Talk:Haganah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Haganah as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Hebrew language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Accuracy, Not Bias, Please

I've provided 3 sources (one from the World Zionist Organization in Jerusalem, another from a volume by David Niv on the IZL, along with a NY Times article which reprints the 1947 British White Paper on Zikonist Terrorism in Palestine, and the links between the Haganah and IZL. The White Paper reference should be included, even if one of you thinks the at times 'shaky' relationship between the Brits and the Haganah "would mean that the British would use a favorable opportunity to get even at them." Unless you can prove the partnership DIDN'T happen, then it's your perspective that needs to be revised. Specifically, do you have information that contradicts that in the White Paper? If so, present it. If not, don't delete other's work because you think, without providing any basis for your comments, that the WP represents an attempt by the British to "get even" with the Haganah. Wilsonius

[edit] NPOV

There was some un-neutral bias in this article which I have removed. It said something like "It was clear that the British had no desire to protect the Jews". Maybe it is clear to you, however this is an encyclopedia, and we have to state cold facts.

The "Haganah's Terrorism acts" is not neutral and needs to be rewritten. Perhaps calling it "covert operations" and removing the Pro palestinian paragraph which is out of place here. The bombing of the King David Hotel is also contoversial and should be included in "covert operations"


However, fact remains that 25 members of the Haganah participated in the Deir Yassin attack, although this was later played down by the Haganah. AH YES BUT HAMAS IS CALLED A TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS([1]).

I removed this link for two reasons: first it was a general Israel-bashing page, backed by very random pieces of information. Secondly, the fact that a single Haganah company might have been somehow in the neighborhood of Deir Yassin is totally irelevant to the question whether the Haganah was a terrorist organization. uriyan

--- In July 1946 Britain published a white paper on terrorism that accused Haganah, Stern gang and Irgun of "violence and destruction".

The fact that the relationship between Haganah and the British was shaky at times would mean that the British would use a favorable opportunity to get even at them. In other words, hearsay is useless. --Uri

--- These paragraphs:

However the British cooling-down at the middle of the war unveiled the Jewish Yishuv's most hurting point - the plight of Holocaust survivors. A small stream of them began to arrive early in the war; by the time the war ended, hundreds of thousands of Jews were in Europe, who were left with no home and no homeland. The British had allowed only a limited number to come to Palestine; the Haganah set out to bring the rest.
The immigrants were brought in illegaly on old, small boats rented by the Jewish leadership. The Haganah played an important function in helping the ships arrive to shore and dispersing the immigrants safely. About 70,000 Jews were brought into Palestine in this way, and a similar number was captured on the way. The British were apallingly insensitive to the latter, arresting them in detention camps on remote lands (Cyprus and Mauritius), returning them to the places of their slaughter or simply killing them by inaction (as happened with the ship Struma).

fail the NPOV test. Phrases like "appallingly insensitive" don't belong here. The passage is also poorly organised and can be misleading. For one thing, a large part of the illegal immigration was the work of Etzel rather than the "Jewish leadership". As an example, the Struma was organized by Betar. For another thing, there is confusion here between war-time and post-war refugees. The Struma was sunk in 1942 but the article makes it sound like post-war. Also it is simply not correct to blame it all on the British. The Turkish government was under British pressure but it had its own motivations as well. Also they weren't all "old small boats", etc etc. I plan to replace these passages when time permits.

These edits and reverts are making me dizzy. Let's look at the disputed paragraphs.

Major General R. Dare Wilson, who served with the British troops policing the British Mandate of Palestine, reported that on Dec. 18, 1947, the Haganah murdered 10, mostly women and children, in the Arab village of al-Khisas. Wilson also claimed that on Dec. 31 the Haganah slaughtered another 14, again mostly women and children, in Balad Esh-Sheikh. (Aldershot: Gale & Polden, p.158, 1949)

This is not good because it refers to two events more or less randomly selected out of a war that had very many events. I think the issue of Haganah behaviour in the 1948 war deserves only a brief mention here plus a link to 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Also the details are inaccurate and the citation is nonsensical. "Aldershot, Gale & Polden" is a publishing company, which means that the book is not even named (it is a military memoir of the British 6th airborne).

