Talk:Ma'alot massacre

Names of children

It seems to be the new Wikipedia standard around here; see Operation Days of Penitence Fatalities, for example. Jayjg 22:37, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are justified in reverting my edit, then. However, I still believe that content adds nothing to the article. Deletionist 22:43, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I didn't create it, I just moved it from an article in which it definitely didn't belong, the Ma'alot article. Jayjg 22:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NPOV?

I have removed some of the extreme bias from this article. Can we not just stick to the facts and leave the interpretation to others?

1/ The PLO is an umbrella name for a group of quite separate entities. It did not control this group, and to link it to Arafat is simply POV. Yes, put it in, but mark it clearly as Israeli POV, not as a neutral statement. 2/ Do not repeatedly describe fighters in an asymmetric war as "terrorists". In the days before Ma'alot, Israel used phosphorus bombs against refugee camps. By using a more neutral word we don't pass judgment. By all means quote someone calling them "terrorists". It would not be wrong to include a quote from an official statement. I presume one was made. 3/ The facts of the killings are not known. The commandos stormed the school and the children died. That's what's known. Some on the Palestinian side claim the commandos were responsible for at least some of the deaths. We should not represent either side's view, just what is actually known.

I appeal to those who have a bias on this issue to take note of these points and consider them before mindlessly reverting this piece or any other connected with this whole issue. Yes, of course, the other side is worse than your side. Yes, of course, they are evil and you are good. But Wikipedia is not a good place for judgments. Just the facts, ma'am.Dr Zen 03:28, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mode of children's deceasing

As a resident of Ma'alot and someone who wrote about this incident on my Blog site and the Times of Israel . I used profession journalistic standards to relay the truth. I realize that there are those who claim predjudice, bias and worse but I wish to state that I wrote only the truth based on first hand testimony of witnesses- survivors and rescuers.

To oh so blithely and naively to state "No one knows how the children died" is an effront to reality and the truth!!! It is also a blatant LIE as I relay below there were survivors and witnesses like Eli Amar who speaks about how the terrorist acted in cold-blood .03:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)~~ One major item that I found was that both the Sayert members and the three "militants" were using AK-47s. In the heat of the affair there were exchanges of gunfire and there is medical forensic evidence that SOME rounds may hit the students but from the testimony of the students that I took in my interviews with them most remember the spraying of the room by Linou and the grenades he dropped on the floor among the young girls. I ask you why would the survivors lie?DINMDK (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

In my blog I also published photos, one of which shows the three "Militants", who were members of Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) led by Nayef Hawatmeh posing for posterity prior to their infiltration to Israel. This photo of the three from the DFLP show them in civilian clothing which cab be seen in several photos by mass media representatives who were there. The photos by the DFLP contridict the line from the page: "The attack was carried out by three members of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) dressed in Israel Defense Forces uniforms.[5]" In my personal interviews with those involved and particularly the survivors I wish to make several facts known: 1) The attack by the three "militants" on the "tender" a Peugeot 404 driven by a Bedouin driver, Fain Saad 24 years old who was from the village of Arab Al Aramshe, held eight Christian women workers from the Kiryat Ata clothing factory. The incident was described in full to me by one of the survivors of the attack Violet Dakwar from Fassuta in her home. She relayed that she was sitting next to her friend Hasibah Shalala 27.who was the only one murdered from among the occupants of the tender. All the otheres were wounded. 2) The three "militants" broke into the apartment of the Cohen Family and opened fire and murdered Yoseph-‘Jojo’ the father, the 8 month pregnant mother Fortuna and their five year old son Moshe Eli. They had severely wounded the five year old daughter Biya in the abdomen. Both Biya and her orphan brother who was deaf-dumb 18-month-old son Yitzhak survived. 3) As to HOW the children died I wrote the full description as given to me by the survivors mainly Chaim Asulin who himself was hit seven times and was thought dead on the scene and Gabi Amsalem who was being held as a human shield by 20 year old Muhammad Muslih Salim Dardour (Harbi). I have also confirmed the information by other survivors of the incident whom I have met on several occaisions I spoke and interviewed two members of the Elite Sayert Matcal commando unit, Baruch Fine, Moshe Givati and Amiran Levine. 4) A casualty not mentioned is the 27 year old soldier from Akko who was married to a resident of Ma’a lot and the father of a one month old baby girl by the name of Sylvian Zerach.DINMDK (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

No one knows how the children died (they were MURDERED). Saying that they "were killed" implies strongly that someone did it on purpose (DUH). Saying that they "died" does not make any judgment. Please discuss this here before making edits. By the way, "affiliate to" is good English. It has more of a sense of subordinacy than "affiliate with". You'd think you would prefer it, jayjg.Dr Zen 23:21, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The children were killed (murdered) by someone; they didn't die of natural causes or old age. Affiliate with is a vastly more common usage. I prefer good English and NPOV. And your suggesting that I bring my objections to Talk: first is rather baffling, considering you didn't bother to do so yourself before making far larger changes, including changing "killed" to "died". Jayjg 23:47, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Affiliate with might be more common where you are but not in the UK. In keeping with Wikipedia policy, I used the usage I am familiar with. I left a note on the talk page about why I had made changes. As is usual for a POV-pushing edit warrior, you didn't bother. You made a snide comment in the edit summary. No one knows how the children died, only that they died. I am removing the implication that they were purposely killed. Perhaps the commandos' stray bullets did for them. Perhaps the militants killed them. Source it or leave it.Dr Zen 00:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't read it as stating that they were purposely killed by the Palestinians. They were killed, and it could've been by the Palestinians, whether accidentally or deliberately, and it could've been by the Israelis. Using 'killed' doesn't imply a conclusion either way. Ambi 02:06, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fine. "Died" is impeccably neutral. "Killed" implies someone else was responsible. Compare "he died in a car crash" with "he was killed in a car crash". No one knows how the children died. But if you don't think so (regardless that you do not address my point or argue it in the same terms), then I'm outnumbered and the POV pusher will once again win the day. A fine service is done for the neutrality of Wikipedia.Dr Zen 02:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

First of all, "killed in a car crash" gets over 40,000 Google hits, just barely under the almost 43,000 that "died in a car crash" gets; also, "killed in a car accident" gets over 90,000 Google hits as compared to over 67,000 for "died in a car accident". Second, someone was responsible; they were killed, though the article doesn't lay the blame for the killings on anyone. Maybe it was a Mossad conspiracy; most killings these days are ascribed to them in certain quarters. Regardless, they were killed. If you're concerned about POV warriors I urge you to go to any article describing the number of Palestinians who have been killed in the current conflict, and change the word "killed" to "died". Then see how long it takes before your changes are reverted and you are described as a "Zionist bigot" who is trying to "whitewash Israeli crimes." I don't outnumber you, and I'm working for accuracy and NPOV here - I haven't objected to most of your edits, even the grammatically questionable ones (by the way, "affiliated with" gets over 5 million Google hits, "affiliated to" gets 734,000), and your protestations of NPOV are suspect given your one-sided application of that "NPOV" here and elsewhere. Jayjg 17:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe your edit history speaks for itself, Jayjg. I stumbled on this page purely by random. If I stumble on a list of Palestinians killed in the current conflict and see POV, I'll be sure to fix it. I don't take sides. I am working for NPOV. I try to implement the policy rather than use it as a means to attack others.

