Talk:List of killings and massacres in Mandatory Palestine

Discussion

This article has the first Irgun attacks in 1937. The first one is only 2 dead, so no massacre, understandable. The second one "Black Sunday" has enough dead (10) but the first Irgun attack on this list isn't until February 27, 1939. Can someone explain why or fix it? Seems the point of having such a table as this would be to make reviewing the timeline easier, and if attacks are missing then it becomes misleading, right? --192.157.104.33 (talk) 03:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Why is this discussion backwards? MWQs (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll be adding events to the list in the coming couple of days. I find it vastly unbalanced.--79.177.150.22 (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Jaffa Riots started as fighting between two Jewish groups. One can hardly free them from the "responsibility". I "uncommented" Jews which was commented out and hidden from that column. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.127.252.143 (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dlv999 for the recent edit, the entry seems more balanced now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.127.252.143 (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is it that "Responsible" column blames "Arabs" for killings committed by Arabs and blame "names of Jewish organisations" for killings committed by Jewish militants ? To the eyeballers this makes Arab sounds like monsters and Jews as defenders? The entire list looks like a massive Israeli propaganda to the observer. A desperate cleanup is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.127.252.143 (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking it makes Arabs sound like random individual criminals and the Jewish groups sounds like a network of terrorist organisations? But that's only because some of them ring a bell and it's not a good bell: far right politics in Israel. See if you can find more detail on Arab offenders? Maybe add a "Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine" link somewhere to explain the organised groups on the other side, or an into paragraph? MWQs (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Kachol (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I’ve made a number of changes to this article in an effort to clean it up, expand it, and remove the obvious pro-Arab POV that characterized it beforehand. The primary changes are as follows: 1. I’ve modified the list to include all acts of violence in which three or more persons were killed in politically or racially motivated actions. The previous format set the bar at 10 persons killed, which to me appeared both arbitrary and obfuscating. The British Mandate period in Palestine was characterized by daily small scale attacks on civilians which most often resulted in five fatalities or less. Including all attacks in which there were at least three fatalities presents a much more accurate picture of the level of violence in Palestine at the time, and still falls within the parameters of a reasonable definition of a “massacre” – an event in which a group of persons is killed. In this case, dozens of attacks are omitted from this list in which one or two fatalities were incurred, but semantically, two persons are referred to as a “pair”, not a “group”, and the murder of two persons is commonly referred as a “double murder”. 2. I’ve changed the column previously titled “Death Toll” to “Casualties” and included notes to provide context. 3. I’ve removed all incidents which lacked source citations, and added source citations for those which I was able to locate, and have modified the information contained therein accordingly. 4. I’ve removed the source citation to the Centre for Defense and International Security Studies. While the link is functioning, I’ve been unable to locate the document cited through the actual CDISS website despite an extensive search. Moreover, the format of the document is not consistent with other documents that are linked to from the CDISS website and, quite frankly, the logo on the document looks fabricated. As a result, this link appears highly suspect. For two of the incidents that cite this source, I’ve been able to find alternate sources. For the other two – the Haifa police station bombing and the bus bombings in Haifa and Ramle – I have not been able to find alternate sources and have thus removed the incidents from the list. If someone can provide information as to how the CDISS document can be accessed from the main website, or can provide alternate sources, I’d gladly endorse a reinstatement of the two incidents. 5. I’ve removed the source citations for both Benny Morris and Uri Milstein. This is not a reaction to controversy surrounding their political positions, but rather significant criticism of the authenticity and scholarly value of their works. Both authors have had charges of fabrication leveled against them by other historians, and thus I felt their works are too controversial to be cited in an encyclopedia article. The result of removing the authors’ citations has been nil – I was able to find alternate sources for all of the incidents citing their works. 6. I’ve avoided using sources from overtly polemical works, memoirs, and websites, and also removed such citations from the article. These include the cited “Encyclopedia of the Palestine Problem” and “All That Remains”. Websites that I’ve deliberately avoided citing include palestineremembered.com, alnakba.org, eretzyisroel.org, the Jewish Agency website and others that are obviously partisan. I have made one exception in citing jewishvirtuallibrary.org, but only in cases where there was no other record of Jewish attacks on Arabs, not vice versa. The removal of “All that Remains” posed a problem as it eliminated any remaining source for what was listed as the “Sa’sa’ village ambush”. Despite an extensive Google search, I was unable to find any nonpartisan website source for this event. The Wikipedia page for Sa’sa’ however, cites a New York Times story from February 16, 1948. I am unable to access this story, but for the moment I will leave the incident on the page until I am able to access an NYT archive to verify the source. 7. I’ve attempted to make the list as comprehensive as possible. The previous note at the top of the article read: “Note: In many cases the actual number of killed is uncertain, and many of the facts are disputed. More information can be found in the appropriate articles.” It seems both absurd and colossally lazy to put such a disclaimer above a posted article. If you don’t have all (or at least the majority) of the facts about a particular subject, especially one that is so easily researched, then either do the homework or don’t post the article at all. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, not a bulletin board – there are limits to how much amateurism, and bias, is tolerated.

I would have to say that your edits are in general a great improvement. The disclaimer at the top of this article and the bar being set at 10 deaths+ come from the main article that this one was spun off from List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. There, editors had resisted the inclusion of any incidents with less than 10 casualties quite vociferously. This article was created in fact, because they kept deleting all incidents immediately prior to the official outbreak of the war, which as you can see, is quite an extensive list. They had also insisted on the disclaimer. Not wanting to rock the boat, I reproduced that format as is here. But I appreciate your boldness in doing away with it. I also appreciate your expansion of the events to those long before the 1948 war, something I had been planning to do but had not yet gotten around to.