The Arabs claim that forces of the Haganah played a large role in the expulsion and evacuation of Palestine Arabs living inside what today is Israel. One of their methods was to impose fear in the local populations. See proper discussion at Palestinian Exodus.

That's not so bad and the issue should be mentioned. I'd leave out the "fear" sentence at least as you shouldn't start on the question of mechanisms without finishing it.

Although the Haganah didn't play an active role in the Deir Yassin massacre, the Haganah commander David Shaltiel is said to have allowed (albeit, with eluctance) forces of the Irgun and Lehi to execute the attack against the village. (Kfir, Ilan, Yediot Ahronot 4.4.72) Haganah units assisted them by providing mortar fire, they later withdrew from the area before the massacre begun. (Levi, Yitzhak, op. cit. p343-344; Pail and Isseroff, op. cit.)

I'm not sure it deserves a mention on this page as the Haganah's role at Deir Yassin was little different from in a hundred places. The "citations" indicate that this was lifted without understanding from somewhere, as "op.cit." means that the full citation can be found earlier, which it can't. - zero 13:07, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The statements are noncontroversial and David Shaltiel was indeed the one giving the undergrounds his blessing. I agree that the examples are meaningless since the Haganah was responsible for a few dozen massacres and other atrocities during the war and they can only serve as a snapshot to them. I suspect they were added because a revision a long time ago contained some statements amounting to "the Haganah never did anything bad" and some avid Haganah supporter tried to preserve that pov. :-) BL 14:49, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's true the statements are non-controversial, but as far as the Haganah was concerned this was a very small and not very special operation. (I've never seen any allegation that the Hanagah knew that a massacre was about to happen.) So the fact that the Haganah played a part is not very important as far as the history of the Haganah goes, although it is a part of the story of Deir Yassin which is told elsewhere. -- zero 15:46, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I removed the assertion that the UN regards the Haganah as a terrorist organization. The citations were two papers submitted to UN conferences. That is hardly stating that the Haganah, a defunct organization, is a terrorist organization. Danny 22:09, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Even the israeli goverment has accused the Hagana as a terrorist group. British authority too, and the UN .. please don't remove truth because you are enthousiate or agree with Hagana actions. Europeen

Which government? The one headed by Sharon, who was a member of the Haganah? Yes, the British accused the Haganah of terrorism (actually the Palmach, much like they did the Mau Mau). As for the UN, you have to bring something a little better than papers submitted to a UN conference. As for assuming I am an enthusiast or in agreement with Haganah actions without stating what they are or knowing anything about me, that is just plain stupid. Danny 22:20, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It is the Israeli goverment in 1948/1949.. and in 1948 there were no computer or internet to find a paper about it.. and stop deleting the link..

The Israeli government headed by Ben Gurion, who also happened to head the Haganah? Danny 22:26, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

yes

evidence, please, before you make the assertion. Danny 22:30, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

in 1948 there was no pc's, and i don't know hebreu, so i can't see how you will beleive if i tell you a link in other language.. you won't beleive, and start your zionist propaganda, of etc and etc... and stop deleting the link...

ahem: The two papers cited as evidence don't say what you claim they say; one calls the Haganah "extremist" (not quite the same thing as "terrorist"), the other doesn't mention it at all. — No-One Jones (talk) 22:35, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
U may search well in the other to see.. and i have a third link saying explicitly that it is a "terrorist" organisation.


Danny, it seems that even if i changed the sentence or out anything that say that hagana is terrorist, u delete it.. it is not a zionist wikipedia, not Ziopedia...

Not even worth answering. Danny 22:47, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Very clever to protect the page... this encyclopedia is hopeless..

