Talk:Qibya massacre

Links and definition of terrorism

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

• Israeli perspective

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

• [1]
• [2]

• [3]

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

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

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

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

Flawed logic. "All the Allies" were not terrorists, only the ones who ordered the bombings of civilians. As was the President who dropped the first two atomic bombs on Japanese cities. That is terrorism, the use of extreme force against defenceless civilians.

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

---

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

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

---

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

Not true. Read Palestinian infiltration for some explanations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jordanian infiltrators Jordanians on Jordanian territory is not infiltrating.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

insert this:

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

And this:

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

On the matter of some facts:

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

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

---

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

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

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

Shocking bias from the title onwards

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

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

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

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

Learn to spell "propaganda" before you make such assertions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.105.31.201 (talk) 06:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is silly. It suggests that the Israelis initiated the massacre due to Israeli aggression in Jordan... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.62.21 (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The killing of 40+ unarmed civilians, mostly women and children, is a massacre, not an "incident" Unless of course, you don't count the victims as human beings...

If the article can be called propaganda - which I do not believe it can - then it is Israeli propaganda. There is no reference to this massacre being a war crime, which it certainly was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.105.102 (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Why call the arabs "PALESTINIANS" prior to 1967??

This article references to "palestinians" (see the picture) while this is not true, prior to 1967, that termed was not used for arab population in the area —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.68.83.111 (talk) 09:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Dumb Question

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

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

---

It is a dumb question because it ignors the circumstances.

Evacuation?

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

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

In addition.

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

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

Israelis killed

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

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

Article title

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

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

We are not looking for neutral, we are looking for truth. The killing of 40+ civilians by soldiers is a massacre. Put your whitewash away... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billyshiverstick (talk • contribs) 03:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Lol no, this is wikipedia, we look for neutral. 69.207.192.209 (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Operation Shoshana

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

Improvement

Context

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

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

Alithien 13:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards, Alithien/ceedjee

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

You write:-

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

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

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

intro debate

i really don't think that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Nishidani,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other proposal

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

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

Alithien 17:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Jaakobou comments

controversed policy of systematical reprisal still applied today by Israel.

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

Israel officialy decided to stop it ?

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

Alithien 17:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alithien's suggestion runs like this:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

intro debate II

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

i really don't think that:

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

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

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

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

The Lead link says:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

Primary and secondary sources

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

Additional information and material

• "the cease fire line (or the border) didn't follow any natural topology and sometimes even crossed villages"

source : Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, pp.285-286 in the French version.

justification : the topology of this border is relevant to understand why the infiltrations arose. Another point is also that the 1948 Palestinian refugees wanted to go back home but this is already in the article.

• "Between 1949 and 1954, there were between 10,000 and 15,000 borders incidents".

source : Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, pp.285-286 in the French version.

justification : I think it is more relevant to give this number from a secondary source (this is huge !) than citing some incursions from one side or the other from UN discussions. I think this number can give the reader a picture of the situation.

• "The economical context. Between 1949 and 1952 Israel welcomed 700,000 new immigrants and the Israeli population doubled. This was a major expense for Israel. Incidents cost Israel 0.15% of the State budget"

source : Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, p.298 in the French version.

justification : additionally to the fact it is given by Morris, this information is relevant because Israel had to face hard economical difficulties (to welcome immigrants) and any cost is a too high cost. Another information that could be added is that for the same reason Israel demobilized most of his army. I didn't add it in the French version but why not. I didn't consider it really relevant because there were no real military risk.

• "Israel governement expected to install the new immigrants at the borders (in the former villages left by PAlestinians). The borders incidents were harmful to the project due to the insecurity they generated there."

source : Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, pp.285-286 in the French version.

justification : readers could wonder why Israel decided to fight incursions most of the time peaceful.

• "Jordan honnestly tried to stop incursions but without success"

source : Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, pp.285-286 in the French version.

justification : maybe UN discussions claimed the contrary but it was not successful. (This is obvious with 10,000 to 15,000 borders incidents). It is also important to point out Jordan tried to stop the incursions because Qibya arose in territories under its control.

• "Israeli answer was military. Moshe Dayan deployed troops at the borders with permission of fire. Between 1949 and 1956, between 2700 and 5000 infiltrators -usually not armed- were shot".

source : Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, pp.285-286 in the French version.

justification : I think this is critical information. Here, I would suggest to use exactly Morris words and therefore we would need an English version of Victim(e)s. It is critical because it is the beginning of the controverse. The Israeli answer to the matter was the use of force (reprisals).

Let me get this clear, then Alithien. For every discussion of a terrorist incident between Arabs and Israelis, you are implicitly arguing that each respective article should note (1) lack of border definition (2) huge infilitration from hostile Arab neighbours (3) Israel's huge costs in bearing the accommodation and settlement of 700,000 foreigners into land it partially was granted and land it conquered in 1948 and that (4) two books by one historian, Benny Morris, should be fundamental to that picture?

