Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (1948)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israel Portal
Siege of Jerusalem (1948) is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Siege of Jerusalem (1948) 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.

If you are a sympathetic to the Arab view, please do not vandalize this article. These events did occur. Instead, please enter such information that you consider important to understanding the events. 68.5.64.178 01:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The very name of this article represents a one-sided point of view. A siege is when one side is inside and the other side is outside. However there were lots of Arabs living in Jerusalem and Arab neighborhoods were under attack by Jewish forces as well as the reverse. The writing so far also reflects only the Zionist viewpoint. A better name would be something like "Battle for Jerusalem (1948)". --Zerotalk 10:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't change anything. It only means that the Arab forces couldn't care less if it also effected Arab population. There's no dispute that there was a siege. Calling it what it is is not POV. Amoruso 04:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I know next to nothing about this history, Is "Siege of Jerusalem" the term that is commonly or historically applied to these actions? A quick Google of - "Siege of Jerusalem" 1948 - yields 15,300 hits, - Siege of Jerusalem 70 - yeilds 44,700 hits, 9,330 hits for - "Siege of Jerusalem" 1099 OR 1186 -, - Nebuchadnezzar "Siege of Jerusalem" - gets 21,100 hits. I'm not saying you are wrong about the name being misleading however "Siege of Jerusalem" 1948 does appear to be common. I would like to read more about the naming of the article. Are you interested in contributing more from a non-Zionist viewpoint? SmithBlue 15:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure there is a consensus English name for this. Zionist accounts tend to call it things like "Siege of Jerusalem", while Arab accounts will refer to it as the Zionist attempt to ethnically cleanse Jerusalem (and so forth). We should choose a name that reflects neither point of view as much as possible. I suggest "Battle for Jerusalem (1948)" because it does not carry an implication that one side was bad and the other was good. There is nothing pro-Arab about it at all, for example the Zionist Jewish Virtual Library uses it. --Zerotalk 07:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
It is possible for a common name not to have consensus about its NPOV. And for the English language to change to reflect this. (or not) Eg; chairman to chairperson. And for that change to be partial ie Google; chairperson - 29 million, chairman - 149 million. At present Google gives - "Battle for Jerusalem" 1948 - 920 hits, compared to - "Siege of Jerusalem" 1948 - yields 15,300 hits. Which separates them by an order of magnitude.

If "Siege of Jerusalem" 1948 is the common name should we "go with it" no matter how POV it is? SmithBlue 08:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It isn't "the" common name. 15,300 hits is a really tiny number for this topic. Compare it to Jerusalem 1948 - 1,390,000 hits. I repeat, there is NO common widely-accepted name for this. That means we choose a neutral name. Neutrality is just as important as popularity, or more important. --Zerotalk 11:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
In general I'd disagree strongly that "Neutrality is more important than popularity." Common useage is the basis of language. If you want to go further into generalities do you agree that "a consensus English name" and "a common name" can be very different things? SmithBlue 04:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Zero is right.
There was 100,000 Jews and 70,000 Arabs living in the Jerusalem area. And if the siege of the jewish population during march and after Nachshon operation is one of the event of the battle for Jerusalem, there were many others, like Kilshon operation.
Note that the title is a problem but also the content of the article, which is, a little bit (cough cough) pov. Alithien 20:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Yes, it was a siege

Okay guys how's this, from http://www.palestinehistory.com/history/war/war1948.htm, a Palestinian site:

