Talk:Convoy of 35

Several objections

There is already an article on this subject: Lamed Hey. The contents should be merged. --Zero 05:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Contemporary reports of this event report it as a military battle, with the 35 "fighting to the last man" (phrase used by Palestine Post repeatedly). The report on the funeral says they "went down like heros asking and giving no quarter". Attempts to portray it as a massacre are not based on facts and are not appreciated by people who prefer the heroic version. --Zero^talk 03:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

the battle went through courageously. It has nothing to do with the massacre. The massacre is the killing of prisoners, captives, after the ammo ended and they were left undefended. Your comments do not refute the massacre, for which references were brought. There was heroics, and then massacres. Two seperate things. Amoruso 09:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in Katz's hate-mongering. There is no evidence that a significant number of the 35 surrendered. They might well have run out of ammunition, but that would need a reliable source and you haven't got one. It was a military disaster, get over it. --Zero^talk 09:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

do not re-edit this page. take it to arbitration if you want. a military defeat is dir yasseen yet it is written as massacre. massacre includes dead soldiers, from the list. Katz is only one of all sources who claim that the arabs killed captives here. it's all facts. get over it. don't try to be one sided ALL the time. Amoruso 09:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Your sources don't satisfy WP:RS, especially not the discussion forum. If the evidence is what you say, a claim from the Irgun about some phonecall, that is hardly anything and I'm not surprised that historians in general make so such claim. Such anecdotes are below the evidence horizon for historical research. For example, right-wing historian Efraim Karsh, (The Arab-Israeli Conflict: The Palestine War 1948, p38), wrote:

Commanded by Danny Mass, the Etzion Bloc's commander until a few days earlier, the group left the Jerusalem area in the evening of 15 January, but failed to reach its destination before dawn and found itself surrounded by masses of Arabs who had swarmed to the area from their villages. Taking positions near the opening of a cave on the local road, the platoon fought to the last man. A British police officer was later to tell that he found the body of one of the fighters with a stone, his last weapon, in his hand. True or not, the death of the 35 would take its place in the Israeli collective memory as an epitome of heroism and in the Arab narrative as a shining military success.

If stories about overheard phonecalls are acceptable, there are many additional massacres of Arabs that can be added to the list based on the much better evidence of interviews with named witnesses. --Zero^talk 11:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

??? Overheard calls ? evidence ? Are you a history professor from Bar Ilan or something ? This is not overheard call, it's intercepted. This is a thorough research , strong evidence of a massacre, end of story. If you have more to add on other massacres, go ahead. Amoruso 12:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

and again, underlining most reserachs on the issue are modern, like explained. there's no discussion boards, it was all in the papers about the famous research who proved the massacre. it has nothing to do with the battle. the evidence is new and regardes the aftermath of the battle. some of the fighters did not die but were killed while injured. this is all hard facts. Amoruso 12:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of a massacre?

Amoruso produced three articles on the internet to support his claim that there was a massacre of caputured soldiers. In this article he bypassed one of them to reduce it to two articles (we'll see why). All of the articles relate to a thesis written by Yochanan ben Yaakov under the supervision of Professor Yossi Avneri (well known as a researcher of religious history) at Bar-Ilan University. Since we don't have ben Yaakov's thesis to examine directly, we must consider whether Amoruso's claim is supported by these web articles.

1. First there is an interview with Yochanan ben Yaakov here. He says that the corpses were mutilated, but he doesn't mention killing of captured soldiers.
2. Second there is the longer (second) of the two articles here. It reports quite a lot of details of ben Yaakov's work, but it doesn't say that captured soldiers were killed. Actually it says all the testimonies "even those of the Arab sources" indicate that "the Jews fought till the last bullet, and some of the dead held rocks in their hands". Then it quotes the nephew of Danny Mass (the leader of the 35) saying that the battle was "fair" but followed by mutilation of the corpses. He doesn't say that captured soldiers were killed. Finally it summarises ben Yaakov's contributions: (a) The participation of hundreds of Arabs from a nearby training base in the battle. (b) There was intelligence, which was ignored, about the presence of Arab fighters along the route. (c) The battle had two stages, four hours apart. (d) Etzel intercepted a phone conversation about the battle. If it had have been made known to the Hagana, a rescue mission might have been possible. (e) This is the first study in which data was cross-checked with data from Arab sources. (Item (d), which accuses Etzel of losing an opportunity to save some of the 35, is probably why Amoruso bypassed this web page and linked to #3 directly.)
3. Third we have the shorter (first) of the articles here. It comes from the "news" source Arutz Sheva, basically the voice of the extremist settlers, which is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. In Wikipedia we have seen several instances where Arutz Sheva reports turned out to be completely fictitious. In this article we learn that the intercepted telephone message mentioned that "many were killed and many wounded". From this, the Arutz Sheva reporter concludes that some of the 35 must have been killed after being captured. This conclusion is not credited to ben Yaakov, and as we have seen, he does not make such a claim even when he has the opportunity. In fact ben Yaakov established that there were two battles hours apart; why can't these words be referring to the first battle? This article also states that the last of the 35 who was alive lobbed a grenade, then a rock, before being shot, clearly contradicting the conclusion that captured soldiers were killed. In fact, it isn't even clear from what is said here that the "killed and wounded" weren't Arabs. Finally, this article makes the claim "the Arabs mutilated the corpses and tortured the survivors to death, there are shocking photographs". However, these photographs (taken by a British soldier named Duggin) have been reported on by more reliable sources. They do show mutilation but torture was not reported (example: Jerusalem Post, 16 January 1998).