(1) Any historian whose margin of error is 33% on figures cannot be used. If Morris, or whoever uses him, cannot clarify the huge disparity between 10,000 and 15,000, and (b) cannot in either of those figures make an exact breakdown of (i) infiltration by marauders (bandits with no ideological bent, intent on robbing Arabs or Jews, as was traditional) (ii) terrorists (iii) villagers attempting to return to their ancestral lands (iv) nomads such as Bedouin or traditional shepherds whose high and lowland transhumance grazing culture did not recognize borders (v) smugglers following their age old trade of dodging customs to cut deals (vi)relatives trying to sneak through new boundaries that prior to these dates did not exist (Moshe Dayan attests to this in his autobiography) in order to reunite (vii) children wandering into no man's land and a dozen other typologies existing in the literature, then he is unusable in this context.(c) that Israel had to accommodate 700,000 foreigners partially on Arab land is no excuse for a massacre. Incidents cost 0.5% of the Israeli budget? Then look at the figures for military expenditures in the same period in the Israeli budget and reflect on their significance. 0.5% of a national budget is peanuts, and, excuse me, but you are at great risk of being laughed at if you suggest that the Qibya raid was part of a series of measures directed by the Minister of Finance to tighten up fiscal waste.

(2)It is precisely for these reasons that Morris's figure is unusable, and the UN figures, not contested, relevant, because they refer to specific complaints laid by Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt about violation of borders. These complaints were investigated, and documentation exists in the form of reports of each specific complaint. These are primary sources, based on neutral observers mediating between parties to a conflict. Secondly, Qibya is a specific event of Israel's army, under private command from Ben Gurion (of which much of the cabinet was not fully informed) to inflict massive retaliation on a civilian population as retribution for the death of a woman and two children by 'taking out' a Jordanian village. Contextually therefore, unless you wish to overload the page with a large historical discussion of the background of the Israeli-Arab problem, the event has to be understood as specifically an action by Israel against Jordan. The Jordanian authorities, as distinct from those in Syria and Egypt, had a long publicly hidden but secret series of encounters, agreements and mediations dating back to the early 1920s. The Jordanian king's position is quite distinct from that of the Syrian authorities (though briefly Syria did offer a comprehensive peace settlement in 1950-1951), being a throne under internal pressure, with a large geopolitical threat to the West. He negotiated personally with many Israeli authorities, and did what he could to limit any actions coming from activities by his subjects or refugees that might have provided Israel with a pretext to take more territory. He was perfectly aware that in the original Zionist understanding of the Balfour declaration, Palestine included Transjordan, his own kingdom, and being a realist, compromised consistently to avoid a debacle.

You write:'Moshe Dayan deployed troops at the borders with permission of fire. Between 1949 and 1956, between 2700 and 5000 infiltrators -usually not armed- were shot".

Again, to use the evidence of all borders, 'hot' ones and 'cooler' ones is to confuse the issue. Moshe Dayan in an interview with Yediot Ahronot in 1977 admitted that deliberate acts of provoking Syrians and Jordanians to shoot into the demilitarized zones as Israelis nibbled away to possess disputed territory accounts for 80% of all incidents, and were so desired in order to put into place Israel's policy of 'retaliation' i.e. to provide a pretext for taking more land. That many unarmed people were also shot indiscriminately is true, but I fail to see what significance it has for Qibya. The relative data for the Jordanian border, from contemporary Jordanian and Israeli complaints, has been provided in the text. This additional and unfocused information only confuses the picture from those primary sources, with no additional advantage of an historian's overview.

The quote from Morris re Jordanian failure to 'stop the incursions' is useless for a very simple reason. No government in those circumstances had total control of its borders. This was true also in early postwar eastern Europe. Policing desert borderlands even to this day is an extremely complex task that not even the Americans manage to do on the Mexican frontier. That Jordan had, according to UN reports, managed in the year leading up to the Qibya raid significantly reduced the number of infiltrations which had aroused Israeli complaints is well documented. The irony of Qibya is that it occurred despite a rising success by Jordan in containing transgressions of the border. Despite this reduction, Israel under Ben Gurion employed massacre as retaliatory overkill after strong and repeated attempts by the Jordanian authorities to call on the Israeli police to help them track down the killers.

These are the salient facts of Qibya historiography. I.e. that it was a private decision by a few members of the inner sanctum of Israel's government, taken in the face of appeals by Jordan to resolve the case by cooperative policework with appalling consequences for the Arab inhabitants of Qibya, for Israel's image in the world, and one which seriously imperilled Jordan's monarchy.

I find therefore that your use of Morris's evidence is far too vague to contribute to the specific history of Qibya. We need specific data, I think, and not generalizations. Regards Nishidani 20:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Nishidani,
This is the context given by Benny Morris, not by me. Read your answer having in mind these are the elements he gives for the context, not mine.

• "excuse for a massacre ?" You should read the "after Qibya" section in the french version : this is also the conclusion found by Morris.
  

