Talk:Qibya massacre/Archive 1

About the victim count: as far as I understand, there isn't a fully formal and authentic figure, and as some sources claim 63 while other 69, I changed the count to "from 60 to 70" (I'm not alone, e.g. Benny Morris does the same in his Righteous Victims) --Uriyan -
 * removing apologetical stuff nor relevant to the Qibya operation; write separate article if you wish

This stuff is directly relevant to the Qivya operation, as it describes why the operation had taken place, and the general atmosphere of that time. Not mentioning it would be like forgetting about the British taxes and beginning with the Boston Tea Party. --Uri


 * A Time magazine reporter said Sharon's soldiers shot "every man, woman and child they could find" and then dynamited 42 houses, a school and a mosque. "The cries of the dying," the magazine reported, "could be heard amidst the explosions".


 * What's the date of this quote? Is it from a contemporary article or a modern report? --Uri

Found the date: http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/62c13fb98d54fe240525672700581383/6bd4ecb150d067a5052567240073c87f!OpenDocument

It says Ti4im but im sure it is a spelling misstake. Other newspapers had the same story but imho, Time is the most credible one. "...ambush Arab Legion forces in the area" and "...destruction of some houses as a decoy" I couldn't find any sources for these statement and i've personally never heard of them myself. Maybe you can find them? And another thing, the infiltrators is a "Israelish" name for the arabs crossing the Green Line border. A majority of them did not cross the border to execute military attacks. --BL


 * "Infiltrators" = "people who cross a border". These statements can be found in Morris (Righteous Victims). As to the article, the question is from where it takes the details (if it is hearsay, then that's obviously imprecise and redundant). --Uri
 * Ah, sorry, this doesn't come from Morris; I think they come from the Israeli Army Lexicon (1976), but I don't have a copy available currently. --Uri

The journalist who wrote the Time article would probably have said that he did lots of research and so on. Maybe he interviewed eye-witnesses but I don't think it was a very accurate article. For obvious reasons "an intended massacre" have a much higher news value than "a terrible accident". Never the less, it was the story broadcasted in international media. The page contains a longer version of the quote among other similar stories with even more "gore". The newsworlds POV. --BL


 * Well, I leave the decision whether to re-introduce the quote in your hands. However, I am concerned about the disrepancies between the various versions of the story floating around: for instance, it's not likely Sharon (a major at the time) would command anything in excess of a company that was Unit 101, while the 600 figure (from where is it taken?) is closer to 2 battalions. Moreover, I wonder what was the full population of Qibya at that moment. Of course, Egyptian propaganda sites do not help in finding particular answers. --Uri

http://www.futuretvnetwork.com/justice/evidence_qibya_survivors.html Names 2,800 inhabitants in Qibya and that there were about 100 soldiers participating in the attack. There are always disrepancies in stories like this, I would be more concerned if all stories were the same. I added the links because I used some particulars from those pages, but I think most of the statements can be found on less provocative sites to like domino.un.org (UN's Palestine site). The pages are biased but I don't think they are propaganda. Maybe the sites should be put under a "the Arabic View" or be removed? --BL


 * Those are actually pretty significant facts. As to the links, I find them to be very redundant - they are not authorative, and they don't represent too much information, so I'd rather delete them (this is what I thought of when I first looked them up, but then I decided to discuss it with you first). --Uri
 * As to disrepancies, this all looks very strange to me. For instance, one of the survivor accounts tell no artillery was used; 100 vs. 600 is a serious difference. It seems to me that the pro-Arab propaganda has done its share here (I saw one Egyptian government site claiming the Israelis stayed for 26 hours!) --Uri

As for the survivors story: It seems like the interviews was made recently and remembering almost 50 year old events is difficult for anyone. If I was trapped in a house surrounded by hostile soldiers I would probably not have been able to tell the difference between 600 and 100. The number 600 comes from Time Magazine article which probably was based on testimonials from survivors. 300 was Jordan's representatatives number which later changed to 150. Israel's number I don't know. Yes the pro-Palestinian sources try to exaggregate while the pro-Israel sources supply understatements. I think all the pro-Palestinian links should be removed except for one as it is needed to represent the Palestinian view. I think link nr 3 answers is the best. --BL


 * Well, the Israeli information is obviously "two companies". In Israeli army, a company is, let's say, no more than 70 men (it makes more sense, if Sharon wouldn't be able to command as a Major a two-battalion sized force. I seriously doubt if he even commanded the paratroopers). Also, what about the artilery?
 * As to the third link, I do dislike it because of itsgeneral inclination towards Israel-bashing (using Morris as a very unilateral backing). If you really want to keep it - do so, but then at least remove, which doesn't even include a proper review. --Uri

This should be called the "Qibya Massacre". Thats what the media named it and what is important, the operation part is secondary. --BL
 * Agree: --Ed Poor (I would like to move it in early August)
 * Disagree: --Uri