safe if they went to the mosque. The final causality figures of 250 dead townspeople and between two and four Israeli dead tend to support the sniping theory as opposed to the uprising theory according to Morris, although he states that both sides claimed an uprising had occurred.

==The above paragraph gives a confused and inaccurate portrayal of the events in Lydda. Alon Kadish and Avraham Sela in their article in The Middle East Journal (Autumn 2005, Vol. 59, No. 4) explain that Morris failed to distinguish between the Dhaimash Mosque and the Great Mosque. The unarmed combattants were housed in the Great Mosque. They did not join the Transjordanian forces in the attack on the Arab troops. A group from the Dhaimash Mosque, however, did join in this fighting. Those killed in the mosque were killed in the Dhaimash Mosque, not the Great Mosque. The writer of the above paragraph has also confused the "Arab League" with the "Arab Legion." The Arab Legion was the Transjordian army. It was Arab Legion armored vehicles that scattered the Israeli soldiers.."Nfriedman

Morris quotes Ben-Gurion, referring to the residents of Lydda and Ramle, as saying, "Expel them." Morris writes that the actual expulsion order is signed by Yitzhak Rabin, which specified that the inhabitants of Lydda must be expelled quickly without attention to age. ==Again, this frequently quoted passage of Morris' book has caused confusion. According to Israeli law at the time, Ben Gurion as Minister of Defense, could only approve, not give, an expulsion order (see Kadish and Sela). The decision was made by the commander in charge of the operation, after consulting with commanders in the field and an Arab Affairs specialist. Kurzman, in his Genesis 1948, describes the events that led to the expulsion. The commanders in the field met with Arab leaders and agreed to a surrender agreement, which involved Lydda residents remaining in Lydda. The surrender involved a cease-fire and a surrender of weapons. Instead, the Transjordanian soldiers housed in the police station shot and killed one of the Arab leaders trying to negotiate a surrender. In addition, the Arab Legion armoured cars arrived the following day and local Arab militai (but not the Transjordanian troops housed in the police station) led an attack on Israeli forces. Commanders in the field, as well as the Arab Affairs specialist (Shmaria Gutman, who was not interviewed by Kurzman but published his account in 1948), then changed their recommendation. Nfriedman

After all resistance ended at Lydda, nearly all of the town's civilians were expelled, some at gunpoint, and forced to walk to the Arab lines ten to twenty miles away during a July heat wave. The only exceptions were clergy and residents of monasteries, civil servants who operated critical services such as the water distribution system, and railroad workers. Residents of Ramle were luckier and were allowed to take busses part way to the Arab lines. Reports that Christians were not required to leave is refuted by such examples as George Habash and his family. Habash was a medical student at the time, and later founded the PFLP.

The numbers of expellees from Lydda who were forced to walk is estimated from 10,000 to 50,000. Israeli soldiers used warning shots to encourage the fast movement of the refugees, and refused to give the refugees food or water. The event became known as the Lydda Death March. Residents from Lydda reported a number of summary executions occurred when soldiers robbed them of their valuables if resistance was encountered. While not a massacre in the commonly accepted form of armed soldiers shooting unarmed prisoners or civilians, hundreds died from thirst, exhaustion and disease. Benny Morris refers to a source who says 335 died during the three days it took to reach the Arab front lines, and another source saying "nobody will ever know how many children died."Blindjustice 21:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Dahmash Mosque massacre - over 80 killed; Lydda Death March - over 350 killed
The following text appears on the web page of Leicestershire Holy Land Appeal at http://www.leicester-holyland.org.uk/George_Lydda.htm


 * The Death March from Lydda

Israeli soldiers moved into Lydda, the home town and burial place of Saint George on 11th July, 1948. 19 000 Palestinians lived in Lydda but its population had been swollen by refugees from Jaffa and from outlying villages to about 40 000.

Palestinians taken prisoner were executed in the Dahmash Mosque The people were forced to leave the town, usually without most of their belongings. Some who were slow to hand over valuables to the Israeli soldiers were killed.

This was during a very hot summer. Temperatures reached 40 degrees centigrade. The refugees were short of water. It was three days before they reached safety near Ramallah. By then at least 350 had died of thirst or exhaustion.

The expulsions from Lydda and the nearby town of Ramleh remain a deep scar in the collective Palestinian memory. This is because of the numbers expelled, the number killed and the horrors of the death march. But this was not the only horror of the 'Nakba' (catastrophe) for the Palestinians that accompanied the foundation of the state of Israel. About 750 000 Palestinians were expelled from the new state of Israel. Many of those who were able to remain in Israel became 'Internal Refugees' with their property, homes, businesses and land confiscated. 418 Palestinian villages were entirely depopulated.