If you are not convinced Morris mind is more relevant than yours and I you don't understand a secondary source is more relevant than a 1st one, I cannot do much for this article.
Regards, Alithien 07:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Alithien I think Morris a very useful and important historian, and have no a priori objection to his being used. What I do not understand is the suggestion that, in referring to the specific incident, an Israeli attack on Jordanian territory at Qibya, there is some point in using imprecise data (10-15,000) an indiscriminate figure which refers to all border incidents (petty innocuous crossings mostly) with Arab countries, to furnish a rationnale for Ben-Gurion's decision to order a military raid on the only Arab country with which Israel had direct, if covert, personal contacts with the leadership, a country which, secondly, had managed according to the statistical record, to reduce territorial infringements substantially in the year leading up to the massacre.

In normal geopolitical thinking, when difficulties of this order exist between countries, and negotiations through third parties lead to a reduction in incidents occasioning tension, neither side is supposed to escalate. Israel, with the Qibya incursion, escalated pressure precisely at a moment when tensions were waning. Therefore Morris's figures do not throw, in any way, light on the geostrategic anomaly of Qibya. To the contrary, if that is his brief, the contextualisation only highlights his well-known POV.

Indeed Morris's argument only appears to make Qibya even more incomprehensible, and it can hardly be fortuitous, that Ben Gurion did not trust his cabinet on the matter. The international Jewish community itself, in some instances, paralleled what Israel had done, when the truth came forth, to what the Nazis had done in Llidice. (I have a source for this) He made the decision, kept Lavon and Moshe Sharett/Shertok in on the secret, and was strongly opposed by the latter, who noted in his diary his profound disagreement with Ben Gurion with regard to the latter's apparent policy of a strategy of cultivating tension on Israel's most manageable border:-

I told Lavon that this [attack] will be a grave error, and recalled, citing various precedents, that it was never proved that reprisal actions serve their declared purpose. Lavon smiled ... and kept to his own idea.... Ben Gurion, he said, didn't share my view.' (Diary of Sharett, 14 October 1953)

As is known, Ben-Gurion's long term policy was to destabilize Jordan. As Michael Ben-Zohar quotes him in his biography:-

"We should prepare to go over to the offensive. Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai."

It is not that Morris's mind is less relevant than mine, of course. I exhort the use of the best authorities, but I am not supine before one authority, as opposed to many others. The UN statistics used so far reflect the specific context of Jordanian-Israeli relations. The decision leading to Qibya, pace Morris, had nothing to do with those statistics, since we have here direct sources that reveal the inside story of how that decision was arrived at, and it was not arrived at on the basis of a rise in infiltrations, but despite them, and despite the repeated offers by Jordanian authorities to allow Israel to assist, on Jordanian territory, the pursuit of the killer(s) and their arrest.

You make much of Israel's decision to adopt a reprisal policy following on from Qibya, and cited Morris. Well, you must know Morris's other book, The Birth of the Palestinian Problem Revisited where Morris documents that a change of strategy took place, six years earlier in Haganah thinking in December 1947, and that in response to spontaneous rioting which British observers thought might well have subsided had the wisdom of cooler minds prevailed, the Haganah decided to start reprisal raids that, rather than assist in moderating the tendency to riot, created incendiary conditions for raising Arab hostility.(pp.75ff) The retaliatory policy, and policies exploiting Arab resistance in order, by military retaliation, to heighten tensions and make the geostrategic questions resolvable only by military means in order to impose a fait accompli so humiliating Arabs would in the long term be forced to come to terms, was a policy first sketched by Jabotinsky in 1923, and according to analysts like Lustik, enables one to explain the logic of Israeli policy since 1948.

Finally, you contextualise Israel's dramatic plight, handling some 700,000 immigrants. There is no mention of the Arab Palestinian plight, with an equal number of refugees from 1948, some of them highly motivated to win back their land. Your, and Morris' assumption appears to be that Israel had rights to policies of retaliation, obsessive reprisals for the smallest incidents, but that those who were the native victims of this immense takeover of what was, some decades earlier, a predominantly Arab country, had no natural right to try and resist, fight and battle to retain lands that had been consigned to a foreign population by a third power which had no historic right itself to control and administer their country. In the postwar period this kind of partisan focus was acceptable given the shocking dimensions of the Holocaust. It is no longer acceptable, because there is a growing perception that the Arabs of the area have been made to wear the punishment for what was a European crime against European Jews. The West apologized by handing over a landtitle they themselves did not possess, to the victims of their hatred, who had no title other than Bible writ, and telling the new victims to be patient and not 'react'. It is this obvious truth that weakens Morris's assumptions, and, I hazard to suggest, your own.Nishidani 14:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If Jaakobou keeps up his disruption on the page, I suggest we take it to arbitration. In the meantime, within the rules, I will maintain the page as it is against any further endeavours on his part to assert the version of para 1. He is the only one to raise that point, and therefore has no right to impose it on the intro that PR, myself, and Alithien have agreed requires a mention of UN or US condemnation. His tactic, here and elsewhere, is to revert all edits to a stage he approves of personally, and then tell others to start and discuss with him eventual changes. Nishidani 16:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

please scroll up and read the following: "Yes. I understand that without the information well developed with volume in the body article it is hard to agree seeing this in the summary. Alithien 17:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)" it was fairly clear that there was more than oneperson in support of fixing the problematic situation. you may open up an arbcom or whatever if you still wish it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

p.s. your blind revert destroyed the fix to the npov tag.^[10] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please check my translation of the following passage (scrolling up) in the French page worked over by Alithien: 'À l’époque, l’opération est unanimement réprouvée dans le monde et fait l’objet d’une condamnation du Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies.'