There are some changes on my own I'd like to make as well, after a thorough review of course. Thanks again. Tiamut 01:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

One more thing for now, I totally disagree about Milstein, Morris, Khalidi's "All That Remains" and palestineremembered.com (which uses Morris and Khalidi's work as well as primary sources from the Mandate period on Village Statistics). I may reintroduce them as sources. I also don't think the Jewish Virtual Library is the most reliable source (even when used for an attack on Arabs by Jews) and would prefer if we can find something better for that. Thanks again. (Note also I've made a proposal at the other page to follow your lead per the the definition of a massacre as being 3 or more victims and the wording you used in the lead. Nice work! Tiamut 01:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

@Kachol @Tiamut

Why do we need "killings and" when they're currently all above 3? MWQs (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Kachol (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC) With regards to Milstein and Morris, I think it would be best to leave them off the page considering that a) their work is disputed, and b) their citations are unnecessary given that alternate sources are available. Just to gage your view on this matter, what would you need to see (as far as criticism of their work is concerned) in order to convince you that they should be omitted? The reason I'd rather not use palestineremembered.com, eretzyisroel.org and similar sources is, as I've stated before, that they are overtly polemical. Their purpose is to further a specific agenda. While this is perfectly understandable, it casts doubt onto their veracity as sources. In fact, with such a controversial topic, I'd much rather err on the side of caution and not cite ANY Jewish or Arab sources. As you saw by my first edit, the sources I cited were all third-party except for Tom Segev, and his citations were only supplementary. I'm not saying that all Jewish or Arab sources are inherently fraudulent, but the motive for bias is so great that it casts doubt on the entire article. The fact that palestineremembered.com uses primary sources from that era only exacerbates my concerns, because it is likely that those sources are even more slanted and given to propogandizing than modern ones. Are there no third party sources that could be used for the entries citing these sources? As for the Jewish Virtual Library, it seems a bit one-sided that you'd doubt their authenticity yet accept that of palestineremembered.com without question. It is exactly this type of back and forth that I wanted to avoid by not citing any Jewish or Arab sources - thus, if you can find any alternate source for the Stern Gang's bombing of the Arab National Committee's HQ I would support using that instead. Otherwise this article (like so many other articles on Wikipedia, unfortunately) is just going to turn into a race to see who can cite more sources off the web regardless of their actual academic value. Also, why did you reintroduce two entries that have no citations (Ein al Zeitun and Abu Shusha)? And, why did you remove the note about the vandalism against Jewish settlements and the burning of agricultural fields and uprooting of trees. I included this specifically because I felt they provided important context to the event, just as the Irgun burning down 100 homes in Jaffa does (as you appear to agree with). Similarly, I included the note about the majority of Arabs being killed by Arab militias because it is something that would not be immediately evident to the layperson and provides a better understanding of why Arab casualties were so high during that time period. While I do have problems with the current format of the article, as it stands I don't feel these problems are significant enough to warrant an immediate change. As such, I think we can both agree that heretofore we will discuss any changes we'd like to make on the talk page before actually implementing them in the article. Awaiting your response, then - kachol

Hi Kachol. You seem to be news here so let me explain something to you, you may not be aware of. When information in article is wikilinked, (placed between double square brackets so that it appears like this, and you can press on the link and go to another page where there are sources listed, we do not need to cite the sources again in this article. You deleted or changed the text in a bunch of these links in your edit, causing them to appear as redlinks, leading to no page. I hope that explains why I restored the Abu Shusha massacre and Ein al Zeitun massacre. That is also why I removed the notes from the column when there were articles on the subject. The details can be covered in that article, not here, since this is a list that is designed to provide an overall summary that links to specific articles where the event is discussed in detail. I appreciate very much that you are holding off from making changes on the items we disagree on, which are the use of Benny Morris, Uri Milstein and Palestine Remembered. I agree that these sources have biases as we all do, but they are used extensively throughout Wikipedia. Palestine Remembered only uses Village Statistics for its sources on population and land area. It relies mostly on Benny Morris and Walid Khalidi for information on attacking forces and the fate of various villages. If you feel strongly about Palestine Remembered, we can fact check the claim against the sources they cite by asking someone with a copy of their books (I believe Huldra (talk · contribs) may have some) to double check it. I hope I've addressed some of your concerns and would like to say Welcome to Wikipedia, I hope you enjoy editing here. Tiamut 21:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Responsible party

• What is the definition of the responsible party ?

NPoV doesn't mean to introduce facts as if everybody were responsible, particularly when one's wants to make an article about a massacre ?
Jews that were killed during Deir Yassin events (battle and then massacre) are not victims of a massacre. They were killed by the Arab villagers who defended themselves.
For exactly the same reasons, the Arabs who were killed in 1920, 1921 and 1929 were not massacred. They were killed because Jews protected themselves. I suggest they are removed from the list of victims or we add all victims (Jews - Arabs - British) for all events reported in this article.

Kachol (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Whoever posted this, I'm inclined to agree with you. My original edit of this article cited Arabs as the culprits for all of the riots in the 1920s and 30s, for the exact reason you mention here. This was changed to "Arabs, Jews, British authorities" without my consent and without discussion on the talk page, so I'm glad you changed it back. As I've already stated, I try to keep my sources exclusively third-party in order to minimize bias. In this case, both Gilbert and Bard (cited) support the conclusions that the Arabs were the instigators/aggressors in 1920, 1921, 1929, and 1936-39. As for primary sources, two official, third-party inquiries were established by the British to investigate the riots in 1921 and 1929. Both the Haycraft Commission (1921) and the Shaw Commission placed responsibility on local Arabs for instigating the violence (both cited).

