Talk:Jenin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jenin is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

jenin is a city in palestine..PALESTINE IS NOT ISREAL!!!

here it says 52 citizens died in the battle homat magen of jenin, 14 of which were citizens. however, on the israeli version, it says only 7 of which were citizens. can someone settle this debate?

filmed what IDF claims to be Palestinians carrying out a phoney funeral procession

I think that the "IDF claims" part is unnecessary. The pictures are self-evident and undeniable - looking at them makes anyone with half a brain think "this is a Palestinian funeral". Of course, the Palestinians could claim that the pictures are a fabrication. However, I've not heard so far of such a claim, and if it appears, it should be written down as another sentence, "Palestinians claim the IDF phootage is a falsification". --Uriyan

Actually I was trying to change to article in a way that anyone who follows the link to the images / movie will watch it with a open mind and then decide what they think about it. Now I found a article where the Palestinians say that this is wanted Palestinians fleeing. I will try to find some other sources confirming this. --Peter Winnberg, Saturday, May 4, 2002
That's surely a funny way to flee - in the middle of nowhere (the pictures were filmed from a pilotless aircraft, almost impossible to notice), with a stretcher, bearing a man that can obviously walk on his own, accompanied by a mob and with green (Hammas) flags. One needs only to apply Occam's Razor to determine what was that. --Uriyan
I added a new link which includes the "funeral" video. The first video seems not to work any longer. I read somewhere on the net that a Palestinian filmmaker claimed to have been making a film at the time. I guess the film was never finished; the actors ran away.Whyerd 17:49, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For those who keep inserting major changes, talk about them here first in the "Talk" section! You can't force major changes in a communal project by brute force, as you are currently doing. Encyclopaedia are made by intellectual consensus, not force. If you wish to back up your conspiracy theory claims that Jenin was somehow not the source of many homicide bombers against Israel, then you must back up these extraordinary claims with firm evidence. We're willing to read what you have to say, as long as you have logical arguments and reliable sources to back up your claims. [[RK]]

RK: since you are not neutral at all, there's no point in convince you about the truth of "conspiracy theory claims" with "logical" arguments. However, you should accept that there another points of view about what happened in Jenin and that those points of view will not match what you expect to be true.

I don't accept to argument against your thesis Jenin was "the source of many homicide bombers against Israel". Stating that is pointless as just claiming "Israel did a massacre in Jenin against civilians". However in Wikipedia not only the point of view of Israel should be shown, but also the point of view of the palestinians. The _readers_ will decide, based on the points of view (and sources) exposed, what will they accept as truth.

What about this link?

[1]

Is this link enough reliable for you?

Perhaps we could tolerate the occasional parenthetical phrase such as the Israelis, regarded as an occupation force by Arabs, did X. After all, the key to this and related articles on the Arab-Israeli conflit is both (A) what happened (facts) and (B) the meaning of what happened (intrepretation).

To give a personal example, when I was in the US Army I once bit another soldier; he had to have stitches. His statement and mine agreed on that fact. I was not punished, however, because my purpose for biting him was to make him release me from a headlock. The company commander accepted that interpretation of my actions.

I find in discussions of the Middle East partial to close agreement on facts but major disagreement on interpretation. This makes our task as article contributors rather difficult.

Ed Poor, Friday, May 31, 2002

I added an Arab POV, which I think I have attributed properly. Ed Poor, Friday, May 31, 2002

It should be noted that many Arab writers justify anti-Israeli terrorism on their view that Israel is unjustifiably "occupying" the West Bank.
Indeed many of these writers disdain the use of the term terrorism to describe their resistance, reserving the term solely for Israel, which they label "terrorist" and "racist".

Of course, the late Sheikh Izz Ad-Din El-Qasam was resisting against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. No, wait. There weren't an Israel or West Bank back in 1935. There were dead Jews though, Jews that he had killed. I will not reintegrate this passage, but link to the general discussion of Palestinian terrorism. --Uriyan

NPOV query: Why is there a "Munich massacre" (2 Israelis, 1 policeman and 5 Palestinians dead) but no "Jenin massacre" ("at least 52 Palestinians, of whom up to half may have been civilians, and 23 Israeli soldiers" dead UN Report)?