 * Benny Morris on what happened in Lydda

On July 12 [1948] Ramle and Lydda were occupied by Zionist forces and a curfew was imposed. At 11:30 a.m., many Lydda inhabitants, shut up in their houses, took fright at the sudden outbreak of shooting outside. Some rushed into the streets, only to be cut down by Israeli fire... In the confusion, many unarmed detainees in the detention areas in the centre of town – in the mosque and church compounds – were shot and killed.… At 13:30 hours, July 12, before the shooting had completely died down, Operation Dani HQ issued the following order to Yiftah Brigade: “The inhabitants of Lydda must be expelled quickly without attention to age.” The Middle East Journal”, vol. 40, No. 1, Winter 1986, pp. 86-87   [ Note how he excuses the execution of detained prisoners of war as 'confusion'!]


 * Benny Morris on The Death March in “The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949

All the Israelis who witnessed the events agreed that the exodus, under a hot July sun, was an extended episode of suffering for the refugees, especially from Lydda… Guttman [Israeli archaeologist and member of Kibbutz Na’an, part of the mainstay of the Palmach, including the 3rd Battalion that entered Lydda] described the trek of the Lydda refugees: “A multitude of inhabitants walked one after another. Women walked burdened with packages and sacks on their heads. Mothers dragged children after them…Occasionally, warning shots were heard.“

One Israeli soldier (probably 3rd Battalion), from Kibbutz Ein Harod, a few weeks after the event recorded vivid impressions of the thirst and hunger of the refugees on the roads, and of how “children got lost” and of how a child fell into a well and drowned, ignored, as his fellow refugees fought each other to draw water. Another soldier described the spoor left by the slow-shuffling columns [beginning with] “utensils and furniture and in the end, bodies of men, women and children, scattered along the way.“ Quite a few refugees died – from exhaustion, dehydration and disease – along the roads eastward, from Lydda and Ramle, before reaching temporary rest near and in Ramallah.


 * Israeli Historian Ilan Pappe - In The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

On 10 July 1948 David Ben-Gurion appointed Yigal Allon as the comander of the attack and Yitzhak Rabin as his second in command. Allon ordered al-Lydda to be bombarded from the air, the first city to be in this way. This was followed by a direct attack on the city's centre, caused all the remaining ALA volunteers to leave: some had fled their positions earlier on learning that the Jordanian Legion units, stationed near city, had been instructed by their British chief, Glubb Pasha, to withdraw. As both Lydd and Ramla were clearly within the designated Arab state, the residents and the defendants had assumed that the Legion would resist the Israeli occupation by force.

Deserted by both the volunteers and the Legionaries, the men of Lydda, armed with some old rifles, took shelter in the Dahamish Mosque in the city centre. After a few hours of fighting they surrendered, only to be massacred inside the mosque by the Israeli forces. Palestinian sources recount that in the mosque and in the streets nearby, where the Jewish troops went on yet another rampage of murder and pillage, 426 men, women and children were killed (176 bodies were found in the mosque). The following day, 14 July, the Jewish soldiers went from house to house taking the people outside and marching about 50,000 of them out of the city towards the West Bank (more than half of them were already refugees from nearby villages).


 * Michael Palumbo in The Palestinian Catastrophe

A young female member of the Palmach, recalled that a soldier 'went through the streets of Lydda with loudspeakers and promised everybody who would go inside a certain mosque that they would be safe.' Hundreds of Arabs entered the Dahmash Mosque believing that nothing would happen to them if they sat quietly with their hands on their head. But according to Ben Yehuda 'something did happen.' In retaliation for a grenade attack after the surrender which killed several Israeli soldiers, over eighty Arab prisoners were machine-gunned to death... The Dahmash Mosque massacre terrorized the people of Lydda.


 * British General John Glubb, Commander of Jordan’s Arab Legion, in “A Soldier with the Arabs,” Harper, 1957

No sooner were the enemy in the towns [Lydda and Ramle] than they set about an intensive house-to-house search, all men of military age being arrested and removed to concentration camps. Then Israeli vans fitted with loudspeakers drove through the streets, ordering all the remaining inhabitants to leave within half an hour...Suffice it to say that houses were broken into and women sufficiently roughly handled to give point to the warning to be clear of the town in that time.

Perhaps thirty thousand people or more, almost entirely women and children, snatched up what they could and fled from their homes across the open fields. The Israeli forces not only arrested men of military age, they also commandeered all means of transport. It was a blazing day in July in the coastal plains — the temperature about a hundred degrees in the shade. It was ten miles across open hilly country, much of it ploughed, part of it stony fallow covered with thorn bushes, to the nearest Arab village at Beit Sira. Nobody will ever know how many children died…

It is true of course that the persecuted Jews of Europe suffered far worse tortures, but these were not inflicted upon them by the Arabs of Palestine. One would have hoped that people who had suffered as much anguish as have the Jews would have sworn never to inflict on others the tortures which they themselves had endured. The Arab Legion endeavoured to fight the Israeli army but not to injure civilians. Perhaps nowadays such standards are obsolete. Blindjustice 09:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe I missed it, but I did not see any source above that claims 80+ were massacred in the Mosque.