Secondly, Alithien says 'without' i.e. his opinion is that unless we give some development to the information in para 1 in the main body of the text (later down) it shouldn't stand in the summary. Well that's obvious, and agreed on by everyone, and indeed, the hint you contest in para.1 is then developed in the final section as Alithien wanted. So what's the problem? Alithien's English was a bit wobbly, but the point is clear, and you have not understood it Nishidani 21:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

the new intro

is the new intro accepted as a normative mention of the article's body ? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've improved it, corrected spellings, and edited your intro.to Benny Morris. To write that Morris 'claimed to have ascertained' (spelling corrected) puts him on the level of a fiction writer. He is an historian and if he stuffs up his archival work, his peers crucify him. He looked at the released documents in old archives and showed to everyone's satisfaction what was already known. That both Ariel Sharon and Ben Gurion's post facto rationalizations did not correspond to the actual material documentation in Israeli archives. The word 'claim' is not a magical word that NPOVs a sentence. It cannot be used here because historians make a general claim in their interpretations, but when citing archival materials they are not 'claiming' they found stuff the existence of which others may entertain doubts. They cite the file number, the evidence, and this is not a 'claim'.

The word 'Israelis' cannot go into the para. since unlike the UN and US declarations which were formal and public, the idea that Israelis protested has to be nuanced down at the appropriate section, for the simple reason that for several days the truth of the massacre was hidden by a propaganda effort which withhld relevant information from the Israeli public, which only got to know of the event after the UN censure was passed. Jewish communities worldwide were, as far as I have read, genuinely shocked and expressed their outrage, and therefore it is quite appropriate to mention their reactions, and indeed, later in the page detail them.Nishidani 10:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Pov Flag

This article is not neutral. The first point is that it doesn't introduce the context of the events. When it does, we can discuss the other problems.
Alithien 10:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is rich in detailed facts. You appear, dear Alithien, to have an idée-mère/fixe, according to which brandishing Benny Morris' figures about Israel's budgetry problems over outlays for containing infiltration from marauders and refugees, somehow helps us understand the rationale behind the Qibya massacre. It doesn't, as the article's evidence, also from Morris, clearly shows that the decision was not taken by the collective authority of the Israeli government, but rather by Ben Gurion and Lavon, who ordered the raid against intelligent and principled advice by figures of the stature of Moshe Sharett. Sharett and many others were worried by the refugee reflux and border incidents, as were Jordanians by Israeli raiding and seizing of disputed ground. The historical record as we have it underlines the view that this was a massacre not measured to Israel's immediate security needs, but a 'message' to Jordan that, as Sharett's diary subsequently recalls, Israel would act 'crazy' pour encourager les autres. If the article is to be marked up as NPOV, then every article on Israeli-Palestinian relations should be so marked, since there has been a serious effort to stick to the documentary record and keep editorial gamesmanship to a minimum. If you can point out language, phrasing, or selective quoting that troubles you, by all means help us identify it, and it will be, if others consider the indication just, adjusted Nishidani 10:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No sourced and full context from secondary reliable sources -> no neutrality.

And this is only the beginning.

Regards, Alithien 11:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you rephrase that complaint? Do you mean that one secondary source should prevail against several primary sources? There is room for both. One has only objected to your use of what I, at least, consider irrelevant information. As I have repeated elsewhere (Hebron massacre) big picture stories in the intro create big picture problems for any subsequent text, since the 'big picture' is often far more subject to dispute than specific historical details. 'No neutrality'. Excuse me, but 'no neutrality' means the whole text is POV. Well, list your sources to show the POV line by line by all means. But I'd advise you to be very specific, and stick to data relevant to Qibya Nishidani 11:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

A reliable secondary source selecting facts (from primary sources) is more relevant than primary sources selected by us reporting facts.

The reasons are that we have not the knowledge to determine if the primary source would not be biaised or simply wrong and secondly because the relevance of a fact can only be judged by a professional (ie a secondary source).

A typical example concerns the number of victims of Deir Yassin. All primary sources claimed it was 254. Historians today consider it was between 100 and 120.

One of the reason the current version is not neutral because it doesn't give a wide context of the events.

About the other comments your made. No need to explain me the meaning of the word neutrality. Just read the comments of the vote that made [11] a featured article and you will see people consider I have a good understanding of the sense of this for wikipedia, what I fear you don't.

This article is not neutral. Because -among other things- of the bad contextualisation. And that is only a beginning.

