Talk:Blood Libel at Deir Yassin

This is the Blood Libel at Deir Yassin redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 September 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Uri Milstein.

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Israel Mid‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles Mid This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Merge Nahal Rafiah (draft, heb) into Nahal as requested by Wikipedia authority Palestine Low‑importance Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I'd like to add a link to Neo-Zionism. Uri Milstein is a prominent Israeli historian who represents this movement.
Is this ok ? Ceedjee (talk) 06:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Uri Milstein is Dr but the title of the scholar (eg "Dr") is never used in wp:article. That sounds like "propaganda" or even worse sect's Guru. Take care of this. It is so funny to read "Professor Ilan Pappe" :-)
• Links to other articles should not use too much often Milstein's vocabulary.
• Milstein gives facts in his book to support his analysis. They should be given with more emphasize (eg that Meir Pa'il who is one of the main witness on whom is based the massacre's allegation is [allegedly] not reliable and why). Currently, articles sounds like "Guru says what I want to hear" and this gives discredit to Milstein's analysis
• Opposing (and in fact main) thesis should be given some due:weight...
• ...

Ceedjee (talk) 07:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1)Milsein is A Dr. - thats is a given fact, and how he is being titled in all ref articles

further, he is actually an expert on Israel war of Independence (and one of the few), which is not mentioned, but when I find the ref, I will add it.

2) anything that is cited should be mentioned, since this is what Dr. Milstein says in his book (this article is about a book, not else), including crtisizing Ben Guriion and the Israeli scholership and documitation of the war of Independence.

3) even if the article is about the book, not else, this does not prevent you from expressing your opinions on other articles on the subject.

4)since the book "rips apart" the fact that this myth of massacre ever occured, including Meir Pa'il, I didn't mention it for NPOV (just like, in contra I added the criticism on Prime Minister Ben Gurion).

5) as to "Neo-Zionism" - another prejudice title, which I never heard before, sounds like "neo-Nazi". In contra the "see Also" chapter, does mention

1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine

, the Palestinian time-story line of the first phase of Israel war Independence (which is seen by Israelis as one phase of war).

6) The only NPOV problem is the prejudice article of "Deir Yassin Massacre", and I hope this dispute can be resolved soon. I have not forgotten about it at all. --Shevashalosh (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The civil war period is not the "Palestinian story line" of the "1948 War". If you knew a little bit the topic, you would know that the 4 books written by Milstein about the War of Independence only deals with that period. He still doens't have written the ones concerning the next chapters.

If "Neo-Zionism" sounds like "Neo-Nazi" at your ears, it means Zionist sounds like Nazi at your ears. I don't mind if you hate Israel and Zionism but I ask you to refrain from antisemitism or I will ask you are banned from wikipedia if you go on.

Ceedjee (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milsein has written books on the period after what the arbs call

1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine

, but it was published only in Hebrew. But that is not makes him him an "Expert" on war of independence, but rather the fact that he was involed in the Israeli Army, and his positions there.

else, anything you claimed like "Genocide" was proven cited. If you do find any thing wrong, I will place NPOV tag myself. All other questions where answered. --Shevashalosh (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. He published in He. I forgot this.

But you didn't answer whatever. You just replied.

The contextualization of Milstein analysis is not given. And the links to all other articles are poved. The whole is biased. Critics are not there. This is respecting

WP:NPOV

.

The fact Milstein have or would have talked about genocide has nothing to deal with NPoV. It must precisely be sourced. That is all.

"Civil war" is from Yoav Gelber (and David Tal and Benny Morris). They will be happy to learn that they are Arabs.

I put the tag back. Ceedjee (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your message above of "You haven't answeared whatever" is not an NPOV question that I can answer.

I repeat, where do you find a problem !? there isn't any, everthing he says in his book is there and cited, as are all your quesions too.

NPOV tag is not for beauty purposes. --Shevashalosh (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

eg. The tag must be put back until

Deir Yassin battle or Deir Yassin massacre reached a consensus on the whole wikipedia... Ceedjee (talk) 08:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Ceedjee is right: the titles "Dr." and "Prof." generally aren't used in Wikipedia articles. See

]

I accept your argument, Shabaz, and will delete "Dr." title immidiattly not only from opening statement (as the policy require only), but rather if I see it apear on the body of the article as well. --Shevashalosh (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only place it should be mentioned is on "ref", but I will try to narrow it down as much as possible, even if it's not required from policy. give me a sec. --Shevashalosh (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The exact page in the wp:rs source of all these statements must be given. Ceedjee (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads like an advertisement or a press release, not like an encyclopedia article.

It's also a diatribe ("one the most anti-Semitic Libels in the history of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute over a war battle episode, during Israel's war of Independence, and accusation of a 'massacre', which were never proven in court or never even been filed a lawsuit on any such basis").

The tone of the article needs to be changed to be less sensational and more neutral and encyclopedic. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's become clear that this article isn't about Milstein's book. It's Shevashalosh's attempt to write his own article about the Deir Yassin massacre without the trouble of achieving consensus at that article.

I recommend that Shevashalosh consider whether this article is going to be an article about a book, or an article about the events at Deir Yassin. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shevashalosh reverted you once again without answering here... Ceedjee (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what do you want to change?

please detail it - and we will discuss it. --Shevashalosh (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote above, you need to decide whether this is an advertisement for a book, an encyclopedia article about a book, or a

POV fork of Deir Yassin massacre

.

As it is currently written, it seems like you're using an article about a book to write your own account of the events at Deir Yassin. That's called a

coatrack. Since you've chosen to write your own article rather than build consensus to include this material in Deir Yassin massacre

, it's a POV content fork as well.

Please read Wikipedia's deletion policy. An article that is a POV fork may be nominated for deletion. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not helping the situation improve, but you will always have a chance to do that, and when you do, please post it here. --Shevashalosh (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this edit. Notice how the article has become an advertisement (quoting large portions of the author's page). Notice the way the article jumps from one section to another (point/counterpoint) instead of pairing each item with Milstein's response. Pay attention to the fact that opinions are stated as if they are facts, instead of being attributed to the book's author. Note the fact that the language of the article is barely recognizable as English. Note that the article links to unrelated subjects (Altalena) and that the "See also" section includes articles that are referenced in the article itself, a "no-no". Note that the article is not about Milstein's book, it's merely an opportunity for Shevashalosh to give an alternate account of the events at Deir Yassin.

Is that helpful enough for you? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't follow up with all the versions. The best way is to tell me is post here the things you want to change - post it here as quotations, so we can disscus this.

What I do note from all the edits, is the first paragraph of opening statement, but i'll have to look at your messges about it tommorow, caus I can't now. --Shevashalosh (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't follow all your versions? I gave you a single diff. Sad to say, but this article is a POV mess. Everybody is trying to tell you that, but you keep reverting to the same version. You don't

WP:OWN it, and the sooner you understand that the better. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm a native speaker of English. Shevashalosh's edits are ungrammatical and barely comprehensible. I would revert them for that reason alone. Before we can deal with POV, we need a text in clear English. Nbauman (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Malik Shabazz makes some very good points. You have not given a serious explanation for reverting his edits. Remember, this article is about Milstein's book. His account of the events still fall, I believe, under

WP:FRINGE. You can't just put it down as facts. Also, I repeat an earlier request to insert citations from the book and provide analysis of Milstein's thesis, including his evidence. -- Nudve (talk) 05:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

1) The reason given for reverting Shabaz was that he deleted cited info on opening statement. If something disturbes you on exsiting cited info, then you must explain the rational of it on talk page. You can't just deleted cited info - because you don't like what it says.