 * The Michael Palumbo reference referred to above from "The Palestinian Catastrophe" states "In retaliation for a grenade attack after the surrender which killed several Israeli soldiers, over eighty Arab prisoners were machine-gunned to death... The Dahmash Mosque massacre terrorized the people of Lydda."


 * The Leicestershire Holy Land Appeal, noble though its golas may be, is not a relaible source for contentious histroical claims. People allegedly dying of thirst and hunger, terribel as it may be, are not typically refered to as "killed" or "massacared". Isarig 16:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, in the 2004 Benny Morris interview, he states that 250 were massacred at Lod:

"Question by Ari Shavit: According to your findings, how many acts of Israeli massacre were perpetrated in 1948?

"Answer by Benny Morris: Twenty-four. In some cases four or five people were executed, in others the numbers were 70, 80, 100. There was also a great deal of arbitrary killing. Two old men are spotted walking in a field - they are shot. A woman is found in an abandoned village - she is shot. There are cases such as the village of Dawayima [in the Hebron region], in which a column entered the village with all guns blazing and killed anything that moved.

"The worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110), Lod (250), ..." Blindjustice 15:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

For those interested in why I removed the Lod/Ramla 'massacre', see the previous discussion on the subject. It was agreed by the frequent editors of the page at the time to remove it because it doesn't qualify as a massacre, regardless of the death toll. No evidence exists that unarmed civilians were actually lined up and shot or anything like that, during the course or after the entire battle. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 05:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Evidence of execution of unarmed civilians and prisoners of war include:


 * Benny Morris, Birth of the Palestinian refugee problem, 1947-1949, page 206, "many unarmed detainees in the detention areas in the centre of town (of Lydda) – in the mosque and church compounds – were shot and killed."
 * Israeli Historian Ilan Pappe - In The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, "After a few hours of fighting they (the defenders of Lydda) surrendered, only to be massacred inside the mosque (in Lydda) by the Israeli forces. Palestinian sources recount that in the mosque and in the streets nearby, where the Jewish troops went on yet another rampage of murder and pillage, 426 men, women and children were killed (176 bodies were found in the mosque)."
 * Michael Palumbo in The Palestinian Catastrophe, "In retaliation for a grenade attack after the surrender (of Lydda) which killed several Israeli soldiers, over eighty Arab prisoners were machine-gunned to death... The Dahmash Mosque massacre terrorized the people of Lydda."
 * British General John Glubb, Commander of Jordan’s Arab Legion, in A Soldier with the Arabs, referring to the Lydda Death March, "Nobody will ever know how many children died."
 * Benny Morris, in Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949, page 210, "the death toll among the Lydda refugees during the trek eastward (was) 335."
 * 2004 Benny Morris interview conducted by Ari Shavit, "Question by Ari Shavit: According to your findings, how many acts of Israeli massacre were perpetrated in 1948? Answer by Benny Morris: Twenty-four. In some cases four or five people were executed, in others the numbers were 70, 80, 100. There was also a great deal of arbitrary killing. Two old men are spotted walking in a field - they are shot. A woman is found in an abandoned village - she is shot. There are cases such as the village of Dawayima [in the Hebron region], in which a column entered the village with all guns blazing and killed anything that moved. The worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110), Lod (250) ... "Blindjustice 09:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Lydda death march
The Lydda death march is listed as a massacre for the same reason the Bataan Death March is listed as a massacre. Blindjustice 20:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Timing
How is it possible that many of the events listed occurred before, not during, the 1948 Arab-Israeli War? Beit Or 23:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well my dear Beit Or, you would have to ask the people there at the time to get the full answer to that question. As regards the limited scope of the questions as it applies to our work here, I have come up with a solution. I have a moved all massacres prior to the outbreak of the war to a new article entitled: List of massacres committed prior to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Indeed, it seems that the majority of massacres took place in the lead up to the war, rather during it.  T i a m u t  15:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Egyptian and Transjordanian attacks
Someone has removed the arab massacres. Also,the method of attack and location should also be put on the chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vi3Uscom (talk • contribs) 17:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am removing the NPOV tag you placed. I don't really understand your comment. What massacres were removed? Can your restore them so that we can see what you are talking about? Also, themethod of attack and location can be added to the chart, but that doesn't require an NPOV tag.  T i a m u t  14:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal
I would like to hear some feedback from other editors regarding this list being restricted to incidents with 10 or more causalties. made a bold edit at the sister page to this one List of massacres committed prior to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war that changed the criteria to 3 or more casualties. Considering that the definition of massacre is not numercially bound, in that it need only be more than two people (by some definitions, two is enough), the restriction here to 10+ seems rather arbitrary. I would like to follow Kachol's lead here. Any objections?  T i a m u t  01:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. But the list should certainly be expanded by all the british reprisals during the 1936-39 period and the 1945-47 period.
 * Note that Jews are not responsible of 1920, 1921 and certianly not 1929 riots. Ceedjee (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Mutatis mutandis with the sister article this article should received the victims of the 6 assaults on Latrun and the battles of Jerusalem, particulary in the Old City. Ceedjee (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I added the pov flag. There lack many. Ceedjee (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you may be missing the fact this list is confined to incidents during the 1948 war. For those prior to the war's outbreak, there is List of massacres committed prior to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Acordingly, I am removing the POV tag.  T i a m u t  11:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. I added here critics concerning the other one.
 * This is one is pov. There lack many massacres of Jews during the 1948 war.
 * Additionnally, the number of victims of Tantura and the fact it was or would have been a massacre is controversed.
 * So I put the flag back. Ceedjee (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide a source for your claims? I am unfamiliar with massacres by Arabs against Jews during the 1948 war and would like to see a reliable source that we include in the article so as to address your concerns and remove the flag. Thanks.  T i a m u t  11:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Without a source backing up your claims, I'm going to have to remove the tag.  T i a m u t  15:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There were no massacre of Jew during the 1948 war.
 * But if everything that is described there, without nuance, is a massacre, then all fights during the 1948 war were massacre and all victims of the 1948 war were massacres.
 * You are not familiar with anything, else you would not have writing, the way you did that al-Tantura was a massacre of 200-250 Arabs.
 * See next section. Ceedjee (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