First of all, in Munich Massacre, 11 Israelis died. Secondly, the non-combatant Palestinian casualties were not killed deliberately, but rather died in the course of heavy fighting, which most parties recognize as justified on Israel's behalf, considering the terrorist infrastructure that existed in the city. Declaring it a "massacre" would demand that (a) Israeli soldiers had a choice of killing or not killing the Palestinians and (b) The Palestinians were not anyhow fighting the Israelis. Neither of these conditions was fulfilled. --Uri
How can there be a battle when its one army with deadly US-imported weapons vs civilians with handguns? Pnd 17:11, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ever talked to an IDF infrantryman before, Pnd? --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 00:53, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the changes that I reverted: declaring El-Qasam a "fighter against the Israeli occupation" is simply ludicrous. He died before 13 year before there was an Israel, and 32 years before Israel took over the Territories. Also, is there something wrong in mentioning the streets of Jenin were covered with posters hailing suicide bombers? --Uri

I moved the text from over from [[Jenin Massacre]]. I find having an article with such a title, while no serious party still entertains the notion that a massacre took place (e.g. systematic killing, see above for how I define a massacre) offensive, both to the soldiers that fought in Jenin, to the families of those soldiers who were killed, and to the victims of suicide bombers that came out of Jenin. --Uri

The alleged Jenin massacre of 2002, wherein supposedly 3,000 peaceful Arab Palestinians were killed in cold blood by Israeli troops was acknowledged by Palestinian Authority leaders to have resulted in far fewer deaths than originally announced. The final death toll was around 60 persons.

The Human Rights Watch report stated that it found "no evidence to sustain claims of massacres or large-scale extrajudicial executions by the IDF". However, the same HRW report did accuse Israel of war crimes, including shooting and running over with a tank a man whose wheelchair flew a white flag, and crushing a paralyzed man in his home.

Amnesty International also came to the conclusion that there was no massacre.

See: Jenin

Uri, I have no problem with your movement of the Jenin massacre or even with deleting the article. I only created it to answer someone's question. However, the information needs to be merged into an article somewhere. Would you do this, when you get a chance? --Ed Poor

Most of the information is already in Jenin. The only information not found in the text is the description of the alleged war crimes. The discussion about the "shooting and running over with a tank a man whose wheelchair flew a white flag, and crushing a paralyzed man in his home." would need much more than just the HRW POV, and ultimately including them would do more harm than good. The major complaint about Israel's conduct is about the use of human shields. That is included in the article. --Uri

Given that HRW states the following: "Many [...] civilians were killed willfully or unlawfully. [...] the IDF used Palestinian civilians as "human shields" and used indiscriminate and excessive force during the operation," it hardly makes sense to reduce mention of these events to an afterthought, not to utterly downplay the involvement of IDF troops and their commanders in war crimes. I have accordingly reinserted references to these events in the main body of the text - hopfefully in an form which all can accept. --Faulenzer


I have never, ever been able to locate any direct quotation of the Palestinian officials who supposedly claimed 3,000 were killed in Jenin. I've come across right-wing Zionist websites saying so -- that's it. They did say that 3,000 were made homeless, which no one contests.

I've never even seen a mainstream source like FOX or NBC make the claim that Palestinian officials have said so. Rather, these sources say that a PA official, Saeb Erekat, claimed 500 were killed -- also false, but with a seed of truth to it.

On April 10, 2002, Erekat told CNN anchor Jim Clancy, "What we're saying, we see an opportunity in the secretary's visit. We want to help in order to insure the success of the secretary's visit, because insuring the success of implementing [UN resolution] 1402 means stopping the killing fields out there, and you know as the numbers I am receiving today is that the numbers of killed could reach 500 since the Israeli offensive began. Thousands of wounded. You know, the Jenin refuge camp is no longer in existence, and now we've heard of executions there."

There you have it. Erekat *never* said that 500 were killed in Jenin, but that 500 had been killed throughout the West Bank during Operation Defensive Shield.

Israeli officials, on the other hand, initially did much to make people suspect a massacre. On April 10, according to Ha'aretz, Foreign Minister Shimon Peres characterized the attack on Jenin as a "massacre". Unnamed military officers said, "When the world sees the pictures of what we have done there, it will do us immense damage."

"According to the Israeli Defence Forces, Israel chose not to bomb the spots of resistance using aircraft as it entered in order to minimize civilian losses [2], but rather to take hold of the city using infantry."

