Talk:Qibya massacre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Qibya massacre 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.
Low	This article has been rated as low-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.

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:

Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked

To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call:

|B-Class-1=yes/no

|B-Class-2=yes/no

|B-Class-3=yes/no

|B-Class-4=yes/no

|B-Class-5=yes/no

This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Links and definition of terrorism

Fact sheet from the US-Israel Cooperative Enterprise
The Palestinian perspective, edited by an accountant living in the United Arab Emirates

Israeli perspective

Links to be reviewed: It doesn't seem to me that the links below are either objective or reveal any new information. I really wonder whether they're necessary, unless it's propaganda one's after. --Uri

taken from the article. I think the article gives already a quite complete review - the description on the link pages are much shorter, further more some are quite biased. --Elian

Quoting Mav.."...is trying to say that the Qibya massacre is a clear case of terrorism and I disagree - esp since that would make Ariel Sharon a terrorist by implication."

I think your logic here is flawed, Mav. You disagree with X because it implies S = T? (Humorosely: You're assuming that S might be somehow surprised by the idea that he might be a T and called such...) Im sure you dont want the T word to be limited to the definition that is favored by any one party - A massacre by a state is "a tragedy" as Clinton called the Qana massacre of over a hundred. By your definition, only those without a state can be called T's. Consider the world courts condemnation of the US in its actions in Nicaragua. Assymetric warfare, low intensity warfare - covert sabotage operations, and B-1 bomber are all, more or less, different names for the thing we call T. An NPOV policy must not be Americentric either. -'Vert

If the definition of the word terrorism is too broad then it looses all meaning whatsoever - that was my point. As Ed Poor mentions on that page if we are too liberal with the definition then all the Allies of WWII are terrorists since we all deliberately bombed civilians in order to break their morale and gain a military and political victory. --mav

By your answer your saying its a political definition. As such, should we even be using it? What is too broad? I dont think its too broad to call Sharon a terrorist, because Israel isnt at war with Palestine. Its "not a state", after all. Who are the Palestinians, then, and what word would describe a person who exacts terror upon defenseless civilians? The best answer to this Ive seen is essentially: "all Palestinians are terrorists." Broad definitions indeed. -'Vert

Qibya is'nt in the "northwestern West Bank", it is only a little north of Lod. I changed it to "western West Bank". --zero

I looked at the map and it's actually north of Modi'in. In any case, this information belongs to the Qibya article (which I will shortly update). -- Gabi S. 09:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The Jordanian Arab Legion made no attempts to stop these infiltrations;

Not true. Read Palestinian infiltration for some explanations.

You misunderstand. If you want to clarify this, fine! All I am saying is that we should not delete this topic without comment! RK 01:59, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

sometimes Jordan unofficially assisted these efforst. If the first paragraph is false, then this one is to.

Your conclusion does not logically follow. That is an error in logic. Furthermore, we need to realize that different people in the Jordanian government had different motives, and took different actions. RK 01:59, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Then we need to prove their complicity, which we can't.

The infiltrators carrued out a series of terrorist actions against Israeli civilians. Like? From 1949 to 1953 Israel lost 24 civilans because of the infiltration. [4] paragraph 139-140. Compared to Jordans 77 killed because of retaliation.

I don't understand. Why do you admit that terrorist actions occured...and then imply we should not mention this, because the State of Israel held some deadly retaliation. We don't use one fact to cancel out another fact! No one is trying to censor the fact that Arabs died. Why hide the fact that Jews died? This is an encyclopedia, not a tit-for-tat game. RK 01:59, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Because contrary to the violence from the IDF and the Fedayeen, the violence from the displaced Palestinians did not have a political goal. 24 kills over four years in separate incidents does not constitute terrorism. A strong case could be made that IDF's violence which had the goal of sustaining the infiltration by causing fear was terrorism.

Jordanian infiltrators Jordanians on Jordanian territory is not infiltrating.

You are using wordplay to confuse the meaning of the article. If you think the article should be phrased better, fine! But don't play wordgames. Please contribute in a constructive fashion. RK 01:59, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

but refused to condemn the series of terrorist actions which led to Israel's reprisal.

Since there were no terrorist actions what was there to condemn?

BL, stop lying about murdering Jews. You yourself that Jews were murdered in terrorist actions...and a few sentences later you deny it? Your contempt for murdered Jews is not funny. RK 01:59, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If I murder a Jew it is murder. If I and some friends murder a Jew because he is a Jew, it is racism. If I and my friends murder a jew and leave a note at the corpse "this is how it goes for Jews in my country" it is terrorism. But murder is not the same thing as terrorism.

It is unclear, however, whether the magazine's report was based on direct evidence or hearsay, possibly under the influence of bitter Jordanian officials.