So, in conclusion, even though Amoruso says that ben Yaakov established that captured soldiers were killed, we have no source attributing that opinion to him. The sole source for the claim about killing of captured soldiers is Arutz Sheva. By Wikipedia standards, that is no source at all. --Zero^talk 13:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Now we can consider some of the other claims in this article. One of the consistent features of the period before May 15, 1948, is that anytime something bad happened the British were blamed for it. Sometimes they deserved it, but this is not one of those times. The claim "The British in the nearby police station did not interfere until the battle was over." is simply the standard claim made without basis. To see the true role of the British we can read the interview with Hagana officers Uri Gavish and Eliezer Shmueli published in the Jerusalem Post, 16 January 1998. Gavish was initially a member of the convoy but had to drop out and return to Jerusalem. Shmueli was the communications officer who announced the news on the radio. The British didn't know about the convoy because elaborate measures were taken to conceal it from them. They took a long detour around the police station for that reason. After nothing had been heard from the 35 for a long time and wounded Arabs started arriving in Hebron, the British sent a platoon to investigate. "After threatening and exhorting the village mukhtars and notables", the British were finally led to the site of the battle. So much for that myth. --Zero^talk 13:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

After fable in the article is this: "They did not harm the Arab civilian, who hurried to sound the alarm." Well it is not strictly false, but the implication that they could have harmed the civilian is wrong. According to another Jerusalem Post interview (7 May 1998), the 35 were spotted by two women who were too far away to shoot and anyway "the shots would have given the fighters away". --Zero^talk 13:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

starting with the last claims of yours - the question of the British interference ornot is disputed. The question of the meeting with the shepherd is also disputed. Some say it never happened (it happened on a differnet incident with a different convoy), some say that they spared the lives of the two women, some say they spared the lives of both, and some say like you claim that they didn't want to shoot either for tactical reasons.

As to your claims of the articles, I only found the articles relating to the thesis on the net so people can have a reference. I'm refering to the actual thesis and the conclusions it derives. This is backed by other sources as well, as Katz who reports that captured soldiers were killed. So we have 2 WP:RS here, one can add more in the future, as there are indeed more in recent years more and more is found out about the incident. There's no denying it. The reason i didn't place the 3rd "article" is because it's not an article - it's a forum. internet forums are not WP:RS and this source was actually deleted I think by you becuse you claimed it's an internet forum. Weird ha ? Amoruso 14:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to claim something on the basis of the thesis you will have to establish that it says what you claim. So far you didn't even give a citation. Why don't you do what I always do with difficult-to-obtain sources: upload a scan of the relevant pages? --Zero^talk 12:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC) And the article you omitted (the best of the three) is a newspaper article like it says at the end. --Zero^talk 12:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

A little anecdote

I'll record a little anecdote on this talk page because it is Original Research and probably isn't important enough to put into the article anyway. When Chaim Guri heard about the death of the 35, he was in Europe (Vienna if I remember correctly). He was very upset so he wrote a poem Henay M'utalot Gufoteinu (Here Our Bodies Lie), but when he finished he decided it wasn't good enough. He screwed it up and threw it towards the fire, but it fell short. Later his wife Aliza rescued it from the floor and convinced him it was worth saving. He sent it to Palestine where it became very famous. Chaim and Aliza told me this story themselves. --Zero^talk 14:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

incredible lies

Your sources don't satisfy WP:RS, especially not the discussion forum. Zero^talk 11:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

And the article you omitted (the best of the three) is a newspaper article like it says at the end. --Zero^talk 12:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso 17:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The whole business of Kfar Etzion and the Convoy was act of calculated aggression

I'd like to know what the Zionists think the Settlers at Kfar Etzion were doing. They were far, far outside the region set aside for the new Israel.

They had three choices that I can see, one of them suicidal. They chose the suicidal one.

And gunmen were trying to shore up this aggressive outpost - normal people would be outraged by villagers being confronted by thugs on such a mission. And celebrate the fact that they were stopped. Heroism against very heavy odds.

Why is this article written as if armed intruders were the good guys?

PalestineRemembered 20:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right that the article is written from an Israeli point of view, though I don't entirely agree with you. The situation is that these were legal settlements (legal according to British mandatory laws), and the UN partition decision did not require their evacuation. So in the event of a peaceful implementation of the UN decision, these Jewish settlements would have become part of the Arab state and the residents could have stayed there either as Jewish-state or Arab-state citizens. Of course it didn't happen that way for two reasons. One was that the Arab side did not agree to the partition plan at all, and the other is that the Jewish side did not agree to the Etzion Bloc being under Arab sovereignty (either Palestinian or Jordanian). The Jewish intention was to annex it by force to the Jewish state. You could say that the convoys were to defend the people there, or that they were part of the campaign of annexation, and be right both times. --Zero^talk 02:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I know these were/had been legal settlements, but the only two legal ways forward for them was to live under Arab sovereignty (/at peace with their neighbours) or evacuate. They chose to stand and fight - to oppose the Arab sovereignty that the Zionists had supposedly agreed to. Now, what I've said is OR and can't be used - but it's nonsense to treat the settlements as anything other than heavily armed unwanted intruders.

And the same for the convoy - whose destruction (if it is to be remembered) would be celebrated. Villagers caught unawares, managed to stop these people (who, by the sound of it, fought to the death). Why this 'proud' suggestion that the members didn't start killing unarmed villagers immediately (especially when there is no attempt at any kind of verification - nothing to suggest the ridiculous implication that the goatherder/women stopped to chat with a large group of armed men and walked away).

Really, my question is - what is the WP doing hosting such a very POV article?

(And a further question to any of its supporters - are there any similar examples of the opposite POV being tolerated by WP and WP editors?).

I'm new to this business, but my first impression is that this article is an NPOV disgrace and nothing could be done to save it.

PalestineRemembered 17:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't engage in the WP:SOAPBOX and your personal WP:POV on talk pages. I find it odd that you Zero has now added the discussion forum link you previously blanked AND IN HEBREW LOL. [1] [2]. Amoruso 11:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I see no response to my carefully expressed opinion that this article is blatantly POV. If it belongs in the encyclopedia atall, then it should be written up as "Glorious victory of villagers over a heavily armed group of infiltrators". If this is not going to happen, then it should be deleted, as being unfixable. Supporters of this article are probably lucky I'm a newby, and a pretty cautious one at that.