If a problem is found on talk page, then we wiil delete it - as I have indded done, when Shabazz complained on talk page on the "Dr." thing, despite the fact that it was cited, and refered me to a policy on that matter. this way, I could read the policy and understand what he was taliking about. I read the policy and posted a message that I will immidiattly delete it, as I indeed have done. Further, I went beyond policy, that requires not to mention the title "Dr." only in opening line, and have deleted in ALL the article - which contain this title.

2) The rest, it is unaccpteble to delete a cited info, just bacause you don't like it. Everything Milstein claims is cited, both in in his English summary of the book, on his official web site, and the other ref - where his gives his detalied answeres, of the book itself.

3) As to the opening statment on the book, despite the fact that it is cited as well, where I can "isolate" the problem in revisions - the only thing I asked was to see first on talk page, the rational to this "new" uncited opening ststement (get consensous), As I have repeatidly asked to do on above discussions, but, besides "Dr." title, have received no response, and therfore revereted it.--Shevashalosh (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Shevashalosh (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationalization is nonsense. I didn't delete anything because I didn't like what it said. I rearranged the article so it made sense, by putting Milstein's arguments alongside the traditional Deir Yassin narrative. I cut the bluster and tried to turn this monster into an encyclopedia article. I won't explain each and every change I made; I've already explained the rationale behind my changes several times. If you don't like my specific changes that's fine, but you should make similar changes. Making a complete reversion to your previous version shows that you didn't bother to look at the changes that Nudve and I made.

Let me tell you again: This article is a POV fork of Deir Yassin massacre, and POV forks can be nominated for deletion. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you find the Miltry Historian, and one of the few experets on Israel's war of Independence, Dr. Uri Milstein's book fork, then this is your POV of fork.

Other, I can't keep up with the revision, just tell me again (sorry to bother you), what you want to change in opening statement, that is already fully cited.

Post it here the kind of new opening statement you want to edit, how to you want to rephrase the exsiting lead to the opening lines - I didn't say I object, I just asked for consesous first. --Shevashalosh (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it's fully cited doesn't matter. Please read

Wikipedia:Content forking. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

You have a right to think what ever you want on Dr. Uri Milstein, Miltary Historian and one of the few exprets on war of Independence.

As I said, If the tag makes you feel good, then let it be there.

As the opening statements, I don't see any reason to change it (it is cited), and since, at list for now, you have not posted any problem with it, as I have asked you, again and again to do. --Shevashalosh (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The opening statements clearly violate

WP:NPOV

.

They also violate

WP:WEASEL

:

what is believed by Israelis, for many years, to be one the most anti-Semitic Libels in the history of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute

That's like the example given at

WP:WEASEL

:

"some people say that Montreal is the best city in the world".

Some Israelis believe it, some Israelis don't. Nbauman (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A long discussion has started. It is just a question of good faith to know when it will be finished...

Prof. Dr Benny Morris (University of Beersheba), who is the most quoted expert on the topic of the 1948 War , as well as Prof. Dr Yoav Gelber (University of Haifa), who is the most known opponent to New historians and Prof. Dr David Tal (University of Tel-Aviv), less known but who published reknown and quoted studies on Plan D and 1948 War, these 3 Israeli scholars, don't share Milstein's mind concerning these events (even if with some nuances). And, let's not even talk about Prof. Dr Ilan Pappé, who, if not the most reliable is the most famous in the world. And, outside the Israeli scholarship, let's not forget Dr Nur Masalha and Prof. Dr Walid Khalidi.

Ceedjee (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilan Pappé and benny morris are famous for being anti-zionist jews, Yoav Gelber is a right wing persona, and so is david tal. None of the people you mentioned above are Militay exprets, speciallzioig on War of Indepedence, and by any case none of them could have contrdicted Milsteins work, cinse it was published only in 2007, and theirs prior to that.

Having said that, This deosn't make Milstein a "GURU", and the title "Dr." is only mentionded in ref (rest I deleted them) - but at the same time I can not igonre what the Milstein says (cited) in his book, and change those facts into what ceedjee wants him to say. --Shevashalosh (talk) 09:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All these allegations are of course false. Take care of not defaming living people. You could be sued for that; wikipedia too and usually people are warned and then blocked for that too.

Whatever their political minds (and certainly those you claim they have), all these are historians who published peer-reviewed books and articles (At the contrary of the current book of Milstein). They are without any doubt in the TOP-5 of the Israeli historians concerning the 1948 war.

I don't know where you get they are not military experts :-). In comparison with Uri Milstein, Benny Morris served his whole duty as paratroop and Gelber has more than 10 years of service for Tsahal... [1]

For your information last book of Benny Morris : 1948 was published in April 2008. And all these authors talk about the Deir Yassin events in their books. They base their analysis on the same material as the one of Milstein given nothing new have been discovered around these events for long time.

The conclusion is that between a "battle" and a "massacre". They are more

wp:rs

sources who refer to the events as a massacre, even if it could be discussed. And they are not just "Arabs", as you claim.

The case is closed. Whether you take some distance and try to respect NPoV, whether you will not stay long.

Ceedjee (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about "Deir yassin battle" not Milstein, and this case by no means closed. There is a tag of NPOV hanging there for a very long time, because of the prejudice title (and determing authoretive voice of the opening statement) not known as such to other then arabs and anti zions (jews or not).

It is unaccpetble, not only to addopt just what is (just) known to arabs, as such title, but also for the simple fact that this is a prejudice title and and openong statement, determing the results in advance.

I don't have any further time at the moment to disccus "deir yassin battle" article, we are gonna have to continue the other article "battle of deir yassin" on it's talk page some other time.

Thank You. --Shevashalosh (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was an answer to you following your comment to Malik Shabbaz.

-> We can have an article on this book BUT it cannot be a pov:fork. Milstein analysis cannot be claimed to be true but must be compared to the other ones.

So this article is pov-ed for all the reasons given here above.

If you are tired, it is not a problem. 3 editors tried to modify the article and you reverted them. Let them work. So much more that you claimed that you trusted all of them but one (ie me).

Ceedjee (talk) 13:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ceedjee, deleting my messages (project Israel)and facts (seige of Jerusalem, wars of Israel etc), are not gonna last long, sooner or later people are gonna be on you.

Sorry, I can not change what Milstein says - into what ceedjee would like Milstein to say. --Shevashalosh (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

since when is describing the villagers as terrorists and not describing Lehi and Irgun as terrorists NPOV?

As Lehi and Irgun had wanted posters out for them and the villagers isn't a certain amount of POV is being displayed in the article.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could put this in the blood libel category along with the Hadassah medical convoy blood libel and Kfar Etzion blood libel....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone clean up the English...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the poor English is only one of the article's many problems. It needs an almost complete rewrite, if it can be salvaged at all. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've drafted a proposed revision of the article. It can be found at User:Malik Shabazz/Blood Libel at Deir Yassin.