Since when is WP a place for orginal research? AFAIK, that newspaper article has never been critisized. And if that's good then why not after this:

The articles have been criticised. RK 01:59, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Tell me about it. And Ariel Sharon's autobiography has not? BL 20:58, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I couldn't belive my ears. As I went back over each step of the operation, I began to understand what must have happened. For years Israeli reprisal raids had never succeeded in doing more than blowing up a few outlying buildings, if that. Expecting the same, some Arab families must have stayed in their houses rather than running away. In those big stone houses... some could easily have hidden in the cellars and back rooms, keeping quiet when the paratroopers went in to check and yell out a warning. The result was this tragedy that had happened

insert this:

It is unclear, however, whether the old geezer is lying or not. It is possible that he is just trying to cover his ass because he would not be able to continue his career as a prime minister if he told the truth.

And this:

Previous reports by Arabs and by UN officials of masacres later turned out to be exagerrations; Israelis doubt the honesty of many of these reports.

Is referring to what? Unless those issues can be resolved I don't think those statements should be included. BL 01:51, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Please stop lying. Previously you admitted that this used to be the standard Palestinian position. Many people here have already cited who holds this position. Stop pretending you are ignorant of this indisputable fact. RK 23:08, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

BL writes "Because contrary to the violence from the IDF and the Fedayeen, the violence from the displaced Palestinians did not have a political goal. 24 kills over four years in separate incidents does not constitute terrorism."

Murdering only 24 Jews is not enough to constitute terrorism? By what Nazi like standards do you operate? Please cease and desist in your hatespeech. I am appalled by your grotestque statements. RK 23:08, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A) Since you did not disagree with most changes, why did you do a full revert?

B) No, murdering Jews in itself does not constitute terrorism.

C) I find it very hard to find a "indisputable fact" indisputable when you cannot even provide a real reference to this "indisputable fact". It seems to me that you are hunting for leaves, sources like "but everybody knows that!", "you have also admitted it (I don't know where but I know you have!)" doesn't cut it in an academic discussion. BL 17:29, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Pardon me for sticking my nose into this edit war, but I made a few small changes myself:

I replaced one use of "recently": don't use that word, it becomes obsolete in no time
Sharett was more than Foreign Minister, he was acting Prime Minister (BG was on leave for some reason). Moreover, he wasn't "casually informed", he was misinformed, which was the main reason it caused a huge rift between him and BG.
I took out the Time Magazine quote altogether. I don't think it belongs here unless it can be shown that Time had independent sources of information. If they just quoted the usual suspects then we should do better. If someone looks up the magazine and finds they interviewed eyewitnesses, then we can put it back something like "Eyewitnesses interviewed by Time Magazine claimed that ...". In other words, the eyewitnesses are speaking, not Time, and we are not stating an opinion of their veracity.
I removed "Many consider the operation an act of terrorism.". Surely our readers are able to read the facts and decide for themselves whether it is terrorism or not. I think the "terrorism" classification is just a polemical game that we shouldn't play.

On the matter of some facts:

BL is correct that the Jordanian Army tried to stop infiltration. It was very well documented by the Israel-Jordan Mixed Armistice Commission (MAC). However, I wonder if it belongs here anyway. I think that this article should just point to Palestinian infiltration for background, but I didn't change anything. Besides, Israel was not just retaliating to incursions but intentionally trying to provoke an open conflict with the Arab states. (This is well known, but belongs on the other page; all in good time.)
Second, the SC did not "refuse to condemn the series of terrorist actions which led to Israel's reprisal". Nobody asked it to, because it was not regarded as the SC's job to pass judgement on anyone except member states. This rule has only changed in recent years. What the SC did was "call on all parties to work together to prevent..." and stuff like that. All events alleged by either Jordan or Israel were investigated by the MAC.

An interesting aspect of the incident which is not mentioned is the massive fight that broke out between Sharett and Lavon (with Ben Gurion supporting Lavon) over this incident. Sharett was especially angry that it had been done behind his back, but he had to take the heat (as acting PM). Later he wrote "I condemned the Qibya affair that exposed us in front of the whole world as a gang of bloodsuckers, capable of mass massacres regardless, it seems, of whether their actions may lead to war. I warned that this stain will stick to us and will not be washed away for many years to come." -- zero 16:44, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Added this page to the Oasis, please join us there Zero0000. OneVoice 12:33, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

AFAIK, the infiltration level was measured in how many times per year Israel reported incursions to the MAC. It therefore seems very hard to decide whether the infiltrations decreased or not. Avi Shlaim in The Iron Wall uses a wording to the effect that Jordan did manage to prevent a much larger portion of the incursions after Qibya. Either way I'd like to see a source. BL 19:39, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, indeed source citations are very desireable. A way to footnote the wiki would allow us to address an issue, provide sources, and have that information retained for the people that follow after and wish to edit the article. Very desireable. OneVoice 19:47, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Shocking bias from the title onwards

This article seems to be little more than PLO propaganda. Should be substantially revised or deleted. One of the worst examples of bias I've seen on Wikipedia. Massacre indeed. Coqsportif 15:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. Coqsportif is trolling. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:41, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Shocking bias?! You obviously do not know what you are talking about. And PROPAGANDA?! THE REASON YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON IS BECAUSE OF ISRAELI PROPAGANDA!!

