Talk:Kafr Qasim massacre

From Academic Kids

This is not an article about the village. It's mostly about the massacre which is part of the village history.
I think that this article should be edited, so that most of it will be a paragraph about the history.
What about adding some facts and info about the current village situation ?? ^^ Dod1 10:23, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Translated from the talk page for the corresponding Hebrew entry (http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/שיחה:טבח_כפר_קאסם):

The casualty numbers are different from those that appear in the English entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kfar_Kassem_massacre). What is the data source? 217.132.33.12 10:57, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, different sources give different numbers of casualties, and this problem bothered me when writing the entry. In Meir Vilner's article, which appears under External Links, the number of fatalities that appears is 49, and I suppose this is the source of that number in the English Wiki. In written sources that were at my disposal I've found the number 43 fatalities. On the Snunit (http://www.snunit.k12.il/minhal/word/12085.doc) website I've found information that bridges the gap between the two numbers, based on the verdict on the matter, which I regard as the most credible source. It turns out that in addition to the Kafr Qasim massacre, which is a specific event in which 43 were killed, there were other events at the village, in which another four fatalities occurred, also in the first hour of curfew. The other fatalities are not of smaller significance, but they are not part of the Kafr Qasim massacre, and they were not the subject of the Kafr Qasim trial. As the verdict explicitly says "those four victims were included in the indictment by mistake and the prosecutor asked, as mentioned in paragraph 1 above, to acquit the defendants of the charge of murdering them". Therefore I have chosen to mention the number 43 fatalities, which is also a terrible number. Apparently Meir Vilner decided not to distinguish between the different fatalities and chose the number 49 (I don't know who the additional two fatalities that Vilner counted are). David Shay 12:00, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I saw that I'd actually mentioned in the body of the article all the numbers, in the sentence "The soldiers of on of the battalion's teams, under the command of Lt. Dahan, shot to death, in cold blood, 43 of the village's residents, including 12 women and 17 children and youths. The commanders of four other teams that acted in the village refrained from such extreme action, but within an hour of the beginning of curfew, another four (or six) residents were killed". David Shay 12:04, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

217.132.33.12 12:53, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This article is written in a confusing matter and from a POV perspective. It needs a rewrite.

Guy Montag 01:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents

1 POV 2 Changes 3 Article finished? 4 Death toll

POV

Would you give us a hint why you totally dispute this article's neutrality and factual accuracy?--Doron 02:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd be happy too. I need a little time to write a comprehensive argument.

Guy Montag 02:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually the article is quite accurate and balanced. --Zero 16:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree.

Guy Montag 21:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I put it all in the right order and I noted my commentary on the subject inside the article and where sources should be cited. The problem with this article is that it is based on specific texts that not everyone has access too. So The sources could be biased, the wording could be biased, something could have been withheld. There is no way to check this, and I've assumed mostly good faith, although the wording has led me to doubt it.

Guy Montag 21:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It already was in the right order - chronological. The claim that he said these things then is what's of interest, not the fact that he was quoted later. - Mustafaa 21:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"There is no way to check this" - actually, for $12.00 you can check it online. http://journals.cambridge.org/bin/bladerunner?REQUNIQ=1118439845&REQSESS=14662550&117000REQEVENT=&REQINT1=169256&REQAUTH=0 . - Mustafaa 21:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When I was reading the article I believed that there were alot of contextual gaps. First it was talking about the Jordanians going to war, then it starts quoting the commanders. I think that part should be filled with contextual information, and everything that was court related to be during the trial.

Guy Montag 21:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You ask "What was the motivation for the cerfew?" Well, "it was expected that Jordan would enter the conflict on Egypt's side" and it was imposed "upon all Arab villages in the area close to the Jordanian border". Aren't those two statements sufficient to clarify the reason? - Mustafaa 21:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You ask "Why is none of thus sourced properly?" I can only disagree. I much prefer an article sourced from books than from webpages; books tend to be better-researched, less POV, and more reliable. - Mustafaa 21:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not doubt that. The problem is that although I so very much want to assume good faith, I have to be a little suspicious when dealing with the Arab Israeli conflict. I value other people's pov, but something I cannot verify becomes an elitist edit that only few individuals with access can verify. There were also times when people used book names and pages that did not fit with the information provided, most notably the Revisionist Zionism article, which I had to painstakingly fix through proper book references. In theory, I love book sources, in practice I fear misuse. I have no doubt that the events happened, I just want readers to have the whole picture. I am interested too as I am only finding information from one sided sources.