Thank you for clearing that up. I agree with you. It does seem controversial to blame someone entirely on one party. For example reading Israel times and Al Jazeera on the Jaffa riots, there were in fact instances where Jews attacked Arabs and vice versa. The starting of the riots may have been Arab but there still was a level of responsibility to be put on both sides. For some of these it certainly was only one party that should be responsible but for others it is a shared burden. Ahm1453 (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

NPoV

This article doesn't respect NPoV. These events were not all "massacres" but most events occured in the context of a civil war. Where is the "official" and "relevant" definition of massacre ? Ceedjee (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Kachol (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Hey Ceedjee, I did the majority of the editing on this page and yeah, you're right, it's somewhat difficult to get a bead on exactly what constitutes a "massacre". I briefly address this issue in my original talk page post. My definition of "massacre" is the same as that of the American Heritage dictionary: "The act or instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly." Obviously this is still a somewhat vague definition, so I figured the best way avoid the silly discussions about whether 10 is a "large enough" number or 20 is "too large" would be to just put it at 3, as in: "Two's company, three's a crowd." Now that I think about it, the name of this article is kind of inflammatory and not really appropriate to an encyclopedia. Does anyone have any suggestions with regard to changing the name? I thought "mass killings" - that has fewer connotations, but then it's still a relative term as far as numbers are concerned.

The matter is not the number. The matter is the context and the reality of a massacre.

Even when there are 5000, it doesn't mean this was a massacre.

More, the full losses don't refer to the victims. Eg, at Deir Yassin, the 5 Jews who were killed cannot be considered victims.

For the same reasons, most arab losses should be removed from the events of 1920, 1921 and 1929.

The 5000 Arabs of 1936-39 were not massacred. This was not a genocide. This was a civil war (or a rebellition) organised by Arabs.

Distinction should be made between the losses of "battles" (that don't fit the definition) and the massacres (that sometimes followed).

Finally, it is written only the responsable party is the one who had the direct responsibility. I assume that means the one that attacked. Why not but not explaining the context is not an encyclopaedit way of dealing such matters. Eg, stating Arabs were responsible of massacres of 1920, 1921 etc withoug explaining the nationalist struggle doesn't respect NPoV.

Ceedjee (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we simply name the article: List of attacks committed prior to the 1948 Arab–Israeli war in Mandate Palestine. It is more neutral, and the reader can judge by himself. Evidently, all attacks were made onto civilian populations, but the ones with death tolls of less than 10 people, could not semantically be considered as massacres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick.N.L (talk • contribs) 07:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

References

outledge Atlas

I think this source doesn't refer to massacres but just give losses : Routledge Atlas of the Arab-Israeli Conflict.
I will remove all events where this source is used to refer to a massacre and where historians don't state it was. If this source would state all these where massacres, then we will discuss its relevance and reliability. Ceedjee (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You will have to ask Kachol about that source. He added all of those entries, not me. Tiamut 14:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait for them. If they don't come, I will remove this. But I am not in a hurry. Ceedjee (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Kachol (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Ceedjee, In response to this post and your post in NPoV above: Respectfully, I disagree. The number of people killed very much is the matter, because it is the only concrete, available definition for massacre. What does the "reality" of the massacre even mean? And exactly what context do you feel qualifies an incident as a massacre? Lastly, and I say this without any ill will, why should your opinion on context be considered? Again, the only sources we should be referring to when it comes to defining the term massacre are dictionaries and encyclopedias. I mentioned one of these sources above, but here's another: Webster's II "massacre" - the savage killing of a considerable number of people. Due to the fact that it's nearly impossible to come to a collective agreement on, or even an accurate assessment of, which specific killings were done "savagely" or "cruelly" or "indiscriminately", we've decided to base this list on the quantified element of the definition. If you have a problem with defining massacre in this way, then you have a problem with the name of the article, not specific entries on the list. If you include only those incidents which historians refers to as massacres, your list will still be biased, because historians consistently disagree on these matters. Moreover, "massacre" is an inherently subjective term. One historian's standards for a massacre are not necessarily any more right or wrong than another historian's or even a layperson's. What Tiamut and I have attempted to do here is "objectify" the word massacre by strictly focusing on the quantified element. Again, I'm open to a discussion on changing the name of the list, but I'd strongly disagree with cherry-picking certain entries because this or that historian felt that he had the right to make a polemic out of history by using the word "massacre" while another wanted to remain impartial and only used the word "killings".

1. "The number of people killed very much is the matter, because it is the only concrete, available definition for massacre (...) why should your opinion on context be considered?"

My opinion ? You decide by yourself that each death above 10 (or 3) is a massacre and you write I would have an opinion ? What do you know about these events ?

Refering to a definition of massacre and making events fit to this to decide it is a massacre is personal research. See how the matters are dealt on genocide in history.

If you don't have a (or even better) several secondary sources that state this or that event was a massacre, you cannot refer to this as a massacre.

2. If you include only those incidents which historians refers to as massacres, your list will still be biased, because historians consistently disagree on these matters

Read WP:V and WP:NPOV.

If there are disagreements among scholars they must be explained. It is not acceptable by wikipedia to give only one pov. These are basic principles of wikipedia.

3. "What Tiamut and I have attempted to do here is "objectify" the word massacre by strictly focusing on the quantified element"

You have performed WP:PR. You have added and qualified events without sources qualifiing them as massacres and often performed mistakes that show you don't know the events, their context and what scholars state about them.

4. "but I'd strongly disagree with cherry-picking certain entries because this or that historian felt that he had the right to make a polemic out of history by using the word "massacre" while another wanted to remain impartial and only used the word "killings"."

Wikipedia is not a room for negocation about what you agree or not.

If WP:NPOV is not respected and if the massacres are not refered to as such, very precisely, there will be a problem of neutrality.

The easiest way to improve this is to modify the title from massacres to casualities and to take care about the responsible party but the massacres are still a different thing and could be discussed in an article if work is performed properly in respecting wp:principles.