On the question of "affiliate to/with", might I direct you to the Webster's definition here, which you will note gives both affiliate to and affiliate with, although it connotes them differently from how I do (as I said, I'm English). I don't use Webster's but you can be certain that I prefer it as an authority on what's "questionable" in "grammar" to a popularity contest on google. Had I disputed that there were two usages, you might have a point, but I did not. What I did say is that I write UK English. Had you done your experiment on pages from the UK, you would have seen different results. Dr Zen 06:06, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's interesting that after making ad hominem comments to me on other pages you stumbled on this page out of the 400,000 Wikipedia pages "purely by random". The best way of not attacking others is to actually not attack them. Jayjg 10:57, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

References

Sources

I just did a quick copy-edit of the page and have a question: The article says there are conflicting reports regarding how the children died. I can only find reports saying the Arabs detonated their grenades and shot the children. Does anyone know where the other reports can be found? They should probably be added as references. Slim 19:54, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

The BBC source you give says that the children died in the gunfight. It does not say the children were killed by the militants. The Wall Street Journal article is hardly unbiased. It's written by the vice PM of Israel! He's a leading light in Likud. Did you look through the site you linked to it on? I hope you don't think that that is in anyway an objective source of information! The web is crowded with blogs and reprints of the article you cite, which can all be sourced back to relatively few places, but sources from nearer the time are harder to find. What you describe as "reports" are far from it. This guy points out that those who remember the actual happenings remember the kids' dying in the rescue mission. Not too much in the way of eyewitness accounts either, for obvious reasons. You have to decide. Do you simply print what the deputy PM of Israel says as fact, or do you print what is known?

My belief is that encyclopaedias should print as facts the facts, so far as they are known, and not what one side or the other states the facts to be. Where the facts are not known, we should not say anything. When we print opinions, they should be clearly marked as such. Linking to the opinion of a hardcore Zionist such as Olmert as though he were writing an objective news report for the WSJ is not in my view meeting those standards. Your belief may differ. That is up to you. I accept that different editors have different goals for Wikipedia. Dr Zen 02:08, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cut out the ad hominem insinuations. The article currently states: "Reports vary as to the exact circumstances of the killings. In English, that means we (a) know of reports that say X happened; and (b know of reports that say Y happened. But I can only find reports that say X happened. I am therefore asking what the sentence "Reports vary as to the exact circumstances of the killings" refers to. The BBC report saying the children died in the gunfight does not say X or Y. It says nothing about how the children died. "In the gunfight" could mean anything. If we are going to say reports vary, we should link to the varying reports. I did not see the relevance of the Fourth International article you linked to. Quote from it if there is something relevant in there. Slim 03:05, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

I did not make an "ad hominem insinuation". I stated directly that your link did not in my view meet the standards I set out. I assume you placed it in good faith. Instead of attacking me for pointing out its inadequacy as it stands, you might acknowledge that it needs fixing. Stating that you link to a "Wall Street Journal article about the massacre" implies that you are linking to reportage. You are not. Reports do vary. Many "reports" say that the terrorists murdered the children. This is because most "reports" quote the same sources -- the same sources that insist, absent any evidence at all, that Arafat "ordered" the killings. Many other reports, generally those from news sources, state that they died or were killed, but give no details. The one you link to says they died in the gunfight. As you note, it could mean anything. Another, that I cited, says that the rescuers killed them. Is this not variance? I am failing to see your problem exactly. Are you saying that we should report what Olmert says as fact simply because less, erm, involved sources do not interpret the facts, which are thin?Dr Zen 03:25, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Certain terrorist coups, such as the raids and massacres of children at the towns Kiryat Shemona and Maalot show that the training has been horrifyingly successful. The PLO has neglected no aspect of training..." [1]. P.S. Constantly implying that your goals for Wikipedia are NPOV, while other editors have different goals for Wikipedia, is both false and ad hominem. Jayjg 03:30, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I fail to see what your comment was directed towards. Is it a thesis of some kind?

PS Perhaps you feel that stating that the students were murdered by the PLO despite the lack of any evidence that they were is, ahem, NPOV, but I believe that policy dictates that if you say so, you must say who says so. The Wall Street Journal does not say so, Ehud Olmert says so. Why object so strongly to my pointing that out? And I have not "implied" anything, Jayjg. I have said straight out that I believe you push a pro-Israeli POV on Wikipedia. Why do I believe that? Because you wish to put as a fact that the students were murdered by the PLO without recognising the provenance of the report that they were. The report is in fact the standpoint of the Israeli gov't. It may or may not be true. Dr Zen 03:51, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have not objected to pointing out that Ehud Olmert said it, I even linked to the article about him. However, he said it in the Wall Street Journal, why object so strongly to Slim's pointing that out? And please point out exactly where I have "pushed" the perspective that the students were murdered by the PLO. The PLO planned and executed the raid, and the students were killed. I have not stated that the PLO actually killed all of them. And by the way, Ehud Olmert is not the Israeli government. Jayjg 04:01, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Slim did not link to the WSJ article but I don't have a problem with saying that it's the WSJ article, because it is, obviously. Jayjg, I must point out that when you moved the article, it stated that the "terrorists" killed the students with grenades and firearms. You edited it again after moving it but did not fix that piece of POV. Only my fierce opposition to the POV version has got us to the far more neutral version that now exists and you have strenuously fought each change. Dr Zen 04:17, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you had no problem saying it was a WSJ article, then why did you deliberately remove any reference to it as such? [2] And while I did move the article so that it followed the naming convention for Ma'alot, I didn't create it, and I didn't know exactly how they were killed, so I couldn't very well delete it, could I? That information was in the article since it was created a year ago by OneVoice, and not deleting stuff that I don't know to be false is hardly the same thing as "pushing" a perspective. As for my "strenuously" fighting each change, that's an outright falsehood. After your significant changes [3], I only objected to two small words, [4], both of which you were and still are wrong about, as my Googling above shows, yet I've left them there. Jayjg 04:43, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Provenance of students

Noam Chomsky says that the students kidnapped at Ma'alot were teenaged members of Gadna. Is he right? Simply stating that they were "students" rather implies that they were just members of the school who happened to be there. Of course, I'm not saying that their being part of a "paramilitary organisation" (especially when what we are talking about is something like Army cadets, if I understand correctly) makes them a legitimate target for military action -- Chomsky agrees that kidnapping them was a criminal act, which it was -- but if it is true it should be included. Dr Zen 03:51, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   A gadna is just a week students do in their last year of highschool to see what the army is like - it is not paramilitary, it's just an army week, they are students and nothing more.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.110.209.211 (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC) 

WHy names?

