# Talk:Battles of Latrun (1948)

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

This article is presently being translated from the French by its originator here and edited in English by myself. Please contact either of us before making substantive edits; meanwhile, the "in-use" template will remain as we prepare the content. -- Deborahjay (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Remainder : User:Ceedjee/Battle of Latrun. Ceedjee (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This is my first revision, focusing on English usage and internal links (also in some pages that link here). I did a few tweaks of content in areas of which I have knowledge. One thing to clarify: is the museum housed in the original fort? (I was there last fall when my elder daughter got her IDF corporal's stripes, but the ceremony was in the amphitheatre and we didn't have the opportunity to visit the museum.)-- Deborahjay (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.
I will translate next section asap.
I usually don't put "references" in the lead because it is assumed to summarize the article and so, everything is expected to be referenced inside it. I will add it.
There are several buildings. The main "museum" is from my point of view -outside- : these are the tanks and armored vehicles.
[1]
Ceedjee (talk) 08:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't wish to come in and edit a new article that you're still working on, but I'm immediately seeing clear evidence of misleading wording and POV in this article.
1) In May 1948, the locale of Latrun was situated in Arab-controlled territory (of course it was, that's where the UN had said it belonged).
2) commanding the only road linking Jerusalem to the rest of Israel. (rest of Israel? Jersusalem wasn't going to be Israel).
3) This gave Latrun major strategic importance in the context of the battle for the city between the IDF and the Arab Legion. (The Arab Legion probably had an agreement not to attack Israel - in the event it didn't. It was being attacked on it's "own territory".)
4) that remained under Jordanian control until the Six Day War. (same problem, I seem to recall Jordan forces originally bypassed Jerusalem, and I don't think it was their actions that caused the failure to establish international control).
5) The besieged Jewish population of Jerusalem (fudges the issue and divide between the established religious and secular settlers)
6) The combat at Latrun carries a symbolic significance due to the participation of and casualties among Holocaust survivors, newly arrived immigrants sent directly into battle as raw recruits (needs citation. Begin and others were non-camp survivors but they were not newly arrived, nor raw. Most survivors report being despised rather than hailed).
7) Jordanians, for their part, maintain its image as a "great victory", the only one achieved by the Arab forces during the 1948 War (do they? Citation needed, and it needs to refer to this battle, not fighting in Jerusalem)
And so on and so forth. PRtalk 09:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi PR,
I suggest you wait for some weeks before to edit the article.
Just waiting we have finished the translation.
All the issues you find can then be discussed.
Best Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 10:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Jordanians, for their part, maintain its image as a "great victory", the only one achieved by the Arab forces during the 1948 War...... Operation Yitzhak failure of IDF to take Jenin....rather puts the kibosh on the previous line from the article....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The sentence is not clear. It should be improved. Jordanians claims it was the only victory against the Israelis. They failed in many operations during the 1948 war : "war of the road", "operation larlar", lost of the old city, ... Ceedjee (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
"war of the roads" was not a Jordanian action, Jerusalem was a draw, maintaining the West Bank was definitely a Jordanian win....Avi Shlaim writes that every time the IDF came up against the Arab Legion that the IDF failed, the attacks on East Jerusalem repulsed, the attacks on Latrun repulsed....The Arab Legion did not mount an attack merely defended positions, hence theories of "collusion across the Jordan"....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

He "disposed" 450 men of the 3rd brigade Alexandroni and 1,650 men of the 7th brigade Sheva, under formation.
Bit of doubling up; as disposed means to arrange in formation, the under formation becomes superfluous....if one is talking of disposing the men one would normally say what formation they were disposed in...eg open formation, skirmish formation, etc etc.....the sentence needs to be ended with what sort of formation....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

État-Major what is that? Literally of course Major State but it can't mean that.
Colline what is that? Garrison? (unsigned comment)