To make it easier to see the differences between the current article and my proposed changes, I left each paragraph of the old article in place but struck it out. The only exception is that I merged into a single section the two sections that repeat the traditional narrative concerning the Deir Yassin massacre and Milstein's rebuttal.

Please feel free to make changes to the draft. I'd also appreciate comments here. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, have written a draft, available at User:Ravpapa/DearYassi. My main concerns with Malik's fine version are:

• The Jabotinsky award needs to be put in context. The Jabotinsky award is an award for promoting a particular political viewpoint, not for scholastic excellence.

• A main point of the book is not to debunk the Deir Yassin massacre story, but also to defame the political leadership of the time. The bad guys in this story, according to Milstein, are the Labor Zionist leaders of the Yishuv.

• The book was never controversial outside of Israel, as far as I know. Even in Israel, it is hard to say that it was controversial. In fact, it was pretty much ignored. It was never reviewed (as far as I know) in the daily press (Haaretz, Maariv, Yedioth), but only reported in back-page news articles. It has never (as far as I know) been peer reviewed by an academic journal. Its notability comes from the fact that it represents a specific political point of view of the events.

• Most of the sources are not worthy - they are simply webposts by Milstein himself, and quote almost verbatim things already said on his personal website. The GlobalReport, for example, is a blogspot to which Milstein posted.

• I believe the article must say something about Milstein himself. After all, any crackpot can write a book about Deir Yassin, we need to know that Milstein has at least some credibility. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

thank you for these 2 versions ! I'd like to give my input.

/@ to Ravpapa's comments here above/

• ok for the context as you did in your version
• We must take care. We cannot make believe Milstein lies to discredit BG because the antagonism between BG and Begin is a fact. For what I know, the consensus among historians all protagonists had interest in amplyfing the events : BG to discredit IZL (as murderers), Palestinians to discredit the Yishuv (as invaders and genociders), the IZL to get an image of great fighters (as winner of an important battle in answer to the opening of the Jerusalem road in operation Nachshon). I think therefore it is "more factual" to write that Milstein just points out BG responsibility but that it is indeed the case. I agree that he "emphasizes" only a part of the medal (You can read here a work of Yoav Gelber that I think is quite "fair".
• Agreed. I never heard about this before these last days.
• I think we can use own Milstein comment to understand and report what he says in his book. But of course, we cannot consider his website as wp:rs for the praize alledgedly awarded to his book
• Agreed. If we take care to be NPoV and write all the ( + ) and all the ( - ).

NB: Ravpapa, FYI, as far as I understand from the article, what Milstein writes is not "new". Each point he underlines was already suggested by other reliable historians before. But, as hypothesis or doubt and never all together and with nuances. In other words, nobody could take "one point" of Milstein and claim "he lies" or "it is 100% sure it is false". The problem is that, with that version, he doesn't take "doubt" into account and systematically point out the "pro-IZL" point of view or transform a "doubt" in a "fact" if it can support IZL image.

/@ Malik Shabazz/

• I think we should merge both Ravpapa version with the good neutralisation you make concerning the main points put forward by Milstein. From my side, I could bring wp:rs source comparing what Milstein says with what the other historians says.

/@ all/

I think this book is completely in the context of the ideological struggle in Israel among Post-Zionism, secular Zionism and Neo-Zionism. And I suggest to add a see also to this last article.

What do you think about all this ? Ceedjee (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to insert BG, rather than he to clarify.

• In Blood Libel at Deir Yassin, Milstein writes that he received a detailed report on the events at Deir Yassin.
• Blood Libel at Deir Yassin also describes a massacre that was carried out by Arabs against Jews. also needs to be inserted.
• Was Hadassah medical convoy a massacre? going by Milstein's definition it wasn't. and you missed the British death in protecting the convoy. (it makes it POV to only give only the Israeli body count)...

• as ceedjee says it should come under the Zionism/Post Zionism debate.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The book not only describes the Hadassah medical convoy attack - it also describes the Ein Zeitoun battle, which Milstein claims was a massacre by the Palmach against a defenseless village in the Galilee three days before Deir Yassin. It is important because the "blood libel" that Milstein is talking about in the title is not a libel against the Jews - it is a libel against the Irgun and the Lehi. Milstein does not deny that the Jews committed massacres against the Arabs, only that the Irgun and the Lehi did not.

• I think it is appropriate to mention Zionist, post-Zionist and new Zionist historiographies, but the truth is that Milstein is none of these - he is a revisionist (he also calls himself that). The historiographic debate is relevant because, with the disintegration of the near unanimity of Zionist historians, maverick views like Milstein's are now possible. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Ein Zeitoun. I was not aware of that. I have just checked in Benny Morris, the Birth Revisited. P.222 he indeed refers to the murder of "several dozens of prisoners" performed by 2 Palmah soldiers under the order of their battalion officeer. But is was around 2-3 May 1948.

Ravpapa analysis is right. The Blood Libel concerns IZL and LHI and not Israelis or Jews.

Mistein is a Neo-Zionist historian. He fits perfectly the definition.

I don't think there is a "disintegration of the near unanimity of Zionist historians". There was strong debates but the "main issues" are now consensual among Israeli historians (if you consider Pappe and Mistein are out of the game).

Ceedjee (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milstein's definition of what constitutes a massacre is politically motivated and not consistent....Milstein's revisionist label is only the resurrection of the Jabotinsky label and as such is right wing Zionist by another name.

• Ein Zeitoun "massacre"..atrocity yes "massacre...I still don't think the term is applicable.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like Ravpapa's version. When I made my version, I was trying to stay close to Shevashalosh's article to prevent an edit war. I hope we can get her input so we can get this article unlocked. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final Draft

both ravpapa and shabaz put good note - Shabaz notes are important: 254-100 killed, the killing was no intetionally due to urben warfare, and very important claim that villagers got killed during the battle not after, thus he claims that what is the basis of this story as "massacre" after the battle is not true, and off course included in the orders of Nachshon operation - thus not acting off-miltary initiative).

Ravpapa saw the need to put in "fire line" the author and the book, a reasonble request - and so I've added the chapter of : "Conterversy", which basiclly lays this out.

• I had only few remarak within the line - marked as [xxxxxx]
• My additional remarks are at the end.

Blood Libel at Deir Yassin

Shabazz: Blood Libel at Deir Yassin (or Blood libel at Deir Yssin – The Black book, Hebrew: עלילת דם בדיר יאסין - הספר השחור) is a book by Israeli military historian Uri Milstein. The book, published in Hebrew in 2007, won the Jabotinsky Award,^[1] and has attracted much attention in Israel and around the world.^[2][3]

Shabazz: The book seeks to refute what the author describes as the traditional [Palestinian] narrative concerning the Deir Yassin massacre.^[4] According to Milstein, the Deir Yassin massacre [events] was "a basic founding myth in the Palestinian consciousness" that created an image of Israel as "a terrorist state that has never ceased massacring Palestinians".^[4][5]

Responding to elements of the Deir Yassin myth

Shabaz strike: Following are the main points publicized about this incident which he is putting to rest, one by one^[4]:

1. The Village of Deir Yassin, west of Jerusalem, was a relatively peaceful one. Thus, Jewish forces had no reason for attacking the village and expelling its residents.
2. Nonetheless, Irgun and Lehi extremist militants operating without the authority of the organized Jewish community raided the village, and against the military interests of the Jews at that time.
3. During the course of the battle the members of the Irgun and Lehi murdered women, children and the elderly who posed no danger to them whatsoever.
4. After the battle, the conquerors brought the remaining residents to the quarry between the village and Jerusalem, where they slaughtered many of them.
5. All told, the Irgun and Lehi slaughtered 254 inhabitants.

