This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nishidani (talk | contribs) at 13:54, 28 October 2019 (→Expelled versus 'evacuated'). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:54, 28 October 2019 by Nishidani (talk | contribs) (→Expelled versus 'evacuated')(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has been the subject of prolonged and sterile revert-warring. Edit warring is unacceptable even if none of the editors violates the letter of the 3RR rule, and protection prevents all editors from improving the article. (If editors return to edit warring after an article is unprotected, the community has not forfeited the right to improve the article; rather, the editors have forfeited the right to edit. For the next month, ending May 15, I will enforce a limit of one revert per person per day. (Blatant vandalism is excepted, of course, but calling content edits that may have been made in good faith, "vandalism," is not acceptable.) Please discuss controversial changes on the talk page first, rather than editing and reverting and eventually discussing. Thank you. Thatcher131 00:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC) |
 | A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on August 23, 2008, August 23, 2009, August 23, 2010, August 23, 2013, August 23, 2016, and August 23, 2019. |
 Archives |
Restatement
Restatement: Sometime ago I asked for source on the category "Islam and antisemitism". No sources were provided, though there was extensive discussion on the topic (and other topics).Bless sins (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Above user Bless sins consistent removes/edits articles related to islam and anti-semitism. Check his talk page to see criticisms, but note that you must check his talk page history as he consistently removes queries about justification for his edits (against wikipedia guidelines on Talk pages). TIf this comment is deleted by him (as other comments on this talk page have been), please reinstate asap). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.171.110 (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- What source do you need. When there is a massacre as part of anti-Jewish riots how do you call that ? Zeq (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Here is the link with Islam underlined by a scholar :
- Benny Morris, 1948, 2008, p.12.
- Referring the events of 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1936-39, he writes : "(...) Violence did not emerge only from "modern" nationalist passions; it also drew on powerful religious wellsprings. Nothing, it seemed, could mobilize the Palestinian Arab masses for action more readily than Muslim religious rhetoric and symbols. It was no coincidence that the April 1920 outbreak was triggered by religious festivities or that the far larger outbreak of 1929, (...) was prompted by accusations that the Jews intended to take over the Haram al-Sharif (...), destroy its two sacred mosques, and rebuild the Solomonic temple at the site."
- He also underlines that among the "130 Jews murdered", there were "sixty-six ultra-Orthodox, non-Zionist yeshiva students massacred by their neighbors in Hebron".
- Rgds, Ceedjee (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note 66, which is in contrast with 67 in the text, about which Jaakobou is so insistent. That in a country where there was no grounded inter-group national ethos, but only clan-based affiliations, it is only natural (as in European history in the early modern history) that national identity would form around the one common ideological denominator, which was a religious creed (with which, however, very few fellahin had much understanding, their religion being local shrine cults of a semi-pagan character according to the Islamic orthodoxies). Therefore this harping on some intrinsic 'Islamic' hostility to Palestinian nationalism is rather tendentious. In the Great Revolt of 36-39, al-watani (the nation) was the rallying cry against tribal fractionalism (Ted swedenberg9 and had a double valency, the '(Palestinian) nation', and 'the Arab nation', the latter with its great historical sense of an international identity. The attempt to link occasionally fierce opposition to what Palestinians saw as the loss of their native home to intruders to the nature of Islam (intolerant), is as absurd as an attempt would be to link Zionism's roots intrinsically to the theology of such rabbis as Kook, the senior Ashkenazi authority down to 1935, which was racist reinterpretation of the Bible that justified the return to the land as a fulfilling of a covenant that included annihilating local inferior species. Kook is the mirror of Al-Husseini, and what is said of one could equally be said of another, with one difference: Husseini's world was eclipsed by the events of 1948, Kook's took wing after 1967. When a people knows it is to be dispossessed it will latch onto any doctrine at hand to justify what is, however, not a religious matter, but a defence of native territory and rights. If anything, as many observers note (Robert Fisk), Islam has been (beyond the rhetoric) historically extraordinary patient with the overwhelming and violent intrusiveness of outsiders on an area that, for over a millenium, formed part of its domain. Nishidani (talk) 08:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Nishadani, can you explain what you want to say in simpler words ? Tnx. Zeq (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Nishidani's response is long, but not difficult to understand. Is there any specific part that you don't understand?Bless sins (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Since when is Benny Morris, a controversial historian, a reliable source on Islam? His opinions are controversial on the topic of Israel alone, and now you want to him as a source on Islam? Also he mentions "Muslim religious rhetoric and symbols". But he never relates that to the Qur'an or the sunnah, the only two universally accepted sources of Islam.Bless sins (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with you that Benny Morris is not an Ulema.
- I think "Muslim religious rhetoric" refers to sentences such as this : "The law of Muhammad is being implemented by the sword" that was shouted during 1920 riots.
- Tom Segev, in One Palestine, Complete, chap.14: Hebron, 1929, p.325 writes :
- "The attack on the Jews of Hebron was born of fear and hatred. The Muslims believed the Jews intended to violate the sanctity of Islam, and that the Zionists wanted to dispossess them of their country. According to the American consulate, the Jews were also murdered for economic reasons, as merchants and as moneylenders. The Arabs hated them as foreigners -most had come from Europe and America. And a few probably attacked Jews out of some appetite for murder, without any clearly defined reason. (...)".
- Ceedjee (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Firstly please see my comment below. You need a source that connects Islam and antisemitism. Secondly, the above quote suggests that the perpetrators wanted to protect Islam, not that Islam called for such behavior. Again I refer you back to two universal sources of Islam: the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Is something is related to Islam, then it will be based on these two sources.Bless sins (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Nishadani, can you explain what you want to say in simpler words ? Tnx. Zeq (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Please note: If you are going to place the "Islam and antisemitism" category, then you need to find a source that mentions both. If something is either unrelated to Islam, or antisemitism, then the category doesn't belong. Also, so as not to violate WP:SYNTH, a reliable source must make the connection between Islam and antisemitism (and the topic of the article), not individual wikipedians.Bless sins (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't need anything.
- I don't care you Jihad : I am a wikipedia's editor :-)
- Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- The massacure was preformed by muslims, therefore it relates to islam. It is not that complicated. Yahel Guhan 20:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- And by that logic all killings by Jews would relate to Judaism? I don't think so! --Ian Pitchford (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Judaism related controversies are in the Judaism category, so sure, that connection is made. Yahel Guhan 20:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Killing of Jews is not always antisemitism. And Killing by Jews is not always linked to Judaism. It depends on the motivations. Here, historians (and not only Morris and Segev) argue that the motivation was a hatred of Jews and a fear for Islam's interests AND the nationalist context in Palestine.
- If somebody is shocked by that, the only solution is to put forward other historians analysis explaining the links with Islam symbols is not pertinent.
- Ceedjee (talk) 06:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Judaism related controversies are in the Judaism category, so sure, that connection is made. Yahel Guhan 20:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- "The massacure was preformed by muslims, therefore it relates to islam." No ti doesn't. If an atheist kills a Jew, it doesn't mean the action is related to the person's atheism. Or if an African-American kills a Jews, doesn't mean antisemitism is related to the African continent.Bless sins (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- All this is funny.
- The fact to know whether there was a antisemitic trend in Islam beginning of 20th century is not particularly relevant for the article but it is widely accepted. Do you want more quotes from Tom Segev where he explains Palestinians were mostly antisemites (like British) ? .
- So maybe it is time to forget political agenda and consequences on judgements people could have today.
- Once again :
- "Referring the events of 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1936-39, Benny Morris writes : "(...) Violence did not emerge only from "modern" nationalist passions; it also drew on powerful religious wellsprings. Nothing, it seemed, could mobilize the Palestinian Arab masses for action more readily than Muslim religious rhetoric and symbols. It was no coincidence that the April 1920 outbreak was triggered by religious festivities or that the far larger outbreak of 1929, (...) was prompted by accusations that the Jews intended to take over the Haram al-Sharif (...), destroy its two sacred mosques, and rebuild the Solomonic temple at the site."