This article is most definitely PLO propoganda71.74.70.152 06:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dumb Question

There are two Google lists for two articles with identical (I think) text - Qibya_operation and Qibya_massacre - What is the reason?

Some people don't think murdering more than fifty Arabs counts as a "massacre".

It is a dumb question because it ignors the circumstances.

[edit] Evacuation?

When the village had been cleared of resistance, Israeli soldiers laid explosives around many of the houses and blew them up after calling for residents to evacuate.

I was under the impression the residents were still inside the buildings when they were blown up.

[edit] In addition.

In addition to that last point, a quote from a UN observer who inspected the scene afterwards:

"One story was repeated time after time: the bullet splintered door, the body sprawled across the threshold, indicating the inhabitants had been forced by heavy fire to stay inside until their homes were blown up over them."

[edit] Israelis killed

I edited the number of Israelis killed by infiltrations from Jordon prior to Qibya. Someone had put in a total of 459, which is an over-inflated figure. Back in 1953, Israel gave the UN the actual number of Israelis killed by infiltrators. It's 89. 57 of those were killed between 1949 and the end of 1952 and 32 were killed in the first part of 1953. Here's the link http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/eef5490a45758c7c05256727006e0e6c

How many non-Israeli individuals were killed? Any record?

[edit] Article title

Suggest renaming to something more neutral like "Qibya incident" or "Qibya raid" Rune X2 14:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that does seem like a more neutral title.WacoJacko 21:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Shoshana

I don't think this information is true and the link doesn't prove anything. Is there a reliable source for this ? Alithien 20:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Benny Morris, Israel's Border Wars, 1993 confirms Alithien 18:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Hi. What are your references for the number of civil victims in Israel due to infiltration (137 in '51; 162 in '52 and 160 until nov.'53) ? In "Righteous Victims", Morris is talking about 200 between 1948 and 1956 (p.298 in the French version). fr:Pierre Razoux, a french historian, is talking about 182 from 1948 to autumn 1952. Thank you. fr:user:ceedjee

Here's "Righteous Victims, A history of the Zionist-Arab Conflict 1881-2001", Benny Morris, First Vintage books, 2001: "According to the British Legation in Amman, Israeli troops, between February and July 1950, killed twenty-six Arabs near the line inside Israel, eleven in no-man's-land, and twenty-three on the Jordanian side. ........... Hundreds of mines were laid each night along suspected infiltrator routes ........... The office diary for the first half of 1950 of the secretary of Kibbutz Erez, on the Gaza border, gives an indication of the success of these measures: "8 January: Five Arabs killed by shrapnel mine laid by Aharonik [a kibbutz member].... 8 April: Successful ambush: Two Arabs killed.... 10 April: An Arab and donkey killed by mine.... 11 April: An Arab killed by a mine.... 13 April: An Arab killed by a mine.... 12 June: Two Arabs killed by a mine ... 14 June: An Arab killed by a mine." ........... Israel's defensive measures resulted in the death of between 2,700 and 5,000 infiltrators, mostly unarmed, during 1949-56, the vast majority during the first four or five years".[Morris, Benny, Israel's Border Wars, 1949-1956, 1993. p.124-138].

I could photograph the page for anyone interested. PalestineRemembered 10:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you ! But I was asking about the... Israeli victims ;-).

In Border wars and in Victims, he indeeds talks about 2700 to 5000 Arab victims. Alithien 12:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement

[edit] Context

Based on this [5], where the sources are given, I think the current context is too "military-minded". More, it doesn't give a step-by-step image of the process that lead to the massacre.
I think It would be improved in adding a few words on :

The 1948 palestinian exodus and the fact no agreement/solution were found so that they could come back. This explains why there were infiltrations...
Giving more precise numbers about infiltrations : 10,000 to 15,000 "borders incident" between 1949 and 1954 and infiltrators motivations (just come back most of time and in 10% of case with revenge or agressive purposes. (sourcing with UN report is not fair - secondary sources is better).
The length and route of the border between Jordan and Israel. This explains why it was difficult to prevent infiltrations.
The cost of these incidents in Israel (0,15% of the budget of state) when the development of the country costed much (this explains why Israel mind them).
The unsecurity produced by this infiltrations at the borders (200 israeli civil deaths) which was a major issue for Israel who wanted to install new immigrants in these areas (this explains why Israel mind them). The unsecurity threathened the process.
That Israel considered these infiltrations as terrorism (200 deaths among civil is relevant)
A comparison with palestinian victims (2700 to 5000), relevant too.
The fact that if Jordanians tried to stop it they didn't succeed (despite the 2700 palestinians in jail after caught trying to infiltrate)
The fact that retaliation outside Israel (only) started in 53. -escalation-
The fact that they were performed by "soldiers" and they all failed.
The fact Israel (Moshe Dayan) decided to go on with retaliations and Israel built up a special unit (unit 101) with the purpose of stopping by force these infiltrations. -escalation-