Etat-Major -> nothing to deal with a state but general staff or headquarters
Colline -> Hill (Garrison is Garnison).
Ceedjee (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah ok Staff HQ would be best in English.
Colline I was guessing hill. so they were all numbered?
Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I discovered this when I wrote the article. Yes, they were numbered. Ceedjee (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Simon,
Thank you for your work.
I noticed I missed some of your message on my talk page. May I ask you always to post at the bottom of it and not inside this because when I get several messages, there is a risk I don't realize some were posted inside...
I will review what you have done ! Thank you for that. Take a break ! :-) That is hard job. I come back towards you I have done my homework ;-)
Un tout tout tout grand merci ! Ceedjee (talk) 08:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I've done some more cleaning up and added a few references. Now I will finish the last sections. SimonTrew (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

"I'll be back to you when I've done the tidying up". (Homework means what children get from school, not a menage). SimonTrew (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
J'ai corriger les typos idiotiques (mois-meme) et mainteinant je fais finir inserer les little sections that aren't there.
Votre anglaise, c'est comme one vache espanol.
We have to make sure: Batiallion (Fr/Eng), Chef major, and you need to fixup refs (I have done some) but not a bad journey I think!)
I've noticed aussi parce-que en francais les mots et en cours d'anglaid, en reverse. C'est pas difficile traduire mot-a-mot mais il peut-etre ne cour pas comme en parlance anglais.
Excusez-moi mon francais affreux. C'sst a vous!
Salut mon brave SimonTrew (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

At risk of incurring a 3rd man in penalty, maybe I can lend a hand with whatever French writing issues you and Simon are working on.… — NRen2k5(TALK), 03:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

OK I still have to do a couple more sections but it's looking pretty good now.
TODO:
Get the references sorted out. (Big job.)
Do a check of the English any typos etc I've made.
Can someone do that I will add in the other sections meanwhile?
SimonTrew (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

How to translate that?
An artificial state is what I have now. SimonTrew (talk) 12:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

A state birthed in the sin.
Ceedjee (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Bastard state? SimonTrew (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No... :-)
It is funny. Originally, the expression comes from English. In French, people talk about "un Etat né dans le péché" and we have difficulties in translating it back to English :-)
The reference is not to a "unlegimitate child" (bastard) but to the original sin of Adam and Eve. According to those who defend this thesis : like Adam and Eve, who, at the "birth" of the humanity committed the "sin" of eating the apple; Israel, at her "birth" (1948) committed the sin of expelling the indegeneous population of Palestine : 750,000 Palestinians out of 900,000. (see 1948 Palestinian exodus).
See also : Original Sin and this article of Shabtai Teveth.
Ceedjee (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
OK I am not Jewish so don't really know what would be the colloquialism here. I don't think I know any Jews right now to ask them. I understand the original sin from the bible, hmm yes this is hard to know how to translate. Whatever I think of seems rather clumsy (and therefore would not be very Jewish who have a knack for coining a phrase, I think).
To get us by, what about just "a wayward child of a state", something like that? Though that is weak.
SimonTrew (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

A "State born in the sin" is not English ? given these references... ? Ceedjee (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it would only make sense to Christians, maybe even only Catholics. I understand the phrase myself, but it's difficult to know how to put it for a general audience.
(And you put a "the" again when not needed!)
How about "A state born in error"? SimonTrew (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
No that's no good either. "A state that dirtied its nappy the minute it was born". That's not what I want, but something along those lines? SimonTrew (talk)
In google scholars there are +600 references to the idea that "Israel" was "born in sin".
That is wording used.
The sentence is not from me. In the book of Shapira, she writes : "un Etat né dans le péché" and it refers to many publications on the topic...
Ceedjee (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