PalestineRemembered 16:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion, "carefully expressed" or otherwise, is just that - your opinion. You're welcoem to it, but please don't force your POV into this article. I think that a notable event in the Israeli-Arab conflict is worthy of an encyclopedia article, especially one such as this which was notable enough to have an entire Kibbutz named for it. You may think that the killing of 35 soldiers carrying medical supplies to a besieged civilian community , and the subsequent mutilation of their dead bodies beyond recognition is some 'Glorious victory'. I find it repugnant. keep your POV out of the encyclopedia. Isarig

I think you wrote it twice, palestineremembered. Please see WP:SOAPBOX again and WP:NOT. Btw, the article quoted in arutz sheva is WP:RS. Makor Rishon and Arutz Sheva for general knowledge is also largely the same. Obviously, Days of Fire is WP:RS too. Amoruso 04:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm still getting zero response to my questions "What do the Zionists think the Settlers at Kfar Etzion were doing?". Nor my question - "Why is this article written as if armed intruders were the good guys?". Nor my next question - "What is the WP doing hosting such an article?". If there's nobody prepared to defend the central pillars of having this article in this project, then I think it should be deleted. I'm still a newby, which explains why I've not yet attempted to apply the process to deal with this most un-encyclopaedic entry. PalestineRemembered 22:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Your questions have been answered, more than once. What those settlers in Kfar Etzion were doing was living. They had bought land with thir money , and set about living their lives there, cultivating the land. It appears that you think this is some sort of egragious provacation, but many people don't view it that way. Your next question - I don't think this article is written froma certain POV, but if you have suggestions on specific sentences- let's hear them. Finally, what WP is doing is hosting an article about a notable event during a notable conflict. If you think the article should be deleted, I suggest you start an AfD about it. All it takes is following a simple, well documented procedure, and I think the experience will help you a lot in becoming a better editor.Isarig 22:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've repeatedly asked for evidence that the settlers of Israel bought any of the land they claim to have done. 62 years after the birth of Israel they're not buying land, they're just seizing it (plenty of references for that). 115 years ago they were bringing in guns (or persuading some of their neighbours they were bringing in guns, anyway) and upsetting people. Was Kfar Etzion any different? (Most unlikely it was "their money" either, it came from Zionist donors!).

Zeron tells me that Kfar Etzion was (by 1948, anyway) intent on seizing land between itself and the new Israel. Your claim that they were "living" in the ordinary sense of the word bears no relation to my own concept of "living" - this was an armed camp.

Again I ask - why is this article written to defend the aggressors?

PalestineRemembered 20:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You need look no further than the first paragraph of the Gush Etzion article which states "The location was purchased". If you want addition sources, have a look at this, from a pro-Palestinian source: "the land which had been the site of Migdal Eder was purchased by Shmuel Yosef Holtzman in order to establish a Jewish community in the area between Bethlehem and Hebron. Holtzman named the community “Kfar Etzion". I don't know what your concept of living is, mine is that people buying land and ciltivating it are living there. Isarig 20:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of the land was purchased in the 1930s, and resold to the JNF in 1940. According to John C. Lehr and Yossi Katz, International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2003, pp. 215–228, this resale was illegal. In fact, they say that the JNF concentrated its efforts in this region because it was illegal. However, Zionists were not in a position to simply seize land until 1948 (after which they made up for it by blatantly stealing huge areas). Somewhere I read that a further portion of the Etzion land had been owned by Germans but was seized by the British when the owner was interred during WWII as an enemy alien. (Can't find the source for that, don't trust my memory too much.) --Zero^talk 00:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Illegal as in it's ok to massacre them and then it's not ok to come back ? Seems logical... Amoruso 22:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have an idea. You state your opinions and I'll state mine. --Zero^talk 02:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I re-phrased the whole paragrah and maintained accuracy. there are 2 differnet sources here, saying there's no source is not true. But now I feel it's adequate and highly NPOV and everyone can agree to it. Cheers, Amoruso 22:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You have not provided any reliable source for your claim. Arutz 7 and Katz are not acceptable. --Zero^talk 00:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

They're acceptable if we say it's who said them, and we did. One is a major news station although with a political stand and the other is perfectly ok of course. Amoruso 00:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither of them are noteworthy as sources. Their speculations and wild claims are not of interest. In fact there were lots of different rumors at the time, including that some of the 35 were captured and taken away and that one of them was a woman. It was also alleged that the garrison at Kfar Etzion were aware of the battle but refused to help. Rumors like this are rarely notable and it is not acceptable to cherry pick something that suits your politics and insist that it get special treatment. --Zero^talk 02:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, maybe it's not of interest to you, and maybe it's not acceptable to you, but it is acceptable and of interest to other wikipedia users and these sources are perfectly fine and relevant and they fit all the criteria of WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:RS. So respectfully you'll have to learn to live with it. Cheers, Amoruso 03:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What is your source for "photos of mutilated bodies were spread, some of them allegdly still alive"? --Zero^talk 10:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a leftover from one of the attempts to blank the whole thing. I'll remove it, although this is well known of course and been told many times. Amoruso 10:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You inserted it in exactly this form. Now we can look at another one of your sources. You have been citing "Katz, Shmuel (1968). Days of fire. W.H. Allen . ISBN 0491002319, p. 369." as supporting Arutz Sheva's claim that captured soldiers were killed. Care to elaborate on that source? --Zero^talk 15:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The exact quoete says "The arabs often killed their captives and mutilated them - this is how they've done with the 35..." Cheers, Amoruso 17:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's be clear about this. Are you saying that I can track down the 1968 W.H. Allen edition of Days of Fire, ISBN 0491002319, turn to page 369, and find the words you just quoted? --Zero^talk 04:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

As I thought. --Zero^talk 06:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

As you thought what ? Yes, it's a direct quote from the book. The page number currently refers to the hebrew version. Amoruso 19:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So you admit misrepresenting the source (as you have done many times). Here is what the English edition says (p194): "Fighting to their last round of ammunition, they had been killed to a man". Nothing about being captured before being killed, and even if there was, Katz is neither an accepted source of history nor an eyewitness. --Zero^talk 12:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I never misrepresented anything. Stop the personal attacks. What I wrote is a direct quote from the book. It's in Hebrew. The page number refers to the Hebrew version. If you have the English translation with you, you should find the correct page. You're obviously not reading it. It's at the section where Katz is discussing Deir Yassen, the 4th part Chapter 17. it's a good legitimate source of course. Amoruso 18:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You gave the English edition repeatedly, misleadingly. Anyway, what you quote would be insufficient even if Katz was a reliable source (rather than a professional propagandist). The fact that the 35 were killed and some were mutilated is in the article already. It was me and not you that gave a reliable source for the mutilation part. --Zero^talk 11:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The page number referrs to the Hebrew and it says that captives were killed. This and Arutz Sheva is included. Amoruso 10:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

ISBN 0-491-00231-9 is an English language edition. --Ian Pitchford 11:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Your point ? Amoruso 13:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You aren't citing this edition and so you need a source; preferably a reliable English-langugage source given the controversial and otherwise unsupported nature of the claim. --Ian Pitchford 13:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

i'm citing the Hebrew page number, it says so in the source. The book is for reference in english, it's possible to add the hebrew too or instead, it's all allowed. Amoruso 14:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could make a scan of the Hebrew page available for other editors to assess? This has worked well in the past. --Ian Pitchford 14:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems I don't have any access to a scanner nor to the english translation at the moment, so I'll just quote it in Hebrew directly for other hebrew readers to see that this is what I quoted.