Well I think since the Battle of Hue military experts agrees that it's a very bad idea to bomb concrete buildings in an urban zone. A bombed building is a perfect refuge for snipers.
Ericd 19:49, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)
With the amount of explosive Palestinians planted in the camp - there were no bombed building left for a sniper to hide in.
User: annon

Can someone help me with math? From the Jenin page "They agreed with the total casualty figures provided by the IDF but reported triple the civilian casualties" The IDF reported 52 Palestinian casualties of which 22 were civilian. "They" (not sure if its Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International) agree on 52 but claim 3 * 22 civilians. 3 * 22 = 66. 66 > 52. can this be fixed? does someone have the report that says 3 times? perhaps it was 2 times? (at least 2 * 22 = 44 < 52 is mathematically correct.) OneVoice 21:56, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

changed "triple the civilian casualties" -> "higher proportion of the civilian casualties" so that the arthimatic works after waiting 10 days for a response to the above. OneVoice 20:31, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Is there any truth to and seriousness in the 3000 casualty figure claim claim (yes, two words) or is this the same tactic that was used with Deir Yassin where the casualty figures were inflated by the perpetrators themselves only to trivialize the incident altogether by discrediting the opponents after they took over what appeared to be a self-confessed truth? Pretty disingenuous if you ask me. -- Dissident 23:06, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

i have tried to correct some of the grammar, spelling, etc. mistakes in this article. some of it still does not read well (it is clear that much of this article was written by a non-native english speaker) but it is a start.

i also would like to say that although i am generally sympathetic to israel, this article is completely POV in favor of the israeli position and makes essentially no attempt to remain balanced. --Benwing 02:28, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

This article is very anti-palistinian. The bold "False Allegations of Massacre" is absurdly POV, no attempt at all of neutrality. Perhaps "Possible Massacre" or similar could be a starting point for a more balanced article. Or possibly a total rewrite is necessary. --Bk0 04:44, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

The article does not expose enough the disgraceful tactics to use the alleged "massacre" for Israel-bashing:

  • Guardian, April 20, 2002, definitely not a Israel-sympathetic source:
    • It was a fierce battle, not a massacre
    • Civilians were offered repeated chance to leave. Those who stayed did so of their own free will to help the fighters
    • Red Cross and Red Crescent were offered chance to go into camp but there was a restriction: only one entrance and all vehicles going in or out had to be checked by Israeli army. Few vehicles used it
    • There are no missing Palestinian bodies, other than those under the rubble. There is no secret grave in the Jordan Valley or Israel. Palestinian dead in Israeli hands identified, put in bodybags and buried
    • Estimate of Palestinian dead is no more than 100, and probably less. Damage to houses about 6% of the camp
  • CNN interview with a senior member of Palestinian Islamic Jihad Tabaat Mardawi, April 23, 2002, not a pro-Israel source: Mardawi drew a map of the camp and talked about the course of the battle. Their weapons were guns and crudely made bombs and booby traps -- "big ones" for tanks and "others the size of a water bottle." He estimated 1,000 to 2,000 bombs and booby traps were spread through the camp.
  • Recent news from Iraq: FALLUJAH, Iraq – U.S. Marines in the third day of a battle to pacify this Sunni Muslim city fired a rocket and dropped a 500-pound, laser-guided bomb on a mosque compound Wednesday, and witnesses said as many as 40 people were killed...

Compare to the IDF soldiers going on foot house-to-house (would you call booby-trapped "civilian"?) and not entering mosques and churches out of respect. There are a lot more, all one needs is little NPOV. --Humus sapiens|Talk 05:41, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

  • The Guardian article is an interview with an Israeli soldier and a spokesman for the Israeli foregin ministry. jamesgibbon 28 June 2005 16:15 (UTC)

In general, pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian are not necessarily the same. I'd like the WP to work for peace, against any unjust killings, booby-traps and false accusations. --Humus sapiens|Talk 05:55, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Fine, add all that in provided you also provide a reasonable counter-argument to each and remove the obviously discriminatory language as I cited above. --Bk0 06:00, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

This raised questions over whether the Palestinians falsify other evidence as well.

Is this really necessary? I've removed it from the artilce, seems like it would be more relevant under the main Palestinian terrorism article. Bob McDob 10:27, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm a pretty pro-Israel guy, but this article still reads like it has a pro-Israel POV. It's not the facts that are presented; it's the way it's written.

This part in particular bothers me:

"Initially, officials of the Palestinian Authority claimed that the Israelis had deliberately massacred 3,000 people, and were burying them in mass graves. Some advocates of Palestinian nationalism claimed that "the Jews" were starting a "Holocaust" against Arabs. Many Western news agencies reported these claims uncritically and without confirmation."