"Battle of the Roads". The Arab League sponsored Arab Liberation Army, composed of Palestinian Arabs and Arabs from other Middle Eastern countries, attacked Jewish communities in Palestine, and Jewish traffic on major roads. The Arab forces mainly concentrated on major roadways in an attempt to cut off Jewish communities from each other. Arab forces at that time had engaged in sporadic and unorganized ambushes since the riots of December 1947, and began to make organized attempts to cut off the highway linking Tel Aviv with Jerusalem, the city's only supply route. The Arab Army cut off supplies and controlled several strategic vantage points overlooking the sole highway linking Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, enabling them to fire at convoys going to the city. By late March 1948, the vital road that connected Tel Aviv to western Jerusalem, where about 16% of all Jews in the Palestinian region lived, was cut off and under siege. (emphasis mine)Scott Adler 08:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want a contemporary account, read John Roy Carlson's "From Cairo to Damascus" (Knopf, 1951). An American of Armenian birth, Carlson joined Egyptian adventurers besieging the city. He often slipped away to report on the war from the other side -- one of these chapters, chapter 14, is called "Life in the Besieged City." In that chapter, on page 262, he described British shell fire directed at Jewish civilian areas long after British forces were supposed to have left. Another useful contemporary account is that of Dov Joseph, the Israeli military governor during the siege. In "The Faithful City'" Joseph describes the stringent rationing the siege imposed, including a limit of five liters of water per person per day -- for eight months.

Check the Wikipedia entry on Jordanian Field Marshall Habis Al-Majali for his view on the siege, although his recall appears to be fuzzy due to age. (He told the same Sharon story to AFP, which swallowed it.) This entry, clearly sympathetic to the Jordanians, uses the term "besieged" to describe the Jews of Jerusalem.Scott Adler 09:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There has been a siege (starting in Feb, culminating end of March) but the whole story is not a siege. After Nachshon, the city was not under siege any more. After 15 May, Jerusalem were again under siege BUT IDF and Arab Legion fought and it became a battle for Jerusalem. Alithien 18:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zionists and Arabists NPOV?

Just wanting to check how fellow editors see these two terms; Zionists and Arabists. How do they go for NPOV? SmithBlue 01:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer to use neither. The term "Arabist" originally referred to a scholar specializing in Arab history and cultire AND to a school of diplomacy within the US State Department that is now in decline. The term "Zionist" originally referred to a person who supported Jewish national self-determination. It is now used more as a nasty, de-humanizing, insult, as in "you filthy dirty scum-sucking supporter of the unprovoked massacre of helpless Palestinian innocents".Scott Adler 03:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
It was a siege in a civil war contexte between jewish and arab Palestinians until end of March.
After, it became war with Kilshon operation and later fights between IDF and Jordan forces. Alithien 18:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Narratives and notability

I'm suggesting that what is most notable about these events is the POV narratives pinned on them. Can we combine disparate narratives, show the historical events that underpin them and present the various narratives in their absolute world defining fullness or do the narratives become weak shadows showing so little of their power over people in the real world as to be unrecognisable? Please point me to a Wikipedia entry that successfully shows both the power of these narratives and the historical underpinnings. SmithBlue 04:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I would, if I could understand what you just said. ;) Are you referring to the sources? I will also use many others. I chose those because they dealt directly with the issues of the existance of the siege. I would love to include my interview with Anwar Nusseiba, the Palestinian commander who succeeded Abd-el Kadr al-Husseini, but alas, it is original material. The best source of third party quotes is "O Jerusalem" by Collins and LaPierre, mainly because of the extensive interviews the two writers did with participants on both sides, including the normally reclusive Grand Mufti -- those who were still alive in 1970.
The main controversy in this narrative is the fact that it happened at all. The fact that it happened makes one side very upset. Thus if Jews were forced to counter Iraqi soldiers attacking them from inside the St. Simeon Monastery, the fall of Katamon was a strictly military event rather than a drive to expell helpless civilians as the Arab side usually contends. It is not without reason that there is no Wikipedia article for the St. Simeon Monastery. I hope to correct this imbalance. It's all about balance and context. If you eliminate the siege, there is no context.Scott Adler 23:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I forgot to mention, the quote from palestinehistory.com is from a pro-Palestinian site, but one that acknowledges that the siege happened.Scott Adler 23:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Emil Ghuri succeeded to al-Husseini.
Lapierre and Collins is ONE source but it focuses on Jerusalem, of course.
Mufti has nothing to do with this battle. He was far away during all these events around Jerusalem.
Please, this must not be a fork of 1948 arab-israeli war.
Please, refrain from personnal explanation (your story about St Simeon Monastery).
Concerning Qatamon, I suggest you refer to Benny Morris, The Birth... revisited, 2003. The events of Qatamon are explained.
I doubt there were Iraqi soldiers. I would say Iraqi volunteers.
I suggest you don't use websites as sources but scholars books.
Best Regards, Alithien 18:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] facts