OK first pass completed, all sections translated. No doubt lots of errors. My main worry for second pass is with the repeated references everywhere. SimonTrew (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I try to do it this WE ! :-) Ceedjee (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who whether it is me or another who translated this and probably were just using faux amis, surely it can't really be cannon? I was guessing mortar but that's already mentioned right next to it. Any ideas? SimonTrew (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean (fr) "crête du canon", ie (en) "artillery ridge" or "cannon ridge" ?
(fr) "canon" with 1 "n" is (en) "cannon" with 2 n's
Ceedjee (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes ridge is right. Not artillery ridge, just ridge. SimonTrew (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
No hang on have to go back look at this. They took mortars and cannon to (Jerusalem) etc. That can't be a ridge. Puzzled now.
(BTW I worked in artillery so I kinda have an idea what I am on about there) SimonTrew (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
OK having checked the French article it should be mortar. But I am still puzzled in one place where it says mortar and cannon in the same sentence. SimonTrew (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorted it is just a repetition in the French. SimonTrew (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you show me the sentence ?
I will check in the English source...
I am not sure to see what you talk about but there was a place called : "artillery ridge".
Ceedjee (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
<< Ils disposeront d'un soutien d'artillerie constitué de 4 canons de 65 mm et de 4 mortiers de 120 mm >>. Perhaps canon is small arms then? But 65 mm is not small. I used to work on 76mm shells. Perhaps shell would be better than canon? But that would need a good check throughout the article. Is there a distinction in French between the sizes? Canon shoul definitely be mortar but maybe canon should be shell? SimonTrew (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
A ridge would be part of the hill, the colline. That is what foxed me at first to decide which meaning was meant. But this doesn't mean the ridge in that sence I think?
We would probably call an "artillery ridge" a "stronghold" or something like that, I am not sure I would have to see it in the context.
At the risk of going overboard but to be as clear as I can, a cannon is a great big heavy thing made of iron and fired from ships and land until about the middle of the 19th century when we thought of newer ways to kill people. It cannot possibly be English Cannon. It is I think Shell_(projectile) that is meant.
The ridge is a separate thing and we can sort that out separately but canon is used mostly to mean shells, I think. The ridge we can deal with that after. We have to do fixup for shell, I think, if you agree that is the correct translation. SimonTrew (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I understand. We are talking about these weapons : Ordnance QF 25 pounder - Ordnance QF 17 pounder. In French, people use the diameter of the gun : "canon de 88 mm", "canon de 105 mm", "canon de 150 mm". I don't have the book next to me. Give me a few days and I will bring the exact list. Ceedjee (talk) 06:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I checked in the English sources and they talked about cannon.
In this dictionnary [1], it is written : "a large heavy gun usually mounted on a carriage - a heafy caliber automatic aircraft gun firing explosive shells"...
Are you sure of yourself ? Ceedjee (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a question about the photo of refugees including a man wearing Palestine Police uniform. The same stretch of road is pictured on the cover of Morris's 'The birth of the Palestinian refugee problem.' (1987 edition) with a young boy in the foreground  leading a horse and several adults carrying large bundles. The two abandoned vehicles are clearly the same, but one of the negatives has been inverted so the road in the background of this picture sweeps away to the right.
The photo is credited: Palestinian refugees making their way to Lebanon from Galilee in October-November 1948 (Photograph by Fred Csasznik). Sorry - it is a powerful image. But your picture doesn't belong here.Padres Hana (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point.
Of course, this picture has nothing to do with Latrun.
But...
It illustrates the section talking about the "Palestinian historiography", which is a little bit strange and for which it could be stated too it doens't belong to the article.
20,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled from that zone. But they don't refer to this in their "collective memory" because all the Palestinian collective memory of the '48 war is occulted by their Naqba, their exodus.
You could state the same about the image a little bit above with survivors of the death camps.
Have in mind these sections deals with the "memory" and the way people picture the events in their narratives; not with the factual truth of the events...
Ceedjee (talk) 07:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