What's the point of including names in this article? Unless we include names of Palestinian and Iraqi casualties as well. Names have no place in an encyclopedia.

Which Palestinian and Iraqi casualties in the Ma'alot massacre are you referring to? As for names, there appear to be entire articles about Palestinian children who are notable only for having died in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: [5] Jayjg ^(talk) 14:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Names should always be included when known, whether of perpertrators or victims, of any encyclopaedic article Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 02:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Let us just make one thing clear. The students who were murdered at the school in Maalot were not from Gadna. They were on a simple school hiking trip and ended up sleeping at the school. They did not do anything to deserve being shot to death. That is a fact!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.206.99.26 (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

DFLP view on massacre

There's an interesting discussion on the massacre in the film Matzpen in which a DFLP leader suggests that the team of members involved in the massacre were acting outside of the control of the DFLP. --Duncan 14:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

german wikipedia says, it was a retaliation for an israeli napalm/phosphorous attack on a Palestinian refugee camp.--85.127.18.133 22:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. if the DFLP pundits have their way, it will be the "Ma'alot Deceased Summary" Given the 1500 year history of Jew massacures by Arabs, are we getting jaded?

Opuscalgary 21:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

YakovM states in his/her last edit; "(I have been editing this page with material gained from personal knowledge as a long time resident of the town of Maalot. I have utilized eyewitness accounts and material form liable and truthful sour"

This makes makes me suspect that YakovM's contributions are Original Research, which is not permitted in Wikipedia. Please supply references and sources.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

In fact the whole article is a personal account, sourced only to the original narrator's YakovM private research. It reads as a short novelistic recreation of information he has personally culled and technically should have been wiped out. I didn't do this, from respect to the victims, who deserve memorializing. I would plead therefore for some tolerance here, at least in the short term, because to wipe out the page for technical reasons would be heartless.

What I did was tighten up the prose, cut down the novelistic language, and personal deductions (there is no sourcing for example of information that seems impossible to know, re the terrorists' attitudes, who shot first at the truck etc. Parts read as if the editor were imagining what the terrorists did, and not simply writing from verifiable sources). As far as I know, the basic account (still poorly organized) runs to the truth of events (aside from ignoring the fact, which deserves mention, that in the preceding weeks there was an intensive bombing raid conducted by the IDF over south Lebanon, which caused many victims, and secondly, that 21 of the 22 youngsters killed were of a paramilitary troupe. I might also add that the account of the mix-up between negotiators and the Knesset authorities requires deeper elaboration. Nishidani 14:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

On censoring

This article is, technically, against wiki rules, since, as also others have observed, it violates OR. No one has thought one should be too strict here. We have accorded the original drafter time to iron out the highly personal account.

At the same time, you will note that it has a aftermath, which reads:-

The next day Israel bombed seven Palestinian refugee camps and villages in southern Lebanon. According to the IDF, the targets were offices and training bases used by the Popular Democratic Front. 27 people were killed and 138 injured.'

Incidents have aftermaths, they have contexts in earlier events. You would elide one of many elements in this early background. In inserting the remark from Said, no intent of justifying the terrorism that ensued at Ma'alot is intended. You will note if you are familiar with most wiki pages on terroristic attacks on Palestinians, that much allowance is given to background. See Deit Yassin, Qibya to cite just two examples. That background is written usually with some care in order to place the specific incident in historical context without allowing the prior events to justify the massacre (though many POV-minded editors try to do just this). The Ma'alot terrorists came out of that immediate background. It does not justify their slaughter. What is good for other, more studied and edited pages on Wiki, is applied here. Challenge the language if you like, not the facts.Nishidani 16:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As a first step to good editing, kindly use more civil language. Someone having a disagrement with you is not "censoring" you, nor is he editing without "scruples". To the heart of the matter: Who is to say if this alleged attack that Said mentions is the appropriate context, vs. the long list of prior PLO terrorist attacks? (e.g Avivim school bus attacks or Kiryat Shmona massacre). By picking and choosing some specific act for the "context", while ignoring others, you are necessarily introducing a POV - namely, that the context in which this massacre is to be seen is that of a sort of response to an earleir attack, vs. being one terrorist attack in a long list of other terrorist attacks that had no such "justification". Nevertheless, if there is some respectable historian who makes the claim that the terrorists in this case acted in response to some Israeli attack, we may quote him. Said is not such a source. He is a partisan professor of Comparative Literature. We can not present the opinions of such non-expert partisans as if they were fact. Mr. Hicks The III 16:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As a first step towards good editing please note that remarking on an act of censorship does not in itself constitute 'uncivil' behaviour, but simply is a matter of calling a spade a spade. Who is to say? Said said it, he was an authority on the Palestinians and their history, of international stature, and therefore it is neither here nor there that you or I, nobodies editing this Wikipedia, think he should defer to our opinions, and shut up. The area where the terrorists hailed from had been bombed sequentially, according to Said, before that assault. That is not a 'justification', for the very simple reason that history is a concatenation of complex events, and what precedes another event is cited not to 'justify' the subsequent event, but simply to render its context. The argument you adduce about Said having been (not 'is', he died some years ago) a Professor of Literature and not a competent historian looks bad both on Wiki (where many non-professional historians are cited all over these articles) and on this page, which has no historical sources at all. Most historians by the way, especially on this area, have their 'partisan' positions, and having one is not material to editing these articles. One has only to be a reliable source, which Said, having being both Palestinian, Arabic speaking and a close writer on the history of his land, is. Finally, you and I are both 'non-expert partisans' (as is indeed the person who originally wrote the page).Nishidani 18:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Said being censored