  • Were many Western news agencies claiming that the Jews were starting a Holocaust against Arabs? Because that's the way it reads right now, whether it was intended or not.
  • Provide a definite source (not "officials") for the 3,000 number or retract the claim (also cite at least one of the Western news agencies which were reporting this number uncritically).
  • Provide a definite source (not "some advocates") for the claim of a Holocaust against Arabs beginning at Jenin.

--68.43.122.246 14:37, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Type "Jenin massacre" or "jenin massacre + 3000" at Google and you will have planty of sources.
  • "An Israeli military source told AFP some 250 Palestinians were killed. The Palestinians say hundreds more were killed and their information minister, Yasser Abed Rabbo, on Friday accused Israel of digging mass graves for 900 Palestinians in the camp." [3]
  • Report that mention an accusation of 3000 death by PA officials: [4]
  • Comparing the battle of Jenin to Nazi atrocities by prp-Palestinian groups: [5].
MathKnight 19:16, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] "false allegations of massacre" is too POV , I think.

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

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

I must agree, the article smells faintly of Israeli propaganda as it stands at the moment. I personally think there remains a question as to whether deliberate indiscriminate killing took place, and to simply label the allegations as 'false' stinks of partiality jamesgibbon 28 June 2005 16:10 (UTC)
... This is mad. Pretty much every account says there was no massacre. Questions of indiscriminate killings? sure, but but 50 people died in an intense battle that lasted 4 days. I think the bbc summed it up well by saying there appears to be a couple of very questionable incidents, but this is war. I know its cynical but has there ever been a War without any mention of war crimes? These war crimes are mentioned (in both this article and Battle of Jenin 2002), but there was nothing that appears to be inredibly awful. -- Tomhab 29 June 2005 02:07 (UTC)
Exactly. Even the Palestinians no longer claim there was a massacre. Jayjg (talk) 29 June 2005 16:51 (UTC)

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

And if they surrendered (which from reading several accounts some did)? If they were killed indiscriminately wouldn't that be a massacre? Its important to note that some accounts say that did happen (but only 2-3). Straw man logic doesn't work and thus what you've said is flawed.
For the record, whilst I don't like the inclusion of emotive words (such as massacre) in an encyclopaedia, it was the catch word of the time (and also there was no massacre). I personally feel the way its worded is a little too emotive though. I'd prefer it to be along the lines of "exaggerated body count leading to the accusation of a massacre". -- Tomhab 11:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's an awfully long title. The allegations of a massacre are simply false, why can't we call it what it is? Jayjg (talk) 29 June 2005 16:51 (UTC)

I agree with the guy talking about "false allegations of massacre" being too POV... if the Boston Massacre was a massacre and 5 people were killed after throwing stones, then I think so can Jenin, in technicality.

Are you saying that the two-dozen Israeli soldiers killed were massacred? Jayjg (talk) 29 June 2005 16:51 (UTC)

[edit] The UN Report is a valid reference

The UN Report is not a Palestinian report as MathKnight continuously and falsely claims. The Israelis obstructed the UN investigation and refused to provide their version of the events. It's still the official UN report on the events in Jenin even if Israelis don't agree with it. It is not proper to delete reference to the UN report and insert the Israeli POV as if the Israeli POV is objectively correct and the rest of the world is wrong. Report of the Secretary-General prepared pursuant to General Assembly resolution ES-10/10 [6] The United Nations today released the Secretary-General’s report on recent events in Jenin and other Palestinian cities. This report was requested by the General Assembly in May (resolution ES-10/10, adopted on 7 May 2002), after the disbandment of the team which the Secretary-General, supported by the Security Council (resolution 1405 of 19 April 2002), had proposed to send to Jenin to establish the facts on the ground. The report was, therefore, written without a visit to Jenin or to the other Palestinian cities. It relies, as the Assembly requested, on “available resources and information”, including submissions from six United Nations Member States and Observer Missions, documents in the public domain, and papers submitted by non-governmental organizations from a range of perspectives. The Palestinian Authority did submit information, while the Government of Israel did not. In an effort to present as complete a picture as possible, the report makes use of publicly available information from the Israeli Government. The report covers a period running from approximately the beginning of March to 7 May 2002. It sets out the context and background of the situation in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory. It also describes the security, humanitarian and human rights responsibilities of both parties. It briefly charts the rising violence since September 2000, which had, by 7 May 2002, caused the deaths of 441 Israelis and 1,539 Palestinians. "[7] --Alberuni 20:43, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The citation you brought is taken from Palestinian report submitted to the Secretary-General, pursuant to General Assembly resolution ES-10/10 of 7 May 2002, on the recent events in Jenin and in other Palestinian cities, which is not the UN report. MathKnight 09:42, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
UTC, You basis that the UN report is neutral is ludicrous, I do however believe it is possible to integrate the report in this article, however I would only accept it if it was not provided in a light that suggested that the UN is intrinsically neutral when it comes to Israel, perhaps if two situations were explained in which the UN showed biased against Israel. On the other side of the coin, I do not think the report should be shown as intrinsically biased either.- Khalid Constantine Al-Silverberg Dayan