That is not important to correct this. But it is the way it is. Alithien 15:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

All articles, deplorably, on the Israeli-Palestinian issue are riven with POV, pro- and contra- , for a philosophical reason. How one approaches the respective issues is affected by one's answer to a fundamental question. Was it proper that the interests and views of the population to be displaced from their native world by an agreement between two parties, Great Britain and the WZO, both alien to that country and its community, be disregarded as inconsequential? If you think yes, the native Palestinian majority, being ignorant and primitive, was in no position to contribute their views on their projected dispossession from their country, and indeed would, as some argued, benefit from it, then you will read the subsequent history as a narrative of a persecuted people (the Jews), caught between antisemitic Westerners and antisemitic Arabs, valiantly succeeding in reappropriating what was, 2000 years earlier, the homeland of some of their ancestors (much as in Hebron, 30,000 Palestinians have been deprived of their housing and commercial lives in order to accommodate a few hundred foreigners who claim that this dispossession is merely a reappropriation of 'Jewish' assets). That can all be phased 'neutrality' but it rests on a huge and uncustomary POV (=The uniqueness of Jewish suffering means their history as a modern nation must be judged outside the standard criteria for states).

In most of the comparative literature on nationalism, native peoples who fight, often savagely, to retain their hold on their land against an invasive force of colonists or immigrants, are not 'interpreted' as the Palestinians are interpreted in even much of the technical literature. Those who reply negatively to the above question, and who think an historic injustice, irreversible certainly, but an injustice of huge consequence, was wrought on 90% of the inhabitants of the Holy Land by the Balfour Declaration's implementation, will read subsequent events differently. That in turn is a POV, since it, likewise, is erected on a moral reading of history (and the historical process is not moral, though those who interpret it, as opposed to those who act in it, almost invariably are), in which no group is allowed a privileged exemption from the rules applied to all.

YOur work on Qibya in French is good, but affirms the former POV. You may contest this page, worked by several hands, as 'not neutral', but ultimately, your quarrel is with history, the primary facts of the case, which disturb the metaphysical grounds of that 'neutrality' you confound with the first POV approach I outlined above, in that the facts show that a head of state, in the solitude of his authority, could order innocents to be murdered in order to intimidate everyone else in the area, and safeguard the tranquil, uncontested expansion of his Zionist project.Regards Nishidani 19:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is an article that is neutral on the subject : 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine.

I don't confound anything about NPoV and neutrality.

You last paragraph is terrible ("that the facts show that a head of state, in the solitude of his authority, could order innocents to be murdered in order to intimidate everyone else in the area, and safeguard the tranquil, uncontested expansion of his Zionist project")

In fact, you should take your distance with these topics you cannot deal with for human reasons. Alithien 08:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The article you cite as 'neutral' opens with:-

'Under the control of a British administration since 1920, the area of Palestine found itself the object of a battle between Jewish Zionist nationalists and Palestinian Arab nationalists, who opposed one another just as much as they both opposed the British 'occupation.'

I.e. no mention of the fact that a country 90% Palestinian Arab was, by foreign accord, to be swamped with immigrants who would change that demographic majority rapidly, compete for land, resources, and, under Zionist policy, eventually make them strangers in their own land. The 'Jewish Zionist nationalists' here happened overwhelmingly, at that time, to be nationalists of other countries, intent on taking over, under British auspices, Britain itself only a Mandatory foreign power in the region, a land dwelt in by Arabs. Thanks for the reference. It simply documents my analysis of your metaphysical POV. You refuse to consider the fundamental issue of the Zionist project itself. It's just, for you, two people with equal rights squabbling about a common land: the fact that this was a colonial project against a native people is not an issue for you, as it is for most serious historians, even in Israel.Nishidani 08:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As I should have written before, you are simply to much involved to be allowed to edit these articles.
600,000 Jews for 1,200,000 Palestinians. It is written in the article.
No foreign conspiracy against Arabs. Jewish immigration was stopped in 1939.
I assume your orthodox pro-israeli counterpart will soon complain that it is not written the land was initially (3000 years before) the country of the jewish nation and it was given by God to the jewish people.
And what about the Jew who will complain because it is not written the Brits stopped the immigration when the final extermination started.
Because you think there was a "fundamental issue in the Zionist project" (which is controversed), an article should be built around that thesis.
The basic principles of wikipedia is NPoV : it means all PoV must be given when there are several ones. And only non controversed ideas can be given as facts.
You want the Truth ? Good. There is no Truth but only many truths. These are names by wikipedia the relevant points of views. Practically that means that an article must be built around non controversed facts and not the Truth.
No time to lose to explain you how wikipedia works and why NPoV is better than Truth. Alithien 19:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Alithien

The page must be written NPOV, certainly, which means giving due weight to all relevant views from reliable sources (mostly observed the breach, see the Deir Yassin page, which cites numerous factitious sources). This works out as NPOV = a consensus on a reasonable middle ground obtained by two diametrically opposed POVers. As opposed to the serious historians one could use, who often have no doubt, incident by incident, in assigning major responsibilities devoid of rationalisations and excuses, Wiki must allow, even where there is no ambiguity, room for relevant voices that contest what, in some cases, is a professional consensus, in order to insinuate that this consensus is shaky. Here one is often asked to square the circle of opposing POVs to achieve a NPOV image. That is one structural reason why Wiki, on these issues, will never be a really reliable source.