NPoV

 * 1. I would like to have an explanation why in this article the al-Tantura massacre is describe with 200-250 victims while before in the article it was disputed.
 * 2. This must be corrected and explained in respect of WP:NPOV.
 * 3. This article needs to have a precise definition of massacre. Where are reliable sources that have been used to define this that way ?
 * 4. This article mix the battle and the massacre that occured when villages were attacked and then after the battle followed by massacres (in some cases alledged massacres). Ceedjee (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In short, your objections seem to be rather unfounded. T i a m u t  15:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I cannot explain why that was so as I did not make that initial edit. If you notice, I corrected the estimate per the source I added in my last edit. It now reads between 70 and 200.
 * 2) It has been corrected.
 * 3) There is a precise definition of massacre at the top of the page based on the dictionary definition.
 * 4) All incidents cited here have reliable sources that indicate that the term massacre is used to describe them.
 * This is quite an easy unsatisfying answer. They are perfecly founded.
 * Why do we need 10 (or even 3 on the sister article) to make a "massacre" ?
 * if all these events can be sources as massacre, then the beginning of the introduction of the article must be changed.
 * I doubt you have all these sources, do you ?
 * Ceedjee (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you read the talk page, you will notice that I am trying to have the article definition of a massacre changed to 3 instead of 10. I did not pick ten, some pro-Israeli editors did to eliminate the long list of Palestinian deaths here in events such as al-Kabri massacre, among others.
 * Have you read the article since making your objections? I ask because all the events listed here have sources that use the word "massacre" to refer to the events in question. When no source is provided, they are provided in the article that is wikilinked.
 * I repeat my request for you to provide a source that discusses the massacre of Jews by Arabs during the 1948 war. If you have one, we can include it and improve the article to address your concerns. If you do not, your concerns about a lack of NPOV remain unfounded.  T i a m u t  15:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * From my understanding a massacre refers to the death of tens of people but more of all in precise circumstances.
 * You claim that the definition is based on dictionnary. Which one ? Where is the reference ?
 * I doubt any dictionnary would give a number above which it is a massacre and below which it is not.
 * Other problems with NPoV that are not respected :
 * 5. Why are circumstances and context not given ?
 * 6. Where is it stated when the fact it was a massacre it controversed (such as for Tantura).
 * Concerning the Jews, I answered you here above.
 * The concerns of the non neutrality of this article are obvious to any not pov-pusher editor. Ceedjee (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to understand my position here at all. I have been trying to change the definition of a massacre from the arbitrary number of ten to the more accepted number of 3 or more. Regardless of whether it is ten or three, this has no impact on the neutrality of the article.
 * This is a list, so the circumstances and context are not covered in this article, but in the articles wikilinked here.
 * I've provided sources either in this article or at the wikilinked entries that establish that reliable sources characterize these events as massacres.
 * Concerning the fact that massacres of Jews by Arabs are not included here even though you believe they occurred are therefore should be represented, I have asked you to provide sources to back up your claims. You have not. If you do provide such a source, we can include such incidents in this list. Until you provide such a source, I cannot take your claims of NPOV seriously. I am again removing the tag. Please provide a source before reinstating it again.  T i a m u t  13:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The matter is not that I would not understand what you try to do.
 * The matter is that this article is not neutral.
 * The matter of PoV is not the massacre of Jews. As I wrote : Jews were not massacred BUT in the sense of this article, each men who died in the war was massacred (and so were the Jews).
 * So neutralisation will pass by making a difference between victims of battles and victims of massacres + the other points evoked such as the context etc.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be disagreement over what constitutes a massacre and the definition. The Department of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University did a project on state and non-state conflict definitions that was funded by the Liu Institute. In it they discussed the definitional ambiguity of the term but found the common view accepted by human rights groups. A massacre is at least 3 people who provide no effective resistance killed in the same action except during a civil war. To be classed as a civil war the weaker side must impose casualties on its opponent equal to at least 5% of its own. An exact definition of massacre is not possible as massacres and genocide are not mutually exclusive. A definition would also be inadequate to reflect all the types of violence by a stong state against a weaker one, i.e. less than three civilians killed in contexts of low-level attacks in conflict areas are usually not considered to be massacres although massacre and low-scale killing of civilians should be grouped together. Wayne (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Name of this article
Since this article include such "massacres" as the al-tantura - an event that has no basis in history - we should acll this article "alleged masscres" or "allegation of masscres.." The tantura case have been reviwed by a court in Israel as part of a lieble suit against a person that claimed there was such a massacre and the court concluded that there was not any massacre. If you can read Hebrew see:, - clearly NPOV require us not to lable the event as "massacre" since there are those who claim there was and those who claim there was not. Zeq (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