Guy Montag 00:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You ask "Where is the information after this, why the sudden random break?" This I agree with; I think the reason is that it happened the same day, but the article needs to make that clear. - Mustafaa 21:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would be happy to cooperate with you in fixing this information.

Guy Montag 00:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So far you have not identified a single problem with this article. The only problem you really have is that it shows Israel in a bad light. Tough. --Zero 00:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have identified problems with this article and Mustafaa has agreed with me. Why dont you contribute something to the talk page other than your overt hostility? I showed what is wrong, if you don't want to add material to fix the article, don't respond with pointless tangents. Unless you didn't know, all the information on the net about this article comes from socialist/Islamist sources, and duplicated wikipedia pages. Unless accounts from the other side are provided, it will remain an incomplete article.

Guy Montag 08:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Changes

I've made substantial contextual and accuracy changes to the article. I've removed a quote wrongfully attributed to Malinki (some philosopher made it), fixed the amount killed, added background about the military administration from 1948-1966 (very important, I can't believe it was left out), fixed sentence structure and npoved the wording. I've also added some more aftermath information, and added notes on things that still need to be looked at. Although it is not fully done, I think the changes I made have substantially improved the quality of the article to the point where individual changes can be made. I await commentary on the edit. At least now we know where to go from.

Guy Montag 12:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am out of time today. Many of your deletions are going back. The story of the "grush" is not from a US newspaper, but very famous. Every Israeli who is old enough remembers it. You can find it on page 411 of Robinson's article (congratulations for actually reading something; the link you gave doesn't work for people who didn't pay, though). The story of the cordon around the village is also from Robinson and is also going back. --Zero 15:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The link is a free copy I found. I've reinserted the Robinson cited quotes. In the future, watch your tone, I don't appreciate condescending attitude from you when I have done nothing other than cooperate.

Guy Montag 22:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Was Judge Halevy's insistance on disobeying illegal orders a clarification on the already established "Purity of Arms" military doctrine, or was it an addition to it?

Guy Montag 01:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There was no such doctrine in a strict legal sense. The principle that manifestly illegal orders had to be disobeyed had already entered Israeli jurisprudence via the Eichmann trial, which in turn relied on the customary international law established at Nuremburg. The Kafr Qasim case was the first of significance which tested its applicability to Israeli military personnel. Whether it was an innovation or a clarification is a matter of opinion. Incidentally the newer sources I have found show that the chronology of the trials in the article is a bit confused. I'll fix it. --Zero 12:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Article finished?

So, what else needs work in this article? It looks pretty good to me.

Guy Montag 00:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "timeline" section is not well written and I plan to revise it a little after I finish reading the court judgment. The enigmatic link "Operation Hafarferet" near the end needs to be replaced by a sentence or two since I don't think there is enough material for a full article on that. Otherwise I agree it is finished. Incidentally the link [1] (http://journals.cambridge.org/bin/bladerunner?30REQEVENT=&REQAUTH=0&500001REQSUB=&REQSTR1=S0020743803000163) still gives me "Sorry, your right to access this content has not been recognized."; does it really work for you? --Zero 00:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the article works fine, perhaps it is your connection. If you are still having a problem, I suggest a public library computer, or I can save the document and e-mail it to you. Also, could you please eleborate about the "nine seperate instances"? Because now it reads awkwardly. Hmm, I haven't heard of an english version for that operation, and the previous article was originally in Hebrew.