Ceedjee (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Kachol (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Ceedjee, let me clarify. First: You gave an opinion on the definition of "massacre" above. I pointed out that your personal definition is irrelevant - not because your opinions don't have value, but simply because in an encyclopedia we should only be citing verifiable, authoritative sources. Second: I completely agree with what you're saying about independently deciding which events fit the "massacre" definition. It's not exactly independent research, but it is biased. Now, in a case where there is an academic debate over FACTS between scholars, Wikipedia's policy on 'teaching the controversy' (if you will) applies. However, in this case, the debate is not academic, it's normative. In other words, the term "massacre" is so subjective that it doesn't matter whether or not you're the world's greatest historian, you status would not afford you authority on the subject. It's like naming an article "Good things that happened before 1948". Does being a historian make you an authority on deciding what was good or what was bad, or afford your views any more credence than anyone else's? I can find dozens of sources that call this event or that event a massacre, but none of them would be relevant. Thus, as I've said numerous times before, I STRONGLY SUPPORT your proposition to change the name of this article, and I think that the name you proposed below is a good one. However, as a bit of advice, I think that adding another article that discusses massacres will, inevitably, lead to the problems I mentioned above. I estimate that the resulting article will simply end up becoming a propaganda-battleground between activist Jews and activist Arabs like so many other Wikipedia articles on this subject. Third: A little etiquette? I'm gladly you're so knowledgeable about the nature of Wikipedia ("not a room for negotiation"), but this is probably the silliest statement I've ever read. If there is anywhere that DEFINITELY IS a room for discussions regarding the verifiability, authenticity and authority or sources, it's the TALK page for an article - hence the name of the page. And your statement regarding my and Tiamut's (I'm assuming she's included in your allegation) historical ignorance is a little offensive. I'm certainly not infallible, and I'd be more than willing to discuss/correct any particular errors I've included, but the least you could do is point out to which "mistakes" you are referring instead of making such a blanket condemnation. I'd be very interested in finding out which events/contexts/scholarly papers you feel I "don't know" well enough, considering that I've studied this subject quite extensively, previously lived in the Middle East for many years and have visited many of these locations and spoken to persons who were involved in many of these incidents.

Discussion is not negociation.

The difference is as important as between "massacre" and "battle".

Concerning the title, Tiamut doesn't agree. So, let's discuss. Ceedjee (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

website

This : http://www.palestineremembered.com is not a reference. I will try to find references in historian publications (mainly in Morris, The Birth (...) revisited). If they are not referred there, I will remove this. Ceedjee (talk) 10:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Palestine Remembered bases its work on Morris, Khalidi among others. It would be nice to find the reference in their works. Tiamut 14:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And only there and not on this website which is not a acceptable reference in the sense of wikipedia. Ceedjee (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Kachol (talk) 08:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Ceedjee, with regards to this website and the "encyclopedia" you also mention: Welcome to the mess that is Wikipedia. In other words, one of Wikipedia's main flaws - and the reason it will probably never be trusted as a singular source - is that its standards of differentiation between cited sources are highly ambiguous and rely on general opinion (see WP:SOURCE). In the extreme case, especially with regards to relatively obscure events such as these, there is - theoretically - nothing stopping a person from simply creating his/her own website and asserting facts as he/she sees fit, then citing that website as a source. In the more common case, events are presented as "disputed" between sources despite the fact that one side of the dispute is obviously less authoritative than the other. Wikipedia's administrators believe that this problem naturally solves itself through what they call "consensus" editing - in truth, most articles covering controversial topics simply come to represent the lowest common denominator of opinions. Thus, although I agree with you about both of these sources, and would support their removal, Tiamut could just as easily - and justifiably - disagree with you and reinstate them.

With "Palestine remembered" website as a source ?

No, she could not revert me.

Only Morris, Khalidi or other scholars are acceptalbe for wikipedia. Ceedjee (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

To all editors Try this way, if you feel some source is not acceptable for wikipedia, instead removing it try using hidden text to help other researchers find more reliable sources. Kasaalan (talk) 06:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

This article doesn't respect NPoV because it states as massacres events that historian doen't always refer to as such. I think of course about al-Tantura. I must check for some others. How could such a list respect NPoV here ? Ceedjee (talk) 10:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that you would focus on Tantura, when there are a number of entries here that no historian has characterized as a massacre. We have for the purposes of this article, agreed that the definition of a massacre is the killing of 3 or more unarmed civilians or POWs. Why the fixation on Tantura? Tiamut 14:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Who has agreed ? Based on what reliable source.

If you want to argue that way : I don't agree for 3 and... Ceedjee (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Rename

Due to lack of sources and Pov issues, I suggest to rename to Casualites of the Arab-Zionist conflict before 1948. Ceedjee (talk) 12:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - I think what we need to do instead is list only those events that are termed "massacres" by reliable sources. While I initially welcomed Kachol's edits to this page and the idea of defining any and all attacks against 3 or more unarmed people as "massacres", that seems to be too unwieldy. We need a source for every entry that calls it a "massacre" explicitly. All entires that do not have a source as such, should be deleted from the article. If you want to work on the article name you suggested, there is a related discussion at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict on compiling casualty figures for the entire conflict. I'm sure they would be very interested in your help there. (unsigned statement by user:Tiamut.

You are right. It is far better to keep the name BUT in sourcing each event by a scholar who use the definition of the word AND to report the controversy when all scholars don't agree with this formulation.

nb : Don't start an answer by an oppose. I complety don't care your mind. Only your arguments.

Ceedjee (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about Ceedjee, I thought you were opening a poll and I've gotten used to bolding my position, per the format used by others.