"היתה להם מטרה מעשית בלתי אמצעית בנימת החלחלה אותה נקטו בהפיצם בעולם כולו את השקר על דיר-יאסין. הערבים, שלעיתים קרובות הרגו את שבוייהם והטילו בהם מומים - כך נהגו בל"ה בהרי חברון בחודש ינואר - לא התקשו כלל ללכת בעקבותיהם; " Amoruso 15:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Katz does not actually say that the 35 were captured. If he knew that he would have highlighted it in his earlier longer section that is specifically about the 35. In any case, how the hell could Katz know something that nobody else could discover (including Haganah intelligence, etc)? This is just bluster from a propagandist and obviously inadmissible. As for Arutz Sheva: the propaganda arm of the settler movement "suggests that the intercepted conversation raises the possibility", wow whoopee doo what amazing convincing evidence that is! This nonsense has gone on for way too long. --01:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

He most certainly says that in the Hebrew paragraph quoted above. I assume you do not read Hebrew, so I'll translate the relevant section: 'The Arabs often killed their prisoners and mutilated them - that's what they did with the 35 in the Hebron mountains'.Whether or not Katz was in a position to know this is entirely irrelevant- the standard on WP is verifiability, not truth, and it is verifiable that Katz has claimed this. Isarig 04:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It can easily be read that the reference to the 35 applies to the "mutilated". Such constructive ambiguity is normal for propagandistic writing. In any case it doesn't matter in the slightest since Katz is not a reliable source. And I'll repeat: Katz has a whole passage on the 35 earlier in the book where he gives more detail and does not claim that the 35 were captured before being killed. This is sufficient to prove that Katz did not have such information, otherwise he would have focussed on it at length. --Zero^talk 08:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it can't be read that way. It can be read that in addition to killing prisoners, they ALSO mutilated them. Your persoanl agenda against Katz notwithstanding, he is a reliable source. Please stop your disruption on this page. Isarig 15:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A "whole" passage ? Wow, in contrast to this "whole" passage ? In what chapter is it ? Amoruso 12:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I quoted the key sentence to you already. Please explain why an uninhibited Arab-basher like Shmuel Katz would merely say they were killed after running out of ammunition if he could have said that they were killed in cold blood after being captured. --Zero^talk 06:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I asked you what chapter Katz discusses it, I want to see it in Hebrew. Please cite a reference for him being an "Arab-basher". Amoruso 10:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a chapter called "The Arabs Attack". As for a reference for him being an Arab-basher, one is called "Days of Fire" and another is called "Battleground". --Zero^talk 12:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the concept of a "reference". Your own personal opinion of the man or his published works does not count as one. Isarig 17:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Without getting involved in the question of whether he could have known, I have to confirm Amoruso's translation as being the only logical one; in that sentence Katz is certainly claiming that the captured of the 35 were killed and mutilated. Tewfik^Talk 15:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Lamed He

I really don't see why everything has to turn into an endless argument. The fifth letter in the Hebrew alphabet is He, not "Hey". The official English name of the kibbutz that was named after the convoy is "Netiv Halamed-He" [3].--Doron 19:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The spelling "hey" is quite common, but "he" seems more official. For example, the name of the letter in Unicode (which is as close as we can get to an international standard) is "HEBREW LETTER HE". --Zero^talk 10:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Katz quote

The article originally claimed that "Allegations of the killing of soldiers while being captives were also told at the time", and attributed this to Days of Fire by Shmuel Katz. I have just checked the text of the book, as published by WH Allen in London, in 1968. What Katz actually writes is: "Thirty-five members of the Haganah had been ambushed as they picked their way through the hills near Hebron. Fighting to their last round of ammunition, they had been killed to a man." (p 194). No suggerstion of the murder of captives. I have removed this unverified allegation and false citation. RolandR 11:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, it says "'The Arabs often killed their prisoners and mutilated them - that's what they did with the 35 in the Hebron mountains'" - see above. Amoruso 13:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please give the edition and page number; I cannot find it in my copy, only what I quote above. What other information did I remove? RolandR 14:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It is the Hebrew copy as stated. Amoruso 14:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, please give the edition and page number, ie a proper citation. You currently cite the English edition, in which Katz does not make this claim. You can't cite a title with a pagfe number from a different book, this is certainly not a reliable source. And, by the way, the suggestion that prisoners were killed does not appear in the version on Hebrew wikipedia. RolandR 16:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed before. I gave the English book as reference, the page number from the hebrew book, i can give you the edition of the hebrew book if you wish, it's all permissiable. Whether or not this material appears in other language projects of wikipedia is of course irrelevant. Amoruso 08:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The Hebrew text can be translated roughly as "The Arabs, who frequently killed their prisoners and mutilated their bodies -- that is what they did with the Lamed He in the Hebron mountains in January..." and it is given in the context of a different event -- Deir Yassin. I think this quote is too slim to be worthy of mention here. Katz does not say that they were killed after being captured in the context of the Lamed He, it is only a rather vague and short remark in the context of a completely different event. If Katz had wanted to say that some of the Lamed He were killed after being captured, he would have stated it clearly in the relevant chapter. The Arutz Sheva quote is also dubious. Arutz Sheva is not a reliable source, and the quote they give says "many were killed and dozens more were wounded" -- there's no indication that the source is referring to wounded Jews, it may very well be a general description of the battle.--Doron 11:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You are cleary mistaken on both accounts, and repeating old remarks by Zero0000 above which were refuted by Isarig - see above. Kats' quote is explicit and not ambigious or vague at all. As for Arutz Sheva, you apparently did not read the whole thing, against it explicity talks about the indication that prisoners were killed. Cheers. Amoruso 14:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I read the discussion above and there was no consensus on this matter. It is very unlikely that Katz would have omitted the killing of prisoners in the description of the Lamed He battle, yet make a short and indirect reference to the killing of prisoners in the description of a completely different event. This is very little to rely on when you make such a bold claim. One would expect a clear reference in the appropriate chapter. Especially since no other author makes such a claim, and Katz does not give a source to his own claim.