The Haganah never exploded civilian Buses, nor did it open automatic fire on tourists in an international airport, and generally its acts against civilians were not as cruel as the PLO (in terms of statistical deaths of civilians. Land is not a civilian despite some esteemed cultures considering it eligible to register in the national census, bear children, die, take umbrage at insults to its honor and buy groceries). Therefore, if you want the Haganah labeled a terrorist organization, you ought to most enthusiastically want the PLO to be so labeled, as well. It is not, so the Haganah certainly doesn't have to carry this burden alone. Or, are you suggesting that killing Arabs is terrorism but killing Jews isn't? legitimate of you but it has to be explained so people who don't know anything about it understand the understandable semantic conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.8.119.102 (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"Europeen" clearly does not have a clue. It is quite impossible that any Israeli government ever accused the Hagana of being a terrorist organization. I don't know of any such accusation from the UN in its official capacity either. As for the British....for example in 1946 they published the texts of some intercepted telegrams proving that the Hagana was cooperating with the Irgun and had prior knowledge of Irgun attacks (deva vu in reverse?). I don't remember if the word "terrorist" was used there but it was implied. On the other hand, the great majority of mentions of the Hagana in British documents do not treat them as terrorists (unlike the Irgun and Lehi, who were always so treated). --Zero 01:51, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The document that User:Europeen refers to is "Written statement* submitted by Europe-Third World Centre, a non-governmental organisations in general consultative status" to the United Nations. As such, it is not the opinion of a UN body. The UN publishes (circulates the document) as required by UN regulations: The Secretary-General has received the following written statement which is circulated in accordance with Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31. Information on the source of the document is available here and here OneVoice 04:56, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Following the Arab riots of 1929, that left 133 Jews dead and led to the ethnic cleansing of all Jews from the city of Hebron, the Haganah's role changed dramatically.

The article 1948 Arab-Israeli War seems to imply 67 were kill (paragraph 4 of the background). Which is it?

[edit] Covert/clandestine

There is a difference between covert and clandestine operations, so we should make sure to use each term precisely. Covert operations are so secret that the government or organization that orders them will deny any part in it - like the Mission:Impossible shtick. Clandestine operations are secret, but wouldn't be denied if the operatives are caught. --Leifern 16:31, May 15, 2005 (UTC)ŀ

I've never encountered that distinction. The dictionary definitions seem to indicate that the two words are synonymous. --Lee Hunter 17:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The article states, "The Haganah are known to be the foundation of the modern Israel Defense Forces (צה"ל)—Israel's army." I don't think this is quite accurate. Irgun and the Stern Gang, both terrorist organizations, were incorporated in the IDF.

[edit] More Appropriate Language and Missing Information

Appropriate Language

The article states, "Irgun and their off-shoot, the Lochamei Herut Israel (also known as the Stern gang after its leader), became well-known for their clandestine combat methods including attacks on civilians." I believe there are several problems with this paragraph. The phrase: "[Irgun's/Stern gang] became well-known for their clandestine combat methods," but to whom did these efforts become well known? Also, I've seen a few references to Irgun/Stern gang as terrorist organizations, which make me wonder if that would be a more accurate description for this Wikipedia entry. For example, in 1947, David Ben Gurion pleaded with the British to lift martial law in Palestine as " it did not influence the terrorists or put an end to their violence." (Saul Zadka, Blood in Zion: How the Jewish Guerrillas drove the British Out of Palestine. Brassey's: London & Washington, 1995, p 4). In a meeting with Haganah, Menachem Begin, commander of the Irgun, referred to the 3 military organizations which operated in Jewish Palestine: "In fact there is here a division of roles; One organization advocates individual terrorism, the other conducts sporadic military operations and there is a third organization which prepares itself to throw its final weight to the decisive war." (Blood in Zion, p12). In 1944, members of the Jewish Agency, which long supported the British in Palestine, resolved to (according to one Jewish Agency document) "extend all the necessary aid to the [British] authorities in order to precent acts of terrror to foil their organization." (David Niv, The Irgun Zevai Leumi.Jerusalem: World Zionist Organization (Dept for Education and Culture), 1980 p. 57). Also, the phrase, "attacks on civilians," is problemmatic. Does it refer to attacks on British, Palestinian Arabs, and/or Palestinian Jews? This should be clarified.