I want to explain that this list, based on the format of the other List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war is supposed to be just that. A list that wikilinks to articles that discuss the events in fuller detail. This means that I don't think there is a place for extended discussions on controversies over the events or the scholars who write about them. That context can be provided in each individual article. Tiamut 17:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oups. Apologize me. That is true that is the way it works here. I am not used to these processes. I made the mistake.

I agree it is not a place for discussion but just a "list"

But I don't think that it is a good idea to list as a massacre an "event" if it is controversed as such.

That is why I suggest, if this is controversed, just to add the statement "controversed" or "constested" or what is appropriate with a reference from scholar.

And I also point out that only scholars are reference. So Pappé and Karsh, eg, are good. But not a website, even if it (alledgedly) quote Morris or any other.

The encyclopaedia currently used in the article is not acceptable.

What is your mind about this ? Ceedjee (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Kachol (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Again, see my post above. Explain what qualifies a historian as an authority on what constitutes a massacre. This is an inherently subjective term. There are three primary elements in its definition: 1) fatality 2) quantity 3) cruelty. Fatality is objective - either someone died or did not die. But there is nothing at all in the training of a historian that prepares him/her to make an "expert" assessment of what is a "large" quantity or a "cruel" quality, because no such training exists. The only persons who MIGHT have a claim to expertise on these matters are semantic experts or linguists, but even that is specious. Consider that the US Supreme Court has, for over 200 years, been unable to come up with a definable set of standards for the Constitutional clause "cruel and unusual punishment" for just this reason - there is no right or wrong set. This is also why most respected historians, history textbooks and ESPECIALLY encyclopedists refrain from using terms like "massacre", "atrocity", "glorious", and other inherently un-empirical terms. Changing the paradigm of this article to one that includes only those events labeled "massacre" will simply have the effect of creating a list of events used by various unqualified persons trying to make a political point with said events. Were the Nebi Musa riots a massacre? Maybe, maybe not. If I think they were not, explain to me what makes a historian's opinion more "expert" than mine. Does he/she have a better understanding of what cruelty is? If anything, that would be a question for philosophers. I don't see any other option but to change the name of this article.

Hi, Kachol,

K. : "Explain what qualifies a historian as an authority on what constitutes a massacre. (...) there is nothing at all in the training of a historian that prepares him/her to make an "expert" assessment of what is a "large" quantity or a "cruel" quality (...) used by various unqualified persons trying to make a political point with said events."

Hi,

(I think you answer to Tiamut but I give a short answer).

• I think your arguments to lead to the conclusion that "massacre" is some sort of mix of a subjective human or political judgements are correct.
• I think you are wrong when you write : "Does [the historian] have a better understanding of what cruelty is". I can undertand your arguments that historians are not "relevant" sources to state an event was a massacre but I cannot agree when you claim they are not better prepared than us. Historians studied these historical events and consulted reports of that time to state their analysis. We didn't. We just report relevant minds. But I can understand you consider these analysis are not relevant enough.
• I think all the material you wanted to gather could be gathered in an article name with something that looks like to : Casualities in the Arab-Zionist conflict (referring to Benny Morris book title) or something better.
• But I think too that "massacres committed during the 1948 Palestine War" is an article that is notable because the "massacres" that were committed is an argument put forward by some historians and politicians to contextualize their analysis of the events of that time.
• Concerning the massacres committed prior to this, I still wonder if the list of massacres is a notable information. I think violence would more fit what is said about them.

-sorry to have interrupted- I think Tiamut analysis would be welcome here.

Ceedjee (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Scope of article

Please note that every entry on this list must have a WP:RS that described the incident in question as a "massacre" explicitly, in order to be included. This is in line with our guidelines on verifiability and reliable sourcing. While I initially agreed to allowing the inclusion of events lacking in such sources, that was a mistake that has led to an unwieldly article scope and POV editing. I will be removing every entry that does not have a reliable source indicating that it is a massacre in the coming days. Tiamut 17:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Perfect. I fully agree. I will do the same.

I was just waiting for some reactions.

Ceedjee (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Great. Tiamut 17:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Title

This : List of massacres committed prior to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war in Mandate Palestine is equivalent to List of massacres committed in Mandatory Palestine, given the British Mandate ended on May 14, 1948, just before the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
Unless disagreement, I will proceed to the move. Ceedjee (talk) 06:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason not to. Dextrose (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Does committed really needed, List of massacres in Mandatory Palestine is enough. List of massacres in Mandatory Palestine until 1948 may be better since gives date. Kasaalan (talk) 07:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

like Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine War the name may be Killings and massacres before the 1948 Palestine War if all agrees. Kasaalan (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

On Arab Revolt 1936,

where does Gilbert say "5000 Arabs killed?" I looked on the page about the revolt, and the only source to say that was Al Jazeera, hardly impartial. Also, if its true, as I have heard British were mostly responsible, then it should be noted.Tallicfan20 (talk) 05:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

In the article for Hebron Massacre "133 Jews, 116 Arabs killed; 339 Jews, 232 Arabs wounded" in article which may refer to 1929 Palestine riots in total, as in original article

However after 1929 Palestine riots entry changed to Hebron Massacre, which refers "In total, 67 Jews were murdered in Hebron; 59 died during the riots and 8 more succumbed to their wounds later." Something may be wrong about that number refers to Hebron