[edit] NPOV edits

I'm interested in cleaning up the article in order to get rid of any POV comments (most of which aren't serious). Does anyone actually still monitor this page that I can talk changes over? Otherwise I'll just crack on.

Examples of the kind of edits I'm thinking of making:

  • Talking about the gross initial exaggeration of the civilian death count is a little disdainful. Simply changing wording will make it a bit more factual and encyclopaedia-like.
  • Jenin was the center of civil unrest during the so-called Great Uprising of Palestinians. Although including the words "so-called" isn't inaccurate its also not particular NPOV - instantly takes away its legitimacy which isn't the point of the article. George Bush has his "War On Terror", but you don't need "so-called" in there.

I probably don't know as much about the incident as the writers so don't plan on changing details (just wording), but there are a couple of discrepancies that I'd like to talk over to anyone who's still alive in this talk page. -- Tomhab 01:15, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I keep an eye on the article (since it was under attack about two months ago). So far, your edits seem reasonable and fair. MathKnight 14:13, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sure - I'm keen on doing just small edits to appease and make slightly more NPOV, but anything you don't feel appropriate feel free to revert (just the ones you don't like anyway).
I'm not going to edit the article on this but... is there any reason why this link from a reputable UK newspaper talks about apache helicopters swarming and "firing bursts of cannon-fire every five minutes". I realise from the date given it must have been a pretty rushed-to-press report but is it simply wrong? The article says aircraft weren't use, and makes no mention of helicopters, but implies to me that they covered by the statement about aircraft.
I'd just like to say that its a genuine question, not an attack on any claims from either side. -- Tomhab 21:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] post-April 2002

I added the following paragraph, which was immediately deleted as vandalism (by User:Guy Montag). I'm acting under actual best intent, but looking to extend the limited time of coverage so far, and not to clutter the page with excessive detail. Here's the paragraph:

The battle marked the de facto reoccupation of Jenin by the Israeli military. During and since the battle, residents of Jenin have been subject to impositions of curfews (over 150 days from June 18, 2002 to December 25, 2004 Palestinian Red Crescent), incursions of armored vehicles, extrajudicial killings of civilians including children, and targetted assassinations by the Israel Defense Forces.

And here's an attempt at a slightly more NPOV version:

Since the battle, Jenin has been under de facto occupation by the Israeli military, marking an end to the period of autonomy. In that time, residents of Jenin have been subject to impositions of extended curfews (over 150 days since June 2002 Source: Palestine Red Crescent), incursions of armored vehicles, and extrajudicial killings of civilians including children. Several suspected Palestinian militants and nearby civilians have been killed by the Israel Defense Forces, which terms these actions "targetted killings". UN worker Iain Hook was also killed by an Israeli sniper on November 22, 2002.

targetted killings are already well documented in the IDF page. The impacts of curfews, including "extrajudicial killings of civilians including children" are discussed by B'Tselem in Lethal Curfew. If anyone wants to add IDF descriptions of these actions, feel free. However, I think it stretches NPOV too far to characterize the above actions as "complaints" by human rights groups, rather than as actual occurrences.--Carwil 18:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Could you provide specific sources for your various claims? I don't think a three year old general document really covers the current situation in Jenin. Jayjg (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
The B'Tselem report does cover two incidents of enforcement of curfews with lethal force in Jenin (p. 14-15, p. 18). More on curfews and incursions at [8] and [9] ("On 28 September 2004, Israeli troops killed a mentally handicapped civilian and a child in Jenin refugee camp."). The other, nonlethal events in the second page are an example of the regularity of incursions and injuries. Targetted killings are listed in the Wikipedia page Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2004 (on 13 and 15 September). For Iain Hook, see [10] --Carwil 20:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

  • Is "En Ganim" used be anyone in English? Or at least a significant number of people?

Actually, no. Including the Hebrew name in parenthesis is satisfactory.

Guy Montag 16:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


  • The picture is that of the settlement of "Ganim", not "En Ganim", and it was just evacuated this week. If anything, the picture should be that of Jenin, not of a colony overlooking it.