Alithien 13:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] comments

Alithien Well, I've done quite extensive alterations so I'd better explain them, keeping in mind your suggestions. The page as I first read it was structured as follows:-

(1) Israel was subject to many infiltrations by terrorists
(2) Qibya was a retaliatory act to these.
(3) A long quote from Aron Sharon expressing his amazement at the uproar, and protests his innocence of any imputed malign intent
(4) A doubt about the latter expressed by Benny Morris.

I consulted the online UN documentation on the incident, which gives a far more complex and nuanced account. There is no room for caricature in these articles, and the basic task is to get things right. Those documents, and books like Morris's are the best sources.

With regard to your remarks, the massacres were many, and on both sides. One cannot ritually rewrite the whole very complex history of the background of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to head every single article on these massacres. Each massacre, in my view, should be dealt with by a brief contextualization that is neutral, with the appropriate link to the pages dealing with the wider context, and move onto the immediate context (1953) with more detail. Most detail should deal with the actual massacre,(Qibya, Hebron 29 etc), and then conclude with a para or two on consequences.

ok. But do you think Hebron massacre or Gush Etzion are significant.

I think this one is a "particular one". It is not a reaction to a former one (such as Hadassah could be a revenge from Deir Yassin). This is the 1st one of the "controversed reprisal policy".

But I fully agree with you the matter is complex and massacres were performed in both sides !(Alithien/ceedjee)

Much of the language has to be used with discretion. 'Infiltrations' as I have noted in the text as it stands (not earlier) refers to shepherds, smugglers, refugees trying to come home from the naqba, thieves, marauders, and militants endeavouring to mount a guerilla campaign against Israel. Many of these 'infilitrations' had nothing to do with military, paramilitary and guerilla threats. There are, as far as I am aware, no reliable attempts to break down the figures into types, that might allow us to make the necessary discriminations.

ok. Morris (in Victims) talks about 10% coming for revenge. I think we agree.

'Retaliation/reprisal' can be used only with great caution, since both parties had reasons to consider their own actions as 'retaliations' and 'reprisals'.

Yes. If we use a word, we have to be able to source this.(Alithien/ceedjee)

Much of what you say should be spread over several independent pages, or a new one created specifically on the general issue of 'infiltrations' if such a page doesn't already exist. To develop your proposal on this page would be to overwhelm the actual description of the events by matters external to it.

I don't agree here. On the French article, I wrote all of that and my context is smaller than this one... (Alithien/ceedjee)

I have glanced at the French article and will read it closely. It looks like it has some promising material however, and we should consider a 'dialogue' between the two, if not more. I think generally that good Wiki practice should be to read as many corresponding articles in the various national languages on any one topic as possible, and cull the best from each. Regards Nishidani 14:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That is the only reason why I contribute to the English wikipedia :-)

Regards, Alithien/ceedjee

I've dropped a note to you on my talkpage.

You write:-

But do you think Hebron massacre or Gush Etzion are significant (?). etc.

Yes I do. Actually I think everything is significant. However, as for the peculiar significance of Qibya, I disagree. It certainly marked a moment of crisis for Ben Gurion's policies, as Ze'ev Drori points out. He tended to recontextualize Israel's geopolitical situation dramatically as desperate defense against imminent destruction by a huge Arab world bent on 'throwing Israel into the sea', whereas Avner Yariv, and many others argue that such an apocalyptic vision distorted the realities on the ground, and the desperation politics only exacerbated natural tensions. To know what is going on in that period a primary source like Moshe Sharett's diaries is crucial. In them, Ben Gurion is thinking n 1953 that a war is due to take place no later than 1956, certainly with Egypt, given the rearmament process, and IDF officials (Matti Peled) are, that same October, giving off-the-record previews to American visitors on the strategic necessity of occupying more of Jordanian territory in Eretz Israel. The Qibya episode gave Israel a very bad press, as did the so-called (wrongly) Lavon Affair in 1954, and thus reined in, especially under Sharett's wise authority, a geopolitical vision that ignored diplomacy for the hard-nosed politics of intimidation, which, it was thought, would obtain an eventual settlement, from necessity, with the Arab world which diplomacy could never obtain. I think we're still living with the consequences of those premature choices. (my POV)