I didn't remove the numbers since they are useful, however they may refer to 1929 Palestine riots as a total instead Hebron massacre. Kasaalan (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you should listen to a poster above who said "The matter is the context and the reality of a massacre. Even when there are 5000, it doesn't mean this was a massacre. More, the full losses don't refer to the victims. Eg, at Deir Yassin, the 5 Jews who were killed cannot be considered victims. For the same reasons, most arab losses should be removed from the events of 1920, 1921 and 1929. The 5000 Arabs of 1936-39 were not massacred. This was not a genocide. This was a civil war (or a rebellition) organised by Arabs. Distinction should be made between the losses of "battles" (that don't fit the definition) and the massacres (that sometimes followed).Finally, it is written only the responsable party is the one who had the direct responsibility. I assume that means the one that attacked." When other "massacres are listed," it lists the victims who feel to the perpetrators of the whole thing. Therefore, this whole article needs redoing, as it blatantly has no respect for NPOV. Otherwise, this article should be "violence in Mandatory Palestine." Was the 5000 Arabs supposedly killed in the Revolt a "massacre," or was it a direct result of the revolt?Tallicfan20 (talk) 10:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't post Hebron massacre as a reply to your question, I posted because other editors may know better about the accuracy of Hebron massacre entry. I read the hebron massacre wikipedia article, it conflicts with these numbers so I posted a correction in entries might be useful.

Even 10 deaths might be massacre, or 5000 may not be massacre considered as civil war or such by international politicians.

However massacre definition is not so hard to interpret "The intentional killing of a considerable number of human beings, under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty, or contrary to the usages of civilized people."

Best way to distinct these things are noting like 50 arabs killed (mostly attackers) or such.

In the article massacres by both parties are added, I do not find NPOV about massacre word. Kasaalan (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

this article needs a massive redoing

because massacre implies that one side is responsible and talks about the death of the other. When people talk about Deir Yassain, no one mentions what happened to a few Jews that same day. Likewise, during the attacks and pogroms on the Jews, I think there needs to be emphasis on the Jews killed. Or I think this article should be renamed.

Seeing as there is an article on Irgun attacks, I think there should be an article on Arab attacks on Jews. You cannot have one without the other or it is not NPOV on this site and blatantly biased. Tallicfan20 (talk) 10:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to create one, however this article mentions massacres by both parties as you can clearly understand if you read the entries. Kasaalan (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Major problems with this article

At the risk of repeating what is said above, the selection of entries in this list makes little sense. The article starts by saying that it is restricted to deaths of "civilians or non-combat military personnel" but many of the entries clearly don't match that. Moreover, many of the entries do not carry sources which support insertion - this includes almost everything sourced to Gilbert's Atlas, which rarely gives sufficient detail to identify the nature of the victims. Also a lot of examples from List of Irgun attacks during the 1930s are missing. Zero^talk 05:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I still don't really understand the scope of this article. It is not clearly defined. I believe that once we define that we can continue with improving its content. Personally, I would put the information about the massacres in the 1947–48 Palestine War into the same article as the massacres of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, while anything before 1947 can go into a separate article which can include anything from 1881 to November 29, 1947. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It would certainly help to define this article if November 29, 1947 was used as the cut-off date. I also suggest changing the "3 victims" criterion back to "10 victims" since otherwise it will never be more than a fraction complete. Actually there were hundreds of incidents in the 3-9 range, most of which never got into books (read contemporary newspapers to see this is true). Zero^talk 03:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

One year after your comment, I agree with you. I proceed in to the appropriate modification. Noisetier (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Vague scope

The scope of this article was vaguely defined, I am trying to improve this. IMHO it should cover killings and massacres during the existence of the British Mandate for Palestine, which is an undisputed, objectively quantifiable time period. Marokwitz (talk) 06:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

A couple of things

• "Responsible party" column - I think it's problematic. If everyone's listed, as is the case in several places, then what's the point? How do we determine who to list? I think it should probably be expanded or merged with the casualties section to specify who's responsible for what killing. For example, in the 1936-1939 riots, the vast majority of Arabs were killed by police. Many of them were armed. A reader can't tell the difference between that and civilians at a market being killed by a bomb planted by "militants".
• "Casualties/notes" column - see above. I think it should be expanded.

Thoughts? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

In general, it is very difficult to do justice to these events in the form of a list. Especially when you consider the competing narratives and often contradictory accounts of the events. Take the riots for instance, Ben Gurion said that the fighting,"is only one aspect of the conflict which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves." (Ben-Ami, Shlomo (2006) Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy. Oxford University Press. pp 13). So can I put Zionism and Colonialism as the causes and cite Ben Gurion? Or look at the Haifa oil refinery massacre, Irgun lob a grenade into a crowd of Arab workers at the gates of the refinery killing 6 outright and wounding scores. The attack triggers a riot at the refinery where the Jewish workers are attacked and killed. The following day Haganagh slip into a nearby village at night and massacre the sleeping residents in revenge for the killings at the refinery. And so it goes on. In many cases it is very difficult to point an accusing finger at a single party IMHO. Having said that I don't have a strong opinion about your proposal and I'm not going to stand in the way if you want to go ahead with it. Dlv999 (talk) 08:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think No More Mr Nice Guy is proposing to describe the ultimate cause and where the responsibility lies of the killings, which as you say will be nigh impossible. Simply noting the identity of the perpetrator and the immediate circumstances should not be too difficult.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Expanding the Casualties/notes column would probably open the door for disputes as both sides will attempt to justify the killings by appending notes. My personal opinion is that numbers and facts only should be stated at this table and the events' backgrounds and details should be described in separate wiki article if warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJC.2012 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

1937-1939 riots

This article currently lists the 1937-1939 riots with their total casualties as one incident and then various killings that were part of these riots as if they were two separate things. It creates a false impression. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

What makes you certain that they're included in the numbers for the Arab revolt? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

See 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Consistency using groups names of responsible party "lehi" & "stern gang"

Bombing of Arab National Committee HQ January 4, 1948 . Says responsible party is "stern gang" --> and redirects to "Lehi" . Why not change it to Lehi like all the other entries, as stern gang only appears once on this page but Lehi appears multiple times. The Lehi group was called stern gang by the British. They are the same group. I wanted to change these words but Wikipedia threatened me since I have lower than 500 edits. Spike82 (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Tiberias massacre

Why was my edit of the Tiberias Massacre reverted? It's not placed chronologically in the chart, and I gave a credible source for my description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.162.66 (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

"Critically wounded"?