If you can find a picture of Jenin that doesn't prominently use disemembered bodies for propaganda purposes, by all means.

Guy Montag

  • Some issues were in this article before the recent edits as well.
  • It does not have a "predominately Palestinian population", it is exclusively Palestinian.

Fix it.

Guy Montag 16:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Is it "definitely" the site of this ancient "Ein Gannim" or "believed" to be so for lack of better evidence?

It is definitenly. Ask Tomer.

Guy Montag 16:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Calling it anything other than Jenin, or laying claim to it for Israel, is pre-empting the final status talks.

The Hebrew name in parenthesis is fine.

Guy Montag 16:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Ramallite (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Soft Methods (not to be confused with spa massages)

"In contrast, the death of 23 Israeli soldiers during the battle raised criticism in Israel of the soft methods the IDF used"

Guy, the problem is with the phrase "soft methods". I don't think anybody would agree that bulldozing a path through a dense refugee camp or creating the images you describe as propaganda (as if they were killed by a cursed pez dispenser) can be described as "soft methods".

Ramm, you do know that you are using an anti semitic website for your argument? You do know that most of the houses demolished were booby trapped with explosives? Guy Montag 20:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

aztlan.net is not antisemitic, it is a pro-Chicano site, although I'd guess that from your perspective anything that criticizes Israel is anti-semitic by definition. I'd like to see a reference for that "booby trapped with explosives" claim. --Bk0 20:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
aztlan.net may be "pro-Chicano", but it is obviously anti-Semitic as well. Here are some simple examples from their own website: [11] [12] [13] What other conclusion can one come to when the head of the group starts and editorial with Those nefarious Jews are at it again! The same clique of Talmudic Jews who want to remove "One Nation Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance now have targeted the Christian Cross that is part of the "Official Seal of the County of Los Angeles." The Jewess Ramona Riptson, wife of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judge that voted to remove God from the pledge, and who is also Director of the Jewish ACLU of Southern California has just given the County Board of Supervisors an ultimatum to "REMOVE" the cross from its seal or face a massive suit in the Jewish dominated judicial system of California. etc. They also carry the full text of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion on their website, in English and Spanish, and here's the leader saying that only "Zionists" refute it as being "legitimate", and that it actually makes sense [14]. Here are some other analyses: [15] [16] [17] [18] Jayjg (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough, I retract my defense of them. The images still stand on their own merit, however. --Bk0 22:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Nonsense. The images are chosen for shock value. Do you have images of the Israelis killed? Do you imagine they looked pretty? Showing images of people killed in battle is the basest kind of propaganda. Jayjg (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually I was trying to find out what you were talking about when you said something about "dismembered bodies" above, and it wasn't until I did a google search for Jenin under "images" that I realized what you probably meant - I initially didn't read the content and was actually unable to look at the images themselves for more than a few seconds. Now that I do look at it, it seems to be an eyewitness report written by a "Jennifer Loewenstein" (doesn't sound Palestinian, probably American ), and the words "Jew" or "Jewish" are not written or implied once in the article so I fail to see how it is anti-semitic other than exposing images that some would not want to be exposed. One could always argue that these images are fabricated, but since 1- there are plenty of other separate witnesses, and 2- it simply makes some people feel better to believe these are fabricated, it's not worth it to me to argue with that notion. Either way I am not using it to make an argument, I linked to it based on an assumption that these are the images you were talking about above, that's all. Ramallite (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


More to the point, the citations you gave did not really have anything to do with "criticism in Israel of the soft methods". One is an IDF propaganda page (hardly neutral) and the other is of an army doctor criticizing Palestinian claims, not Israeli army actions. So this sentence above looks like OR. Do you have something more concrete? If not, do you mind replacing this sentence? (I can help) Ramallite (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Lets see, they could have just bombarded the camp with artillary shells or bombed it from the air, as opposed to risking the lives of soldiers with door to door fighting. There is widespread knowledge of this criticism.