Said was a Palestinian, he was a member of the Palestinian National Council. He was an academic of world repute. He wrote three books specifically on these questions (1) The Question of Palestine (1979), The Politics of Dispossession (1994) The End of the Peace Process (2000). He also authored an historical work on the concept of Orientalism (1979). If you don't consider this sufficient for qualifying as a 'reliable source', Beit Or, argue it on the appropriate page before arbitrators. Your take on this is personal and eccentric. He qualifies by all standard Wiki criteria.Nishidani 14:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Said was a professor of English and a political activist. He is not a reliable source on historical matters, no matter what he wrote. Please use historians as sources on history. Beit Or 14:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This has been argued several dozen times. A primary qualification in one field does not mean the scholar cited cannot be cited in a secondary area where he has published extensively with quality editorial houses. Many historians Arnold Toynbee for one, were primarily qualified as scholars of classical literature. Most of the pages on Israel/Palestine historian issues are littered with material selected from newspapers and done by journalists, not historians. Being a political activist fits virtually everyone cited in these pages, Schechtman, Katz, etc. I note on the Husayni page you will not remove Dalin though he was qualified as a rabbi and only dabbles in history, with disgraceful results. In other words, you use that rule in the strictest sense only when it suits your POV, as an instrument for censoring information you dislike. Be coherent in your editorial practices. Nishidani 14:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of your argument is a personal attack aggravated by violations of WP:AGF. You do not know my motives; you cannot bring them up to bolster your position. Please argue on edits, not the editor. Now back to Said. The fact that some crap exists somewhere does not justify adding other crap elsewhere. You're on the wrong side of WP:POINT here. Beit Or 14:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No personal attack. A demand for coherent editing. When an editor is not coherent in applying principles he adduces on one page to material on another page, even when his attention is drawn to it, means that he is editing selectively. Selective editing means one comes to a project with a disregard for the primary requirement of a project like Wiki, achieving quality pages that are NPOV. For example, the author of this page has admitted, on my talk page, that the whole article is Original Research. I did not apply the rule, and asked others not to apply the rule which disallows OR, because some toleration in this regard is required, otherwise an important article would be wiped out. We have given him and other editors time to document the various points on the page. You come in, ignore applying the rule which would blank the page, but vigorously object to the presence on that page of a quote by a Palestinian, by a former member of the Palestinian National Council, by a scholar of world standing, but a man who has written three important books on the politics and history of Palestine, simply because his primary qualification is in English, French (and Arabic, please note) literature. So I think it more than legitimate to ask myself, why you object to Said, who was a scholar of world standing, being cited here, whereas you remain acquiescent on a non-scholar writing a POV of OR over the whole article? I think my attitude is editorally responsible and coherent. I have cited a scholar of world stature, the one source on the page, and extended lenience to the anonymous Ma'alot-based author's 'novelistic', non-scholarly POV-OR on the rest of the page. I do not, in other words, edit out what I might, were I biased, legitimately blank. Your practice is thus incoherent. I will not raise the issue of motives again, but would appreciate your explaining this selective use of rules, involving absolute tolerance of WP:OR, and stringent application of a very narrow, rarely applied definition of WP:RS (see the whole article, and the appropriate arbitration page on Reliable Sources, which clearly shows that not only qualified academic historians are considered reliable sources, for the simple reason that wiki would collapse if they were) Nishidani 15:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You keep commenting on myself and my editing practices as you perceive them. You have so far failed to construct a coherent argument as to why Said is a reliable source on history. Beit Or 16:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it would be a waste of time trying to impress someone whose editorial practice is ideological/partisan rather than neutral to convert to a principle of editorial objectivity by mere argument. One can, notoriously, never prove the obvious fact that the earth is round to a flatearther. That much I know from 40 years of experience in the field of ideology.Good evening Nishidani 20:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been following this discussion closely for a bit without having had time to get involved. Questions of Said's expertise aside, does he or anyone else actually say that the bombardment was the cause of the Ma'alot massacre? And the previous text made it sound as if the bombardment was some evil act that came out of nowhere - was there nothing that prompted the Israelis, perhaps a previous Palestinian attack? Granted that NPOV is a very difficult policy to follow, but we must be careful not to merely "balance" one "bad" act with another "bad" act. Tewfik^Talk 12:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither Sa'id, Judith Coburn, Chomsky nor Hirst, nor several others I have read say that the bombardments in Lebanon were the 'cause', and all, as far as I can remember call the Ma'alot massacre by its name, an act of pure terrorism. They speak of the broad context not in terms of a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument, which would be silly, not to say, obscene. But at the same time, it seems to be wiki practice to contextualize these events, certainly with examples of Israel's behaviour. Qibya Massacre, Deir Yassin Massacre and several others on the relevant pages have a very substantial amount of backgrounding, and have experienced intense edit-warring over this. On every occasion that I have tried to contextualize (context is not causal, but it does avoid ontological implications), pari passu, anything regarding Arab/Palestinian terrorism, I find the most tenacious resistance. The sum effect is that articles on Israeli acts of this order are framed within a logic of 'reprisal' (and often they were, not always), whereas Arab/Palestinian acts are never 'reprisals' (as they often regard them) but indices of an 'ontology' of terror in the 'Arab/Palestinian mind' or 'culture'. I am strongly opposed to this imbalance. The Ma'alot massacre's immediate context was that of a suppurating undeclared border war extending over those years between Israel, Lebanon and Palestinians in Lebanon.

I would be equally happy if all backgrounding on all terrorist incidents were ignored, and the chill sober record given without fear or favour, in every instance, whichever side happened to be responsible. But if it is consensually agreed that in Qibya Massacre, Deir Yassin Massacre, Kafr Qasim and so many other cases, background is provided, embedding these acts in the larger framework of a chronic conflict, I think there should be no reason for denying the merest hint here of a similar context. I have several sources on the 'dirty war' context of what occurred at Ma'alot, and am not interested in drowning the text with them.

Tewfik this is for the talk page only, but is a snapshot from my own file chronology of that period.(which is highly partial, since it reflects desultory reading over decades)

1972 Israeli raids involved the Arkoub region, the Nabatiyeh refugee camp,the Nahr al-Bared and Rafed and Rashaya-al Wadi camps, then Baddawi and Nahr-al Bared camps

1973 Feb 23 Israel shoots down Libyan airliner Boeing 106 deadover the occupied Sinai in February, one minutve from Suez Canal

1973 April further raids and the assassinations of the three PLO leaders, Kamal Nasser, Mohammed Yusuf Najjar, and Kamal Adwan.