As for the Arutz Sheva story, I read it all and the only indication that "maybe" they were killed after being captured is the intercepted phone call. The quote from the phone call gives no indication that it is referring to the Jewish fighters. This information is so dubious that it is not worthy of mention.--Doron 16:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Katz is making a very clear and explicit statement, that the Lamed He were killed and mutilated after being captured. The conext of the discussion may be interesting, as are your specualtions as to what Katz should have done in discussing the Lamed He battkle, but both are irrelavnt to this point. Isarig 18:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No, this is unacceptable. This is a significant point -- that prisoners were killed. It would have been written explicitly in the relevant chapter. The fact that he does not say but a single word about it in the relevant chapter is critical. An off hand remark that may be interpreted in a different way is not enough to make such a bold claim. Is this indirect remark the only place in all the writings of Katz (and, indeed, in the whole of the literature on the subject!) where this important claim is made?--Doron 05:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The idea that there is a relevant chapter for the Lamed He is a fabrication AFAIK. Tell me where it is, then we can relate to it. What you're doing is WP:OR. I found this at this page, I don't remember if he said it on another occasion, nor does it matter. Artuz Sheva raises the possibility like I wrote. I've used "suggested" and "raised the possibility" and that's still not good enough ? Amoruso 05:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva is not a historical research institute. Arutz Sheva may be appropriate for quoting on current events, but not on historical research. Journalists raise all sorts of possibilities, that does not make them noteworthy. If there is a serious source that makes this claim, it would be appropriate. As for the Katz quote, I'll have to check again tomorrow.--Doron 06:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Doron that it should be possible to find better support for this claim in the literature, if it is valid. It should remain out of the article pending the location of reliable sources. --Ian Pitchford 11:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no requirement for Arutz Sheva to fit these wishes of yours. You can try to make a new wikipedian policy if you like but not enforce your opinion. Cheers, Amoruso 13:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, you are claiming that Arutz Sheva is a reliable source in the field of history?--Doron 13:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's an editorial concerning the academic study and fits all WP:RS for inclusion as their opinion. Amoruso 13:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You could cite the "academic study" itself, that would be OK, but not the Arutz Sheva report on it. The only problem is that it's not an academic study at all, it's a publication of the Kfar Etzion Field School. And the author is not an academic figure either (please correct me if I'm wrong), I couldn't even find any indication that he has seen the inside of a university in his life.--Doron 14:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Amoruso, if this Ben-Yaacov person has any sort of published research that claims that captives may have been killed, then cite it. Otherwise, this is entirely a speculation of Arutz Sheva, which is a (biased) news agency and not a historical research institute and thus does not qualify as a reliable source. I've removed the Arutz Sheva material.--Doron 14:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've restored it. You have no proof of this ludricous bias allegation - it is from an analysis, interview and study cited accurately by name of the news agency. Amoruso 17:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

We've been waiting for an explanation as to why you can't find a reliable source for this for a very long time now. Surely there are relevant publications by respectable historians? --Ian Pitchford 17:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're familiar with the subject. Please read through. In short, there is a new study which implies these claims which were also told at the time, exactly as written in the article. No problems. Amoruso 17:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You can cite the study, not the Arutz Sheva article. Arutz Sheva is not a reliable source about history. How do you know they are quoting the research faithfully? How do you know they are not inventing things?--Doron 17:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No reason to doubt this. It's a conclusion they derived after interviewing and analysing the issue. They're quoted by name (which they shouldn't be as it's an obvious conclusion), there's no problem with it. Amoruso 17:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

They derived? Who's they? Why should we trust them? They can write whatever they like. They are not a reliable source to "derive" anything about the history of the War of Independence. I don't believe they are representing the research you mentioned properly. How do you know they are reliable? How do you know they are not making this up? An academic study has to cite sources and is subject to review, Arutz Sheva doesn't have to do anything. Arutz Sheva claim they got this from the interview but nobody can guarantee it is true. I know a few people who were interviewed in the media and their words were terribly misrepresented. My sister wrote a couple of articles in Yedioth Aharonot and the editor butchered it till she was ashamed to have her name on it. Arutz Sheva is (arguably) a news agency, not a source for history study. If you can cite the actual study, do so.--Doron 18:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. I'll explain again (hopefully for the last time). There is a study for which we can't link directly. One of the study's natural conclusions is this - we can just say it with no source, but since there's a secondary source confirming this, we did , and we went further more and cited the secondary source by name. We are allowed to cite secondary sources in wikipedia. This is all cited and confirmed. Thank you, Amoruso 18:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't understand. How do you know that the intercepted phone call is evidence of the killing of captives? Do you know it from the Arutz Sheva article? If so, it's no good, because Arutz Sheva is not a reliable historical source. You added a passage that you can only trace back to the Arutz Sheva article, you have presented no other source that claims that about the intercepted phone call. If there is indeed a study, as you claim, that raises this possibility, then by all means cite it. I don't see why you can't do that. If there is no such study, then you have nothing.--Doron 21:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The study is already cited in the article. One of the conclusions that can be dervied from the study is this, and a secondary source was used to present it. All perfectly according to the rules. Amoruso 07:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is it cited? I see no citation of the study. If we're talking about a conclusion from the study, as you put it, then it has to be derived by a reliable author. A journalist is not qualified to draw conclusions about history (nor is a lawyer, a plumber or a carpenter), only a historian is. So, again, there is no citation of the study at the moment. The claim in question should be cited from a historical study, otherwise it's no good.--Doron 09:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I find myself repeating myself. I have nothing to add, but if you believe more rules should be added to wikipedia, I suggest you follow that route. The article like I explained is perfectly according to WP:RS and the other rules. The study is quoted from the interview conducted with him in rotter several times inthe article. We have Arutz Sheva deducting this conclusion and we use it as a secondary source. Your claim that this is "no good" is I'm afraid baseless. Good day. Amoruso 09:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the word "cite". You say the study is cited, but I see no reference to any study. All I see is references to interviews. Just to make sure you fully understand, to cite a study means to give a line of the form