The incidents of which you speak are many, and most are not well-known, except as dry statistics. There was no 'existential threat' to the state of Israel at that time: the Jordanian regime was in a constant state of panic at the worrying destabilisation it was suffering from the rage which many of these efficient military raids and reprisal actions engendered in their local population and refugee charges. Jordan refused to militarise its borders, as Israel demanded (Jordan's border controls were done by local police) because it feared that were Jordan to follow Israel's own policy, one would be faced with a dangerous build-up on both sides of the border that would easily degenerate, under provocation, into a full scale war. Regards Nishidani 17:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] intro debate

i really don't think that:

"U.S. State Department issued a bulletin denouncing the Qibya raid, demanding that those responsible be "brought to account."^{my revert}

is such a notable part of the article to be included as the summary closing line of the lead. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Unlike Jaakobou I do think it is noteworthy, in that the intro. deals succinctly with the main features to be discussed in the article, and a good part of the article touches on precisely the international outcry which the Qibya massacre caused. Unlike so many other incidents, the Qibya massacre led to a very strong international debate, reflected in UN deliberations. It caused the government responsible to make several changes in its policy. The Qibya massacre therefore constitutes a landmark for the period 1949-1953 in that outstanding issues of by then customary geopolitical conflicts in the area had to be addressed. as a result of US and foreign pressure.

But concretely, I would draw both Jaakobou's attention, and that of others, to the fact that on the 1929 Hebron massacre page, to which he has made substantial contributions, the first para. contains (correctly in my view, and I would insist on a certain coherence in principle) the following remark:

'The massacre had a deep and lasting effect on the world-wide Jewish community.'

So if we are to be consistent, we should either (1) eliminate the passage as Jaakobou suggests, and immediately erase this corresponding passage in the intro to the 1929 Hebron massacre page, or (2) as I for one would strongly suggest, retain both the passage Jaakobou objects to in the Qibya intro. and leave the 1929 Hebron massacre passage intact. I hope good sense prevails on this.Nishidani 15:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

p.s. Jaakobou. I have just noted you have erased for the second time, trying it seems to achieve a fait accompli before the discussion you call for, the introduction's allusion to the US protest. Since you regard this as controversial and requiring a discussion, the proper procedure is to discuss your personal opinion with others before repeatedly eliminating the text you deplore. I have reverted twice, to restore the text to what it was before either you and I got into this dispute, one occasioned by your disliking a passage that has stood there for some months. Neither you nor I have proprietorial rights over this text. You have voiced your objection, fine. Let us see what others think before either of us proceeds any further. Nishidani 15:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

(1) thank you for that unrelated "recently" issue, i've reqorked your recent edits there.

(2) if you feel it is a main part of the article, write it up properly - the issue of the U.S. final media release is not very notable in the body of the article.

(3) reverting the information back in, doesn't exactly persuade me of your position.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The Qibya massacre was universally condemned, and some recognition of this is necessary in the lead. Given the current situation vis-a-vis the US and Israel, the statement from the US is as good as any and probably better than most. (Alternatively the Mixed Armistice Commission condemned the Israel army, or the Security Council expressed "the strongest censure of that action."). PalestineRemembered 20:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered, if the qibya massacre was universally condemned, then that's the info that should be written and cited on the intro, not some vague reference to some U.S. decision you're reverted back into the article.^[6] please correct this issue so that we need not play around with your standard revert games and we can move on to more interesting subjects. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "if"? The Qibya massacre was universally condemned. The lead of this article must indicate what all parties agreed about it (Israel even went into denial, Ben-Gurion saying "'None deplores it more than the Government of Israel").

We know exactly what the US said about Qibya, nothing "vague" about it. If you insist that the article is not convincing about the "Major View" on this subject, then we should put more of these references into the lead, not take the current and highly significant one out! PalestineRemembered 09:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

PR, please pay more attention to my point. i said nothing of the level of condemnation, but rather mentioned that the U.S. note on the subject is not so notable in the article to be written in this fashion into the intro, regardless of references added. please fix the issue rather than insist that "more can be added" - this is the intro, not the main body of the article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou Please pay more attention to all points of views. You erased something on grounds that are not convincing, in a manner that looks as though you wish to get the U.S. mention off the lead para., and that looks distinctly POV. What do you want, some generic unsourced statement like 'the massacre was condemned the world over'? The 'Jewish community' mentioned in the Hebron massacre article is not the world community (which was equally shocked by the events of 29), just as the US is not the world community here. The parallel is precise, and if you object to the one you should take exception to the other on grounds of textual parity Nishidani 11:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Nishidani,

(1) i really don't understand why you're "mixing tea and cookies", leave the other article alone when we are discussing this one (and pleas avoid POV accusations).