1973 October Yom Kippur war.

In the immediate lead up to Ma'alot and its aftermath

Behind Said's figures for the preceding month, for napalm bombing of South Lebanese villages we have incidents like these:

(On April 4 Golda Meir resigns)

In April 1974 six South Lebanese villages were attacked,

In May the village of El Kfeir was bombed (we know about that in some detail because Senator James Abourezk's family came from there, and he kicked up a fuss about it n the US)

In May Israel bombed the refugee camps of Nabatiyeh and Ein-el-Helweh

May 15 Ma'alot

Same period Rashaya Fuqhar, the Christian village of 2,000 inhabitants bombed for five successive days, and turned into a ghost town.

On May 19th Israel bombarded the Rashidiyeh refugee camp

In June Israel bombed three U.N. camps

In July Israel raided Tyre, Sarafund, and Saida, sinking twenty-one fishing boats.

As you can see, Ma'alot existed in a period of intense and chronic conflict between Israel and South Lebanon. (The record above is defective in not adding PLO acts of terrorism for the same period. They are well documented. What interests me is the sort of information that is less accessible, if equally well sourced) It was not some isolated incident. I still vividly remember the period, but younger readers, and younger editors, tend to look at an article like this as something that recalls an event as arbitrary as it was sanguinary. I have given the merest hint, with the respect due, to a tragic massacre, and not overplayed the issue. I hope this is seen in the proper perspective. The section on the breakdown of negotiations requires elaboration. It was far more complex than is given here. Regards Nishidani 14:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the event happend in a time of border tensions, but I'm still not sure that we are going about representing it properly. In the cases of Qibya, Deir Yassin, and Kafr Qasim, the "background" is the reason given as a cause for the events: infiltrations from West Bank, hence reprisal; attacks on Jewish traffic, hence offensive; potential Jordanian attack, hence strict curfew. The parallel here would be something tying the bombing to the cause of the attack - motivation, reprisal? Morever it seems unlikely that the bombing would have happened in an absence, and there must have been a stated Israeli rationale for carrying it out - perhaps a previous infiltration? Tewfik^Talk 14:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, my addition was intended to give historic contextualization, and certainly not an assertion that I was representing it properly. The background at Qibya, Deir Yassin and Kafr Qasim surely doesn't give the 'cause'. At Qibya there is a background dealing with border incidents, but the cause is not in that passage, for the cause for that particular incident lay outside of the specific background (chronic conflict between Jordan and Israel over border crossings). The cause lay in one man's decision, to the horror of his FM, to use a Qibya massacre as an example (pour encourager les autres). There is nothing in the extensive paragraph on the context to give the reason for the massacre, which took place despite a lowering of tensions, and heightened cooperation between Jordanian and Israeli authorities. The context there does not explain why the massacre occurred. It provides however the context in which Ben-Gurion, alone (with Lavon's foreknowledge of the real purpose), gave the order he did give. I was very careful, in working on that page, to keep separate the historic context from Ben-Gurion's unilateral and private decision. Other voices in the Cabinet and Foreign Ministry at the time were appalled by that decision.

The Deir Yassin massacre, again, was an act predominantly conducted by Lehi-Irgun elements, and though the Haganah gave the go-ahead to their participation (I admit I find that page unreadable and am recalling it from general knowledge), it seems clear that, at least there, the tactics adopted by the hard-liner group under Begin's command did not reflect a general Haganah or government policy. The context, given in large detail, doesn't 'explain' the cause of the massacre. To explain Deir Yassin one has to look at a large variety of motives and contrasting policies, at the variety of forces in the field, and at the men who led them. The Kafr Qasim massacre again is contextualized within border tensions but they do not explain what happened, for even there, security reasons on the border that imposed the curfew do not explain the massacre, which occurred because one commander, opposed by his subordinate, was decisive in making that massacre occur. Other Israeli troops in that area, faced with similar ambiguities over what to do were the curfew violated, did not do what Shedmi's men did, they disobeyed the order, as Ben Gurion said they Shedmi's group should have. I.e. the 'backtground' is duly given, but in no way explains why Shedmi acted as he did. It is a reasonable presumption to think that had Shmuel Melinki been in charge, those 47 villagers would not have been massacred. In all three instances, a broad context is given, Deir Yassin (prelude to outbreak of war, endemic fighting for position), Qibya (border violations, which however occurred everywhere), and Kfar Qasim, border anxieties again, but in all three cases one cannot deduce from these historical contextualizations why necessarily the massacres that took place did take place (at least I can't. Cause implies a necessary precondition (sine qua non) - but the problem with this order of events, whichever side is the victim, is that they are not the norm, whereas the circumstances or historical context is the same for both the massacres and so many other conflicts where no massacres, as opposed to strategic battles, punitive raids, expulsions etc, took place).

One could go much further and contextualize Ma'alot within the framework of the post Yom Kippur war period, in which fractures within the various Palestinian groups broke out. The PLO, having fought in that war on two fronts, as part of national armies, gained recognition and managed to get the Arab world to override Jordanian resistance to the PLO being accorded an autonomous voice as the political representative of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. The proposed Geneva peace conference, despite Israel and the USA's objections, appeared to give Arafat's group an opportunity to propose an 'interim' solution, in which the PLO would enter into the peace-making process and reduce its military pretensions to reclaiming all of Palestine in exchange for the West Bank and Gaza. The rejectionist front included Nayif Hawatima's DFLP, which was responsible for the Ma'alot massacre. The PLO had certainly not renounced a policy of incursions, but had proposed and enjoined halts on them from late October 73, through January and April (they started up again with the June 24 fatah attack on Nahariya and the December 6 raid on Rosh Haniqra, both after Ma'alot, but the other major incursions that year, at Qiryat Shemona (April 11) and Shamir on June 13 (all this in the context of incessant raids and aerial bombing by Israel, and indeed internecine fighting within Lebanon among Arab factions) were the handiwork of the DFLP, which wanted to undermine Arafat who in turn was compelled to flourish now and then his own military adventurism to disprove criticism he was selling out to a peace solution. But, again, this deeper contextualization doesn't explain or excuse Ma'alot. As in a court, one probes the motivations of a murder, the context in which that murderous act took place, and the background of the murderer, but no matter how much one may contextualize it, ultimately the murder is judged as murder, and the criminal punished.