Shabazz: Milstein asserts that many elements of the traditional Deir Yassin narrative are untrue. In Blood Libel at Deir Yassin, he makes the following assertions:^[5]

Shabazz: * According to Milstein, the village of Deir Yassin was not peaceful. Terrorists had attacked from Deir Yassin and the village was used as a base for units of Arab irregular forces that had attacked the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem.

Shabazz: * Milstein writes that Deir Yassin was included in the orders of

militants who took part in the events in Deir Yassin were not acting on their own initiative.

Shabz: Milstein says that it was not the intention of the Irgun and Lehi to kill women and children, but the use of explosives to remove iron doors from houses resulted in unexpected deaths.

Shabaz: According to Milstein, an alleged massacre in a quarry that is said to have taken place after the battle in fact never happened, [since most of arabs were killd during the battle (not after)].

Shabaz: Milstein writes that according to Arab sources, the death toll was about 100, much lower than the 254 victims frequently cited.

Shabazz: Milstein also points out that the fighting in Deir Yassin was urban warfare, in which civilians are more likely to get killed.^[6]

Further Jewish responsiblity to Deir Yassin myth

Shabazz: In Blood Libel at Deir Yassin, Milstein writes that he received a detailed report on the events at Deir Yassin from the commander of the Jerusalem region,

Hadassah medical convoy massacre

• See also: Hadassah medical convoy massacre and Kfar Etzion massacre

Shabazz: Blood Libel at Deir Yassin describes a massacre that was carried out by Arabs against Jews. Several days after the events at Deir Yassin, a civilian convoy, escorted by Haganah militia, bringing medical and fortification supplies and personnel to Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem was ambushed by Arab forces. Seventy-nine Jews, including doctors and nurses, were killed in the attack.

Criticism on Documentations

Shabaz strike: Millstein documents the inferior quality of studies carried out in Israel about the War of Independence, which led to the development of a culture built on myth in the security establishment.

Controversy

Ravpapa: The book, and its author, were the subject of some controversy in Israel. Meir Pail, a rival historian identified with the Israeli left, [whos testimony to the book was contradicted by Milstein,] claims that the book is "completely unbased" and "cheap propaganda of the Israeli right-wing."^[7] On the other hand, the book won the Jabotinsky award, granted by the "Order of Jabotinsky" ^[8]. Ze'ev Jabotinsky was the founder of the Irgun and the ideological father of the current right-wing Likud party in Israel. The award is granted for works advancing "the spirit of Jabotinsky's philosophy."^[8]

Milstein himself is a controversial figure in Israel and abroad. [On one hand, he is] Considered one of the most knowledgeable people on the 1948 war^[9], Milstein has published the first four volumes of a planned 11-volume history of the war. But [one the other hans,] his iconoclastic views — especially his claims that Yitzhak Rabin, revered Israeli military leader and former prime minister, suffered from nervous breakdown and fled in the face of battle — have rendered him an outcast in the Israeli academic community. "Uri Milstein is almost entirely outcast by publishers, not to mention the academic establishment," writes Gideon Samett, editor of the Haaretz newspaper^[9], [The newspaper that is concidered identified with the left-wing]. "He has not succeeded in establishing himself in a single respectable academic institution."

My addtional remrak

Transaltion to englsih is in process due to it's attention around the world (what can you do about it, it is intersting), I provided a ref to it, as well as a ref that it was broadcasted in channel 2 prime time TV (note: i'm not quoting from the program, just give a ref to the deatils when and where it was broadcasted, since you can't watch the program from the link, only the detals when it was broadcasted)- it is the most popular primetime news in Israel (besides other many news articles no matter if it's back or front or whatever).

--Shevashalosh (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another remark to Ravpapa: It don't matter wehre Milstein posts his articles, what matters is that he is the most RS to what is written in his book. --Shevashalosh (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shevashalosh, some of your proposed changes were removed because they don't make sense in English. "Arab and known publications"? "Criticism on Documentations"? What do those phrases mean?

Also, the format of repeating the traditional Deir Yassin narrative in one section and Milstein's assertions in a separate section is a bad idea. Readers shouldn't have to go back and forth from one section to another to follow the logic.

Finally,

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It's great that an English translation is underway. When it's finished, the article can mention it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

ok, the english publication not that important -

the others, I don't understand the question?

Arab and known publication - is laying all the traditional claims - so in the next chapter he can respond?

what's the problem with documentation? it's a general criticism on Israeli army, not being well documented? --Shevashalosh (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does the phrase "Arab and known publications" mean? It's not standard English. What does the phrase "Criticism on Documentations" mean? It's also not standard English.

As I explained, writing an encyclopedia article so that readers have to go from one section to another to connect the traditional Deir Yassin narrative to Milstein's rebuttal is bad layout. They should be combined into a single section. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In "Arab and known publications" there are mistakes. I mean that all these points are not claims by Arab (or other) scholars. Eg, It is the Palestinian academics from Bir Zeit University who first published a study that "proved" the number of victims at Deir Yassin was between 100 and 120. Ceedjee (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shabazz - I deleted the title "arab and known publications - and put the content of it under , "responding".

Ceedjee, you write your own book what you think about Milstein and what he says, and then we will publish an article about it, so far, this is what is written in his book.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be

WP:CIVIL. Ceedjee (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm trying hard... --Shevashalosh (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milstein claims to deal with the distortion of history against the Irgun Zvai Leumi for it’s attack on an what Milstein claims was an Arab stronghold.

Milsteins claims are based on:-

That the Israeli left (Mapai) has emphasised the atrocities of the Israel right in that Palmach units committing similar atrocities that are not termed massacres.

That the Lehi/Irgun intelligence was inept and that the heavy handed method of blowing in the doors led to most of the deaths being non-combatants.

As most of the fatalities were during the fighting phase the word massacre shouldn’t be used, but then Milstein does not mention what name should be used to describe the fatalities that occurred outside the fighting phase.

Milstein’s writing does not deny that the incident at Deir Yassin occurred, Milstein’s writing only confirms much of it....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

offcaurse he is confirming it, No one ever denied there was a battle there. that is the differnce. The basis for "Massacre" word disagreement, in the events (that all agree that indeed occured), is the claim that it happened "After" battle. This he contradicts, and claims that most of the dead were killed during battle (in urban warfare - like the blowing of the doors etc), not after.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 10:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no "Battle"...call it mellee, action, incident, attacks on civilians by small bunch of undisciplined, badly informed terrorists is not a battles......

• just because most of the fatalities occurred because of inept Lehi and Irgun intelligence during the fighting phase does not remove the stain of atrocity from the executions post fighting....*It's one of those little points that Milstein ignores....
• The claim that most of the fatalities occurred after the fighting has never been made apart from by implication by Milstein....Milstein uses the straw-man tactic to sensationalize....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And this is also true for the 254 victims. Ceedjee (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "straw-man tactic" is what you think about what he says. But he specificlly says that the supposedlly "massacre" after the battle never occured, since most of the of the arab dead were killed during the battle with Irgun, Lehi, Etzioni Unit, and Palmach units (thus, during an urben warfare battle, not a massacre).