You have a POV, as your page admits. I have one, which I openly analyse.

Leibnitz, I read a mere hour ago, had better sense, but of course it won't work here. He wrote:-

'Dialogi ita scribi solent ut au(c)tor faveat parti, ars dialogisticae vere philosophica foret ita scribere ut utrimque pari arte pugnetur, utque dicantur quae accerrimus adversarius dicere posset. Ita demum triumphus dialogi foret triumphus causae. Esset enim velut colloquium, congressusque litigantium judicarius, au(c)tore dialogi quasi judice aut si mavis praeside atque moderatore.'

I won't impugn your excellent education by the presumption that this needs translation.

You mention the 'truth'. I haven't, so it is improper for you to try to delegitimate my approach by insinuating that I break a fundamental rule of wiki, which states that verifiability is the aim, not the truth. In many articles, much of what I personally know, and consider as truthful, I never even try to write in, because it would contravene the rules, being OR, or raising historical questions that are not pertinent to each particular page.

Our disagreement is simple, aside from these philosophical perspectives. You think Benny Morris's big picture should head the article, which means everytime an Arab town suffered massacre, one must splash the heading with 'But Benny Morris says the state perceived itself under assault from infiltrations'. I am in deep disagreement because I don't think massacres can be excused in this way. The Qibya massacre, I repeat, is the one massacre about which we have intimate knowledge of the decision-making process, and that information deconstructs any meta-narrative about the big-picture threat. Therefore the page should simply tell the facts in all of their complexity, and leave it at that.

Most of the massacres of Arabs Benny Morris analyses just for 1948, by his own words, are things we will probably never know about, because, unlike the thoroughly documented Israeli history, Palestinian survivors were either too harassed by survival as refugees to think of writing or illiterate, and there was no state to turn to capable of writing down their complaint. Most historians, other than study the historical record, try to understand the 'not said' of history, to contextualize what Lyotard once called the grand récit of self-legitimization of modern states (Lyotard 1979), within that great silence of the inarticulate adversary. You don't. For you, I gather, objectivity lies in what the written record that most impresses you says.Nishidani 21:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"You have a POV, as your page admits. I have one, which I openly analyse."
There are major differences between our pov of what should be in the article. My version in French is a featured article recognized by the different contributors (among whom Muslim arabs and 1 guy who is in close contact with Europalestine) there to be NPoV :[12]
A second difference is that my version has been reviewed by 2 university professors (one at personnal title; he is a jewish member of Shalom Arshav) and the other one by a scholar who speciality is Middle East Politics. [13]
Alithien 11:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Alithien Cher monsieur, I called your work on that page 'un bon boulot', and repeat it here. You overlook one thing: your version (nota bene:WP:OWN) is subject to far less review, challenge, and collaboration than what equivalent pages in the English wiki are subjected to, reflecting the relative diffusion of our respective languages. English is the language in which the politics of Palestine is decided and debated around the world, and that is why the English page is subject to far greater intensity of focus, and is in far greater danger of being tilted unreasonably to a side or another. It requires great vigilance, and I still remain open to any comments on it you think useful. Regards Nishidani 12:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

is subject to far less review, challenge, and collaboration than what equivalent pages in the English wiki are subjected to.

Not at all, wp:en is just the battleground of pov-pushers who cannot make abstraction of their politic minds and who wrote on topics they didn't really study.

Instead of gathering all Pov's, they just write One pov, challeging other to add other pov and discussing this.

Eg, this article is a personnal reasearch of gathering of 1st source material, as explained before and his main alone author (see WP:OWN) considers he knows the topic better than historians.

Alithien 07:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say, but the best evidence and arguments are coming from User:Nishidani over the POV discussion. Not only are his contributions better, but the POV problems I can see are all "in favour of" Israel, eg the opening section begins "The attack took place in the context of border clashes between Israel and neighbouring states, which had begun almost immediately after the signing of the armistice in 1949". That's mealy-mouthed, we know that Israel carried out a totally unprovoked (and universally condemned) attack and massacre (one of a series of unprovoked attacks in the context of land seizures and a future war of conquest). Imagine how we'd report a similar wilful attack and massacre by, say, Germany on a French village, East Germany on a West German village, or Cuba on a Floridian island. Wikipedia editors should be treating all these cases in a similar fashion - even though it's difficult to compare, since no commie or jihadist nation has ever launched an unprovoked attack this blatant (911 might be the nearest but that was the action of criminals, not an army and government). PR^talk 09:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write this page. I found it in a lamentable state of POV and counter POV synthesis, and endeavoured to improve it by a very simple device. I used not 'personal research' but the UN documentation available on line, what you call Ist source material. It is not first source material. It is an official intergovernmental synthesis made by representatives of a world body, which contains reports, done by senior field officers mediating between Israeli reports and Jordanian reports of incidents, which were then reviewed by all parties in the UN, and discussed there. Challenge accessing these reports by all means, but if you do, you'd better lay your complaint all over Wikipedia Israel-Palestine, where Israeli official government sources are cited everywhere, where the Shamgar's account of the Massacre of the Cave of the Patriarch's is taken as authoritative (and my attempts to cite divergent newspaper accounts and books on the period were systematically erased, on a variety of pretexts). I have never challenged the use however of those commission materials, from those of the British mandate down to contemporary Israeli official reports, because to do so would impoverish this encyclopedia, which is already under strain from irresponsible editors.