Generally I find most of these articles badly written because they are the playgrounds of hyper-nervous posters who, rather than writing a full historical account, are sucked into a war over implications, and this means one searches more for an opposing editor's motives, or the innuendos possibly contained in any piece of material, than for information for a collaborative building up of a full and impartial documentation from all of the relevant material.(In professional hands, an unobjectionable article on any Wiki topic can be run up in a few days at the most. Here we labour futilely for years). One gives up mostly, and leaves the information languishing in one's books, whose serious historical authors are not troubled by this kind of political spinning. I am not prepossessed by 'contextualizing' Ma'alot. I chanced on the article, and stubbed my example of background context to lend it some documented weight, since it lacks sources, hoping more knowledgeable hands might pitch in. I have sufficient confidence in your balanced responsiveness to adversary arguments to lay the matter in your hands, on the inclusion of Said et al. If you think I am providing an excuse for a massacre, by all means elide it. I certainly will not object to an edit along these lines from yourself, though naturally enough I defend the propriety of my original suggestion. Regards Nishidani 18:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that I hadn't responded immediately. I again agree with much of what you say, especially the 'battles of implications', which does often hamper our historical documentation in the project. However, while I appreciate your trust, I would be a bit more comfortable in knowing that it was based on appreciation of my point, as I'm sure that similar questions will crop up elsewhere. The point again, and forgive me for the repetition, being that the event you've focused on is as you show one of a number of events in contemporaneous "context", and unless one of them had a direct causal tie, neutrality (as well as OR) would prevent us from picking one, while it seem less than productive to include them all here. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 17:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik. I do indeed appreciate the point you made and have cited it here (below I think) as the only legitimate objection I have found to my edit so far. When I came across the article, I had to give it, in response to a call for help in a banner, a stylistic and grammatical revision throughout. The article is a start-up piece, with original research, and needs a good deal of work on it. I threw in my tuppenceworth of specific references on the historical context, as also a starter, expecting that it could assist the article. As I said, I personally think massacre pages should not have 'historic' contextualization. But most pages I am familiar with do have it, and having worked on several others, I naturally added Said's remark, to fit in with that pattern (I won't hide the fact either that, witnessing the intensity with which massacres of Palestinians are finessed by considerable backgrounding contexts, I asked myself why, if this principle applies to them, why it should not apply to massacres in which Israelis have been the victims).

I do assure you, I think the eyebrow you raised my way is one I understand and think legitimate (I only wish this were a general wiki principle). I have, with other editors who have dismissed it, generally reverted, because they have edited with immediacy, dismissively, without even entertaining a dialogue on the propriety of the edit. It is, also, perhaps improper of me to single you out as an editor whose judgement I trust, since that implies I am placing a delicate onus on you, to decide one way or another, a burden no one should be obliged to assume on request (my apologies therefore). It is haste, precipitate editing, especially when the rejection seems as much a matter of personal suspicions as possible wiki-infringements, that worry me. Perhaps, then, I should either be obliged to contextualize it more deeply, or eliminate it myself. I am tempted to the latter course by natural instinct, and the only reason I refrain is that I dislike disparity, i.e. as mentioned earlier, creating two classes of article (contextualized/non-contextualized) depending on which ethnie happens to be the victim. Having made the edit, I'll have to think it more deeply, evidently. Regards Nishidani (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ps. Now that I have your attention, surely someone can come up with a proper edit for 'Kiryat Arba's meaning on the Hebron page. I personally am convinced it is a dialect version of Accadian kirbāt erbetti, which has royal, topological (four quarters of the world) and cosmic significance (as befits the deep mythologies of that historic area). I don't have an academic proof of this, but it seems to me self-evident?Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the situation on other entries, I believe that at least in the cases which you've presented above there was only directly relevant background (to reiterate again, for my benefit more than yours perhaps, the problem with the bombing bit is that we don't have some citation saying "XX was linked to YY", rather it is just placed there - in this case a brief mention of "border tension" might be best). If I'm mistaken on those or a significant number of others, then I would appreciate if you could bring that to my attention so that we can develop a more global approach. I've read and again have nodded in agreement with much of what you say, so don't take my lack of reply to most of it to be anything other than my wish to type less. Regarding the Hebron material, even if it weren't a politically contentious entry I would still think specific sourcing a good idea as not many Wikipedians are familiar with Akkadian or even ANE, but that discussion should probably be had elsewhere. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 01:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the quote from Said, as it stands admittedly does not suit my sense of history, too elliptic and vague. Either it goes out, and with it all contextualization (which I think a pity: it stands there faute de mieux), or it is finessed by some brief remarks which relate to border tensions. As I documented above, rather sketchily I admit, but, again, I have a burden of work on my hands and cannot yet afford the time to muster the record as I know it, the Ma'alot massacre was one of a series of raids on Israel from Lebanese territory conducted over that period (2) the perpetrators belonged to the rejectionist front (not I would note 'by three members of the Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PDFLP), al-Jabha al-Dimuqratiyya li-Tahrir Filastin,' as the lead has it. Nayif Hawatima'se PDFLP by that time, unless I am mistaken (possible!) had shortened its name to DFLP (3) The Rejectionist Front rejected the PLO 'freeze' on cross-border attacks in that period, and the Ma'alot massacre looks like it resulted in part from factional conflicts over policy between the PLO and DFLP (4) On Israel's side there were, in the context of border tensions, frequent bombings of Palestinian camps and bases in Lebanon, in the cycle of retaliation for retaliation that was the hallmark of the area's endemic conflicts. No one element here can be adduced as an explanation, let alone a justification (I repeat, massacres cannot, by definition, be justified). But they enable the reader to see what happened within a relevant context.

If this context could be synthesized NPOV to throw light on the tense circumstances in which the DFLP assault took place, the specific detail from Said could be elided (I don't like rough figures, for one), and a general reference note to Said's book, and Rex Brynen's remarks on the period, Sanctuary and Survival: The PLO in Lebanon (Boulder: Westview Press, 1990) ch.2., for readers interested in further detail, added. Be as brief as you like. Somehow we should be able to iron this one out, with a little patience. P.s. surely there are good Israeli historical sources on this. I hope the original author can chip back in and help out there. Nishidani (talk) 11:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If we can find a sourced statement, 1-2 lines at most (to avoid the "balancing" events that each side will inevitably try to add), and perhaps refer readers to a background article (Israel-Lebanon conflict may be a good target, though I think it needs a lot of work and potentially suffers from a bit of original synthesis in terms of the overall hypothesis. As far as specifics of the internal politics relating directly to this event, there should certainly be a sourced discussion. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 21:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Good ideal. I hadn't thought of the (Israel-Lebanon conflict link. Brynen's book is a good ref. for the internal politics. If anyone has a suggestion as to how these elements can be laconically noted, it would be appreciated. I still don't understand where I have appeared to be engaged in Original Synthesis, or hypothesis-making, and that is why I would appreciate it if the information from sources I have gathered could be boiled down by an experienced hand. Of course, I owe it to others, having provided the argument,to take this on myself, and in due course will have a go if no one else is interested. Regards Nishidani (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was saying that Israel-Lebanon conflict may suffer from some OR/SYN. Nothing about you :-)