- He also underlines that among the "130 Jews murdered", there were "sixty-six ultra-Orthodox, non-Zionist yeshiva students massacred by their neighbors in Hebron".
- He analysis is clear, simple and pertinent while all your comments concerning Benny Morris or so are out of context (and Bless sins is just a shameful hypercritical approach).
- Additionnaly, I could argue on the events proving what Morris writes here is correct but it is not needed. He is a true scholar for this period and that's all that have to be said.
- Hebron massacre was of course an antisemite act (and you should take care before starting arguing the contrary, because if we can understand they were antisemite at the time, it would be harder to understand anybody would try to justifiy or minimize such an event today !) and the people who performed these acts were motivated by (manipulated ?) religious arguments linked to their religion : Islam.
- All this is quite banal in human history. Islam is not an exception. And the fight to "preserve" a philosophy or a religion as well as to tarnish this is not acceptable on wp:fr
- So, stop your jihad. Ceedjee (talk) 06:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how you can say "Hebron massacre was of course an antisemitic act". Or are you saying that any action by Israel against the Palestinians must be an Islamophobic? I don't think there are many who would make that latter statement - despite it being much, much more defendable than the former statement!
- While you're at it, can you explain why "JewsAgainstZionism" is being branded an "extremist, unreliable source". I'd have thought it was a far better source than many, and certainly doesn't display hatred against anyone. It's quite shocking to take out the statements of a survivor who claims the Zionists caused the massacre, whether we agree with him or not. PR 13:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well. From my point of view, only antisemite or non-educated people could deny that this event is not also (or let's say partially) antisemite.
- I don't see how somebody could argue any other way the murder of +130 people out of any context of war or urban violence, just because some of their ethnic fellows are accused of threatening a holy place.
- So, decide yourself if you want to go on that way.
- Concerning reliabiliby : are JewAgainstZionists academic/scholars or are they "normal" people who defend with virulence a point of view ? This should answer your question.
- Concerning their alleged extremism, it seems they invest much time in defending their pov and also denying the shoah...
- For wp, I think they can be considered non reliable even if their mind is -of course- notorious and so deserve a room in the article.
- Ceedjee (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree with your my friend. Benny Morris and Tom Segev are not the only reliable sources. It is not Morris's period, nor Segev's either. Hillel Cohen's book, over which we exchanged notes this morning, shows there were significant sections of the Palestinian population quite happy to collaborate with Zionism. I will go to details if necessary. Many things in it lend vigorous witness to facts that challenge the notion that this can be defined as part of 'Arab antisemitism'. What those who, nowadays, parade the Arab = antisemitic rhetoric so freely are doing is rewriting history in terms of contemporary confusions and clichés, for instrumental ends. The creation of this myth, the reading of Arab/Palestinian resistance to their colonization and dispossession, as rooted in some age-old 'antisemitism' grievously misreads the great difference between Western antisemitism (its true breeding ground), traditionally vitriolic and chronically murderous, and Arab legislation, occasional outbreaks of pogroms, which can in no way bear comparison to what 'our' eurocentric world thought and did. Ibn Sa'ud roared at the Hebronites on hajj to Mecca in 1930 for the cruelty of this episode. We know that Hebron was predominantly under Nashashibi influence, the clan opposed to the Husaynis of Jerusalem who pushed the Islamic line of non-compromise (for political ends, to gain ascendency for themselves). Sheikh Musa Hadeib, from Duwaimah,just near Hebron, and leader of the local Muslim National Association (opposed to the highly anti-Zionist Muslim Christian Association) and also leader of the Hebron Hills farmers association, was murdered, perhaps by Husayni's men, two months after the Hebron Massacre (i.e. Oct.29) because he was well-disposed to Zionism, and supported by Zionists. Zionists fresh from Eastern Europe, where in the Ukraine alone 60,000 Jews had been massacred from 1917-1919, read every minor disturbance in the land they declared they would build their foreigners'(to the Arabs) homeland in, in the light of that Western experience, as Anita Shapira shows in her 1992 study. We know that the ethics of 'neighbourliness' (Huquq al-Jar, the law of neighbours)were very strong through Palestine. In the 1936 Uprising some Bedouins who had long resisted the idea of attacking Jewish settlements near them, actually moved themselves away, in order not to breach this law of not hurting neighbours, but hurting/killing those they had no such relationship with. We know that the Zionist records (and Segev remarks that 2/3rds of the Hebron community found refuge in their Arab neighbours' homes) name 435 Jews whose lives may have been saved due to Arab Hebronite acts, often simply of not informing the pogromers (Yes historians trim that down to about 300, we do not know the true figure). We know that there was movement from Jerusalem into Hebron by Arab inciters, and from outlying villages, not Hebron proper, behind the riot that led to the massacre. Segev (One Palestine, Complete', citing from memory) says few episodes in the history of Jewish persecution can offer a similar level of assistance by non-Jews to save Jews from a pogrom. There is nothing wrong intrinsically with Kaplan's testimony. He was there, he was an extremely pious conservative Jew who disliked Zionism, saying it upset the relative harmony of traditional Jewish-Arab relations. We know much irritation was caused in Hebron by immigrant Zionist youths, poor and in difficult economic straits, having difficulties in meeting their rents to Arab landlords, that the banker Slonim had to deal with these problems, that unlike the old Hebron mainly Sephardi community, fluent in Arabic, the newcomers from Eastern Europe and America could not communicate, created the usual tensions (walking into Arab houses without the customary care to see that women had time to repair to other rooms, as if they were lodging in Polish or Bronx digs, etc. also caused friction. Economic tensions, the knowledge that Zionist was intent on taking some part of what was land they thought promised to Arab suzereinty in the McMahon-Sherif correspondence, (1915), published statements in Doar Hayom, and foreign newspapers regarding 4 successive bids by Chaim Weizmann and others to buy the Wailing Wall, which they denied abroad or publicly, but pressed for, and perhaps the Temple Mount. The thick history is far more complex that the two works you cite allow (Segev I thnk gives the better account) and would take much time to document. I am writing off memory, since I have had to spend much time this afternoon visiting someone in hospital, and am rather to tired to check my files now. But, Ceedjee, I think you wrong, and that User:Bless Sins, User:Ian Pitchford and User:PR do have good reasons for opposing a generic label like 'antisemitism' on this. Antisemites do not bargain with Jews, asking them to hand over the Zionists in their ranks, saying the other Jews of long-standing in the town will be untouched if they do. Antisemites kill every Jew they can lay their hands on. And as Ibn Sa'ud drummed home to his Hebronite guests a year later, whoever did this did it in obscene violation of the rules and customary law of Islam regarding Jews.Nishidani (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Nishidani's argument for why the Hebron massacre is not a case of anti-Semitism largely relies on a false dichotomy: a group's actions can only be considered anti-Semitic if the group "kill every Jew they can lay their hands on." This notion is, of course, false as there are other universally recognized acts of anti-Semitism (such as the Jewish ghettos in Europe) which were not necessarily violent in and of themselves. The Hebron massacre is a case of anti-Semitism and must be labeled so. --GHcool (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I support reinstating category too, due to it clearly being targetted at Jews (the yeshiva students were not zionist in nature, and it being a specific case of Islamic antisemitism due to being incited by islamic clerics 91.104.171.110 (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Ashirus