found an english source - an academic source: Zeq (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Alleged massacres will be removed from the list. Ceedjee (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I still see Tantura . Others are also contested. Zeq (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't check yet.
 * If you know some that are contested, please give the reference and they will be removed. Ceedjee (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutralisation work
Before starting to discuss and to work on the neutralisation, it seems to me we need to discuss the period to cover and the topic. 1. Period Concerning the topic of the war of '48, there is a distinction between "before" and "after" May 14 and historians talk about : 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and the 1948 Arab-Israel War. But when they analyse the massacres, I think they mix both periods (which is then called the 1948 Palestine War). See eg, Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948 as a reference for a pro-Israeli pov ; Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, for a pro-Palestinian approach and Benny Morris, The Birth ... for a pov somewhere in between. More, if somebody was asked what was the "most (in)famous" massacre of that war, he would answer Deir Yassin that arose on April 9, ie before May 14 and which is not in that article. -> I suggest we cover the whole Palestine War in the article and a a consequence, modify the title to List of massacres committed during the 1948 Palestine War. 2. Topic. I think the topic deserves more than the *list* of massacres. The *massacres* committed during that period have become a matter of dicussion. See eg, what Benny Morris said about them in his interview in Ha'aretz on 1 side nearly considering them as anecdotical ("pinuts"), while Ilan Pappé (and others) points them out as a very important issue of the war or Gelber who performs different analysis on their relative importance (Deir Yassin exagerated in comparison with Lydda ; causes of the massacres that occured during Operation Hiram (half of the massacres of that war). There is also to controversy around Tantura, that, that this massacre was true or not, illustrates the relevance of the subject. -> I suggest we modify the title to Massacres committed during the 1948 Palestine War where a section would be named "list of massacres". As a consequence, massacres would not be "events where more than 10 people had been killed" but "events refered by any relevant source" as a massacre. And it would be explained, if they are disputed, why and how, in a few relevant words. Could you comment both these points ? Ceedjee (talk) 09:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion is not encylopedic - It is not a well used phrase and you are trying to create such phrase. (plus the fact that the article is actually about "alleged" masscres - at least in part. btw, there is no formal definition in int'l law of massactre so we should find another word for the article title such as list of alleged incidents in which 10 or more people were killed... or simpler would be to merge it into the 1948 war article. Zeq (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Zeq that we should not change the title to Massacres committed during the 1948 Palestine war. I've never heard the term before seeing it here at Wikipedia. While Ceedjee is right to point out that when discussing massacres, analysts usually cover those before the official outbreak of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and after it as part of the same process, but I'm sketchy as to how widespread the notion is.
 * I don't agree with Zeq's suggestion that we retitle the list to List of alleged incidents in which 10 or more people were killed.... It's wordy, uses the weasal word "alleged" and before "incidents" no less (are you implying these incidents did not occur?). Every entry in the list has a reliable source calling it a massacre. We should go with what the reliable sources say. Period.  T i a m u t talk 20:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Ceedjee, your suggestion that we expand this from a list format isn't one I think we should pursue. The list wikilinks to each incident and the details of the event and any associated controversies are covered there. I am not however against adding a column for the source which indicates that the event was a massacre. That would help attribute the designation more clearly and allow readers tomake their own judgement on the validity of the designation.  T i a m u t talk 20:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment.
 * Let's proceed step by step. :-)
 * ceedjee (ceedjee) 21:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