Arabs report around a 100 dead, this also what he says.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that is not quite what he says. He leaves that point open by saying that most of the fatalities occurred during the fighting. That phrase means that some occurred outside the fighting. You need to read what is written by Milstein a bit more closely. Milstein still uses a straw-man tactic of claiming by implication that a claim was made that the majority of the deaths occurred outside the initial raid. The claim that the majority of the deaths occurred outside the initial raid was never made. There is nothing new in Milstein. The Mapai/Revisionist split has always been known about. The number of dead was worked on by Palestinians not Israeli, Milstein has only done the same job of propaganda as Mapai did in the first place. It's quite amusing to watch the Israeli left and right point up each others misdeeds.....

Ceedjee is absolutely correct that the 254 figure was used to sensationalize for propaganda purposes, by Isaeli black psyops, by Israeli left to berate the revisionists and by the Palestinians.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is what you think of what he says - he does say Most of the arab got killed during the battle (hence, there was no "mass" killing after)

And as for 254, is also what he says, which is emaphesizing the point of being used as a "Blood libel", which he claims that despite this the number are the arabs are reporting on about a 100 killed (the number itself, is less important then as to how people got killed, in which he claims was an urben warfare). --Shevashalosh (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Mapai "Blood Libel" against the right wing revisionists, hence he brings up the Palmach executing unarmed prisoners at Ein Zeitoun. The claims of a mass killing after the fighting has never been made (the Palestinian version has always been on the high proportion of non-combatant deaths in the houses), except as implied by Milstein. Milstein is basically saying that the executions (Meir Pa'il, who never said mass execution just executions which Milstein has now confirmed) at Deir Yassin are allowable as Palmach did the same at Ein Zeitoun (and about the same amount) and the fatalities during the fighting are allowable as Lehi and Irgun made grave errors due to inept intelligence work on the intended targets. Hence Milstein is the only person to harp on about mass killing post fighting. Maybe you need to read up on the various versions before you re-read Milstein....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for the author, I can only say what he says, other wise this would be me saying what I think of what he says. I'm not on his company promoting the book, this is just a book that jumped into subject that is part of the palestinian culture conscious "story line", in which he says fashioned Israel as a terrorists state that allegedlly never stoped massacring arabs.

He doesn't leave Ben-Gurion (hence, Hagana, Mapai etc - all the names you know of the left) clean, and as I put in the article, blames Ben-Gurion for knowing there was no massacre, yet being silent for political reasons (If you know how much hatred there was between

Altalena affair - in which the I.D.F shot at Irgun, one of the darkest senses in Jewish History, Jews shooting at Jews). --Shevashalosh (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Milstein gives BG one hell of a kicking, but there again Milstein identifies himself as a right wing revisionist. Altalena was not the only time of Jews shooting/executing Jews, there was actually quite a few executions carried out by Lehi and Irgun. Deir Yassin is not just in the Palestinian culture conscious "narrative" but also pretty much ingrained in the left right Israeli split and used as a tool by the left to show the right as not being worthy of power. What the article is missing is the three way split on the narrative....Your POV comes across quites strongly as you are missing great chunks of Millstein's conclusions....As you've slanted the article to be anti-Palestinian by missing out the anti-Israeli left part the article will always be POV. Mind, any article about an event based purely from a minority perspective by one author can only ever be POV at the best....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second draft

I put together a second draft, trying to incorporate Ravpapa's draft, portions of my draft, and Shevashalosh's suggestions. It can be found at User:Malik Shabazz/Blood Libel at Deir Yassin 2. I hope we can reach a rough consensus and avoid an edit war after the article is unprotected. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Amen. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks good to me. -- Nudve (talk) 05:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Good for me. Ceedjee (talk) 06:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ashley Kennedy

• Opening statement:

Deir Yassin massacre of 1948 never took place.

incorrect should read: that a massacre at Deir Yassin did not take place/occur. His argument is that although the incident at Deir Yassin occurred it should not be classed as a massacre....subtle difference...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please get real with the word Battle...a raid at best.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• center of Arab resistance? No he contends that some of the villagers participated in the defence of Qassel...without giving any numbers, that hardly makes it a centre of Arab resistance...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• much lower than the 254 victims frequently cited.....Which hasn't been quoted for the last 20 years, so it isn't frequently quoted. Try something on the lines initially quoted by Yishuv leadership and Palestinians for propaganda purposes.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley, I deduce from your comment you have the book. Is this the case ?

I was amazed that Milstein would have claimed that Deir Yassin unhabitants would have participated to the fights in the Jewish Quarter [of the Old City] (which is practically not possible). Some [other] historians talk about Qastel, indeed.

Could "Deir Yassin raid" become "Deir Yassin events" ? (more neutral)

Ceedjee (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milstein put the material on his web site some time ago, so I took copies of it when it was available.

• Milstein makes second hand claims about shooting on the Jerusalem by inhabitants which as you say is not credible due to distance and topography....(spelling of Qastle.. what spelling has wiki settled on?..

"Deir Yassin Raid...it was an attempt at a military operation, the other option is F*** up at Deir Yassin but I don't think censors would pass that title...events is far to anodyne...incident at doesn't really fit...my personal preference would be raid (raids describe actions up to and inc. battalion strength in general)Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. Ashley. In English, I think al-Qastal is used. Qastel is in French. I've never seen Qastle written. I don't think it has anything to deal with a Castle...

Raid could be considered as pov-pushing not to use massacre, while events is in the middle. What do you mean when you write : "events is far to anodyne" ?

Ashely, this what the man says. He says this icidence became a founding myth within the Palestinian society fashoning Israel as a terror state, that allegedlly never ceased massacring arabs - it apears on his English summary. And so did Shabaz put it. I can't put words into his mouth.

And for Ceedjee, not only he says that the village was a base for irrgullar arab forces attacking Jewish quaoters, but he also says that terrorists attacks came out of the village. Other then that, you need to write a book about what you think about this.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third time I ask you to be

wp:civil with me. FYI, Milstein refers to the fact that an Iraki ALA battalion has long been claimed to have settled at Deir Yassin. But as for the 254, it is 20-years-old information. Ceedjee (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• The word "event" to describe what occurred at Deir Yassin makes it sound like a sports "event"....(To ceedjee)

• Milstein uses unsubstantiated second hand reports (rumors). Which you fail to point out. Milstein is selective in his sources. Which again you fail to point out. You fail to point out where documentary evidence disagrees with Milstein (Iraqi forces). You need a section devoted to a critique of Milstein. Without it the article can only be POV.

• Terrorist attacks....well there you have a problem, as Lehi and Irgun at that time were the designated terrorists where as the villagers weren't. I think you need to drop the POV...