Missing Information First, the Stern gang was also referred to as Lechi, which may be useful to include (source: Niv, The Irgun Zevai Leumi. p.3). Second, between November 6, 1944 (the Lechi assassination of Lord Moyne, British Minister of State for the Middle East), and May 1945, the Haganah imprisoned members of the Irgun, and also handed over Irgun members to the British. (source: Niv) Finally, the Haganah partnered with the Irgun for a period after July 1945, Haganah partnered with Irgun and Lechi. According to Niv, "It was then that conditions were ripe and an agreement was eventually reached for wider cooperation, to include the Haganah as well." (p 58) He later states that Haganah had a role in the bombing of the King David Hotel and the killing of 82 British men and women, and then states, "It was not, however, until years later that [Irgun] revealed the part played by the Jewish Agency and Haganah in intiating the operation." (p. 69)

As for the documents I've referenced, Zadka's book is still in print, but I'm not sure if Niv's article was ever published. (I ran across it at the British Library a few weeks ago.) I don't have the entire document, but do have many of the pages. Wilsonius 10:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irgun vs Lei in caption

פעולות האצ"ל בתל-אביב לסחיטת כסף מסוחרים תוך שימוש באמצעים אלימים, אזהרה כי ההגנה תעניש אנשים אלה. נמצא בתיק הכרוזים הגדולים מס' 13. Source: archives.mod.gov.il El_C 00:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorist acts

Please refer to the sources I mention here. El_C 00:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Grammar

Since the page is protected, I'll post the mistakes here:

"about attacks on Palestinian Jews, , and created the Haganah" - double commas.

"nearly all the youths and adults in the" - youths should be youth

"the Haganah created the (Palmach, or Assault Companies) the Haganah's" - misplaced parenthesis

[edit] The First Teerorist Organization Of Modern World

Yes, It was the first terrorist organization of the civillized world which laterally took the shape of IDF which is performing terrist activities nowadays in the land of Palestine and Lebanon. Abulfazl 10:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teddy Kollek

Teddy Kollek repped in Washingon in 1947-8 and helped buy weapons.--Gkklein 19:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patria disaster

Should there be mention of this incident in this article? Thanks, --Tom 17:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "It can therefore be concluded that Haganah was a Jewish Terrorist organisation which gave out leaders like Begin who were later elected to office in Israel."

Uh... Can anyone say biased? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.170.22 (talk) 02:30, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yeah.. Cover it up you UGLY CABAL

This content has an uncertain copyright status and is pending deletion. You can comment on its removal.
This content has an uncertain copyright status and is pending deletion. You can comment on its removal.

Yeah.. keep covering the truth.. and pretend this is a true honest encyclopedia.

[edit] Reverting between two versions

For the past two weeks, this article has been reverted between two versions, a longer one and a shorter one. Currently the longer one is in place, which I agree should be preferred.

The following are reasons why the longer version is better:

  • The longer version includes references and external links. The shorter one doesn't.
  • The longer version has images of two photographs, two posters, and a leaflet. The shorter one doesn't have any.
  • The shorter version has problems with bias. For example, the shorter version includes a section titled "Hganah's Terrorism acts" [sic -- with proper grammar and spelling, that would be "Haganah's terrorist acts"]. However, that section is focused almost entirely on the Deir Yassin massacre which was committed by Irgun and Lehi, not by Haganah.
  • In addition, the lead of the shorter version describes Haganah as a "Zionist terrorism organization". Wikipedia has a guideline against using the word "terrorist" or "extremist" unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group one of those names. See WP:TERRORIST (a section of Wikipedia:Words to avoid). The guideline recommends the use of words such as insurgent, paramilitary, or partisan instead, and the longer version does use "paramilitary" to describe Haganah.