Guy Montag 20:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

"There is widespread knowledge of this criticism" still sounds like original research to me, since a google search for "soft methods" and "jenin" only brings up 4 articles, 3 unrelated and one being the WP article. Also, they did bomb the camp from the air!! And they didn't need to use artillery, they went right in. Artillery is usually used against another army, not a civilian camp with a few kalashnikovs or booby traps lying around. You may be missing the point: the argument here is about "soft methods" and using a verifiable source, other than your opinion, that Israeli actions were considered "soft" in Israel. I haven't seen anything to the effect that the army's actions were considered "soft". Miscalculated maybe, but not "soft". That's where the problem with your sentence is. Ramallite (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


If it was a civilian camp with a couple of kalishnikovs as you say, Israel wouldn't have needed to launch a offensive focused on that area. If you read the Battle of jenin article, you will see that over 140 explosives were found, dozens of houses were booby trapped and gunmen used civilian buildings and people as shields. Calling the area a civilian camp at that time when it was host to the fiercest and longest battle in four years is disengenious. Finally, I did not write that part, I am merely defending it because it is true. Also, the Battle of Jenin article documents the change in tactics of the IDF when they went into Jenin despite the danger it involved sending troops in such cramped areas.

Guy Montag 00:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes - but you still haven't given a source for the criticism. If it's "widespread" then you should be able to source it please. 62.252.0.7 07:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Now it is sourced.

Guy Montag 23:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] To Guy

Guy,

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

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

[edit] UN report doesn't support the Israeli case that only a few died

The UN team was never able to visit the Jenin camp (in fact, the team had been disbanded before the GA requested a report, as it says in the first paragraph of the report [19]).

The report produced does not dispute the Israeli case (though it makes some very harsh criticisms of the action), but neither does it support the Israeli case that only some 80 people died there:

Death toll: Four hundred ninety-seven Palestinians were killed and 1,447 wounded in the course of the IDF reoccupation of Palestinian areas from 1 March through 7 May 2002 and in the immediate aftermath. Most accounts estimate that between 70 and 80 Palestinians, including approximately 50 civilians, were killed in Nablus. The IDF lost four soldiers there. In Jenin camp, by the time of the IDF's withdrawal and the lifting of the curfew on 18 April, at least 52 Palestinians, of whom up to half may have been civilians, and 23 Israeli soldiers were dead. Allegations by Palestinian Authority officials in mid-April that 500 or more persons were killed in Jenin camp were not substantiated by the evidence that subsequently emerged.

And observers who persevered (not HRW) came away convinced that the number of deaths was an underestimate, and there had been a concerted attempt to conceal the number.

Jenin Inquiry (invasion of the Jenin Refugee Camp from 3-18 April 2002)

The Jenin Inquiry, a group of 12 internationals from the US, Britain, Ireland, Canada, and Norway - including an international lawyer - conducted detailed, in-depth interviews with people of the Jenin Refugee Camp from 11 April until mid-May, 2002.

......... People saw tanks and bulldozers run over bodies repeatedly in the process of bulldozing homes and moving around, sifting bodies into pieces and scattering them in the rubble. This has made it difficult to identify exactly how many have been killed.

......... members of Jenin Inquiry viewed many such partially decomposed bodies and severed, decomposing body parts in homes and in the streets of the camp.

......... Residents of the camp .... faced grave threats by Israeli soldiers and snipers for trying to witness what was happening. Residents were frequently shot at and sometimes killed for appearing in their windows while trying to view the situation. A doctor at the Jenin Hospital, which overlooks much of the camp, said that Israeli soldiers forced them to keep their windows closed and the blinds shut the entire time of the Israeli invasion.

......... bodies were still being recovered from under the rubble as late as early August. On 4 August, the bodies of one young boy and two adult males were discovered when an outer edge of the piles of rubble were sifted through. Four days later, another body was found compacted into the floor of his home. Public discourse about the number of dead has not taken such additional discoveries into account.

Here's what the report says about Jenin: "By the time of the IDF withdrawal and the lifting of the curfew on 18 April, at least 52 Palestinians, of whom up to half may have been civilians, and 23 Israeli soldiers were dead." Jayjg (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Thankyou. As you've quoted, the report states there were "at least 52 Palestinians" killed. It makes no attempt to estimate how many more were killed, and their bodies hidden or destroyed, while the Israelis kept them out of the camp (Israel did this for so long that the team had to be disbanded, and never went to Jenin).
HRW report in a similarily restrained fashion.
There was a group of 12 International observers who did manage to get to the area 7 days after the start of the offensive, however. Their language is muted, and they only recorded some 40 hours of (horrifying) interviews. But they did see body parts strewn around, they reported the smell, and they reported the finding of at least 4 more bodies in August. Sadly, they spent so long recording what they could (which was not very much) that their report was virtually ignored.
PalestineRemembered 20:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canaanite origins