. Cheers, TewfikTalk 00:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or, Edward Said is generally a reliable source on Arab-Israeli conflict. And just because someone is a professor in English, doesn't mean they are ignorant in history. Bless sins 13:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I see you are back to your double standards on reliable sources. An english professor is not a reliable source for history anymore than an english professor is a shcolar on religion. How is Said "reliable"? As far as I can tell, he is just extremely bias. Yahel Guhan 04:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If a Palestinian professor of Comparative literature, with several books on his native land's history, a scholar of high standing internationally, is not a reliable source, then neither are the majority of sources in Wikipedia, which come from non-academic newspaper and POV politicized lobbies. Bias is no grounds for exclusion as a source, it is not the 'truth' of a source but its reliability. The criterion is RS, based on academic recognition, academics have peer review processes where, if they stuff up their sources and information, that is put on the record by their professional peers in review. Said certainly got things wrong at times (i.e. his book on Orientalism 1978), as do most academics, Karsh comes to mind. Said is cited all over the landscape of academic writing on the Israeli-Palestinian history of conflict, even by his detractors. The hackneyed allusion to his primary qualification as a disqualification never did wash, and won't wash here.Nishidani (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If a Palestinian professor of Comparative literature, with several books on his native land's history, a scholar of high standing internationally, is not a reliable source, then neither are the majority of sources in Wikipedia, which come from non-academic newspaper and POV politicized lobbies Than remove those sources and replace them with more reliable ones. Bias is no grounds for exclusion as a source. Of corse it is; it happens that way all the time, depending on the level of scholarship and how much of a scholar the person is. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete for those conditions. Said is cited all over the landscape of academic writing on the Israeli-Palestinian history of conflict, even by his detractors. And not necessarily in a positive light; many of the scholars who cite him do so criticizing his works, bringing further question to his reliability. Then again, I suppose I am supposed to take your word on it? Do you have any specific proof of this? As a counter example; do you think Robert Spencer is a reliable source for Islam articles? He did, after all write many books on Islam; he is not, however a RS, because his degree is in Christianity, and he is not a professor. Yahel Guhan 06:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Bias or POV is present in all authors, of academic works or newspaper sources, used by Wikipedia. Bias is balanced by anti-bias, POV by contgrary POV to achieve, theoretically, NPOV. Since most articles have contentious issues, both sides are given. So I'm afraid all your remarks indicate is that you are not familiar with the rules. Unlike Wikipedian editors, no academic of repute critical of Said thinks that he was not an academic of repute. No I don't think Robert Spencer is relevant and I wouldn't cite him on Islam. He didn't know Arabic and was not a professor. Said's native language was Arabic, he was a professor and most important of all he was of Paolestinian origin. That last qualification is what constitutes the objection most of you hold against him. Palestinian articles must be drafted predominantly by Westerners, or Israelis, and God forbid if a Palestinian interferes. I'll put the material back in regularly. The only legitimate objection I have seen in here is that raised by Tewfik, who has, in my encounters with him, a substantial record for understanding Wiki policies properly. I don't think it a sufficient reason,(see above), but all the other objections are merely sand in one's eyes.Nishidani (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(1) On the Ma’alot attack, see David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch:The Roots of Violence in the Middle East, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich New York 1977 pp.329-30.

(2) . Edward W. Said, The Question of Palestine, Vintage Books 1992 pp. 172, 249 for the wave of Israeli raids over Southern Lebanon which preceded the terrorist attack on Ma’alot.

(3) ‘We might tarry a moment over the Israeli attack on the island off Tripoli north of Beirut, in which Lebanese fishermen and boy scouts at a camp were killed. This received scant notice, but that is the norm in the case of such regular Israeli terrorist atrocities, of which this is far from the most serious. Palestinian attacks fare differently. None is remembered with more horror than the atrocity at Ma’alot in 1974, where 22 members of a paramilitary youth group were killed in an exchange of fire after Moshe Dayan had refused, over the objections of General Mordechai Gur, to consider negotiations on the terrorists’ demands for the release of Palestinian prisoners. One might ask why the murder of Lebanese boy scouts is a lesser atrocity - in fact, none at all, since it was perpetrated by “a country that cares for human life” (Washington Post) with a “high moral purpose” (Time) perhaps unique in history. Two days before the Ma’alot attack, Israeli jets had bombed the Lebanese village of El-Kfeir, killing four civilians. According to Edward Said, the Ma’alot attack was “preceded by weeks of sustained Israeli napalm bombing of Palestinian refugee camps in southern Lebanon,” with over 200 killed. At the time, Israel was engaged in large-scale scorched earth operations in southern Lebanon, with air, artillery and gunboat attacks and commando operations using shells, bombs, anti-personnel weapons and napalm, with probably thousands killed (the West could not be troubled, so no accurate figures are available here) and hundreds of thousands driven north to slums around Beirut. Interest was slight and reporting scanty. None of this is recorded in the annals of terrorism; nor did it even happen, as far as sanitized history is concerned, though the murderous Palestinian terrorist attacks of the early 1970s were (rightly of course) bitterly condemned, and still stand as proof that the Palestinians cannot be a partner to negotiations over their fate. Meanwhile the media are regularly condemned as overly critical of Israel and even “pro-PLO” - a propaganda coup of quite monumental proportions. Noam Chomsky, Pirates and Emperors, Old and New: International Terrorism in the Real World, South End Press, Cambridge Mass. rev.edition 2002 p.65

(4) 'two days before the PLO terrorist attack in Ma’alot in May 1974, where 20 teenage Israeli hostages from a paramilitary youth group (Gadna) were killed during an attempt to rescue the hostages after Israel had rejected negotiation efforts (the terrorist unit, from Hawatmeh’s Democratic Front, had previously killed five other Israelis, including 2 Arabs), an Israeli air attack on the village of EI-Kfeir in Lebanon killed four civilians. The PLO raid is (properly) described here as terrorism, but not the Israeli air attack—which, in fact, is known (though barely known) here only because it happened to be the native village of the parents of U.S. Senator James Abourezk. According to Edward Said, the Ma’alot attack was “preceded by weeks of sustained Israeli napalm bombing of Palestinian refugee camps in southern Lebanon” with over 200 killed.12 It might also be noted that the taking of hostages in order to exchange them for prisoners, as at Ma’alot, is not without precedent. Recall the Israeli hijacking of a civilian airliner, 20 years earlier, with the same intent Noam Chomsky, Fateful Triangle, South End Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, rev.ed. (1983) 1999 p.189