Therefore, please don't revert this article to the 8,014-byte version. Please use normal editing to improve the article instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I see that the most recent reversion to the shorter version corrected the spelling of "Hganah's" to "Haganah's", but all of the other problems are still there. In addition, the shorter version eliminates the interwiki links to the Catalan and Russian versions of this article. I would recommend against reverting to that shorter version unless one is willing to explain why the Catalan and Russian versions of this article should not get interwiki links. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The articles with pictures are the standard of quality articles

Isn't that ridiculous??

As if the pics and wiki version links can't be added to the other article (Ohh THATS A GREAT IDEA.. IT WILL BECOME A GREAT ARTICLE THEN.. BUT WITHOUT PICS ITS BAD..) ridiculous..

And what else do you call grouping innocent people and making them a target of a killing spree? Maybe you consider it a hunting picnic??

And why is it here?? Coz -if you read carfully- "authorized the irregular terrorist forces". So don't EVER consider yourself a judge on the better article and play innocent and fair about it coz you are NOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.178.224.163 (talk)

(Trying to delete my text is very very fair to you now haaa?? hehehe) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnaHona (talk • contribs)

You ugly cabal
You ugly cabal
  • Well, I still don't see how removing the photos, the references, and two of the interwiki links improved the article. It appears that some editors may have preferred the shorter version because it described Haganah as a terrorism organization, notwithstanding the violation of WP:TERRORIST. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


  • Well... YOU don't see.. you have your reasons.. coz who add those pics could have add them to either version.. but he add it to the version which approve his side of the story after deleting the parts of the story which he didn't like. And not just that.. He insist on BLOCKing everybody who diapprove his side of story.. and he even accuse them with vandalism..

And that shows the very so called FREEDOM face in the so called "Free encyclopedia" you call it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaZiltHona (talk • contribs) 15:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

    • Indeed, the pictures could be added to either version. That's why it would be preferable for the pictures not to be removed from the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why have my comments being deleted?

Is there some kind of censorship going on here? My previous comments that Haganah should be called a terrorist organisation in this article have been deleted. Since I did not offend anyone and was not rude, simply having made a statement, it is difficult to understand why my lines were erased. Can anyone explain to me WHY Haganah is not called a terrorist group here? If that is the case, in order to be consistent and neutral, all other organisations called terrorist must be not called so in Wikipedia. Thank you, and please dont show more authoritarianism by deleting a non-offensive, objective statement like mine here. Tango. UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.181.79 (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • See the style guideline Wikipedia:Words to avoid, particularly the section at WP:TERRORIST, which says: In line with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, the words "Extremist", "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". In an article the words should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article. Note that the article on Hamas says Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by Canada,[7] Israel,[8] Japan,[9] and the United States,[10] and is banned in Jordan. Hezbollah says Six countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, officially list Hezbollah, or its external security arm, as a terrorist organization, though its designation as such is not unanimous among world powers (perhaps most notably, the European Union). ETA says ETA is proscribed as a terrorist organisation by both the Spanish and French[3] authorities as well as the European Union as a whole,[4] the United States, and the United Nations. Provisional Irish Republican Army says The organisation is classified as an illegal terrorist group in the United Kingdom[5] and as an illegal organisation in the Republic of Ireland.[6] Note that all these articles indicate who considers the organizations to be terrorist organizations, rather than just saying outright that they are terrorist organizations. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Palmach

the article says that the Palmach wasn't large with only 2000 men. The Palmach consisted of men and women equally. Women in the Palmach had the same jobs as men in everything - they weren't banned from combat, etc. I don't know if the 2000 men is just a figuraive number or not so I'm not changing it now. If someone want to they can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.5.63 (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)