• irregular arab forces..... now try putting a number to those irregular arab forces one two or maybe half a dozen Milstein uses phrases such as irregular arab forces to disguise his lack of research into the numbers....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• example of a raid Dieppe Raid and that was a damed sight bigger than Deir Yassin....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is going faster than I can keep up with. Ashley, I don't know if your last comments are about Malik's version or about ShevaShalosh's post. Here are some of my thoughts on some of your points:

• Raid is fine with me.
• Ashley, Milstein contends more than that some villagers participated in the Qastel battle. He also says it was a base for raids on the Jerusalem road. "The village was a base for semi-regular forces that fought against Jewish Jerusalem..." (from the e-mago reference, in Hebrew).
• The lead could be rewritten to specify that Milstein does not claim there was no raid in Deir Yassin, but only claims there was no massacre. But it sure will make the lead clumsy, and, IMHO, won't make anything clearer. If a reader really is misled into thinking that Milstein claims there was nothing in Deir Yassin (pretty unlikely), that misconception will be corrected by the fourth sentence.
• 254: I agree with Ashley. No one seems to believe that number today. Let's redline it. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Milstein uses second-hand reports." Have you actually read the book? As far as I know, at least from the summaries I have read, Milstein talked to Monita. I know he talked to Begin, the commander of the Irgun. He interviewed over 10,000 people for his four volumes on the 1948 war. He may be a biased, belligerent oaf, but he isn't an amateur.
• "Terrorist attacks": I don't know what you are referring to. Malik's version makes no mention of them anywhere.
• "Irregular Arab forces": Well, we're all on pretty thin ice here, because no one seems to have read the book. But the phrase that appears in e-mago (apparently written by Milstein himself) says "semi-regular". And I doubt very much that his use of the word is meant to disguise his lack of research into the numbers. Can you cite reliable numbers? There isn't even a reliable estimate of how many people actually lived in Deir Yassin at the time, let alone how many (if any) combatants there were.
• A section to critique Milstein: I thought Malik's version had that. Am I misreading? Ashley, I doubt that you will find a scholarly paper rebutting Milstein's claims, as no academic, at least in Israel, takes them or him seriously. The main importance of the book - and this is a point made pretty clearly in the article - is the accusation against Ben-Gurion, and not the facts of what did or did not happen in Deir Yassin.--Ravpapa (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You find Meir Pa'il strenuous rebuttal to Milstein...and as he is a scholar, ex Knesset, eye witness and left wing, there are other bits and pieces of critique of Milstein available.
• He interviews and then takes the interviewee word uncritically....That's not good scholarship. I haven't read Blood Libel I have only read the articles as released on Milstein's site, they were reasonably extensive at the time. (are they still available?)...Milstein is not what you would call friendly towards BG....
• many people have used Milstein in error to say that Deir Yassin did not occur....You only need to look at some of the debates in political forums to see the abuse that Milstein is used for...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we focus on the article and not debate other issue.

Ashley Kennedy, are there modifications you want to bring to the Shabbaz's version ?

If so, which ones ?

Ceedjee (talk) 12:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opening:- Blood Libel at Deir Yassin: The Black Book (Hebrew: עלילת דם בדיר יאסין - הספר השחור‎) is a book by Israeli military historian Uri Milstein, where he contends that the events at Deir Yassin in 1948 should not be described as a massacre. The book, published in Hebrew in 2007, accuses the leadership of the Yishuv of complicity in promulgating false reports of the massacre to discredit political rivals. The book attracted attention in Israel[1][2] and won an award from the "Order of Jabotinsky", an organization associated with the ideology of the right-wing Likud party in Israel....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Controversy would I feel be better re-titled as critique.[reply]

• The book and its author were the subject of some controversy in Israel. Meir Pail, a rival historian identified with the Israeli left, claims that the book is "completely unfounded" and "cheap propaganda of the Israeli right-wing". and it should be noted that Meir Pa'il accuses Milstein of being selective.
• should a link to the "Season" be included?. as it was part of the ongoing power struggle....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With Shabbaz's permission, I added

The Hunting Season

in the "see alos".

I don't get the difference between your opening and his. Could you please underline this ??? Thank you. Ceedjee (talk) 12:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't keep up with disscution eather...

Ravpapa, irregullar forces and terror attacks (פיגועים) is what he says, and is used to anser the fact that it was "relavtivlly quiet", also in comparsion to other villages (Al-Qastel, Qulunia etc)

Ashley, It is impossible to place what you think about what he says, but if you think that his arguments are not strong enough, then it will show. --Shevashalosh (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milstein uses subjective language as though his point of view is accepted uncritically.....I can't be the only person that goes through history books with a highlighter and pencil, even my 1st editions get scribbled in...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No you are not the only the only one who goes through history books, on the contarary, let it be put out there so peole can argue about it, for better or for worst. --Shevashalosh (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Draft

Are there any more comment about this version : User:Malik Shabazz/Blood Libel at Deir Yassin 2 ?

• That sounds good for me. Ceedjee (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I thought the 254 figure was being struck or qualified by initially used rather than frequently used?....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I had forgot. Is this ok ? (nb. the 254 is still sometimes reported by mistake, even in recent books). Ceedjee (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• who reports 254?...they must be stuck in a time warp...(PS there still a few books in your list I'd like a copy of)Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley, your article is very intsresting, but this is your input of what he syas.

Look at the draft up there, it is made of Shabazz and Ravpapa's, and my comments afterwards. Those are the arguments, and these are his ansers. You need to put it out there, if you wanna have an argument of this being strong or weak argument. --Shevashalosh (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks OK...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then we will go for it. --Shevashalosh (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

down test and adjust......Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

? --Shevashalosh (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC) With a magazine of 20 rounds load,... down test and adjust,... in your own time carry on (fire)....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry ashley, I can't understand those terms - is this slang? can you explain ? thank you. --Shevashalosh (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do users' comments mean we can replace the current article with the latest draft? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley has a very intresting article, but her own input of what he says, not his words. There is a draft up there by you (Shabazz) and Ravpapa, and my comments afterwards, this is what the man says, lay it out there, If the arguments are weak then it will show. --Shevashalosh (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give a link to the article you consider good ?

I don't understand the question ? can you explain? thank you. --Shevashalosh (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment earlier "Alright then we will go for it": does it indicate your agreement that we can replace the article with this draft?

I was convincing Ashley that her intersing article, is an input of what Milstein says, and pointed at the "final draft" I put up there, which is a combination of Shabazz draft and Ravpa (not Ashly's) and my comments afterwards, and if she thinks those arguments are weak then it will show. She seem to indicate that she inedeed have looked at my "final draft" and said it looks ok. So, I said "ok lets go for it" (on my "final draft", not Ashly). --Shevashalosh (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus is forming around this latest draft: User:Malik Shabazz/Blood Libel at Deir Yassin 2.

We would appreciate your comments about it. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with User:Malik Shabazz/Blood Libel at Deir Yassin 2 version....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing to add to that version. Good for me too. Ceedjee (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what the man says in his own words, This is an input of what he says. He cliams that the raid or whatever fashined the image by palestinians of israel as a terrorists state. I'llask rapapa to get involved, see what he has to say. --Shevashalosh (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "an input". We have to summarize what Milstein wrote. Can you identify specific inaccuracies in the draft? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the message I've poste at ravpapa's talk page, this will make it clearer. I'm waiting for his opinion since he done reaserch on the matter. --Shevashalosh (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It this version User:Malik Shabazz/Blood Libel at Deir Yassin 2 better than the current and could replace this ?