- Nishidani's argument for why the Hebron massacre is not a case of anti-Semitism largely relies on a false dichotomy: a group's actions can only be considered anti-Semitic if the group "kill every Jew they can lay their hands on." This notion is, of course, false as there are other universally recognized acts of anti-Semitism (such as the Jewish ghettos in Europe) which were not necessarily violent in and of themselves. The Hebron massacre is a case of anti-Semitism and must be labeled so. --GHcool (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree with your my friend. Benny Morris and Tom Segev are not the only reliable sources. It is not Morris's period, nor Segev's either. Hillel Cohen's book, over which we exchanged notes this morning, shows there were significant sections of the Palestinian population quite happy to collaborate with Zionism. I will go to details if necessary. Many things in it lend vigorous witness to facts that challenge the notion that this can be defined as part of 'Arab antisemitism'. What those who, nowadays, parade the Arab = antisemitic rhetoric so freely are doing is rewriting history in terms of contemporary confusions and clichés, for instrumental ends. The creation of this myth, the reading of Arab/Palestinian resistance to their colonization and dispossession, as rooted in some age-old 'antisemitism' grievously misreads the great difference between Western antisemitism (its true breeding ground), traditionally vitriolic and chronically murderous, and Arab legislation, occasional outbreaks of pogroms, which can in no way bear comparison to what 'our' eurocentric world thought and did. Ibn Sa'ud roared at the Hebronites on hajj to Mecca in 1930 for the cruelty of this episode. We know that Hebron was predominantly under Nashashibi influence, the clan opposed to the Husaynis of Jerusalem who pushed the Islamic line of non-compromise (for political ends, to gain ascendency for themselves). Sheikh Musa Hadeib, from Duwaimah,just near Hebron, and leader of the local Muslim National Association (opposed to the highly anti-Zionist Muslim Christian Association) and also leader of the Hebron Hills farmers association, was murdered, perhaps by Husayni's men, two months after the Hebron Massacre (i.e. Oct.29) because he was well-disposed to Zionism, and supported by Zionists. Zionists fresh from Eastern Europe, where in the Ukraine alone 60,000 Jews had been massacred from 1917-1919, read every minor disturbance in the land they declared they would build their foreigners'(to the Arabs) homeland in, in the light of that Western experience, as Anita Shapira shows in her 1992 study. We know that the ethics of 'neighbourliness' (Huquq al-Jar, the law of neighbours)were very strong through Palestine. In the 1936 Uprising some Bedouins who had long resisted the idea of attacking Jewish settlements near them, actually moved themselves away, in order not to breach this law of not hurting neighbours, but hurting/killing those they had no such relationship with. We know that the Zionist records (and Segev remarks that 2/3rds of the Hebron community found refuge in their Arab neighbours' homes) name 435 Jews whose lives may have been saved due to Arab Hebronite acts, often simply of not informing the pogromers (Yes historians trim that down to about 300, we do not know the true figure). We know that there was movement from Jerusalem into Hebron by Arab inciters, and from outlying villages, not Hebron proper, behind the riot that led to the massacre. Segev (One Palestine, Complete', citing from memory) says few episodes in the history of Jewish persecution can offer a similar level of assistance by non-Jews to save Jews from a pogrom. There is nothing wrong intrinsically with Kaplan's testimony. He was there, he was an extremely pious conservative Jew who disliked Zionism, saying it upset the relative harmony of traditional Jewish-Arab relations. We know much irritation was caused in Hebron by immigrant Zionist youths, poor and in difficult economic straits, having difficulties in meeting their rents to Arab landlords, that the banker Slonim had to deal with these problems, that unlike the old Hebron mainly Sephardi community, fluent in Arabic, the newcomers from Eastern Europe and America could not communicate, created the usual tensions (walking into Arab houses without the customary care to see that women had time to repair to other rooms, as if they were lodging in Polish or Bronx digs, etc. also caused friction. Economic tensions, the knowledge that Zionist was intent on taking some part of what was land they thought promised to Arab suzereinty in the McMahon-Sherif correspondence, (1915), published statements in Doar Hayom, and foreign newspapers regarding 4 successive bids by Chaim Weizmann and others to buy the Wailing Wall, which they denied abroad or publicly, but pressed for, and perhaps the Temple Mount. The thick history is far more complex that the two works you cite allow (Segev I thnk gives the better account) and would take much time to document. I am writing off memory, since I have had to spend much time this afternoon visiting someone in hospital, and am rather to tired to check my files now. But, Ceedjee, I think you wrong, and that User:Bless Sins, User:Ian Pitchford and User:PR do have good reasons for opposing a generic label like 'antisemitism' on this. Antisemites do not bargain with Jews, asking them to hand over the Zionists in their ranks, saying the other Jews of long-standing in the town will be untouched if they do. Antisemites kill every Jew they can lay their hands on. And as Ibn Sa'ud drummed home to his Hebronite guests a year later, whoever did this did it in obscene violation of the rules and customary law of Islam regarding Jews.Nishidani (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- And by that logic all killings by Jews would relate to Judaism? I don't think so! --Ian Pitchford (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
survivors testimonies
- Ok. There are survivors (note events took place 80 years ago...) who explain that Zionist were targeted and not Jews. This is relevant given the main stream considers the contrary (so this is a controversy) but this is not far to be WP:PR if there is no 2nd source to point this out. This also a little bit WP:Undue. A few lines refering to all the testimonies would be enough. Ceedjee (talk) 06:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that Zionists were initially targeted, and Slonim, with great dignity, turned down the deal, is already reported earlier on the page. (One actually suspects that the horror his household went through relates to pure banditry, not opposition to Zionism, a banditry using the riot as an excuse to ransack the local banker's home for gold or money. Just a personal view). I have quite a lot of material on this actually, but with all the niggling administrative snafus and fracas have never got round to using it, material dealing with the tensions or rivalries between teh two groups. One must remind oneself that, whatever those tensions, reflected strongly in Kaplan's evidence, they have little weight in an article dealing with a violent massacre in which all those who were slaughtered were innocent victims of fanatics, Zionism or no Zionism. The mob killed all Jewish people they could lay their hands on, indiscriminately. The section, PR, is far too long and needs a strong précis. The essence of an encyclopedic article (rarely observed on these I/P pages, should be proper detail, duly weighted for relevance, precision of description and economy of style and outlay. We need to begin addressing this.Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Kaplan's testimony about relatively peaceful relations before the Zionist immigration are also already recorded in note 3, sourced to the Jewish Virtual Library article, and could be conserved by adding his name there talk
- Ceedjee. What is your opinion of 'The carnage had a deep impact on the Jewish community' in the lead? I've always thought it ugly. When I first read it I thought 'You kill 64-5 people and don't leave the survivors traumatized?'. It is so obvious that I fail to see why it is there. My principle with carnage, slaughters, pogroms is that of Raul Hilberg and classical historians. It is more effective to be precise, sparse in language, if one is to bring home with effect the nature of violence. There is no need to egg the pud.?Nishidani (talk) 06:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Nishidani,
- It is a hard question because it refers to a human drama...
- I don't feel at ease.
- I think what you write is perfectly correct. Such events always leave deep impact on a community.
- If we try to take distances with the events, I would say :
- are there(several) secondary WP:RS that point out this massacre was a particular one and that it left a deep impact on the Jewish community ?
- Please, note one important thing. I think here it refers less to the survivors (nobody care about them, as well as the victims... ! :-( ) but rather to the whole jewish community
- Concerning the '20 and '21riots, Tom Segev eg points out that Zionists were shocked also (not only but also !) because in a way it proved that even in Palestine, they were not secured, which in some way could harm the Zionist project.
- My suggestion would be to remove the sentence from the lead (per your argumentation) and only add it back (in the core of the article) if somebody can find secondary wp:rs where it is argued these events had particular consequences (in comparison with such other events).
- A typical exemple is Deir Yassin massacre. Many historians argue it was a banal one from the number of victims and even attrocity point of view (this is what they say, not me !) BUT it is extremelly important to explain the impact of Deir Yassin on Palestinians (of that time but also of today ! - with 2nd wp:rs) and also on the jewish and the international community.
- I hope my comments were not too cold. I don't mean to banalize any tragedy.