(2) i've no issues with a serious attempt at a mention to the level of condemnation, however, some random statement from the U.S. is very much out of the introductory context.

(3) i note you that misrepresenting the talk of other editors is somewhat of a personal attack. i have not used any "grounds that are not convincing" justifications, but rather stated that it "doesn't belong in the intro."^[7] and asked you that you "please explain notability of this (to be placed on the intro)"^[8]

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not mixing 'tea with cookies', whatever that means (they are taken together, at least where I live). Wikipedia articles ideally are supposed to strive for a uniformity of NPOV. It is POV therefore, to support writing a sentence of the kind 'the Jewish community was deeply affected by the massacre' in the intro. para to one page (1929 Hebron massacre), dealing with an Arab pogrom against Jews, but at the same time to try and erase 'the US deplored the massacre' on a page dedicated to the Qibya Massacre' enacted by some Jews against Arabs. In asking me to 'leave the other article alone when we are discussing this one', you are simply ignoring this necessity, i.e. the duty to treat similar incidents by similar criteria. As things stand, you are asking us to write about a massacre of Jews in one way (highlighting the reaction abroad) and then write about a massacre of Arabs in another way (erasing the reaction abroad). This, sir, is called POV, and it is no violation of Wikirules on civility to draw your attention to this disequilibrium in your approach. I am merely calling a spade a spade. To take up your use of metaphor, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Your other remark has already been dealt with in my preceding comment. I should take the opportunity to invite publicly the French writer of the corresponding article on Qibya in French to join us here. He has expressed his interest in collaborating, allows that his own perspective tends to favour the case for Israel, and yet has done a reasonable job in presenting the subject matter as regards both sides in French Nishidani 13:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

it is not the same criteria because in one incident, arabs killed and tortured jews, and the jewish community was deeply affected. and in the other case (this article), jews killed arabs - and the US is just an outside comentator... i'm saying this for at least the 3rd time.. but hopefully, it will at least be accepted as a point worthy of discussion: obviously there is room to mention the condemnations in the intro, but a single line reagrding some u.s. statement is not the proper way of doing this. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are wrong. In drawing a parallel, or analogy of this kind in historical writing, the rule is that the reader is not expected to think that history repeats itself down to the last comma. The rule is that there is a strong typological resemblance and therefore a neutral writer must take great care to treat both distinct instances of a general scenario evenhandedly. You, in trying to make a wedge between the two, have failed to do this. You insist on what Freud called 'the narcissism of minor differences'. I could make many other distinctions. In Hebron some 3 to 400 Jews were saved by their Arab neighbours. This of course didn't happen at Qibya, and not because there were no Jews. In Hebron, a large number of marauding murderers seem to have come from the countryside, outside of the city, whipping up popular passions among the rabble to kill Jews, whereas in Qibya the slaughter was done by an army unit under government orders hailing directly from the Head of the Jewish State. In Hebron, no Arab killer survived to become a popular politician and iconic figure in Palestinian politics , some were even shot and hung. In Qibya, Ariel Sharon and a few others went on to enjoy distinguished careers after murdering Arab civilians, women and children. One can draw out numerous differences, you draw out one: Jews were tortured (you could add rabbis castrated) in Hebron, they were just bombed out and shot in Qibya without torture. What is that supposed to mean? That Jews just kill, whereas Arabs kill with gruesome tortuous slowness to enjoy the work? Let's not get into these futile and spurious distinctions, but simply keep in mind Gibbon's definition of history. We are dealing with two crimes, both of which evoked horror in the world. All niggling to fish out minor differences in order to make a substantial difference in the intro. is, I would insist, POVing the issue. Nishidani 16:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Nishidani, can you please stick to the issue of how to phrase the intro on this article? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou - we are discussing what belongs in the lead of this article, and some expression of "total and universal condemnation" is a requirement that cannot be side-stepped. You should count yourself lucky that some editors are content just to use the one statement from the US and not insist on there being statements from the UNSC and the observers in there. PalestineRemembered 10:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other proposal

I don't think the US reproval is relevant when the operation was condemned all around the world and by Security council ! Based on the french (featured) article, I suggest this :

At the time, the operation was unanimously reproved in the world and condemned by the Resolution 101 of the United Nations Security Council. It is considered as the beginning of the controversed policy of systematical reprisal still applied today by Israel.

Alithien 17:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel rather like you do over the US statement - surely it's only one small section of the world? However, in the English speaking world, it's fairly well understood that the UN repeatedly condemns Israel and the US nearly always supports Israel. A statement from the US more or less turns "general condemnation" into "universal condemnation" without further comment necessary. (This is the en-WP, after all!).