We have to make sure this is consistent throught the article. Someone had inserted hyphens and that is not the style used in the main title. In English WP we tend to refer simply by surname, so Ben G[o]urion will do. SimonTrew (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've done this they are all now Ben Gurion. SimonTrew (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
You are right. Ben Gourion in French - Ben Gurion in English. "ou" (fr) is "u" (en). This is due to translitteration from hebrew. Ceedjee (talk) 08:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
The main article has David Ben-Gurion (with a hyphen). This is the reason I inserted them in some places (although IMO it should be hyphenless across all of Wikipedia, but this might meet resistance). —Ynhockey (Talk) 11:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Several of the sources used in the French version appear to be originally published in English, and some quotations were translated for the French article. Are the quotations currently in this English article re-translated from the French version, or are they taken directly from the original English source? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point. (and thx for your support).
This has been done the wrong way. en -> fr -> en again.
I take care of this.
But there are not so many, I think.
Ceedjee (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Just for information, it would have been me probably who retranslated them to English. I agree if there are originals in English it would be best to use them. You can imagine, when translating one tries to make an intelligent translation but if one hasn't the sources oneself there is little one can do but one's best effort.
I tend to take the view that a translation that is intelligible if not perfect is better than none at all (and I don't mean machine translation). I think what has been said argues in favour of this view, since them someone else can come along and slot in the proper originals. Of course it is important not to misprepresent someone else's views, but beyond that to have a translation at all is better than not having one, I think. SimonTrew (talk) 09:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There are too many references here to same book etc and somewhat inconsistent. e.g. for Benny, and Shapira. I think they need consolidating where we just put the full reference into the Notes section then in References (and of course the text that refers to them) just say Shapira, p. 194. etc). Otherwise not only does it bloat the article but can make it look like there are more separate source than there actually are. I don't mind doing this but it is a tedious job that I leave until I am really bored. SimonTrew (talk) 09:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

We really need to sort the notes and references out:

Get rid of French (e.g. "et" in multiple authors should become "and")
Multiple references should be telescoped, I think, but this is not trivial as there is often some more information (quotation, essentially) after the citation itself
Some things in the bibliography should move to the references
There is WP:OVERLINKing, probably partly my fault.
This is not, in any way, to dispute the content of the article, it is merely Wikignoming to try to make it better in the references. If anyone has any preference of how to sort it out, I should be glad to hear it. Otherwise I will just do it by  my own dim lights (there is an Undo facility, after all).
Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 09:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Recently the editor who primarily wrote this article made these edits, referencing the book 1948 by Benny Morris. I happen to have read the book, and just re-read the referenced pages—twice. It in fact says the same thing as was said before, and not what the editor wrote, which is not surprising since Morris used the same sources that Oren and Rivlin did (and he also happens to reference Oren & Rivlin at least once here). Here are some quotes from the said pages (emphasis mine):