That Jenin's name has Canaanite origins is sourced to Shahin's book. Those changing it while retaining the source are misleading readers as to the books contents. Please stop. Further, per the Palestine article, naming conventions including Canaanite origins of each city's name is appropriate, contrary to the edit summaries of editors deleting this information. Tiamut 14:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Most cities have several names as well as origins, but the convention is to only include the primary ones. If you want a good template for how to build this article, look at the newly Featured Article Jerusalem. If there is specific information you challenge, please make use of the {{cn}} template, and do not mass-revert. Another issue is that I've seen you using this Shahin book all over as of late, and while it can be very helpful, a travel book does not have expertise on archaeology and such, and it would be more useful if you cite whatever source Shahin cites, of course noting that you saw it in Shahin. TewfikTalk 15:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I have added the information in question to the body of the article. Shahin is a valid source for this information. You have no reason to dispute the accuracy of this source. The sentence I added is one of the only sourced sentences in the whole article. Why be selective and pick on it? Why not add fact tags to everything else? Tiamut 15:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
As I said above, it is a travel book and not an RS in and of itself for much. I'm assuming that whatever archaeological information comes from an archaeological work, and I request that you cite that, but Shahin cannot be used alone for such claims. TewfikTalk 16:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Added some info about Ein-Ganim. This can be expanded - there are numerous sources identifying Ein Ganim as the Israelite/Jewish city.Amoruso 17:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I have reinserted Canaanite. I reject the allegation that Shahin is not a RS. I will however find another source for that statement to satisfy the unnecessarily high bar you have set. In the meantime, I ask that you do not delete the word Canaanite from that sentence. It misrepresents the source to do so. Tiamut 10:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Here is another source: [20]. I should point out that Tewfik's assertion that Shahin is not a reliable source for archaeological evidence (while the Bible is - see Amoruso's additions sourced to the book of Joshua?!?) is rather ridiculous. I will be adding this link to the article. I hope that the attempts to deny the reader this information will cease immediately. Tiamut 10:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"...attempts to deny the reader this information" - please. Shahin is a travel book, and all I ask is when using her for fields such as archaeology or history, that whatever source she cites be included in the citation. The Bible is a very reliable source for something being mentioned in the Bible, which is what it is used for. TewfikTalk 05:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you read Shahin's book Tewfik? I didn't think so. While you pick on my edits, you don't seem to mind the rest of the article being based on dubious sourcing. I have already provided you with another source, so your point is rather moot. Please stop stalking me and disrupting my work. There are plenty of other articles in your area of interest that you can go to. Tiamut 19:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Shahin's book is, at best, a tour guide and not a reliable source for claims such as these. Shahin herslef, and this book in particular, have been criticized as propaganda tools, whose aims are to obliterate any mention of a Hebrew or Jewish history in Palestine. This is not a relaible source for these kinds of contentious claims. Former user 2 19:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You are ignoring the other source and repeating tired old arguments. Here is the diff: [21]. Please, I have asked both you and tewfik to stop harassing me. I am asking again now. Be reasonable. Tiamut 19:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

My challenging your use of a travel-book as an RS is harassment? I'm sorry that people vetting your sources is frustrating, but this is an open encyclopaedia, and the proper response isn't to allege wikistalking, harassment, or deletion of information that 'does not accord with your POV'. TewfikTalk 20:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Mariam Shahin's book, Palestine: A Traveler's Guide

This is not a reliable source for the referenced subject matter. It is an odd place to seek historical, archaeological and related information.

Noted historian Daniel Pipes has said about Mariam Shahin's book, Palestine: A Traveler's Guide:

Perhaps the book's strangest aspect is the pretense that Israel does not exist."

Conceptualized as a propaganda tool, the guidebook contains more than its share of inaccuracies. The first page falsely informs that "Palestine is a Holy Land to Muslims." The assertion that "archeologists have yet to verify the historic existence" of the Temple of Solomon is laughable nonsense. And Lord Balfour was hardly "of Jewish descent."

Daniel Pipes, The Middle East Quarterly, Spring 2006 Vol XIII: No 2 -Doright 02:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


Apparently we're supposed to appeal to a noted zionist for information about Islams holy places. Tom Dubya 08:15, 1 Nov 2007 (EST)

In any case, it's not a "traveller's guide" as Pipes claims, it's an introduction to the overall history and geography of the region and it's been reviewed in an academic journal, the Journal of Palestine Studies here. When the material cited from her was challened at Palestine (on more than 40 cites) I was able to find it in other sources (though it took days). I'm not going to accept the word of Pipes, a clear partisan, who even got the title wrong. It's Palestine: A Guide. Tiamuttalk 20:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)