I see problems with the second part of what you're saying. Systematic reprisals by Israeli or pre-Israeli forces go back a long, long way. The Haganah was formed (from earlier groups) and allowed to arm in 1920, in 1931 part of it split away to form "Irgun Bet" and take an "aggressive, retaliatory line". (Morris, Righteous Victims, p120). That's 17 years before the Nakba and 22 years before Qibya. In 1937 "IZL and LHI, introduced into the arena (in 1937-38 and 1947-48) what is now the standard equipment of modern terrorism, the camouflaged bomb in the market place and bus-station, the car- and truck-bomb, and the drive-by shooting with automatic weapons (though not the suicide bomber, which was an Arab innovation of the 1980s and the 1990s)". (Morris, Righteous Victims, p681.) PalestineRemembered 11:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jaakobou comments

controversed policy of systematical reprisal still applied today by Israel.

pardon the harsh response, but did you ever take a peek at WP:NPOV? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Israel officialy decided to stop it ?

The "right to autodefense" and to react to each terrorist attack is considered fundamental by Israel.

Alithien 17:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

please take this issue more seriously and consider going over the article and the cited sources. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This sentence is the traduction of the introduction of the featured article on wp:fr~: fr:massacre de Qibya

This refers to the last section citing 4 pov's on related to the topic (Chomsky - Bard from Jewish Virtual Library - an article from CNN and some Rabin's comments.

So, be explicit in your comments else nobody will take care of them. Alithien 18:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

best i'm aware, this is the english wikipedia, if the french version is unbalanced (what else is new), that is not my issue to solve. if you want to propose a neutral version based on the material inserted into the english language article - i'm open to hear suggestions that don't treat wikipedia like a soapbox. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou. Alithien has done considerable work on the French site and has offered to help up with the English version, though a non-native speaker. The first words for any new participant, especially one trying to mediate (and remember, (s)he says on his/her page that (s)he has a pro-Israeli stance, rather than, like myself, being a partisan of Palestinian viewpoints) is to welcome them. No! you, who are so quick off the starting line to throw the wiki policy book at whoever crosses your path and its vision, remark, in violation of its politeness code, 'if the french version is unbalanced (what else is new?)', insinuating that because Alithien is French he is 'unbalanced' (the nuance of the word is 'mentally unstable, not only 'lacking the proper partiality for an Israeli POV).

So, I suggest you calm down, and ponder his/her suggestion. What Alithien suggests is replacing the specific allusion to the US with a generic allusion, and I think that reasonable, if not definitive. The US reaction can go down the page to the appropriate section. Either one or the other, in some form or another, has to stay in the intro. As to soapbox, well that is a personal snub, and merits the reply that you make no effort to disguise the fact that your interest in Wiki is to push what you perceive as a unilateral pro-Israel-whatever line. I have yet to see an edit of yours where you do even minimal justice to the other side in this dispute. I don't take seriously people who refuse the exercise of seeing both sides to any question. If we had that in our genetic system, the monstrousness of history, and esp. modern history, would never have taken place.

As someone who sees the history under examination in diametrically opposed terms to the way Alithien views it, but as one who recognizes good work from whatever source, I welcome him/her to come in and help us here. In the long-term, Wikipedian versions must interact, because information is not a 'national' but an 'international' representation, and a distinct perspective from the non-English speaking world should be jolt up our parochialism.Nishidani 21:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Alithien's suggestion runs like this:-

À l’époque, l’opération est unanimement réprouvée dans le monde et fait l’objet d’une condamnation du Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies. Elle est perçue comme le début de la politique controversée de représailles systématiques toujours appliquée aujourd’hui par Israël.

At that time, the operation was unanimously condemned throughout the world and led to a formal condemnation (the Resolution 101) by the United Nations Security Council. It is perceived as the beginning of the controversial policy of systematic reprisals still applied today by Israel.

I think the second point requires documentation, Alithien. Of all the versions I think the earlier one, which Jaakobou rejected, and which Palestine Remembered defends, the simplest. We are wasting an enormous amount of time and energy on an ideological refusal by Jaacobou to accept a reasonable statement of the historic fact that both the UN and the US roundly condemned the massacre, and that this had considerable impact on Israeli geopolitical thinking. Nishidani 21:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

i think the only person who's insinuating things on a personal level is you. if you wish to resolve this issue properly, you will focus on the information already in the article and how to properly insert it into the intro without excessive promotion of ideological ("they still do it") additions. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing ideological about the facts of a case. There is of course about the way they are presented, rhetorically or selectively, and it is you who are trying to wipe out a fact from the first para on ideological grounds, i.e. you don't like seeing any mention of US criticism of an Israeli massacre up front, even though both are attested. I never read the rule book when you refer me to it, because you only use it instrumentally, in order to justify what is an extremist unilateral, blinkered pushing of what you take to be a nationalist Israeli POV. THIS IS A SERIOUS HISTORICAL PROJECT, and if you want any credibility, try to understand that history is not a monocular vision of one nation's triumphant history against universal victimization. The Jewish people have one of the greatest intellectual traditions of mankind. Try at least to live up to its minimal standards of integrity and broad insight Nishidani 21:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Nishidani, you're exhausting my patience. i believe i've noted a good number of times, that the intro can include the reactions to the incident (in a proper way that relates to the body of the article)... i find your commentary escalating in it's personal and uncivil tone and i'm contemplating if you bother to read my comments at all before you start typing your replies. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