The siege of Jerusalem was a complex series of military and terrorist events beginning on December 1, 1947 and lasting through January, 1949. The siege was initiated by local Palestinian Arab militias immediately after the United Nations adopted a resolution ordering partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. The siege was continued by the Transjordan Arab Legion, assisted by British officers and by the Egyptian Army until the signing of the 1949 Armistice Agreements.
The intention of besieging forces was to isolate and destroy or disposess the 100,000 Jewish residents of the city. The siege lasted until Israeli forces were able to build a bypass road through the Judean Hills called the Burma Road and by conquering the neighboring towns of Lod and Ramle.
  1. The siege didn't start on Dec 1, 1947 but later in January
  2. The siege didn't start untlin Jan, 1949. Battles between IDF and Arab Legion stopped after 10 days' campaign in July
  3. The intention of Husseini was to prevent the partition plan and to fight his ennemies
  4. The siege was "broken" with Nachshon Operation.
  5. Lydda, not Lod.
===Please sign===
Writer of "facts": This is going to be a contentious article, but one which has to be written. If you believe your facts, please sign them (or even better, reference them), else they may be considered "inferior." --Seejyb 02:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In reply to the above unsigned writer:

  1. The siege began slowly, but the first attack on the road was on Dec. 1, 1947. Six Jews were dragged out of a BOAC bus, separated from Arab passengers and shot. Travel on the road was no longer safe for Jews without armed escort.
  2. The siege started and was broken several times.
  3. All Jews were Husseini's "enemies" -- including the Jewish children of Hungary. He was responsible for killing 2,000 of them. And Jerusalem was not "partitioned," it was a corpus separatum with a guaranteed, gerrymandered Arab majority.
  4. If the siege ws ""broken"" (your quotes in my quotes) with Operaion Nachson in early April, what happed at Latrun in late May and early June?
  5. Lydda is Arabic for the ancient name Lod. It was Lydda in 1947, but has been Lod for 58 years (how it came to be Lod is another story). I will use both terms.

I fully realized when I started this article that it would be subject to heavy POV comments and probably will be repeatedly vandalized. That goes with the territory. Scott Adler 23:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duration of the siege

As far as I know, for most of the war the blockade was not total, and Jewish convoys managed to get through occasionally. The situation became critical by March 1948, and in order to lift the blockade and resupply the city the Haggana initiated "Nachshon Operation" on the first half of April. But after the operation the blockade resumed. Evidence to that is that 12 members of Minhelet Haam were stuck in Jerusalem and were unable to attend the declaration of independence on May 14th. Later in May, the Jewish quarter of the Old city, which was in a siege of its own and cut off from the rest of the Jewish neighborhoods, has surrendered to the Arab Legion (I think that was on May 28th). Also on the same month, the Jewish outposts in Jerusalem region, Gush Etzion in the south and Atarot-Neve Yaakov in the north, were conquerred by the Arab Legion.

In my understanding, the blockade was lifted after the completion of "Burma Road", which enabled the Israeli forces to get to Jerusalem by alternative route that bypassed Latrun, that controlled the main road to Jerusalem and remained in Jordanian territory until 1967. This must have been sometime during the summer of 1948, a lot earlier that January 1949. Actually, there was de facto sieze fire in the Jerusalem theatre from the 2nd "Hafuga" till the end of the war, with the exception of another failed attack on Latrun in October.--Nitsansh (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)