• support. We discuss this and it seems it reaches a nearly 100% consensus. Potential issues could be discussed later more precisely. Ceedjee (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• support. The current version violates
  WP:NPOV and should replace it. Nbauman (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• support. The new version is better. -- Nudve (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• support. Much better. Assuming we have to have an article on a $99 non-English
  WP:FRINGE book? PR^talk 19:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• So nu? Is someone going to actually blow away that offensive, pidgin-English version and replace it with Malik's? Who here is an admin that can unlock the page?--Ravpapa (talk) 05:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page is unlocked. I'll move the article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here are the problems I detailed on Ravpapa's talk page:

since you have made a reaserch on the matters here are the problems (Shabaz latest draft is taken from what I have reffered as ashley's draft- so consider this as reffering to both):

1) one openining statement from Ashley:

She (or he) says this is a book about Milstein blaming the Yishuv. not true, this her own input of his own words. see ref "Milstein sumaary in English" [2]:

his words for opening ststement: The Deir Yassin episode, which began on April 9, 1948, is better known throughout the entire world than any other incident from the Israeli War of Independence. It became a basic founding myth in the Palestinian consciousness, and therefore in Palestinian culture...

According to the Palestinians, the Deir Yassin "massacre" was a "frozen incident" in the evolution of the State of Israel. In their eyes, it fashioned Israel as a terrorist state that has never ceased massacring Palestinians...

and thier is one line in the opening ststaement, in which he blames the "New Israeli Left" (hence, post zinists, New Historians etc) - I would be glad to mention it !!! (not "the Yishuv" who existed before israel was established [hence- prioer to 1948] , but rather the "new left" of Post Zionism and New Historians [hence after 1948, in the 90th etc]),

This is how he represnts the problm, there is no mention of "Blaming the Yishuv".

2) his layout of the the claims list (1-5) for "massacre", are completely gone (only answer apear - how can one understand the answer if he does not know what the list claim are (1-5) ?

3) Ashely (or Shabaz's) opening ststememnt says where he contends that the raid at Deir Yassin in 1948 should not be described as a massacre. This he never said, it's an input of what you think he syays. his own words is that the massacre never occured,(for many detalied reasons)

(said to Ravpapa) : I will post these problems on talk page, you may post your answers there, better that everybody will see it.

thnk you. --Shevashalosh (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He does blame the Yishuv. Here, from his website: "After all, if regarding this episode Ben–Gurion and his friends succeeded in deceiving the entire world, then all the more so regarding other episodes less damaging to Israel's image."
(2) The layout is not important. This is an encyclopedia article about the book, not a mirror of the author's website.
(3) From the same site: "In the Battle of Deir Yassin, forces encountered the difficulties of fighting in a populated area and the harsh results from a human perspective. Turning this battle into a massacre myth prevented its being investigated in depth with the resulting conclusions." He does argue that a battle was fought. -- Nudve (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anser to Nudve:

1) Ben Gurion responsiblity (Silent for knowing there was no massacre, but using silent for political rasons - is mentioned in a whole article - In context of the events sequances - which is exaclly why there is a whole chapter on Ben Gurion Silent - under "Milstein Ansers".

His opening statement is "fashined Israel as terrprists state that allgedlly never ceased massacring arabs" (or somthing in tha nature.

2)Ashly / Shabazz's does not mentioned his opening statment (blame) "fashined Israel as a terrorist state that has allegedlly never ceased massacaring arabs"

3)Ashly / Sahabzz's own input - interpertation of what Milstein says is : "you shouldn't call it a massacre". Not true. His own words is, is this is that a massacre didnt occur, because, this was a battle where people shot from the house (urben warfare), and killing after the battle (supposdlly the best "prove" of "massacre"), he denys, since he says most killed was during the battle (hence there was no "mass" killing after, but rather the continuation of exchange in shooting of urben war fare).

No one ever denyed there was a battle there, he just says, that during the battle there was no massacre, and after also didn't occur.

4) He never agreed those were non combant (to the contarary, he says the village was not a quit one due to irrgular forces there), as Ashly / Shabazz put it, but rather he agrees that about a 100 killed - the arab sources - could possibly be the number.

• I'm going to continue my ansering on problems tomorw, I won't be availble (i'm telling this to myself also). thank you.

ravpapa? what do you thin of the problems I raised ? --Shevashalosh (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shevashalosh, it would be very helpful if you could be specific about the changes you would like to make to the latest draft. Please point out the specific paragraph or section and propose different wording so we can all understand your concerns. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shevashalosh, I think your concerns may come from a misreading of the text. The draft does not blame the Yishuv, as you think. The sentence says "the leaders of the Yishuv" - that does not mean everyone, only Ben-Gurion and his associates. On the contrary, the article quotes Milstein as saying that Ben-Gurion brainwashed the Yishuv.

I don't think his layout from the website is something sacred. In fact, on the website, Milstein does not specifically refute the five points in the rest of the text - you have to go looking at other sites to get the specific rebuttals. I think that the way it is presented is pretty clear - clearer, in fact, than the way it is written on the website. In any case, that is purely a question of organization of the article. You are not arguing with the substance, only with the format.

I also think Ashley's concern about the wording of the lead is a bit picky. Saying "should not be described as a massacre" is a lot weaker and awkward than "the massacre never occurred." Ashley's concern (Ashley, please correct me if I am wrong) was that people might think from the original wording that Milstein claims that nothing actually happened in Deir Yassin. I think that fear is a bit extreme, but, nonetheless, in terms of the accuracy of the two statements, I think they are equal. And Ashley's agreement is important to us because she is the only editor in this discussion who is active in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine, and is therefore our only watchdog to our objectivity. So I think that in this case we should accede to Ashley's wishes.

In sum, I think the draft, as it is, is about as good as we're going to get. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per my understanding, Ashley Kennedy3 is a man. Ceedjee (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. Ceedjee is correct I am male.
• 2. Fear or not it is a fact that Milstein words are used and abused in general debate by extremists to say that as it wasn't a massacre nothing happened at Deir Yassin.
• 3. Millistein does blame the Yishuv for continuing the Massacre line.
• 4. Millstein does not explore the disproportionate Deaths to wounds ratio.
• 5. Millstein's use of the word massacre varies with who is committing a massacre.
• 6 Selectivity of Millstein. Millstein gives undue weight to later oral testimony and does not clarify details. (taking only one historians version of an event is highly problematical)

This volume's outstanding feature is its translation. The book lacks original documentation, nor is there analysis of the causes for the war or its international politics. Above all, a quantitative analysis of Israeli and Arab forces engaged in the war is desperately missing. [3]

• 7 Politics plays a greater role in Millstein's work than most historians work.
• 8 Millstein doesn't say, as a direct quote, that Dier Yassin should not be considered as a massacre. but a synopsis of his whole book is encapsulated by that sentence.
• Apologies for not contributing for 4 days Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't heard of this book before today. What surprises me is that there is no comment on the name of the book. I would be extremely surprised if no one with notable views has attacked him for the provocation in using "Blood Libel" in the title--

]

The blood libel referred to in the title is not a blood libel against the Jews or against the Israelis. It is against the Irgun and the Lehi, who, Milstein claims, were slandered with false accusations of massacre by their political rivals, Ben-Gurion and others. I suppose the title is misleading, and, I further suppose, it is intended to mislead - the casual reader immediately thinks that this blood libel is against the Israelis. I hope the article is clear enough on that point.