Guy Montag 03:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have the paper already because my computer at work has a subscription. I get the failure from my home ISP. I suspect you are doing it from your university and that is why it works for you. --Zero 09:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As for the nine separate incidents: the villagers were killed in nine groups over a period of more than an hour, not all in the same place and not always by the same killers. There were from 2 to 17 deaths in each group. I'll try to clarify it; meanwhile I found another mistake. --Zero 09:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The basic information about "Operation Hafarferet" is given by Bilsky on p321 and by Robinson on p418. Not much is available in English as far as I know. --Zero 09:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Numbers problem again. This says [[2] (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Kassem.html)] 47 died. Arab sources say 49. What do we put?

Guy Montag 06:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You will find 43, 47, 48 and 49 stated as the number of victims. Here is the explanation. There were 47 people shot dead by the BP soldiers. One old man died of a shock-induced stroke; that makes 48. One woman had an unborn child; that makes the 49 whose names are inscribed on the memorial. The soldiers were charged with the 47 shooting deaths, but during the first trial the court could not determine the identities of the perpetrators in 4 cases (it wasn't the same shooters each time) so 4 charges of murder were withdrawn. That's where 43 comes from. Dahan was convicted of all 43. --Zero 09:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why did you change 4:30 to 3:30? Robinson clearly says 4:30. --Zero 09:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Kassem.html) says 3:30. It also says 47 people died. How do we solve this? It would be very illogical if 350 some people were able to return from as far as Ramle and Jaffa in 30 minutes. Obviously either Robinson got the time wrong or David Shipler has it wrong.

Guy Montag 09:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are misreading. Your source says the BP soldiers were told at 3:30. Robinson says the Mukhta was told at 4:30. Those are completely consistent. As for the "illogic", not all of the village was absent at 4:30 and some were warned in time. A few were not killed even though they arrived at the dangerous time, and some did not arrive until after the killing was stopped some time before 7pm. Also (during the server failure for the past 10 mins) I found that there is an memo mentioned in the trial judgment which records Malinki's order to announce the curfew at 4:30pm. --Zero 10:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's remove that tag! Any remaining problems must be very minor. --Zero 10:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Roger that.

Guy Montag 16:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well done Guy & Zero! An excellent example of the wiki cooperation spirit!

Since so much effort has gone into the existing format, I would like to post additional data from the Hebrew wiki here for review, before posting it on the main article page:

Malinki was commander of a BP battalion (not just one of its commanders as mentioned in the English version). He was also in charge of 11 other vilages in the area where no vilagers were shot, because of direct orders by local commanders to disobey Shadmi's and Malinki's orders and to not open fire. Among the platoons stationed in Kafr Qasim itself, only the one led by Lt. Dahan actually openned fire.

altmany 22:28, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. The fact that other local commanders realised they had to disobey the order was cited by the court as one of the reasons for denying Dahan's claim that he had no choice. --Zero 23:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be noted in the article? Also, is it possible to translate this article to Hebrew? It improves on the original.

Guy Montag 00:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Death toll

• According to (Benny Morris, "Israel's Border Wars, 1949-1956: Arab Infiltration, Israeli Retaliation and the Countdown to the Suez War"), the death toll was 47, including 15 women and 11 children aged 8-15. Do you have any idea why the discrepancy?
• The above does not mention the stroke casualty. Did he die as a result of an injury inflicted by the shooters?--Doron 07:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Benny Morris's largish footnote must have been written on a bad day because it has lots of errors. For example it says that 11 people were convicted whereas 11 were tried and 8 convicted. He also attributes a saying to Malinki that in fact someone else said. So I wouldn't worry about it too much. The number 47 is clearly accounted for in the court judgement so it is solid. The old man died of a stroke shortly after the massacre, and I don't know if he was injured himself (more likely he was related to some of the victims like much of the village was). The village includes his death in the total, but the court didn't include it in the indictment. I think both points of view were reasonable. --Zero 07:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "Little Triangle" consists of the seven Arab communities of Jaljulye, Kafr Bara, Kafr Qasim, Qalansawe, Tayibe, Tire and Zemer. The "Triangle" in the north consists of twelve Arab communities.--Doron 07:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)