- Ceedjee (talk) 06:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ceedjee. What is your opinion of 'The carnage had a deep impact on the Jewish community' in the lead? I've always thought it ugly. When I first read it I thought 'You kill 64-5 people and don't leave the survivors traumatized?'. It is so obvious that I fail to see why it is there. My principle with carnage, slaughters, pogroms is that of Raul Hilberg and classical historians. It is more effective to be precise, sparse in language, if one is to bring home with effect the nature of violence. There is no need to egg the pud.?Nishidani (talk) 06:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, CJ that is a very sensible and sensitive reflection, not at all 'cold'. That particular massacre did have a very large impact on Jewish communit(ies) worldwide. Perhaps, probing my lingustic and conceptual prejudices, I dislike the word 'community' I find everywhere (when I heard it in English in my homeland in the 80s, as it was beginning to replace the word 'society', I turned up my nose, and still never use it, though my brother and sister do) as slightly nuanced to a myth of seamless consensus. I took it here as alluding also to the present 'community', being in the singular. It actually shocked more than the Jewish communities worldwide. Gentiles were no less shocked at the ominous signs of incipient mayhem, to gather from contemporary accounts. I think one could write, taking your suggestion as the model:-
This massacre, together with that of Safed, sent shock waves through Jewish communities in Palestine and across the world.
- The shock was twofold of course. One over the obscene barbarity characteristic of this massacre, and geostrategic, an awakened awareness of the risks and costs that would be born in expanding the Zionist project. I vaguely recall it being discussed as it hit hard home on a Jewish community in America, in Chaim Potok's novel The Chosen.I agree with you and Segev here. I've no particular 'animus' against the phrase other than regarding tone and style, and won't touch it, until it's been well discussed. One shouldn't run in like a bull in a China shop on these articles. I still do lament the fact that it is poorly written.
- p.s. Did you know that Ibn Sa'ud, when Hebronite notables made the hajj to Mecca in 1930, hauled them all over the coals, and gave them a roasting saying their behaviour to the Jews had been unspeakably atrocious, in violation of all norms, and more or less an insult to the Prophet? This harsh remonstration in part explains (other reasons were economic and natural shame about the violation of a deep code over the obligations of neighborliness)why in 1931 H.A.Cohen found several notables willing to assist a Jewish return to the town, which in fact did take place, lasting all too briefly.Nishidani (talk) 07:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- You've removed it on the grounds that it is not sourced, which is fair enough. But I don't know how often I have read that it did have a deep impact. I think I can find sources for it. I have restored the text in the form you suggested, as I haver rewritten it. After all, it did have a major impact and warrants mention in the lead. Hope you agree.Nishidani (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- no worry.
- I think such porcelan articles should be modified with high care indeed.
- But also they should be re-written.
- A solution is to discuss the structure, then to discuss what to put in each section of the structure, then to fill these sections. 100% with secondary wp:rs...
- Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- You've removed it on the grounds that it is not sourced, which is fair enough. But I don't know how often I have read that it did have a deep impact. I think I can find sources for it. I have restored the text in the form you suggested, as I haver rewritten it. After all, it did have a major impact and warrants mention in the lead. Hope you agree.Nishidani (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- You have an excellent record for defining structures, indeed a reputation for this in I/P Wiki circles. Without haste, then, perhaps you could eventually create one for this article as well. Everything of course according to wp:rs, you will certainly find no objections to that principle from me. Best Nishidani (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Why should I believe this?
in reality most who died were killed by their own Arab neighbours, not villagers from outside Hebron.
Where are the sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael1408 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
- http://www.tnr.com/story.html?id=0e100478-298c-438c-a994-e1800474ad19&p=1
- In 1929 Hebron massacre on 2011-05-25 02:59:20, 404 Not Found
- In 1929 Hebron massacre on 2011-06-02 03:41:40, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
ethnic cleansing cat
Brewcrewer, could you please provide reliable sources supporting the term "ethnic cleansing" being applied to the subject of the article? nableezy - 06:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Here's a few just to start: --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- You really should do more than google "hebron massacre" and "ethnic cleansing". Of the sources you gave, this is a blog, this does not once say that this event was "ethnic cleansing" (and if you even looked at what you are googling you would save yourself the embarrassment of citing a source that says The Zionist movement has lost its momentum and support since its fundamental tenet of ethnic cleansing has come under severe criticism, even among Jews themselves.) The Case for Israel isnt a reliable source, nor is this. I repeat my request, please provide reliable sources supporting the term "ethnic cleansing" being applied to the subject of the article. Thank you. nableezy - 06:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Should be removed on sight as an abuse of the term. There would be some logical grounds, and considerable RS support, if these dopey cats were introduced, to attach this one to several dozen pages, like Jerusalem, the Western Wall (Mughrabi Quarter), Yanun, Susia, and well, virtually anywhere in the areas under Israeli occupation, asserted in many RS, not least of them Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, 2006, or Baylis Thomas, The Dark Side of Zionism: Israel's Quest for Security Through Dominance, 2011 (who applies it to the whole project of Zionism.) Nishidani (talk) 07:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- You really should do more than google "hebron massacre" and "ethnic cleansing". Of the sources you gave, this is a blog, this does not once say that this event was "ethnic cleansing" (and if you even looked at what you are googling you would save yourself the embarrassment of citing a source that says The Zionist movement has lost its momentum and support since its fundamental tenet of ethnic cleansing has come under severe criticism, even among Jews themselves.) The Case for Israel isnt a reliable source, nor is this. I repeat my request, please provide reliable sources supporting the term "ethnic cleansing" being applied to the subject of the article. Thank you. nableezy - 06:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Recent sourcing fails basic RS criteria
a.* The Hebron Massacre of 1929: A Recently Revealed Letter of a Survivor This is from a blog, consisting in a private letter in family archives, translated by a consultant at the family's request, and posted here.
b.*(1)Jewish Telegraphic Agency September 12, 1929
- (2)Jewish Telegraphic Agency September 13, 1929
- (3)Jewish Telegraphic Agency October 20, 1929
- (4)Jewish Telegraphic Agency October 25, 1929
- (5) Eye Witnesses Describe Horrors of the Moslem Arabs’ Attacks at Hebron on Saturday, August 24.
These are all primary sources. Numerous historians dealing with newspaper accounts in the immediate aftermath are sceptical of what many of the articles report (that Cafferata was an antisemite, that the British were in cahoots, that the police only fired only occurred after the mob dissolved, that the Mufti has ordered the massacre, etc.etc.etc. Unless policy-based grounds can be adduced to justify their presence, they ought to be removed. Nishidani (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed. 1st sources cannot be used and blogs are not reliable. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
false rumors
This is silly, but a. false rumors is not exactly wonderful prose, and b. whether or not the rumors were false is irrelevant to their being what incited the violence. nableezy - 00:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'd like to point out that the days before the massacre, there were indeed fights between Arabs and Jews at Jerusalem that made 13 deaths (8 Jews / 5 Arabs) and 24 injured. So the rumor is not accurate but as all rumours based on some truth...
- Segev (2000), p.320 reports about a meeting between mukhtars and Cafferata with mukhtars the evening of that day; the days before the massacre :
- They had heard that Jews were slaughtering Arabs in Jerusalem; apparently the mufti was demanding they take action and threatened to fine them if they refused. Cafferata promised that evertyhing was now peaceful and instructed them to go home and stay there.
- Indeed Jerusalem had calmed down by that time. The day's deat amounted to eight Jews and five Arabs. Fifteen Jews and nine Arabs had been injured.
- Hébron is 40 km south of Jerusalem...
- ... Pluto2012 (talk) 10:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- (ec)It violates WP:NPOV but has some support from WP:RS, since several sources use the phrasing 'false rumours'. The problems are twofold. By choosing to write 'false' one takes sides. Reports from Jerusalem certainly inflamed Hebronites. One consisted of Arabs being killed by Jews, the other of Al Aqsa being desecrated. Arabs had been killed at Mea Shearim, and this was known in Hebron by that evening. Betar groups had proclaimed 'The Wall is Ours' before Al-Aqsa, but that was not 'desecration'. One assesses the facts to find the most neutral way of presenting them. To write 'false' would have the text asserrting as a truth, that the reports reaching Hebron of some Arab deaths in Jerusalem were untrue. That WP:NPOV requires us not to favour one narrative by adopting a judgemental 'false' is so obvious it stands out like dogs' balls. Nishidani (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- What about :
- (...) incited to violence by rumors coming from Jerusalem where clashes between Jews and Arabs had made 13 deaths.