... means what? If they died in hospital etc., they were part of the "Fatalities" - or we change heading to "IMMEDIATE fatalities". Arminden (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

It means very seriously wounded, at risk of death, but didn't actually die. Since we only use such classification in a few places, maybe it would be more consistent to not use it? Zero^talk 23:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Recent removals

Today, Ethanbas removed two incidents—the April 23, 1948, Cairo-Haifa Train bombing and the April 25 Sorona [should be Sarona] Police Station bombing—with the edit summary "those 2 events aren't real; there was no sorona bombing, and there were many train bombings but none on april 23 1948".

Ethanbas is right. The source cited, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Middle East Conflict, places both bombings in April 1947, not 1948 (probably a Wikipedia editor's error).[1] [Insert rant about how using Google Books and reading only a single page of a book is not a good way to perform research.] So do other reliable sources, including The British Army and Jewish Insurgency in Palestine, 1945–47[2] and Colonisation and Conflict 1750–1990.[3]

I therefore propose restoring the bombings to the table with the dates corrected. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, at a minimum all the bombings from Cairo–Haifa train bombings 1948 can be placed in the table, and there were definitely more train bombings than just in that article. The March 31, 1948 train bombing may have been the last one, but I'm not sure. Ethanbas ^(talk) 03:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

IP Edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_killings_and_massacres_in_Mandatory_Palestine&diff=789494866&oldid=787379801 The aggressors were Arabs in this incident, so I rolled back this edit. Ethanbas ^(talk) 18:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of killings and massacres in Mandatory Palestine. 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/20100620145357/http://palestine-encyclopedia.com/EPP/Chapter07_3of7.htm to http://www.palestine-encyclopedia.com/EPP/Chapter07_3of7.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) 01:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

1936 Anabta shooting

with only 2 fatalities. I think it violates "It is restricted to incidents in which at least three people were deliberately killed"

Why was the 1936-1939 Arab revolt in Palestine not included?

"more than 5,000 Arabs, over 300 Jews, and 262 Britons had been killed and at least 15,000 Arabs were wounded" from 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine#Casualties

It's actually included in the list. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Total fatalities?

The table should include a 'total fatalities' part, which lists the total number of fatalities in all -- as well as the specific number of Jews killed, and the specific number of Arabs killed.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

"Responsible party"

I find this column jarring for many of the incidents. For bombs or one-sided massacres, it's clear, but for many others the responsible party remains disputed. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: I'm disturbed by excessive use of the very poor tertiary source [1]. Most of the events cited to it appear in this "Atlas" as tiny boxes on maps with content like "3 Jan Arabs kill 4 Jews", with no context and no reference. No serious publication would ever cite this "Atlas" for anything, so why do we? The case mentioned (chosen at random) illustrates another problem with the source. Our page says it lists "incidents in which at least three people were deliberately killed", but this was two incidents that the "Atlas" has combined into one (probably to save space since there is no text except maps). Looking at the Palestine Post for the details (Jan 4, p1), two Jewish boys were shot as they appeared to be looting an abandoned Arab house, and a Jewish woman was found dead elsewhere. Another man "thought to be Jewish" was found dead somewhere else. No culprits are mentioned. So there was no incident at all matching the criterion. I'll delete this one but actually everything cited to this "Atlas" needs similar checking. Zero^talk 04:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Wholly agree. Gilbert is not neutral on this topic; frankly his Middle Eastern work diluted his reputation. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I have added a POV tag. A few more examples:

• The 1933 Palestine riots row claimed Arab responsibility, but the article says it was a massacre of peacefully protesting Arabs by British police (i have changes this one). I suspect the article title "riots" may be misleading though.
• The 1936 Tulkarm shooting was followed by a similar reprisal attack which is not included. I'd need to read more on the history of the first few months of 1936, but I'd be amazed if there had been no prior incidents. If so, then the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine article will need work, because it implies that this shooting was the first violent incident.
• The Battle of Tel Hai article reads like the incident was a big misunderstanding, with some understandably nervous Zionist settlers accidentally triggering a firefight. Yet it is stated here as Arab responsibility. It strikes me that both sides made mistakes here.

Onceinawhile (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, the Hebrew source for many of the Irgun's actions was added by User:Doron, who was a great and highly reliable editor, sorely missed. Zero^talk 14:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Tel Hai doesn't mention that the leader of the Arab party later became an agent of the JNF and helped them buy land. I must add it. Zero^talk 14:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Fascinating – I didn’t know that. I just read about it – in case helpful, here are some sources I found:

• https://www.haaretz.com/.premium-the-screw-up-that-led-to-joseph-trumpeldor-s-death-1.5367702
• Gillis, John R. (5 June 2018). Commemorations: The Politics of National Identity. Princeton University Press. p. 105 onwards. ISBN 978-0-691-18665-8.