1948 Palestine War
I cannot agree with your statement that because you didn't know the term whether I would create this or it would not be appropriated : see what googlebooks say about this : Efraim Karsh, David Tal, Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim, Whalid Khalidi, Yoav Gelber and numerous other scholars -from all sensibilities- use this to refer to the events. Note also that the main articles have already moved to fit with this. So, if you want to contest this, I will ask you to provide sources to justify your opinion. I point out that I understand you nevertheless. This is not common and only scholars use this (but we write an encyclopaedia). ceedjee (ceedjee) 21:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I consider I came with strong arguments concerning the title issue (Arab-Israeli <-> Palestine)
 * The same arguments were used -with success- to remove from the article 1948 Arab Israeli War the content concerning the 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and to create 1948 Palestine War.
 * Unless reaction, I will move the title to List of massacres committed during the 1948 Palestine War within a few days, but not before next week.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Ceedjee. While I am open to considering the new title, I don't it should be changed until we can clean up the List of massacres committed prior to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, since much of the material there directly preceding the war would also have to be merged to the new title. Can you please work with me on cleaning that article up? And then, we can discuss your proposal for a move more seriously.  T i a m u t talk 12:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Scratch the above comment. I think it would be easier to create the article under the new title and add entires from the article that fit there. I say this because I don't have access to the source cited in the other article and cannot check whether they use massacre or not. It's title can be changed to List of massacres committed prior to the 1948 Palestine War and we can leave the neutrality tag in place there until we can get access to the books cited and verify the information.  T i a m u t talk 12:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I really dont think it is appropriate to rename a war that is RS'd and already known as the 1948 A-I war. Massacre is too emotive, but I believe some incidents are already knows as such.  I also remember a previous edit debate where every incident was POVly named massacre.  As far as timing is concerned, you might use 'related to' and include the run-up to May14 and the later armistice troubles, if any.  CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I keep flip-flopping back and forth on this I know. But I think you're right Casual Observer. We should probably retain the names as is and work on bringing the lists up to scratch using reliabel sources. Sorry Ceedjee. Casual Observer's point brought it home for me.  T i a m u t talk 15:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * Thank you for your comment.
 * I have all the material with sources to add in this article.
 * The only issue depends on the subject.
 * May I we cut the discussion on three topics : 1) 1948 Palestine War / 1948 Arab-Israeli war 2) massacres / violence / civil casualities or ... 3) list or not list.
 * Here let's focus on the first point but please, give sources and scholar references. I argued why this should be named 1948 Palestine War : all scholars from all sensibilities call this war like that...
 * Ceedjee (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Massacre or Civil Casualities ?
The problem with the word massacre is that it has a high emotional connotation. There are also events, that are not called massacres but which are perceived with the same emotional connotation, such as the "murder attempts" (eg Ben Yehuda Street Bombing). Additionnaly, in the context of the 1948 War, some of these were performed after combats and the casualities are often widen to the whole casuality of the battle and the following massacre. Kfar Etzion massacre is an example, Deir Yassin massacre another). Another problem is that there are events where there is no agreement among scholar to state whether it was or not a massacre. Eg like at al-Tantura. The current solution in the article is not acceptable because it is WP:PR. 3 or 10 civil casualites doesn't make a massacre. Only circumstances make a massacre. More, soldiers can also be massacred and not necessarely POW. In a desequilibrated battle can lead to the "massacre" of the weakest side (eg. 1914-18 battles were massacres - Latrun assault of May 48 was a "massacre"). For all these reasons, "cannot" can hardly be used and without denying the "factual" caracters of massacres during the 1948 War, another expression or other terms should be used. Ceedjee (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not use the word massacre? We define it clearly. I said earlier, call it a "ham sandwich" if you like, so long as you clearly define a "ham sandwich" as being ten murders.
 * CP 6:43, 26 March 2008