You have, lastly, misinterpreted my remarks. I am for all historians of the period to be cited, not just one. I objected to your use of statistics from Morris not bearing on the Jordanian frontier incident, because the actual historian record, in historians and diarists and a variety of government and international reports, shows that these 'general' overview statistics, and the 'security risk' had no bearing on the decision by Ben Gurion to make an example of Qibya. I meant no personal offence, further, in saying that the English wikipedia is subjected to POV scrutiny far more paranoiac, and POV-driven, that what occurs in other languages for the simple reason that English users in the countries interested in these topics politically numerically exceed by a multiplier of tens if not hundreds users of other languages who work their own pages on the same event.

I have no claims on this page, other than that of helping to assure that this, like so many articles on the Palestinians, is not overwhelmed by POV battles fueled by people who come not because they are interested in the historical record, but because they wish to reframe that record to suit contemporary political interests. Most articles, please note, on the Palestinians here are not authored by them, but by a combination of English-speaking sympathisers for their cause and Israeli and Jewish editors. Not infrequently, one finds that these two distinct groups work according to the relevant rules, with a productive dialogue of mutual recognition, even though, again, Palestinians are rarely engaged. That is close enough to the ideal, to avoid, as so frequently here, a unilateral overwriting of Palestinian realities from one interested party that happens to be a direct historical agent in Palestine's occupied territories. By all means examine my record minutely, I have a clear conscience, but that is not guarantee of an error-free or balanced approach on everything (John Stuart Mill On Liberty). But as you do, take note of some of those with whom I have been in frequwent conflict. Their records in wiki are, in many cases, redpencilled for revert warring, blanking, violation of bans to stay off these topics etc. I do not need or seek allies, but I judge those who are critical of my work for its ostensible POV also by examining how sensitive they are to the POV of my 'adversaries'.Regards Nishidani 10:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Number of Villagers killed

The article says that 42 villagers were killed. According to Healing Israel/Palestine by Michael Lerner (Chapter 4, page 70), 60 villagers were killed. According to Israel: A Nation is Born Part 3 (WNET 1992), Abba Eban says that 66 villagers were killed. Where does the figure of 42 come from?

Pbr2000 21:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The given source actually says "60–70". I took it out. Zero^talk 16:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

number killed

A user, upset that his attempt to claim occupied territory as being in Israel was unsuccessful, has changed the number of people killed. There are a large number of sources supporting the 69 killed, such as this, this, or this, or this, or this, or this. There a reason to not include the actual number? nableezy - 20:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

And what an unbelievable edit by AnkhMorpork, which includes a gross distortion. The unanticipated development is in reference to the Ben Gurion government, not that the people were killed after the attack on the town. And when exactly did it become standard practice to downplay an event before it was even introduced? nableezy - 21:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You presented some sources for consideration, I kindly examined them and amended the article exactly how this episode was presented. Start reading the paragraph beginning "Intent on forcing the Jordanian government..." and suggest how I have misrepresented this source that you presented, and how this might be improved upon. Ankh.Morpork 21:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You have yet to justify the tendentious edit. Please do so. You are also misrepresenting the source. The source does not say there was a prolonged campaign of theft and murder. Please stop lying about sources. Please stop distorting sources, and please stop edit-warring. I will be taking this to AE shortly absent a self-revert. nableezy - 21:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The source states: "armed bands of infiltrators initiated a campaign of terror and murder...Intent on forcing the Jordanian government to accept responsibility for preventing such terrorism initiating from its territory, Israeli forces retaliated..." How would you rather this is presented and what changes do you propose I make to fairly present this source? Ankh.Morpork 22:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that it is an asinine idea to justify the act before even introducing the act. I suggest that you see where I already included that material by adding The attack followed cross-border raids from the Jordanian occupied West Bank in which Israeli civilians were killed. I further suggest that if you are going to follow me around that you wait for consensus after such a tendentious edit is reverted. If you feel that the line I added is not strong enough fine, we can work on that. But before even saying introducing the topic of the article you are trying to justify it. nableezy - 22:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You can think what you like but what counts is presenting it in the manner the sources do. This is a source that you offered for consideration which I hen duly examined and your ungracious response is quite unnecessary. Ankh.Morpork 22:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The "intent on forcing the Jordanian government" part of this is a minority opinion that needs attributing to the author. Other sources show that the Israeli government was aware that the Jordanian government was already trying to stop the infiltration. Zero^talk 11:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