No one with notable views attacked him on this point. No one with notable views attacked him, period. The book, AFAIK, was never reviewed in the Israeli press (it was reported in a few inside articles), and, also AFAIK, was never peer reviewed by the Israeli academic community. Milstein is an outcast. In spite of his considerable knowledge and impressive research record, his views are so repulsive to mainstream Israeli historians that they simply refuse to discuss him. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the title as "Deir Yassin" being a "blood libel" against IZL and LHI by... other Israelis...

Self-hating Jews

...

I want nevertheless also to point out that Milstein is not that much rejected by mainstream historians, even if it is what Pa'il claims.

Milstein's other (!) books are in the bibliography of most main books of the period.

Ceedjee (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. His expulsion has been a gradual process. But since he was fired by Bar Ilan University (I don't remember exactly when - about 7 years ago?) he has been pretty much ignored all around. --Ravpapa (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

shortly after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin..13 years...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the removal by

: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." So to remove something from the body of the article because it is stated in the lead is wrong.

But, beyond that, I think it is important to explain what the Jabotinsky prize is: it is not a prize for academic excellence, but a prize for work that supports a particular political point of view. If that is not explained, then, I believe, every reference to the prize should be removed.

Boodlesthecat, if you disagree, please write your response here (on the talk page). If I have convinced you, please restore or rewrite the material. If you do nothing in the next few days, I will restore the deleted paragraph.

Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 05:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First explain why that would go in a "controversy" section. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 05:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What if the "Controversy" section was renamed "Reception"? -- Nudve (talk) 07:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Nuvde's proposal is a good (very NPoV) compromise. Ceedjee (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, too. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still don't need this minor info mentioned twice, and it should be without the extra POV; i.e., without the

WP:OR about Jabotinsky, who is not the subject of this article. If its in the lead, it should be without the bit about it being right wing bla bla. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 12:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Then I suggest we remove it from the article altogether. It isn't really that important. It isn't the Pulitzer prize, after all.

I do think that, if we do mention it, we have to put the award in context. The Order of Jabotinsky is not an institution of stature, it has no academic standing, and it represents a specifically political point of view - a point of view with which Milstein publicly identifies. To mention it in the lead without giving any context endows the prize with undue weight. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Later: Boodles, on second thought, you've convinced me. The article is fine as you edited it. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, it should be the other way around: This sentence should be mentioned far below the lead. -- Nudve (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nudve. I think the sentence should be explained in a section talking about the reception of the book. The comments about Jabotinsky could be neutralized but it should also be added it has not been commented (positively) by historians. Ceedjee (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of the prize endows the prize with nothing, it does however have an affect of pointing out that Milstein is extremist right wing...I'd like to see it mentioned 4 times...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 01:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ceedjee, your edit of this article is incorrect. You wrote, 'events that occured at Deir Yassin on April 9, 1948 would be better described as a "raid" rather than a "massacre".' In fact, Milstein never makes that claim. Although he contends that the events were not a massacre, he never uses the word raid. The closest he comes is the word "episode", but he doesn't make a big issue over the terminology.--Ravpapa (talk) 06:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

right. I moved to battle but add a "reference needed".

Note I just corrected an even more false sentence given the former meaning was that the events were described as a raid and 95% author consider it was a massacre. (true or not) Ceedjee (talk) 09:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, why is this article still around? As I wrote to Ashley, Someone should nominate it for deletion. The book is cheap propaganda, of no importance: it was self-published, it was never reviewed by any Israeli newspaper (it was reported on an inside page in Haaretz, but no review), and it in fact stirred no controversy whatsoever. What Milstein presents as new facts are simply a rehash of claims that have been floating around for years. The only real reason this article was included in the Wikipedia was, in my opinion, to get the words "Deir Yassin" and "Blood libel" into the title of an article (Note, too, that the blood libel is not a libel of Palestinian supporters against the Israelis, but of leftwing Israelis against rightwing ones). It was written by an editor whose editing practices were so inflammatory and disruptive that within a month she was permanently blocked. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I agree this book is a propaganda book, I don't agree that the article should be deleted. On the contrary. It is an important information to know that there is a propaganda struggle around all these topics. The introduction of the article is clear and the external links (eg to Neo-Zionism is also clear.

But more,

wp:rs

source on wikipedia. His other works are quoted by numerous authors from all sides (at least Morris, Gelber and Pappé) and so there is no reason not to have an article about his work.

I would add that on a very objective basis, the last book of Pappé, the Ethnic cleansing of Palestine is exactly in the same situation as Milstein one (self published, no official peer review, same topic, same controversy,...) and it is widely used as wp:rs source in several articles. We must stick to neutrality and objectivity.

My mind is that none of these are not wp:rs sources in the academic world and neither should be used on wikipedia but I am quite sure I cannot reach a consensus around this :-) Ceedjee (talk) 09:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced this book is notable enough to merit its own article, it may be an attempt at a

]

As one of the principle authors of the article in its present form, I couldn't agree with you more. The statements in the article that the book "attracted attention in Israel" and that it "was the subject of some controversy in Israel" are exaggerations. The book, by a largely discredited ideologue, was almost universally ignored. If you nominate this for deletion, I will support you.

You might be interested in my essay User:Ravpapa/The Politicization of Wikipedia, where this article is discussed. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this book is not notable, but I don't agree that Milstein is a "largely discredited ideologue". Colorful and controversial, for sure, but nobody has ever pinned on him a deliberate distortion of the facts or similar sins. The problem is that he writes from a position of sympathy for the Revisionist side of politics, compared with most Israeli historians (incl. many considered right wing) who write from a mainstream Zionist position. Thus while many historians are happy to charge Etzel with crimes, they defend the "purity of arms" of the Haganah. Milstein does the opposite, defending Etzel while documenting atrocities committed by the Haganah. His position is that the mainstream description of Etzel is hypocritical and politically motivated because the Haganah committed worse crimes themselves. He has provided better documentation than anyone else for several examples, such as the Ein al-Zeitun massacre. Few pro-Etzel writers are willing to attack the Haganah in this way regarding actions against Arabs, and this leaves Milstein with very few friends. Zero^talk 09:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sad to say, but Milstein is not controversial. I quote from Haaretz's review of Blood Libel - which is, incidentally, the only review of the book to appear anywhere in the Israeli press, and that only because the writer Gideon Samett is a childhood friend of Milstein's: "Dr. Uri Milstein is eschewed by all the commercial bookstores. not to mention academic circles and the media. He has failed to gain a post in any major educational institution ... and is not invited to any academic seminars on the topics of his expertise." Outside of his diminishing circle of old-guard revisionist supporters, Milstein is a nonentity. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are just confirming that he has few friends, like I said. Zero^talk 12:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, few friends and no controversy. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, Benny Morris (pre-conversion in 1989) called him the definitive historian of the 1948 war, and still cites his work post-conversion (at least 8 citations in 1948). His books are in fact widely cited by academic historians. I have about 20 examples of journal articles citing him on my computer and google scholar finds many more. So the idea that he is ostracized by the academic establishment is simply not true. I bet Samett's words are out of Milstein's mouth and represent the way he felt about it at the time. Zero^talk 13:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we having this stupid argument? You may be right. In any case, we agree that the book is not notable, and the article should be deleted. Pat, do you want to do the honors? --Ravpapa (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]