 * Because wikipedia is not there to create definitions (WP:PR) but to report reliable information (WP:RS). Ceedjee (talk) 12:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The term massacre is inappropriate because the nature of the situation has to be considered. The 1948 Arab-Israeli War was predominantly fought as urban warfare, in many of the towns mentioned as having had "massacres". It is easy to assume that whoever kills a civilian is an evil, battle hardened revenge seeker, and not actually judge his true situation. There is absolutely no reason for any of these places to be considered racially motivated. The Israelis did not call for the destruction of a future Palestinian state, unlike the commanders of the various Arab armies converging on the Jewish State, who openly called for Jewish massacre. In urban warfare, when members of BOTH sides run in and out of houses and properties in the town, it becomes very difficult to distinguish between who is a soldier and who is a civilian. It is tragic when a man or woman or child is killed by a member of the opposite side, but it does happen and it has to be taken into consideration. A soldier will not march into a home, look for a man, woman or child and shoot it in the head. He has many more important things to think about, including the fact that he is being shot at by an opposing soldier who poses a much greater threat to him than the civilians in front of him. And the other soldier too is hiding in somebody's backyard, or leaning out of their kitchen window, and bullets fly at both sides, and it is not uncommon for somebody who they weren't necessarily aiming for to die.
 * The term massacre calls into view that stereotypical view of the evil battle-hardened gun-toting monster. Should the word be kept, at the very least a note should be placed in the top of the article demonstrating my above point, and the comment regarding the "deliberate" or "racist" nature of the massacre be removed. -unregistered user: Lippy, 10 May, 2008
 * Historians are not stupid.
 * When they talk about massacres, they don't refer to civil casualites during the fights. They are talking about the deliberate killing of civilians or POWs after when the battle is over. And there were around 20 of such massacres during the 1948 war. Ceedjee (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

List or not list of ?
Why the restrictivity to a list. The "massacres" have a wider meaning than their factual existence. Globally, in this case, their existence is used as an argument to justify the "terror factor" among the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus (mainly in April and May 1948, ie prior to the Arab Israeli war but also during Operation Hiram, ie at the end of 1948). The list way of working also prevents from adding the context, that prevents people to understand "properly" the meaning of the events. All massacres do not have the same "causes" and the "responsibilies" have to be pondered by the events. Sometimes the motivations are worse than the massacre by itself, sometimes, it is accidental. Tiamut already answered that the information could be found in the main article. In that case, I think we must just give the name of the event (without casualities, analysis or any comment) and make a 100%-pure list. You will never succeed in convincing anybody that the number of victims is more important than the causes of their deaths or that chosing the detail to put forward is not pov. Ceedjee (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion
May I move to Massacres committed during the 1948 Palestine War Ceedjee (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

All Arab
Is there a reason all the massacres listed are of Arabs? This doesn't seem like it's unbiased. That's why it should be deleted as of now.
 * All the massacres of Jews were moved to List of massacres committed prior to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war in Mandate Palestine, so that this article could list only Arab deaths. Jayjg (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That is another reason why I would suggest the merging of both articles (as per above).
 * For NPoV, «list» must also be removed and we must bring the comments of historians concerning these.
 * I don't want to be bold. I want some consensus before proceeding.
 * NB: The reason why there are only massacres of Arabs in this article is that no Jews were massacred after may 15 in 1948. And the reason why no Jews/Israelis were massacred is due, according to Benny Morris (1948 - conclusions) and I assume all historians, because the Arabs lacked the opportunities to proceed to such massacres (they lost nearly each battle). Nevertheless, he points out how the jews who surrendered on 28 may in the Old City of Jerusalem were protected by the Arab Legion (who even killed two Arabs in the mob). From my point of view, he forgets the massacre of Pow's at the first battle of Latroun on 25 mai.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 06:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Majd al-Khurm
Deleted, as the 12 deaths were of militiamen, not civilians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.177.31 (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The list is intended for "incidents in which at least 10 civilians or non-combat military personnel were deliberately killed" (emphasis added). According to Shaghur:
 * According to an eyewitness, Israeli forces killed 12 alleged Arab Liberation Army-aligned militiamen by hanging during the capture of Majd al-Krum in the 1948 War.
 * The hanging of alleged militiamen, as opposed to death during combat, is probably the reason why it is included here. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that the death was by hanging - this changes things. Per talk at WP:IPCOLL, only events specifically called massacres per WP:RS from both sides, and mostly shooting acts, will be called massacres. The discussion was started about the Dolphinarium massacre, which was renamed to Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing as a result. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 16:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Links for Listed Events
I thought this article is supposed to link to related articles. The current version of this article looks very much like a list for the sake of implying that all atrocities in this war were done by the Israeli side. If these events do not rise to the level of an article on Wiki, they should be removed, which will create a very short list indeed. Sposer (talk) 03:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sposer,
 * All of the atrocities in this war were done by the Israeli side; "this war" being understood as the inter-state war which began on 15 May 1948. Quite simply, the armies of the Arab states never conquered more than a few outlying Jewish "wall and tower settlements." They were never in a position to commit atrocities. The List of massacres committed prior to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war includes the massacres committed during the civil war which began in November 1947 and merged into the inter-state war. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 03:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But there are still several that have no articles. This should be a list that links to articles. That was my main point. It looks less like Israel bashing if one can actually find an article on Wiki supporting the event.Sposer (talk) 10:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Sposer,
 * As you can see, I tried to get some consensus on how to neutralize and make this article evolve.
 * I feel a bit alone in the talks but also quite observed, which is not pleasant.
 * In 1948, Benny Morris discusses the issue of the massacres during the war, so that this very sensitive list could become an article.
 * I could be bold but I don't want to do the job to be contested just after and be the victim of an edit war.
 * If there a consensus so that the article is moved to Massacres and atrocities committed during the 1948 Palestine War (where they could all be listed), I agree to work on that. Else not.
 * For removing some of them, I think it is too sensitive. It is more easy to be neutral if we just list all of them (but of course, all with wp:rs secondary sources and in being precise when the reality of the massacre is disputed (such as for al-Tantura).
 * Ceedjee (talk) 07:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * @Eleland. That is not 100% true even if stated by historians. Benny Morris gives counter-exemples where the Arab could have performed massacres but didn't : more relevent is when the old city felt (defenders where convinced they would be massacred; some palestinian irregulars tried but Arab Legion soldiers executed them and protected both civilians and pow's. They even released the injured soldiers)
 * If the reason for the lack of Arab atrocities relates to the near total Arab failures to capture towns and settlements, thus contrasting with the pre-"war" situation, before May 48, perhaps this highly relevant fact should be brought to the attention of readers of the article, all of whom will notice that there is a heavy bias toward associating all massacres with Israeli actions. I find it odd that this relevant fact is not already mentioned in the article.  As for Benny Morris as the chief source, as it seems, for most of these claims, it should also be indicated that his status as a reliable historian is much disputed, with Karsh showing that the handling of archival material seems less than thorough and non-neutral, let us say.  Other reliable sources must be used as support when citing Morris. 58.109.90.179 (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * On July 10, Arab Legion also attacked and took Gezer. Many defenders died but around 30 were made prisoners and women (fighters !) were released just after. I think anyway some pow's were executed.
 * On the other way, 2 israeli pow's were killed and mutilated by Egyptians during the "negev campain". (if i remember well - this should be checked).
 * Ceedjee (talk) 07:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, also see this discussion : Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/About the use of the word massacre. Ceedjee (talk) 10:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ceedjee. This is a place I am just wading into and trying to understand and frame the idiocy that goes on in Wiki. Lots of articles are really bad, on both sides. I agree, I am not going to change anything. Just asking for opinions. Sposer (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No Prob.
 * Thx for your answer :-)
 * but I would have expected something such : please... proceed ! Be bold ! We should replace this list by an article ? And expand the article on the whole war, not just the events after 15 May ;-)
 * Ceedjee (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This page should be deleted
This page should be deleted. Any attempts to insert information related to indisputable massacres from the other side have been deleted. Furthermore, the citations are primarily from highly biased sources and some do not actually indicate that a massacre took place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.168.227 (talk) 02:03, October 30, 2008