That doesnt mean justifying the attack before even saying what it was. It also doesnt mean you are entitled to edit-war over the objections of others. nableezy - 13:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Why are you jabbering about justifying? What I am seeking to do is provide the context for this assault just like the various sources do. Please demonstrate why my addition is a minority view. Ankh.Morpork 18:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You are seeking to provide context for something before even defining it. nableezy - 18:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

No, not me, the sources are. Context is part of the definition. Ankh.Morpork 18:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. A source includes background on the topic of the article. That does not mean that before even introducing the topic of the article you give "background" on it. nableezy - 18:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Biased title

Qibya raid, Qibya attack , Quiba reprisal attack would be relatively neutral titles.ShulMaven (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The main guideline for choosing article titles is WP:COMMONNAME, which is very very clear in this case. Zero^talk 23:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Background Section - sources

In the "Background" section, the first paragraph is filled with information, but only at the end gives the Bennny Morris Righteous Victims source. Can anyone corroborate that this source is referring to all the facts written in the background? Quite honestly, I doubt it because it seems that the whole first paragraph is saying how people came across the border only for peaceful purposes, although we know that they engaged in acts of terror against Israeli civilians. Unless someone can confirm this I will need to add a "citation needed" note next to these sentences. Eym174 (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Qibya 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070903000331/http://www.avnery-news.co.il:80/english/uri2.html to http://www.avnery-news.co.il/english/uri2.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140605062206/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/089/74/IMG/NR008974.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/089/74/IMG/NR008974.pdf?OpenElement

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 11:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Qibya 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/20090927144747/http://www.ariel-sharon-life-story.com/03-Ariel-Sharon-Biography-1953-Retribution-Acts-Peulot-Tagmul.shtml to http://www.ariel-sharon-life-story.com/03-Ariel-Sharon-Biography-1953-Retribution-Acts-Peulot-Tagmul.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070809211518/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/mid009.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/mid009.htm

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) 23:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

historiography controversy

Hello, in the introduction it is written that the target was "civilians" while the attack targeted arab attackers allegedly from the village. This is clearly bais. It is not because a certain number of civilians died that the civilians were the target. Civilians casualities were part of miliary operation all around the world, using this time the emphasis on massacre and stating that the target was civilians, is in fact claiming that there is historical proof that there was no fightings and that there was clear intention and planification. This is obviously not the case, this is clearly an instrumentalisation against this operation. I am waiting for the article on the 40000 civlians casualities of NATO war in afghanistan... --RossiGo (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

It was a revenge attack on the village according to all evidence. Zero^talk 00:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not talking about the motivation, if it was emotional or strategic. Your representation is an obvious distortion. You deliberately ommit the fighting and claim that civilians were the target. This is one more of your falsifications, probably for revenge.--RossiGo (talk) 10:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Article title

The title is "Qibya massacre" but the vast majority of the text and sources refer to it mostly as the "Qibya raid", as well as "attack" and "incident". 2.53.176.25 (talk) 06:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but calling the killing of scores of civilians, dozens of them women and children, anything but 'massacre' in the particular context would be to stray into obvious euphemism. This was a massacre in the very truest sense of the word. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that's beside the point. Wikipedia titles still go by the name referred to by sources, not the label given by individuals. WP:POVTITLE 2.53.171.177 (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

There's no single clear common name here, so it goes with a descriptive title. Words like 'raid' and 'political' are clear military and political euphemisms. 'Massacre' is the only NPOV description currently presented - hence the quotes from the likes Avi Shlaim and Moshe Sharett alike use term, and analytical legal works still use the phrase over 60 years later. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The "Qibya massacre" is occasionally used, but I still see a clear common name of "attack". "Massacre" is still DUE enough for a mention at the start of the article (Qibya attack, also known as the Qibya massacre), but not enough for being the article title.

The Israeli quotes in the article refer to it as an "attack" or "operation". Hebrew-language sources I found refer to "massacre" as primarily used in the Arab world. The high-quality sources in the article that are linked, aside from the paper you linked and Avi Shlaim, use "attack" as well. The UN and some other sources refer to it as "incident", which is rather diplomaticised. 2.53.171.177 (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested Edit

"The soldiers did not thoroughly inspect the homes in the village for the presence of residents, and when military engineers dynamited dozens of buildings across the village, scores of civilians were killed."

Surely this sentence should be removed, implying that the killing of civilians was unintentional. Source is to a website "http://www.ariel-sharon-life-story.com" which is not online anymore.

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Also Sharon's denials/comments don't belong in the attack section but in the Israeli reaction section. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Done - Changes made here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qibya_massacre&diff=1195126035&oldid=1190876730 IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Attack: Some sentences seem to be somewhat contradictory

"post-operational reports speak of breaking into houses and clearing them with grenades and shooting"" and a few sentences before "In the words of historian Rashid Khalidi, the operation “blew up forty-five homes with their inhabitants inside." Charkow (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)