- Pluto2012 (talk) 10:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- the verb 'incite' requires an agent as subject, which rumour (by rumours) is not except at Vergil, Aeneid Lib.4 monstrum horrendum ingens where it is famously apotheosized (aside from it being the default term in I/P discourse to describe any prelude to Palestinian violence!) Well, no hurry. It's hardly a three-pipe problem, but, . .I've just run out of cigarettes, and will have to defer a serious reply for an hour until provisions of my filtered "alternative oxygen" are secured! Nishidani (talk) 10:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- The rumours were that a massacre was taking place. This was incontrovertibly false. Which source disputes this? Ankh.Morpork 11:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Several sources say that. One just has to be very careful in handling sources on things like this, because most of them copy stuff. Only archival historians are trustworthy on matters like this.
- It was apparently Cafferata's evidence (and his version was challenged) as the only official eyewitness before the Investigating Commission that 'The Hebron disturbances started only when the report on the murdering of an isolated Arab family in the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem reached the town.' (Palestine Commission on the Disturbances of August 1929, H.M. Stationery Office, 1930 p.1039). The secondary source reporting this is Susan Silsby Boyle,Betrayal Of Palestine: The Story Of George Antonius, Westview Press, 2001 p.156, who specifies that rumour dealt with the Sheikh Oun family of Jerusalem.
- If this is a primary version by an eyewitness, it contradicts the meme that '(false) rumours of a massacre of Arabs' triggered events in Hebron.
- I've had an eye out for this since I came across it several years ago, and haven't used it because I'm not satisfied as yet, and still await further information. It's not clear how it interconnects, if at all, with the report that 2/3 Arabs were killed at Mea Shearim and this news arrived at Hebron. But knowing this does affect the way I assess edits that assume that the memes in many popular accounts are trustworthy. Given evidence like this, one cannot write false rumours, since some appear to be true. Reports of a 'massacre' were undoubtedly false, but the word 'massacre' to describe such killings may well reflect exaggerations and slipshod English usage in sources as much as anything.Nishidani (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- The rumours were that a massacre was taking place. This was incontrovertibly false. Which source disputes this? Ankh.Morpork 11:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- the verb 'incite' requires an agent as subject, which rumour (by rumours) is not except at Vergil, Aeneid Lib.4 monstrum horrendum ingens where it is famously apotheosized (aside from it being the default term in I/P discourse to describe any prelude to Palestinian violence!) Well, no hurry. It's hardly a three-pipe problem, but, . .I've just run out of cigarettes, and will have to defer a serious reply for an hour until provisions of my filtered "alternative oxygen" are secured! Nishidani (talk) 10:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- What about :
- (ec)It violates WP:NPOV but has some support from WP:RS, since several sources use the phrasing 'false rumours'. The problems are twofold. By choosing to write 'false' one takes sides. Reports from Jerusalem certainly inflamed Hebronites. One consisted of Arabs being killed by Jews, the other of Al Aqsa being desecrated. Arabs had been killed at Mea Shearim, and this was known in Hebron by that evening. Betar groups had proclaimed 'The Wall is Ours' before Al-Aqsa, but that was not 'desecration'. One assesses the facts to find the most neutral way of presenting them. To write 'false' would have the text asserrting as a truth, that the reports reaching Hebron of some Arab deaths in Jerusalem were untrue. That WP:NPOV requires us not to favour one narrative by adopting a judgemental 'false' is so obvious it stands out like dogs' balls. Nishidani (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Ill repeat the second part of what I wrote in the hopes that somebody can actually respond to it: whether or not the rumors were false is irrelevant to their being what incited the violence. nableezy - 14:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Disagree with your position. Whether the rumors are false or not appears quite relevant and if properly sourced should not be removed. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's clearly relevant to the massacre and it's overall context. Rumors are not inherently false and if the rumors turned out to be true, it would affect the entire context of this event. Therefore, it is important to label the rumors as false. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- No. That violates WP:NPOV. 'false' constitutes a subjective judgement on the nature of the reports. If reports said 2/3 Arabs were killed in Mea Shearim, that members of the Oun family were murdered in Jerusalem the day before, and reports like this reached Hebron (as sources testify) we cannot say those reports were false. Others may have been. There is simply no argument here, in respect to what we are obligated to comply with per WP:NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Can yall try to actually read what you are responding to? whether or not the rumors were false is irrelevant to their being what incited the violence. Can somebody explain how it is relevant? nableezy - 17:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- The answer is obvious. Of course 'false' is irrelevant (as that line stands). But so is the line, as I pointed out above. Your have three problems with that line.
Arabs incited to violence by false rumors that Jews were massacring Arabs in Jerusalem
- (a)'Rumours' do not 'incite', they get people 'excited', 'stirred up'. So even grammatically the phrasing is dumb. It's like saying 'instigated to violence by hearsay'. Ugh!
- (b) 'false' is judgemental, it violates wikipedia's neutral narrative voice. It affirms that the (true) reports among many that arrived in Hebron about the actual deaths of Arabs in Jerusalem the day before were false.
- (c) 'massacring'. Sources say that (Laurens 2:174). Other sources say word reached Hebron that in specific incidents Arabs had been murdered in Jerusalem (true). I.e. reports of a massacre, and reports of actual killings, reached Hebron, real incidents and figments of imaginations gone wild. We cannot bundle up both and brand by association the true reports as false, simply because the massacre reports were false. (As I write that I imagine some editors thinking.'There Nishidani goes, trying to mitigate the nature of the violence by saying it was kicked off in part as a fair retaliation for Arab deaths'. No: the problem is the conflict in sources, and to hell with the consequences that such complications bring). In Laurens' account, a full week before the riots, both Jewish and Arab communities had been racked by rumours since the 18th: the Jewish community heard rumours that they were about to be massacred, the Arab community that the Haram would be subject to an assault by Jews. These rumours circulated for a week before anything happened. Journalists were forbidden to publish such reports, so hearsay took over.Nishidani (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC):::
- Solution. Remove the word 'false' and this problem dissolves. Or conversely, retain it with more context so that what all sources report is completely covered.
Arabs, swept up by conflicting reports: news of Arabs murdered in Jerusalem, reports that the Haram would be assaulted and a false rumour that Jews had massacred Arabs, responded with a vicious pogrom. Nishidani (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- If the rumors were that a massacre was taking place, they were false but if we refer to Segev the rumors were NOT that a massacre was taking place.
- I add that by definitions rumors are vague so nobody can really say what they were, even the protagonists...
- So I think that it is better by far just to state there were rumors and to give facts about the events they reported :
- Arabs incited to violence by rumors coming from Jerusalem where clashed between Jews and Arabs had made 13 deaths.