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

There should be explicit criteria for who should be listed as a responsibly party. In most cases, there are multiple parties, because life is complex. Below, I suggested that it could be based on the fraction of casualties (or death, perhaps). It could also be influenced by who "started it", although these things are typically the results of escalations (who threw the first insult, the first stone, the first grenade?). LachlanA (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Even for bombs, it isn't clear. One of the massacres was payback for a bombing that wasn't listed here. Are the bombers or the payers-back responsible? Life is complex. We should make more use of the "Notes" column. LachlanA (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Biased grouping of Arab attacks, and detailing of Jewish attacks

Why are Jewish attacks by Irgun detailed to like an attack with 3 Muslims dead; when Arab attacks can be grouped even though they have 50-60 deaths each. For example the Hebron massacre does not have an entry even though it is 20 times the size of some Irgun attack. It is quite biased; a good solution would be to have sub totals per year with total Jews killed by Arabs, total Arabs killed by Jews, and total Arabs killed by British forces. Patrick.N.L (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Massacres have perpetrators not 'responsible parties'

Massacres have perpetrators. Including the victims of a massacre as a 'responsible party' is dubious and open to massive interpretation. Patrick.N.L (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

That may be true, but in that case, these events are not all "massacres". For example, the first line in the table is about in incident where the first shot was fired by a Jew, yet it is listed as having Arabs as the sole perpetrators. Armed Arabs were searching for French soldiers, and the Jews attacked them for it. After a ceasefire, a Jew opened fire again. The world is much more complex than "massacres have perpetrators". Let's look for a more neutral term. LachlanA (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

"Armed Arabs were searching for French soldiers, and the Jews attacked them for it. " False. Arab mobs without any uniform falsely believe that Jews were some kind of traitors, one armed Arab entered the house of a woman with a weapon without prior warning, that woman feared for her life and pointed a weapon at him, he shot her and and then the Arabs massacred the Jews there.

Not sure how you can blame some civilians for a massacre of civilians. Patrick.N.L (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

That’s really not what happened, he didn’t randomly just “shoot” her. They were searching for French soldiers and she pointed a pistol on him.

A shot was fired, it is disputed if it’s from her pistol or from another weapon. But it was a fight not a “massacre”. 156.218.79.182 (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Restructure: Massacres vs other altercations

Many of the incidents currently listed do not fit with the general understanding of massacre. I propose splitting the list into two: A list of massacres with a narrower definition, and a list of other incidents that meet the current definition.

As a strawman, I propose that an incident only be considered a massacre if

• It fits the current definition of involving at least three deaths; and either
  • it was highly asymmetric, with a clear majority of casualties (say over two thirds) on a side that was less heavily armed. This would exclude general riots and the like; or
  • the number of deaths was over 50.

There should also be guidelines about who is the "responsible party" (as in the thread above). Perhaps any side responsible for over a quarter of the deaths could be listed as a responsible party. LachlanA (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't pretend to be a list of massacres. It is called "killings and massacres" to avoid disputes over the boundary between the two. I don't agree with reintroducing the boundary and I don't see how your proposal would be an improvement. Zero^talk 08:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@LachlanA @Zero0000 I want to know why it needs "killings and"? MWQs (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Because some of the events, particularly those in a military context, are not usually called massacres. Zero^talk 00:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Synonymous groups?

Two are labeled "Jewish militants (Stern Gang)" and one is labelled "Jewish militants (Lehi)" the page for Lehi says that Stern Gang is just an exonym for the Lehi, should all three show Lehi? So it's clear that all the are the same group. Is there a reason to call them Stern Gang instead? Is there any good reason to keep them separate? MWQs (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Same group. We should use the same name in all cases and a simple rule to follow is to use the name of our article on the group. Zero^talk 00:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Removal of responsible party column

There has recently been a user who has removed the column that detailed this information. They gave this as the following reason:

"removed column because it misrepresents and simplifies the conflict, not Wikipedia's task to decide in one word who's responsible. also it uses Arabs instead of Palestinians which is questionable to say the least. readers can get more detailed info by checking the relevant articles"

I do not believe these reasons hold merit. For starters there are countless other pages similar to this that list series of massacres that occurred in places of conflict such as "List of massacres in Lebanon", "List of massacres in Kosovo", "List of massacres in Ukraine", "List of massacres in Myanmar" the list of lists goes on, but you get the point. By and large these types of pages outline who the "responsible party" were. They use different terminology sometimes such as "perpetrators". Perhaps the column should be brought back with the column label being changed to something with a more neutral tone that doesn't lay 100% of the blame on 1 side or the other.

The point being this is actually the norm, by making the claim it "isn't for wikipedia to decide" seems disingenuous and an attempt to obfuscate history. I am highly dubious this edit was made in good-faith.

They also protest the use of "Arab" implying Palestinian would be more accurate. This is an anachronistic take on history. Did it not occur to them that the other party was labeled "Jewish militants" and not "Israelis"? The Arabs in Palestine during this period referred to themselves as and were referred to as Arabs. This is demonstrated in numerous documents from that time period (Peel Commission, White Paper of 1939, 1948 UN Partition Plan). You can also review quotes from the Arab leadership at the time (Amin al-Husseini for example) and it reflects this.

As I do not have permissions to make edits, I would like to petition that these edits be reverted for the reasons I gave here. Teflawn (talk) 01:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. There was clearly no consensus for this change, so I second the reversion. It looks like a transparent attempt to hide the fact that Arabs started ALL the early violence, as there has been a lot of anti-Zionist collusion on Wikipedia recently and this appears to be another example of it. Avengah (talk) 06:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

"It looks like a transparent attempt to hide the fact that Arabs started ALL the early violence"

This was the conclusion I came to as well, although British forces played a role in early violence as well. The asymmetrical nature in which they apply this standard (e.g. not to all massacre pages, and not even to all massacre pages revolving around this conflict, Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine war) displays a clear bias. The main difference between that page and this, is that this page includes massacres that predate the civil war. Attempting to hide this context for the 1948 war is anti-historical.

I also would like to note "readers can get more detailed info by checking the relevant articles" is not a particularly useful comment to give, as half if not more of the attacks and massacres do not have independent pages that elaborate on the events to "get more detailed info" Teflawn (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, someone removed the Jerusalem stabbings of 1921. Here's the edit where they were removed: [4] - please could someone readd the responsible party column AND readd this attack? Thanks. Avengah (talk) 04:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)