Y. Ben-Yaacov, <name of study>, <page number>: "<quote the word of the study>".

As the article is written now, there is no citation of the study. The claim about the possibility of captive killing is cited to an interview, not a study.--Doron 12:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It is you who misunderstands. I suggest you read what I wrote again and focus on the words "secondary source". User:Zero has used the rotter references and I've used this Arutz Sheva source, cited by name. Hope you're not confused anymore. Amoruso 13:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand you perfectly well. The claim about the intercepted phone call being evidence of the killing of captives is quoted from the Arutz Sheva interview, not the study. If it appears in the study, cite the study (author, title, page number, quote). If it does not appear in the study, it should be removed. Now can you answer this very simple question -- does this claim appear in the study or does it not?--Doron 13:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The secondary source suffices. Amoruso 17:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No, because it is not reliable.--Doron 17:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have managed to get hold of the Hebrew original of Katz's book; and this shows clearly that he gives two different, and conflicting, accounts of the incident in the same book.

It's true that, as Amotuso notes above, on page 369 Katz writes: "הערבים, שלעיתים קרובות הרגו את שבוייהם והטילו בהם מומים - כך נהגו בל"ה בהרי חברון בחודש ינואר - לא התקשו כלל ללכת בעקבותיהם" -- "The Arabs often killed their prisoners and mutilated them - that's what they did with the 35 in the Hebron mountains". This passage does not appear in the English translation of the book.

However, on page 340, he writes: "שלושים-וחמישה מאנשי ההגנה נתקלו במארב בעשותם את דרכם בהרים סמוך לחברון. הם נלחמו עד הכדור האחרון ונהרגו כאיש אחד." . This appears accurately in the English translation as "Thirty-five members of the Haganah had been ambushed as they picked their way through the hills near Hebron. Fighting to their last round of ammunition, they had been killed to a man."

These accounts appear incompatible. They cannot both be true; and this must surely invalidate Katz's account, and indeed his whole book, as a reliable source. I am therefore deleting the reference in the article, as based on contradictory and unreliable evidence. RolandR 19:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

These accounts are not contradictory. The latter says two things: They fought until they ran out of ammo, and that they were killed. It does not say anythign about how they were killed, and it is in fact quite plausible that, havign run out of ammo, they were captured alive. Isarig 19:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That is your interpretation of what Katz writes; it is not what he wrote. As such, your view is originbal research, and not acceptable. So I'm removing it again. RolandR 19:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You've got the 2 of us confused. What Katz clearly wrote is "The Arabs often killed their prisoners and mutilated them - that's what they did with the 35 in the Hebron mountains". It is your personal interpretation that this clear, explict and unambigous statement is contradictory with a claim that they fought 'till they ran out of info. Please stop this POV-pushing based on original research, and stick with what is actually in the text. Isarig 19:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Katz is not acceptable as a source no matter what he wrote. And did you even read the text you want to include? "Allegations of the killing of soldiers while being captives were also told at the time." At the time? What are you talking about? Also, that fact that Katz's unsourced claim was omitted from the English edition is further reason to doubt it. The fact is that Katz provides not the slightest evidence, no reference, nothing, to support his claim. This together with the fact that he is not known as a historian but as a propgandist (even by JVL) means that citing him on this is ridiculous. --Zero^talk 02:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

We've been over this many, many times, and quite simply, it's time for you to give up this personal crusade against Katz, whom you've already agreed can be accurately described as an historian, That ship has sailed. The text appears in the Hebrew version, which is what the claim is sourced to. here at WP, it's not our job to evaluate Katz's supporting evidence, as that would be OR. It's time for you to move on. Isarig 02:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No sir, the rules require us to identify unreliable sources and remove them. You would think by now that Katz's supporters would have come up with some sort of cogent argument that Katz is reliable, but no. And you ignored my question: where does Katz say anything about "were also told at the time"? Most of this sentence doesn't even come from Katz at all. --Zero^talk 03:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You've got the burden of proof wrong. The man is, as even you concede, an historian. This statement comes from a book which is not self-published. It meets all WP criteria for inclusion. If you want it excluded, you'll have to come up with something better than the the original research you've been engaging in evaluating the quality of Katz's arguments. Isarig 03:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Katz's book was published in 1966, not "at the time" but eighteen years later. He gives no sources, so it is impossible to see where he gets his facts from. And the book is internally contradictory. It is NOT a reliable source, and I have accordingly deleted the unverified claim from the article. RolandR 18:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Katz's book says these allegations were made at the time - the book's date of publication has no relevance on this claim, as should be obvious. You are welcome to personally doubt his sources, his methods of research and whatnot, but to disqualify the book based on this personal doubt is WP:OR. The standard on WP is verifiability, not truth. Isarig 18:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Katz's book does not say that. Please quote the relevant passage. Eighteen years later, he made a passing remark ("that's what they did with the 35"), without any evidence, any attribution, or any claim that anybody at all had stated this in 1948. If you want to claim that these allegations were made "at the time", you will have to find a contemporary source, or at least evidence that there was a contemporary source. RolandR 20:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you're getting at. I thought you were objecting to the allegation by Katz being mentioned here. If all you're objecting to is the phrase 'at the time" - fine, I've removed that. Isarig 22:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is a compromise proposal, that states the facts directly and clearly: "In 1966, a book published by a writer of the far right who is widely described as a propagandist claimed that the 35 were captured before being killed.[cite] No evidence or source was given." I'll agree to include that. --Zero^talk 05:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That's amusing. Come back when you are ready to seriously edit this encyclopedia according to its policies. Isarig 05:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was about to make a similar proposal, and will edit the article accordingly. RolandR 14:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Killing of captives

This farce has been going on for too long. I found the study by Yohanan Ben-Yaacov which Amoruso's sources refer to -- it turns out to be a Master's thesis, written in 2004, that presents an extensive examination of the incident. After going through it, I can conclude without any doubt that the possibility of there being any captives is nothing but fiction.