What 'you've noted' is simply 'what you think personally'. It is not the law. So far 3 people disagree with you, and you keep insisting on what can (what you approve of) and what cannot (what other people suggest) be inserted. I am having, as I think others in here, great difficulty in making you understand that 'dialogue' to arrive at a consensus does not mean in any man's language, adopting the minority view of one person merely because he is strenuously wedded to insisting on it as the only proper approach. You have so far had several people waste several hours on an absolutely niggling point. What is the purpose? To slow down Wikipedia? There are many ways of being impolite, mine is to call a spade a spade when I find posters making Himalayan mountains out of miniscule molehills, which is, in my book, the greater discourtesy, because it needlessly drags a community into wasting time, and eventually to abandoning wikipedia.Nishidani 22:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] intro debate II

let's try this again, without the personally oriented polemics.^[9]

i really don't think that:

"U.S. State Department issued a bulletin denouncing the Qibya raid, demanding that those responsible be "brought to account."^{my revert}

is such a notable part of the article to be included as the summary closing line of the lead.

i do believe that there's room to insert a note regarding the international condemnation into the intro, but to be frank, i don't even see this US note in the article's body which means that it most certainly is not notable enough to be stated on the intro.

i suggest the involved editors go over WP:LEAD and take it from there. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The Lead link says:-

The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies.

Qibya proved intensely 'controversial'. The lead notes that. Q.E.DNishidani 14:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

i don't see a description of the controversy, i see an out of context one liner... the words "U.S. State Department" don't even appear on the article anywhere but on the intro. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay.Is there anywhere one can officially complain about disruptive editing? Jaakobou is certainly intent on disrupting the drafting of this article. He has hammered away, on his own, refusing to come to terms with at least three other editors who see nothing wrong with what he protests against. He has now posted a sign suggesting the article is not 'neutral', which in his own terminology appears to mean, 'people won't let me have my way'.Nishidani 15:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

your counting is flawed, but i will not use this as a stage to address issues with other users' behavior. i do have to ask you to why are you are ignoring my point and treating this issue with such lack of faith? i don't quite belive i've elicited this tone with my edits to the article and i'm wondering of how would you appreciate it if i were to accuse you of similar disruption?

to the issue, you are more than welcome to go to WP:3O or WP:RFC so that we can get the actual content dispute adressed to. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No one has ignored your point. We have discussed this till the all of the cattle in Rawhide's stock have drifted into the fold, and you still hold out. Consensus is not unanimity. It means a majority. If of the four people who have discussed this question, you alone refuse to budge, insisting that what three think a reasonable point (a ref. in the intro to either a UN condemnation or a US condemnation) is POV, then nurture your belief by all means. But insisting on this, and bannering the site constitutes disurptive editing. EDITING MEANS BUILDING A SITE, NOT WORRYING IT TO DEATH WITH IDIOSYNCRATIC REMARKS. And, once more, don't throw the Wiki links my way. I never reread them when you do so. A little more study of history, off the Internet, and less trawling through the rulebooks to find spurious grounds for your contentiousness on trivia would do this area of Wiki a world of good. Nishidani 16:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia is neithr a soapbox or a democracy, i suggest that you are more than welcome to go to WP:3O or WP:RFC so that we can get the actual content dispute adressed to by less intersant and more civil editors who actually care about bulding the site without accusaing others that they have no such interest. p.s. at least User:Alithien is making a sincere effort to resolve the issue, i don't really see nothing more than disruptive attacks from you. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the UN resolution 101 could -not- be in the introduction. I suggest we replace the US condemnation by the UN security council condemnation (more relevant).
I suggest we leave the pov flag and discuss this later.
About the beginning of the controversed policy of systematical reprisal I understand sources must be precised. They exist. But we can leave this for later.
Alithien 16:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

if it has volume in the body article, then i don't object to this. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I understand that without the information well developed with volume in the body article it is hard to agree seeing this in the summary. Alithien 17:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Background

[edit] Primary and secondary sources

I think there are too many references to the UN reports (which are primary sources) and not enough to historians (secondary sources).
Eg : This marked reduction was in good part the result of increased Jordian efficiency in patrolling its borders. Sourcing this by UN discussions is not reliable. At least, the point should be attributed. Alithien 16:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)