- ... Pluto2012 (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- A la fin de l'après-midi du 23 août, les premières nouvelles des événements de Jérusalem arrivent par la route, avec toujours la même accusation de massacre d'Arabes par les Juifs.' (Laurens 2:174)Nishidani (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Does "massacre" have identical meaning in English and French? Dlv999 (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- It does. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry lads, busy pimping. As Pluto has it. On need only think of Bagatelles pour un massacre,Louis Ferdinand Céline's utterly repulsive, if linguistically fascinating, anti-semitic outpouring on the eve of the Holocaust, or Eugène Delacroix ’s Scène des massacres de Scio.Nishidani (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- It does. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Does "massacre" have identical meaning in English and French? Dlv999 (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- A la fin de l'après-midi du 23 août, les premières nouvelles des événements de Jérusalem arrivent par la route, avec toujours la même accusation de massacre d'Arabes par les Juifs.' (Laurens 2:174)Nishidani (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Going back to basics for a moment here. The current article states that the riots were caused " by Arabs incited to violence by false rumors that Jews were massacring Arabs in Jerusalem " using Segev (2000) pp319 as the citation. However Segev (2000) pp319 does not say there were rumours of massacres, he states that passengers returning from Jerusalem after 3pm on the 23rd "spoke of what was going on there, and the rumour that Jews were killing Arabs spread quickly". Furthermore, far from supporting the claim that the rumours were false, Segev himself reports the killing of 2/3 Arabs at 12:00 12:30 that day in Jerusalem (pp215). the citation does not support the "massacre" claim and actually contradicts the "false" claim. Dlv999 (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Segev is not the only possible source. Laurens 2:174 specifically speaks of rumours of massacres by Jews. Rumours played a large roll in the violence. The rumours exploded, all historians agree, in the days following Betar's march to the Wall, which violated agreements with the authorities, transformed a religious ceremony (anniversary of the destruction of the Temple) into a political event claiming property rights, singing the Hatikvah, and shouting 'The Wall is Ours' on the 15th. There's your beloved 'incitement'. The violence on the 23rd in Jerusalem was however initiated by Arabs on the basis of the febrile rumours churned out over the preceding week. What then happened, 2 Arabs killed in Mea Shearim, etc., fed into the rumour network around Hebron. This is what the Shaw Report says: it never speaks of 'false' rumours (at that time 'rumour' was probably understood to imply 'false' - since then we have lost touch with such niceties)
reports as one received from Hebron to the effect that rumours were being spread among the ·Arabs that the Jews intended to attack the Mosque of Al-Aqsa on the 23rd of August.p.58
some of the rumours appearing in the Hebrew Press and others which were at that time current to the effect that there would be trouble on the following day.p.59
On the occasion ·of the regrettable riot which occurred yesterday, many rumours and reports of various kinds have spread to the effect that Government had enlisted and armed certain Jews; that they had enrolled Jewish ex-soldiers who had served in the great War and that Government forces were firing at Arabs exclusively.'p.67 al Husayni and the nobles in amanifesto issued on the 24th denying the truth of these rumours in their community
The last line of argument employed before us in this part of the case was that the rumours which were current throughout Palestine between the 18th and 23rd of August are evidence that the outbreak which occurred on the latter date was premeditated and had been organized either by the Palestine Arab Executive or by the agents of that body. We are satisfied that rumours were widespread, but we are unable to attach importance to them as evidence of premeditation. Every rumour which was brought to our notice first became current after the demonstrations at the Wailing Wall had taken place. In a country with a population largely illiterate, where most news passes by word of mouth, it is more than likely that exaggerated accounts were disseminated of the incidents of both the 15th and 16th of August p.80
That so many of the rumours took the forin that· there ·would be· trouble in Jerusalem on the 23rd of August is not remarkable, since it isnotorious that a Moslem Sabbath, being a day when fellaheen in the. normal course come to Jerusalem in large numbers, is always the most likely occasion for such events as the rumours foretold.p.94
Conclusions 23. The rumours which were current in Palestine immediately before the 23rd of August were the natural consequence of the two demonstrations on the 15th and 16th of thiat month.p.160 Nishidani (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Sources
Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs is a reliable source. It is used on numerous other articles. Please explain why it is not allowed here. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't really understand why you would think the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs is a reliable source for the history of Palestine in 1929 before the creation of the State of Israel. Do you also think the Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs is a reliable source for the history of Palestine ? How about the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China for the history of post-1949 China ? None of these are the kind of high quality sources, sources that meet the requirements of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, that should be used to write about history. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Altering text and adding sources
I would like to change this part of the article: "Cases of mutilation and torture were reported in the Jewish press (ref name=segev/)" to "Many cases of torture, rape, and mutilation were reported,(ref name=segev/)(Norman Rose, "A Senseless, Squalid War: Voices from Palestine 1945-1948", The Bodley Head, London, 2009. (p. 35))(ref name=forward>"Jewish News, Jewish Newspapers - Forward.com". Web.archive.org. 15 May 2006. Retrieved 23 January 2013.)("Hebron". Human Rights Watch. Retrieved 23 January 2013.)(. Princeton University Press. 2008. p. 232. Retrieved 23 January 2013. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help))" Are there any objections? --68.6.227.26 (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- The book of Rose does not support either torture, or rape, or mutilation. The archived Forward editorial by unnamed persons is below the radar for reliability. Krämer's book says "killing and raping men, women and children", which at least supports one of the three claims. There is nothing here to challenge what appears in the very detailed and balanced account of Segev. But that is not well reported either. Segev is clear that the claims of rape, mutilation and torture came from the Jews of Hebron, not just from the Jewish press, see p324. Zero 08:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't trying to challenge Segev, only to alter the wording and add more sources. Do you think the text should be altered to "Many cases of torture, rape, and mutilation were reported" and that it should be sourced by Segev, Krämer, and Human Rights Watch? --68.6.227.26 (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- The HRW source is not reliable. Although HRW might be reliable for some modern things, it has no expertise regarding history of decades before it was founded. In any case you can see that they give their source as Segev. Krämer also gives Segev as a source, together with a German book that I don't have (i.e., no primary sources, so Krämer did not do an independent investigation). What we should do is identify the best source (clearly Segev, which is based on primary sources and not contradicted by other sources of similar quality), and report what it says precisely. I have now attempted to do that. Zero 23:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- The HRW source is not reliable. Although HRW might be reliable for some modern things, it has no expertise regarding history of decades before it was founded. In any case you can see that they give their source as Segev. Krämer also gives Segev as a source, together with a German book that I don't have (i.e., no primary sources, so Krämer did not do an independent investigation). What we should do is identify the best source (clearly Segev, which is based on primary sources and not contradicted by other sources of similar quality), and report what it says precisely. I have now attempted to do that. Zero 23:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't trying to challenge Segev, only to alter the wording and add more sources. Do you think the text should be altered to "Many cases of torture, rape, and mutilation were reported" and that it should be sourced by Segev, Krämer, and Human Rights Watch? --68.6.227.26 (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Reliability of pictures
Hi IranitGreenberg,
The photography that you add is very "strong" but the website from which you got it is not reliable. What proves this picture is really the one of the time and of a Jewish children who would have survived the massacre ? What proves it is not a fake ? (What strange doctors those who leave such an injury being photographed without healing it...) Pluto2012 (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. Sorry if I disturbed you. She was already dead when the picture was taken. The source (not me) says "JEWISH VICTIM OF ARAB RIOTS IN HEBRON, 1929". It's a famous picture about this event, it can be seen in other places: here, here and here. If you want I can replace the image with the isracast source. After all, the picture was taken more than 83 years ago, therefore it has free license.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- This is licence free, not a problem.
- Is there no information about both these pictures : who took them, where and when precisely, ... ?
- Pluto2012 (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to provide reliable information in a neutral manner, not to provoke emotions in the reader. So basically I don't care if it is real or not, it doesn't belong here. Zero 13:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to provoke emotions to anyone. I'm just adding a famous photo of the massacre. It would be like asking for this image to be removed because some people "may be emotionally provoked". With the same criteria we should remove all photos of injured people. See Misplaced Pages:Graphic and potentially disturbing images and WP:Disturbing or upsetting content. My understanding is that there's no requirement for images to come from commons. Commons is designed to host images that are in the public domain or are licensed so that anyone can modify and distribute them.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- The emotive weight are not the same at all. We don't even see Rachel Corrie in the picture that you talk about. In this article, there are numerous pictures of injured people and survivors. This one is "terrible" and may be more appropriate to Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict. Pluto2012 (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- What media coverage has do do with a child killed in Hebron in 1929? Yes, it's "terrible" just like this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one and this picture where you clearly see Rachel Corrie bleeding to death after been stamped by a bulldozer. We can't censor pictures because they are "ugly" or "shocking". For example, the discussion in this article was about showing both sides proportionally, not excluding images because they are disturbing or something.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- What dont you understand about your topic ban? Or the explicit warning to stop editing this page? nableezy - 14:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- What media coverage has do do with a child killed in Hebron in 1929? Yes, it's "terrible" just like this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one and this picture where you clearly see Rachel Corrie bleeding to death after been stamped by a bulldozer. We can't censor pictures because they are "ugly" or "shocking". For example, the discussion in this article was about showing both sides proportionally, not excluding images because they are disturbing or something.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- The emotive weight are not the same at all. We don't even see Rachel Corrie in the picture that you talk about. In this article, there are numerous pictures of injured people and survivors. This one is "terrible" and may be more appropriate to Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict. Pluto2012 (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok. I am in favour of removing this picture. Pluto2012 (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- I am opposed. Misplaced Pages is not censored. There are comparable photos at Sabra and Shatila massacre or My Lai Massacre All Rows4 (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Good Article Recommendation?