• The Arutz Sheva article (which I removed) raises this possibility based on Ben-Yaacov's study, mentioning an intercepted phone call as evidence. However, this is baseless. The intercepted phone call is indeed mentioned in the thesis (p. 86), but it took place on the same day of the battle and it refers to the first stage from 7:00 to 12:00 (in which there were indeed many wounded). Therefore, one cannot conclude from this piece of evidence that there were captives, and the idea does not even occur to the author. It is purely an invention of the Arutz Sheva reporter.
• The author gives in p. 124-135 of the thesis a detailed account of the battle, and nowhere does he raise the possibility that there were any captives. As a matter of fact, he makes a point of emphasizing that the troops fought to the last man. He even goes on to discuss the fate of the last soldier -- whether he was killed after he detonated a hand grenade as the enemy surrounded him, or whether he resorted to hand-to-hand combat after running out of ammunition, and was subsequently shot.
• In an interview in Amudim (the Religious Kibbutz monthly) [4] Ben-Yaacov makes things absolutely clear (my translation): "The soldiers were concealed behind boulders in Wadi Etziona and tended their wounds. At about 15:00, the soldiers decided to ascend to the top of the hill, while the Arabs were shooting at them from the rear. All the 35 reached the top of the hill and fought fiercely until the tragic end".
• The "Katz quote" (which, apparently, as others have mentioned above, does not appear in the English edition) is based on three Hebrew words. In another, longer, passage in the same book, he paints a different picture, in which the troops fought to the last round of ammunition. The latter is consistent with Ben-Yaacov's findings, and indeed with the way the battle is portrayed in the war's history as we know it. Even if we are to accept these three words as sufficient to indicate that Katz intended to make such a claim -- that some were captured and killed -- Katz's book is not a good source for this topic. Katz's book is mainly about the history of the Irgun, and these events are nothing more than background. The Irgun was not involved in the Convoy, which is why it receives such a brief mention (three sentences in one place, three words in another). Naturally, Katz does not give a reference to this offhand remark, simply because it is not the focus of his book. This remark is of course no match to a detailed study such as that by Ben-Yaacov. In other words, even if Katz is making this claim, he could be wrong, and we should use a reliable source that studied this subject extensively, and not a source that casually mentions the subject in the background to its main subject.
• On a more personal note, I have to say that I find these allegations that some of the soldiers were captured to be dishonorable to the memory of the soldiers and to their heroic deeds. Except for those three words from Katz and an innovative Arutz Sheva journalist, in all the written history of the War of Independence there is nothing to indicate that the 35 did not die fighting.

Therefore, any reference to this fantasy compromises the integrity of this Wikipedia article.--Doron 21:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this thorough assessment of the evidence Doron. --Ian Pitchford 21:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed this research is very well done, and I'm pleased to see how quickly your evaluation of the source has evolved from dismissing it out of hand as the non-academic work of someone who has never "seen the inside of a university in his life", to espousing it wholeheartedly as "extensive examination of the incident" and "a detailed study". I guess it's all in the message isn't it? To the point:The Arutz 7 claims are not in the article, and Katz's book is a {WP:RS]]. We can source the claim to Katz, as the standard on WP in not truth, but verifiability. Isarig 22:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ben-Yaacov's work is an academic study, which I was not aware of when I wrote that. I stand corrected. What do you want to cite from Katz, these three words?!! No, there's nothing to cite. Katz may be a reliable source about the history of the Irgun, but this offhand remark about the Convoy is meaningless, it's no match to the overwhelming evidence to the contrary -- there was no killing of captives. I don't understand why you insist on advocating this obviously incorrect historical reference.--Doron 23:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, what I want to cite is exactly what's in the article, sourced to Katz- that he claims some were captured alive and killed later. He does claim so, and the standard on WP is verifiability. Feel free to insert the other opinion as well. Isarig 00:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you know how many unverifiable claims there are about this event? There is a much better known claim that one of the 35 was a woman, should we include that? There is a claim that some of the 35 were rescued by the the British, how about that one? There is also a claim that the Hagana garrison at Kfar Etzion knew that the 35 were under attack and refused to go to their assistance; something tells me you would be reluctant to include that one. Either we fill up the article with unsubstantiated rumors or we restrict it to things that have some historical support. The rules are actually quite clear on this: "views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views", quoted from WP:NPOV. --Zero^talk 04:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can source those rumors and claims to WP:RS go ahead and add them, I have no objection. Unlike you, I don't edit from a specific POV, so have no problem with a reliable source claiming the Hagana knew about the plight but refused to go. strange things happen at war, and this would not be the first such case. As to minority view - Arutz 7 claims a listening base larger than Reshet Bet - doesn;t seem like a "tiny minority" to me. Isarig 04:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Katz was obviously wrong. There's nothing wrong about it, since this was not the focus of his book, he's allowed not to be 100% accurate about every background detail, but nevertheless it is clear that he was wrong. I remember some time ago there was a little dispute about whether Uri Avnery was an Irgun member or a Lehi member. A Haaretz interview with Ari Shavit [5] was given as evidence that he was a Lehi member. Of course, as everybody knows, Avnery was an Irgun member, not a Lehi member, and Ari Shavit (which is a respected mainstream journalist nevertheless) simply made a mistake. Were we to recognize this mistake given overwhelming evidence, or were we to add "a mainstream Israeli journalist claims that Avnery was a Lehi member [ref]"? I hope you can see the absurdity of this. Just because someone wrote something doesn't make it verifiable. We have one source making a brief off-topic remark against several detailed sources stating the opposite -- I think it is clear that the former is not even worth mentioning. I'm sure the Wikipedia community would see this if I ask for a third opinion.--Doron 04:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"Katz was obviously wrong" is not a fact - it is your opinion. There is a difference between a verifiable fact (was Avneri a member of Lehi or Irgun), and a claim about a historical event over which there are many missing details. Isarig 14:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:REDFLAG it would be absurd for an article to be written according to an off-hand comment in a foreign language publication written by a known propagandist. --Ian Pitchford 15:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

...especially when that comment, made eighteen years after the event, is contradicted not only by every other account, but even by a fuller discussion of the incident in the very same book. RolandR 17:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not. We've been over this, see above. Isarig 18:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that the current version that mentions this fallacious theory has no consensus. Four object to it (including myself) and only Isarig (and perhaps Amoruso) support it. There's no reason why this view should continue to be represented in the article when there's no consensus over it.--Doron 08:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Isarig exerted his right to disappear after these incidents and some attempt at improvement. As a result of this, the consensus is now even more overwhelming than it had been. This makes this revert from an editor just returned from a 3 month block (and the puzzling summary, not addressing the concerns) even more strange. I will revert once before escalating this as tendentious editing. PR^talk 14:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, you misunderstand the issues... this is because your lack of knowledge of the subject apparently. The edit is within the consensus. There were wounded but not captued. Read Doron here [6]. The edit simply reflected what the call was about (they didn't pass it because nobody knew about it, and that is not important info and wasn't discussed here anyway) - the consensus was to remove the captured issue and I agree with it very much, so there is no conflict of opinions here at all. You're just disrupting a neutral edit. Amoruso (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"goral hagra"