What do these sources add to the text.
(1) That the Safed students formed a paramilitary group (Garda), neither here nor there, but still perhaps useful, since the text emphasizes their ‘religious’ background while ignoring their civil military training.
(2) That Israel had bombed Lebanese PLO camps with napalm in the weeks preceding the terrorist strike.
(3) That the Sa’id ref.is backed by the Senate testimony of Senator James Abourezk, whose parents lived in one of the bombed villages EI-Kfeir.
(4) That through some channels the terrorists holding the students wanted an exchange, their hostages for Palestinians in Israeli prisons.
(5)General Mordechai Gur was in favour of following up the negotiations, but was overruled by Moshe Dayan.

The Shvua (week) Gadna (not Garda =~military in Italian) is a five day trip which gives 15 year-old's a glimpse of the Israeli Army camp life. It involves no training, fighting or fighting support. Therefore it is as much a "paramilitary organization" as the boy scouts are. Furthermore, from their mode of operation it seems hard to believe these assailants had actually planned to take over the specific school in advance, it was most probable an opportunity they seized, rendering the whole exchange on the matter irrelevant. Additionally, taking Noam Homsky's writings, one of the most extreme left persons out there, as facts, is as appropriate as taking Mussolini's views on democracy as solid expert data. Leave Noam's remarks in the linguistics department. finally, "Shir Hamaalot" is Ascension Song in Hebrew.84.228.231.168 (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Correction - Shir Hamaalot means Song of Qualities (personal or other).84.228.231.168 (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Spot the obvious error

Just a test to see how much editors know about the subject they are editing so authoritatively. The mistake stands out like dogs' balls, and yet keeps being posted.

the DLFP murdered 22 children from the city of Safed.

Ma'alot, located on a plateau in the hills of the Western Galilee region of Israel, was a development town founded in 1957 by Jewish refugees, mainly from Morocco and other Arab countries such as Tunisia. The terrorist attack was perpetrated by three members of the Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PDFLP), al-Jabha al-Dimuqratiyya li-Tahrir Filastin.

(hint)It does not refer to the term 'children'(properly 'youths', 'teenagers')Nishidani (talk) 11:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

under 18 considered a child. Zeq (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't confuse your languages. In Hebrew there are several terms, na'ar/narah:yeled/yaldah:bakhur/bakhurah:tsa'ir/ts'irah,etc., which have decidedly different implications for age). Child in standard English usage implies anyone from the womb to prepubertal age. Ticket concessions made for 'children' do not extend to teenagers. The language of the page is English. To use the word 'child' in these cases is not only jejune, but involves a rather clumsy attempt to wreak even more tears out of a massacre that invokes enough on its own.

But that is not the problem I set. There is a patent contradiction in the text which no one, otherwise so keen to spot POV, seems to care about. It always worries me, on these pages, that few devote even a minimum effort to getting the historical facts right, while most, and it extends to both sides, are devoted to getting their POVs on side. I mean, all one needs to do is to read the text closely, and eliminate a manifest incongruency, which does not involve a POV battle either. But getting the facts right isn't as sexy as edit-warring Nishidani (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

DLFP / PDFLP Nishidani (talk) 11:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes even I'm confused about that. Was it the DLFP or the PDLFP that killed the students?Bless sins (talk) 10:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Another hint. Compare DLFP to DFLP.Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Small thing, but I think "Shir Ha-Ma'alot" means "Song of Ma'alot," not "Steps of Ma'alot." Any native Hebrew speakers want to confirm? Woodah (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

confirmed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.145.23 (talk) 11:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky

Noam Chomsky's assertion that "General Mordechai Gur was in favor of negotiating with the hostage-takers, but was overruled by Moshe Dayan" is wrong or incomplete. Yehuda Ben-Meir writes that Dayan wanted to attack before Gur did, but rather than Dayan "overruling" Gur, Gur appealed to Golda Meir who agreed that the attack should be delayed. Ami Pedahzur similarly writes that Dayan tried to convince Meir to endorse a military solution, but she only approved an attack after negotiations had broken down.Prezbo (talk) 01:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Gadna

Gadna was responsible for numerous youth activities in Israel, from running 1-week pre-military orientation camps, through agricultural farms and field trips. This particular outing was a 3-day field trip, not a military exercise. The source used says so explicitly - "According to Nissim Sitbon, whose daughter was slain, Ben-Lulu told him it was too late to cancel the Gadna outing because all arrangement had been made. Ben-Lulu, who has been in seclusion since enraged parents tried to attack him during mass funeral services last week, confirmed to a reporter today that Sitbon had indeed approached him May 14 with a plea to cancel the trip. " Changing it from "outing" and "trip" to military exercise is source falsification. They think it's all over (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree we should just stick to the reference. If people want to learn more about Gadna, they can click the wikilink. --Jethro B 00:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Arab terrorists?

I changed it to "fighters", more unbiased. Although the word Arab also can be more specific. Or? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.23.163.232 (talk) 12:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't this subject qualify for the rampage killers page

Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers under school shootings? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers#School_massacres

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ma'alot massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070311162559/http://web.israelinsider.com:80/bin/en.jsp?enPage=ArticlePage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Article%5El4085&enZone=Security&enVersion=0& to http://web.israelinsider.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=ArticlePage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Article%5El4085&enZone=Security&enVersion=0&
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110904052227/http://www.shmtemple.org:80/431349.ihtml to http://www.shmtemple.org/431349.ihtml

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 July 2017

The name of the (only) casualty "victim" from the Arab village of Fassuta was Hasibah Shalala. Inside the back of the tender sat six of the Christian Arab women; Fahimah Jiris 17, Sameeya Matar 22, Suaed Matar 16, Marta Huri 42, Violet Dakwar 23 and Hasibah Shalala 27. Suad Jiris 20 and Aebleh Kasis 17 sat next to the Bedouin driver, Fain Saad 24 years old from the village of Arab Al Aramshe, in front.

I am the source DINMDK (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Left-wing terrorism

This should be mentioned within the article. 2003:DA:C72C:BF00:DD16:8E57:402A:B06E (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)