Seems very balanced and well crafted (as well as concise), especially when considering the nature of the subject matter and its potential to arouse controversy. 81.158.173.241 (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
My bad. Found it.
"bloodthirsty Arabs"... WOW
No bias there.
In the 2nd paragraph, "the event became 'a central symbol of Jewish persecution at the hands of bloodthirsty Arabs'".
Misplaced Pages has become a total joke. Disestablishmentarianism 17:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixoplic (talk • contribs) I AGREE! --Monochrome_Monitor 01:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- You do realize that is the image that was given (as in, "The Jews are being persecuted by bloodthirsty Arabs, please help us") and not a factual description, right? I'm afraid you both have some reading comprehension skills lacunes combined with a confirmation bias. TheMaskedTom (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Edit warring, 1R
Wlglunight93 You have just broken the ARBPIA rule on 1R for articles related to the I/P area.
- (1) here
- (2) here, which was, worse still, an automatic revert of another editor on sight, without examining the edit, which was a compromise
- (3) you then made a partial rerevert, which admitted in part that your second revert was wrong
This is edit-warring, without regard to thee substance, and you admit you are unfamiliar with the archives, with which you should familiarize yourself before jumping into a text. Thirdly, you hav not deigned to make an argument for your change ('rumour' vs 'false rumour' has also been discussed in these articles. Had you takn th care to look at this talk page, you would have seen the problem exhaustively analysed just above this section. Neglecting that discussion and insisting on your own preferred term means you are ignoring an established consensus. 'Rumours' were both false and true: the rumour an Arab had been killed in Jerusalem was true, the rumour Beitar groups were claiming a right to take over the Temple Mount reflected Beitar's own challenges in a demonstration, and therefore were not 'false'. Rumours that Jews were massacring Arabs were completely 'false'. Therefore you cannot apply the word 'false' to 'rumours' for that week, because it falsifies history by bundling several distinct pieces of gossip up into one, and treating a 'true' report with a 'false' report.Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Ok. I understand. But with the same criteria, you also broke 1RR: This could be considered your first revert because you are removing content that was there before you came. This is your second revert. Don't worry, I don't care about technicalities. I'm more interested in arguments. I just reverted myself.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- No, not quite. Please read the relevant policy pages for clarification. You did those reverts within 24 hours, my two are separated by a week. One should worry about technicalities (not of course just to report people, that is, frankly vile, unless there is persistent bad faith, which is not the case in this small contretemps, clarly based on unfamiliarity with wiki). I appreciate the courtesy you have displayed here. Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Unclear sentence
Hillel Cohen frames his recent narrative of the incident in terms of the murder of the Jaffa Awan family by a Jewish police constable called Simcha Hinkis.
I'm afraid I don't really understand the meaning of this sentence. Is it really useful there? From what I understood, it means "Hillel Cohen centers his story around the murder Hinkis." Why is that relevant? Cohen is not mentioned in the paragraph and I don't think it adds anything to it. There is no date to the murder, no details, it could imply that it is cause of the rumours but that is not proof and I don't feel the source adds anything to that. Does anyone have thoughts on this? TheMaskedTom (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Arab casualties
I think the article could mention that none of the Arab casualties in Hebron were inflicted by Jews. In fact, the matter of lumping attackers and victims together was discussed at length during the inquiry into the riots and found to be misleading. Here is a transcript extract from the Palestine Commission of Inquiry meeting dated 18th November, 1929 - Page 135-137. Harry Luke, who served as Officer Administrating the Government until the High Commissioner returned from leave on the morning of the 29th August, is being questioned by Sir Boyd Merriman.
- "---A. There are a number of under-statements in these bulletins. I thought I made that clear in one of my general answers to one of your questions that they were intended to be covering statements such as some of those in the War were intended to reassure people, and were not full statement of what had occurred. It is not a history. Q. May I suggest this difference between the two. In this case you had the population at home which was not on the scene of action, and you had an enemy also at home to whom you did not wish to give information. Here you had everybody on the spot. There is that difference, is there not? ---A. There is that difference, but it was in our opinion necessary to make these bulletins as reassuring as possible. The time for full publication of all the facts could come later. These things we could not get out from day to day. That was not intended to deprive the people of the news, but to give them a sort of news which would not make the feeling in the country and tension greater. That is my explanation for under-statements which I freely admit probably did take place. Q.You say the actual fact about Hebron was this, was it not, that Hebron was, so far as the inhabitants were concerned, quite plainly nothing but this, a butchery of Jews, not a single one of whom apparently wounded an Arab? ---A. I subscribe to that. Q. And that the casualties were the casualties inflicted by Mr. Cafferata in the lower part of the town? ---A. By the government. Q. By Mr. Cafferata and anybody who assisted him? A. Yes, that is so. Q. Would you tell me whether there was any legitimate object in lumping the Jerusalem and Hebron casualties together? Q. I quite agree that it shows the Hebron attack was an Arab attack, but it also shows - just turn back to bulletin No. 1 - it also shows that there was a considerable number of Moslems killed, 8 killed and 10 wounded, without stating that those were not killed by Jews at all, but were killed by the Police after the massacre had occurred? ---A. Yes, as I said before these statements did not profess to be complete chronologies of what took place." --ארינמל (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Jewish demonstration
I would also like to correct the following sentence "In mid-August 1929, hundreds of Jewish nationalists marched to the Western Wall in Jerusalem shouting slogans such as The Wall is Ours and raising the Jewish national flag." The following communique by Luke was presented at the same meeting of the Inquiry Commission as evidence : "On the 15th August during the Fast commemorating the destruction of the Temple, in addition to the large number of Jews who proceeded in the ordinary way to the wall to worship, some hundreds of young Jews exercised their right of access for purposes not confined to the usual practice of prayer, but were associated with the making of a speech and the raising of a flag." Luke adds that "There is another matter which is not mentioned. The crowd also sang the Hatikvah" --ארינמל (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- In both cases, this is a primary source, giving a government version, and the testimony of one person. One generally needs a secondary source, which takes in not only a single official document, but all of the available evidence for the event that has come to light. As to the Betar chanting at the Wailing Wall, dozens of secondary sources analyse that.Nishidani (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the two Western Wall descriptions are consistent. Two independent truthful witnesses could easily give these two descriptions. About the Hebron massacre, this testimony is in line with everything I remember reading, but it should be possible to find a secondary source. Zero 12:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Benny Morris
The article cites Benny Morris correctly: Israeli historian Benny Morris has challenged traditional accounts that most survivors were saved by Arab families. He wrote, that "in fact, most were rescued by British police intervention and by the fact that many Jews successfully fended off their assailants for long hours – though to be sure, Arab neighbors did save several families". (One-State, Two-States). However, in his book "Righteous Victims" he wrote "Hundreds of Jews were saved by Arab neighbors (and, at a later stage, after Cafferatta had reimposed his authority, by Arab policemen)." (p114). The contradiction is obvious and I don't see why we should cite just one of these sources. I believe that the reason for the difference is that between these two books Morris had his political conversion and started writing unreliable polemics; but that's just my opinion. What to do? Zero 11:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Cite both of his statements. One could add Segev's remark in One Palestine(p.326) that 'Jewish History records very few cases of a massive rescue of this dimension,’ if you can confirm that. I read it in Kathleen Kern As Resident Aliens: Christian Peacemaker Teams in the West Bank, 1995-2005 Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2010 p.17, and that notes that the Sefer Hevron gives the relevant numbers and details in lists. I knew that, but not the hearsay she records of settlers in Hebron buying up all copies of the book and burning them, which could, were it true, only be motivated by a desire to erase the primary source on the Arab rescue (whatever the facts) Nishidani (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Segev wrote as follows: "Most of Hebron's Jews were saved because Arabs hid them in their homes. The community confirmed this, writing, "Had it not been for a few Arab families not a Jewish soul would have remained in Hebron." The Zionist Archives preserves lists of Hebron Jews who were saved by Arabs; one list contains 435 names Over two-thirds of the community, then, found refuge in twenty-eight Arab homes, some of which took in dozens of Jews "Arabs were hurt defending their neighbors," one Jew testified afterward. ... Some of the saviors may have expected a