Would it not be "goral haGra" ("goral of the Gaon Rabbi Eliyahu")? Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Title and lead

It seems to me there is no reference to this event as an important one in historical books and that is more an event that marked the Israeli collective memory of the 1948 War.
If I was wrong, I (or we) could find more articles dedicated to this event. And I think there is absolutely none.
This article is not far not to reach the admissibiliy criteria.
I would suggest we shift from "convoy of 35" to "Lamed He" or even "Lamed He (xxx)" and we modify the title in consequence.
Have in mind that this is just a platoon of 35 soldiers that attacked and defeated by the Arabs. There are numerous such events in wars.
Given this : "The story of the 35 was immortalised in an emotional poem, Here Our Bodies Lie written by Haim Gouri. In August 1949, a group of former Palmach soldiers founded a kibbutz, Netiv HaLamed He (Hebrew: נתיב הל"ה‎, path of the 35) near the convoy's route.", I think we would modify the lead and : "the 35 refers the to an ambush in which a full platoon of 35 Haganah soliders were killed during the early stage of the 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and that marked the Israeli collective memory". Else, I think this article should not exist. Ceedjee (talk) 07:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggestion deletion, merge, or what? -- Nudve (talk) 11:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"on the Israeli side of the Green Line" - What does this mean?

Come on Zero000, what do you want to say with your statement "The hilltop where the bodies were found lies on the Israeli side of the Green Line, though this was not known until after the Six-Day War.[7]"? Didn't the Israelis know the right place until then? Or was there a border correction after the Six-Day war? What? Could you pls rephrase your stament, and maybe add some details, so that it makes sense to readers who haven't read that book???Gray62 (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to make that two sentences, for clarity. Something like "Until 1967, Israelis didn't visit the site of the battle, because it was thought it lay on the Jordanian site. However, after the Six Day War a more precise survey of the borderline determined that the hilltop was within the Green Line". You sure have a point, but pls explain it to the readers in more detailGray62 (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The precise location of the final battle was not identified until after 1967. Then there was an investigation and the location was discovered to be on the Israeli side of the green line contrary to what had been assumed earlier. Nothing to do with a border correction. Btw, it is bad editing practice to keep putting back a version known to be factually false. If it wasn't clear then the correct procedure was to ask for clarification.Zero^talk 23:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Now this makes sense. And your excellent edit made that point clear in the article, too. As for the correct procedure, I stated several times that the original sentence was too fuzzy, leaving the reader wondering about the problem. And I tried to improve it, based on your earlier explanations (I don't have that source). However, let's not argue about that, what's important is that this point is much better explained now in the article. Good job, Zero, thx! Gray62 (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper account

Extracts from Scotsman Newspaper:
Friday 18 January 1948: A plane, believed to be Jewish fired on an RAF plane (a Spitfire) in the Hebron area where British troops were evacuating wounded Jews and Arabs. The plane dropped a message over Kfar Zion settlement. It was believed to be a Moth or Piper Cub - types used by the Jewish flying club in Palestine. The British plane did not return the fire.

Saturday 17 January: (Friday) - Ouzi Weizmann, ex-RAF, nephew of Dr Weizmann, taken into custody by police after telling them that he piloted the Haganah plane that fired on a RAF reconnaissance Spitfire on Thursday.

Monday 19 January: (Sunday) - A Haganah reconnaissance patrol, 100 Strong, searching for the bodies of 35 Jews ambushed by Arabs on Friday in the Judean hills, became involved in actions with Arab parties near Bait Jamal. They claim three Arabs killed and twenty wounded. They admit that one of their patrol was killed. Arab sources say seventeen Jews were killed.. The bodies of the 35 ambushed Jews were brought to the Kfar and Zion(sic) settlement by British troops today. The dead include three members of the Hebrew Communist Party. Also an American, Moshe Periman, a former GI of Brooklyn, New York. He is the first American killed in the Palestinian civil war.Padres Hana (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary newspaper reports about things like this tend to be inaccurate and should be treated very carefully. Remember that the Scotsman probably did not have a reporter at Kfar Etzion (they changed "et" into "and", that's funny) but printed what they heard from various involved parties. Zero^talk 00:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. (But) The Scotsman had several correspondents in Palestine, some of whom they shared with the Daily Telegraph. They mostly used official statements from the British or the Jewish Agency. In this case I think the et/and mistake is a transmission error - not something a reporter in Jerusalem would get wrong. I think the story about Weizmann's nephew is probably correct. The size of the Haganah rescue party could be wrong but I see no reason to doubt that there was one. The Palmach website lists Perishtein Moshe-Avigdor (23), born in the USA, as being among the dead. So in fact I would ask where are the inaccuracies? Padres Hana (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Aren't you saying the Palmach website gives a different name from what the Scotsman gave? Also "Ouzi Weizmann" is probably a misspelling of Ezer Weizman (later president of Israel) who was a pilot then. Those are the sort of errors newspapers are good at. Zero^talk 04:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the reporter had the name from his US passport? There was a fashion for changing your name on arrival in Palestine. Padres Hana (talk) 12:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

He was born in Tel Aviv. Zero^talk 12:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The reference I have is the Palmach wedsite http://www.palmach.org.il/show_item.asp?itemId=8519&levelId=42855&itemType=0 Search by Unit: "Moira" Battalion, person 16 - Born in USA, New York. 24/11/1925. Son of Ela and Samuel-Joseph. Named as being member of "Lamed-Hey" platoon. Died 16/1/48. According to their list three of the thirty five were born in Tel Aviv, (Aloni Israel, Ben Yamin Oded, Goland Sabo) most came from Jerusalem (9). Sixteen were born in Europe (7 in Poland), one from Russia, Canada and Yemen. Where is the inaccuracy? Padres Hana (talk) 09:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant that Ezer Weizman was born in Tel-Aviv. Zero^talk 10:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)