COMMENT

This is a prime example of a major problem with Wikipedia. Using Wikipedia to advance political agendas creates an impression that Wikipedia is unreliable. This seriously harms Wikipedia since no one wants to use an unreliable reference source. All of this, both the page and the talk, should be deleted since there is no possibility of an objective article being produced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.13.195 (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Lets get a moderator. Preferably a historian without any connections to the Middle East, to avoid any strong bias. Until then, I refuse to let the racist defamation on this page stand. 128.118.147.47 (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you sign up for an account and become familiar with some of our policies and guidelines like WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR, etc. They will help you to understand what information can be included in an article and what cannot. Please also read WP:3RR. What you are doing is a violation of Wikipedia editing practices and could get you a WP:BLOCK. So please, stop deleting what is here, and begin building upon it instead. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 16:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and try to get me banned. At least that will alert an administrator to the Nazi-like propaganda you are spreading over Wikipedia.128.118.147.47 (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll put a block of information at your account talk page. In Wikipedia no one can ban under any circumstances.  It is possible to ask an admin to block an account.  For problem IP addresses, it is possible to ask the admin to block account creation from the address, as well as blocking posting from the IP account.  Refusal to allow poorly sourced and NPoV additions to an article are not propaganda.  It is frustrating not to be able to get the truth as one sees it into the Wikipedia (see my page if interested), but if the information is not available from reliable secondary sources, it can't be here.  If there are unsourced sections anywhere, flag them.  As to people not using Wikipedia... please... the servers are MADLY busy.  On the keep vs. delete thing... join the discussion, discard your "Nazi" and "propaganda" buzz words.  Gather your sources, make your arguments.  And, if you don't care that much then please, move on to an article you care about.  Your behaviour so far is not the way.  sinneed (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to "get you banned", anonymous IP. I'm just trying to impart a little bit about the way things work here. We don't erase things we don't like without good reason when they are sourced to reliable sources (WP:RS). We are here to build an encyclopedia together. Not trash each's work and person. Sineed seems to be trying to help you get better acquainted with things here. If you don't like listening to my advice, I suggest you take hers. She seems nice.  T i a m u t talk 22:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)