reward in exchange for their help. Still, most saved the Jews out of human decency, putting themselves at risk, acting in the tradition of hospitality ... In any case, Jewish history records very few cases of a mass rescue of this dimension." (pp 325–326). Segev cites several Hebrew sources and files in the Central Zionist Archives. Incidentally, it is quite misleading to link Morris to New historians in connection with something he wrote after turning his back on that group. Zero 02:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- There are several aspects of that event not adequately dealt with in the available sources. When I studied the case a decade ago, it was quite apparent from numerous stray bits of circumstantial evidence that the riot was very much influenced by a very large influx of villagers from outside Hebron into the town. That doesn't absolve local responsibilities of course, but sociologically it makes sense, since you had significant numbers of townbship neighbours rushing to defend people with whom they had long liens of friendship. The other thing is the role of peasant debt and banking: no one even explores this possibility, though it often lay behind massacres (the Damascus blood libel). In any case, you're right about BM linked to New Historian. After his turn, he let enmity get the better of archives and their austere interpretation. Unless a source points out the contradiction, there's nothing one can do but merely juxtapose the contradiction, and then add the info from Segev that the Sefer hevron and Zionist archives confirm Morris's earlier view. Go ahead, by all means.Nishidani (talk) 06:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that the villagers were indebted to Jews? Hebronite Jews were quite poor. There were only 3 money lenders among 757 Jewish residents in 1918, and the community owned neither land nor houses outside of the small ghetto, which was also mostly mortgaged. Regarding the Arab rescuers- it appears to be widely overlooked that some, if not most, were landlords saving their own tenants. Some of the rescuers also partook in the plunder. --ארינמל (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- There are several aspects of that event not adequately dealt with in the available sources. When I studied the case a decade ago, it was quite apparent from numerous stray bits of circumstantial evidence that the riot was very much influenced by a very large influx of villagers from outside Hebron into the town. That doesn't absolve local responsibilities of course, but sociologically it makes sense, since you had significant numbers of townbship neighbours rushing to defend people with whom they had long liens of friendship. The other thing is the role of peasant debt and banking: no one even explores this possibility, though it often lay behind massacres (the Damascus blood libel). In any case, you're right about BM linked to New Historian. After his turn, he let enmity get the better of archives and their austere interpretation. Unless a source points out the contradiction, there's nothing one can do but merely juxtapose the contradiction, and then add the info from Segev that the Sefer hevron and Zionist archives confirm Morris's earlier view. Go ahead, by all means.Nishidani (talk) 06:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Segev wrote as follows: "Most of Hebron's Jews were saved because Arabs hid them in their homes. The community confirmed this, writing, "Had it not been for a few Arab families not a Jewish soul would have remained in Hebron." The Zionist Archives preserves lists of Hebron Jews who were saved by Arabs; one list contains 435 names Over two-thirds of the community, then, found refuge in twenty-eight Arab homes, some of which took in dozens of Jews "Arabs were hurt defending their neighbors," one Jew testified afterward. ... Some of the saviors may have expected a reward in exchange for their help. Still, most saved the Jews out of human decency, putting themselves at risk, acting in the tradition of hospitality ... In any case, Jewish history records very few cases of a mass rescue of this dimension." (pp 325–326). Segev cites several Hebrew sources and files in the Central Zionist Archives. Incidentally, it is quite misleading to link Morris to New historians in connection with something he wrote after turning his back on that group. Zero 02:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1929 Hebron massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110816165944/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1145961357122&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1145961357122&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I just want to register my opinion that this page is a disgrace. A horrible massacre of Jews is hardly mentioned or detailed, with paragraph after paragraph minimizing, "explaining", and excusing it. Someone's done a lot of nasty work here.Nelamm (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Eviction versus evacuation edit request
I am new here (on this page) and I am not sure if this has already been discussed, so pardon me if it has, but my reading of the sources brings me to the understanding that the Jews of Hebron were not "evacuated" by the British, which implies a kind of "rescue," but rather were "evicted" which means more like what happened, they were kicked out. I think the use of the word 'evicted' would be more accurate here, and I am requesting this change. I noticed one other problem. The shore description says "Arabs residents" and it should say "Arab residents." That's all for now. DaringDonna (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- Evacuated is correct. (Would you want to remain among the population that just massacred you?) Anyway you have to bring a reliable source for changes like that. Can you still see "Arabs residents"; I can't find it. Zero 18:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- Even though in theory you are right, and many people would probably want to leave Hevron after such a horrible event, the fact is that many that survived wanted to stay, since Jews had a religious connection to the city. What they would have preferred would have been better police protection and swift punishment to the perpetrators of the crimes. But you are correct, this needs a source. I will look for one. No promises. As far as the short description is concerned, you need to turn this feature on to see it. Go to your preferences, then to Gadgets, and all the way on the bottom select the box under "testing and development" that says "Show page description beneath the page title (not compatible with Page assessments gadget)". Be sure to save. then you can see the short description in the upper left side of the article. DaringDonna (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- I fixed the short description.Selfstudier (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- Even though in theory you are right, and many people would probably want to leave Hevron after such a horrible event, the fact is that many that survived wanted to stay, since Jews had a religious connection to the city. What they would have preferred would have been better police protection and swift punishment to the perpetrators of the crimes. But you are correct, this needs a source. I will look for one. No promises. As far as the short description is concerned, you need to turn this feature on to see it. Go to your preferences, then to Gadgets, and all the way on the bottom select the box under "testing and development" that says "Show page description beneath the page title (not compatible with Page assessments gadget)". Be sure to save. then you can see the short description in the upper left side of the article. DaringDonna (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Expelled versus 'evacuated'
I am requesting that the word "evacuated" be replaced by either the word "expelled" or "evicted" in the following sentence in the article: Soon after, all Hebron's Jews were evacuated by the British authorities. Many returned in 1931, but almost all were evacuated at the outbreak of the 1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine. in both occurrences of the word. Here is one source: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/hebron-riots-1929-consequences-lessons/ Here is the quote from the source: "But, in the years before the 1967 Arab–Israeli war, the area was exclusively Arab because the Jews had been expelled. In some cases, as in Hebron, the expulsion was accomplished through mass murder." — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaringDonna (talk • contribs) 06:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- The events are well described in sources. The decisions to evacuate them was based on security grounds, and they went in 1936, save for the milkman, of their own will after listening to their elders.Nishidani (talk) 08:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- "evacuated by the British authorities" is a precise statement of what actually happened according to multiple detailed sources, and there is no cause to change it. Besides that, neocons like Douglas Feith are not reliable sources. I also wonder why you think your source is adequate for changing the description of 1936 events that your source claims didn't happen (it says that no Jews lived in Hebron from 1929 to 1967). Zero 09:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- No doubt there are quite a few sources in Hebrew about the most remarkable Yaakov ben Shalom Ezra, who refused to take the Brits' advice in 1936, and stayed on, until either late 1947 or early 1948. He ran a dairy with his son, and, thoughout those 12 years, no Arab in Hebron appears to have harassed them. He deserves an article.13:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Nishidani (talk)
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Palestine-related articles
- High-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- B-Class Israel-related articles
- High-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- B-Class Jewish history-related articles
- Low-importance Jewish history-related articles
- WikiProject Jewish history articles
- B-Class Death articles
- Mid-importance Death articles
- Unassessed British Empire articles
- Unknown-importance British Empire articles
- All WikiProject British Empire pages
- Selected anniversaries (August 2008)
- Selected anniversaries (August 2009)
- Selected anniversaries (August 2010)
- Selected anniversaries (August 2013)
- Selected anniversaries (August 2016)
- Selected anniversaries (August 2019)