Page 315:
Would it not be better, perhaps, to push the Legion back across the river and help set up an Arab puppet state or autonomous area in the heartland of Palestine? This, at least, was how Sherton and some of his aides were leaning in summer 1948.
Page 317:
Position 219 was immediately retaken, but Ben-Gurion hoped to use the events as a fulcrum for a large-scale IDF assault against the Arab legion at Latrun and points east, to firmly secure the length of the Tel Aviv–Jerusalem road.
Page 317 (this is in direct contradiction to what Ceedjee/Pluto wrote):
As to the center of the country, it is not completely clear whether Ben-Gurion wanted the IDF to conquer the whole of the West Bank or only a large part of it, with or without East Jerusalem. In the course of the 26 September meetings, he said different things. ... Ben-Gurion seemed to be saying that the IDF should conquer the western edges of the West Bank, thus widening the Jewish-held Coastal Plain, and expand the Israeli-held Jezreel Valley southward, perhaps as far as Nablus, but leave in Arab hands the hilly spine from Nablus through Ramallah to East Jerusalem.
My note on the above: "but leave in Arab hands the hilly spine from Nablus through Ramallah to East Jerusalem" corresponds with most of Samaria, except the Jenin–Nablus corridor which Ben-Gurion perhaps intended to conquer.
Page 318 (an even more direct contradiction):
He [Ben-Gurion] pressed his proposal to attack Latrun; the attack on Position 219 could not be left unanswered.
Page 318: this is actually not related to the specific September 26 meeting, but to an October 6 meeting (when it was already decided that the IDF would not launch an eastern front), so it bears less relevance, but here there was a first mention of Ben-Gurion wanting to conquer the entire West Bank: "But Ben-Gurion still hoped that the renewed hostilities would result in Israeli conquest of the West Bank". However, right after this it says:
Ben-Gurion told the ministers that the IDF believed that it could "destroy the whole Egyptian force in seven days" (he was being wildly optimistic) and that the army could then take over the Bethlehem-Hebron area "unopposed." Indeed, such a victory would mean that the whole of the south, "from Jerusalem to 'Aqaba," would be in Israeli hands. There would then be no need to conquer Latrun; a road could be built, south of the current corridor, to Jerusalem that would run outside the range of Jordanian artillery.
On page 319 Morris also talks about how a plan was drawn to conquer the Jordan Rift Valley should Jordan interfere with Operation Yoav, but makes it clear that this was a plan only if they interfered, and in any case it wasn't a plan to conquer the entire West Bank. I can provide the text if necessary.
I also couldn't find a direct quote by Ben-Gurion that said: "push the Legion back across the [Jordan] river", which the editor wrote was said by Ben-Gurion in the meeting. I am assuming good faith, and it's possible that the editor, who is clearly fluent in French, has the French version of the book so there might be a there-and-back translation problem. (note: just realized this was unlikely due to the page numbering being the same) However, it is clear from these pages and multiple other sources that Ben-Gurion did not wish to conquer the entire West Bank, but he did want to expand Israel's control in the Tel Aviv – Jerusalem corridor, especially in Latrun, and probably conquer Ramallah. —Ynhockey (Talk) 03:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I refuse to answer to an Israeli who uses 1982 source to push a point.
Start by changing the title of this section. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Corrections. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
And if there had ever been any doubt :
Uri Ben-Eliezer, The Making of Israeli Militarism, Indiana University Press, 1998, p.185 writes: "Ben-Gurion describes to the Minister his plans to conquer the entire West Bank, involving warfare against entire Jordan's Arab Legion, but to his surprise the Ministers rejected his proposal.
Pluto2012 (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Oren 1982 is not a wp:rs source. It was written before the opening of the Israeli and British archives. This doesn't mean that what is inside is false but that means that what is inside must be acknowledged by more recent sources to be validated. Using this source prove a non-professional approach or biaised approach to the redaction of articles regarding the '48 events in Mandatory Palestine and Israel. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Removing 1948 will make the title neater, no? --Makeandtoss (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

There was a battle in 1967 too and it is not talked about in the article.
-> Battles of Latrun (1967) but it is still not written.
Pluto2012 (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Infobox's casualty section is a mess... Makeandtoss (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Battles of Latrun (1948). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080520052835/http://www.jordanembassyus.org/arabLegion.htm to http://www.jordanembassyus.org/arabLegion.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080520052835/http://www.jordanembassyus.org/arabLegion.htm to http://www.jordanembassyus.org/arabLegion.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The KIA numbers add up to 239, but the article (and the totals in the infobox) give the number of KIA as 168. 
Ephraimhelfgot (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Question re this edit [2]
Wasn't the State of Israel declared from midnight on 14 May 1948? The sentence states "On 15 May, the situation in the newly declared State of IsraelMandatory Palestine was chaotic with the British leaving."
Just wondering why the edit.
Thanks. Chavmen (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss, could we change this sentence slightly to reflect that the State of Israel was created/established on 15 May 1948.
Maybe:
On 15 May, after the creation of the State of Israel, the situation in former Mandatory Palestine became chaotic with the British leaving. The Jewish forces gained advantage over the Arab forces, but they feared the intervention of the Arab armies that had been announced for that day. Chavmen (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't see how the declaration of the state adds any value to the sentence. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi Makeandtoss, that's a fair call, but it is more accurate. Chavmen (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@פעמי-עליון: I don't know about you, but five consecutive victories do sound decisive to me, and to RS, [3], [4]. Also the chaos ensued in all of former Mandatory Palestine, Israel's territorial boundaries were not specified in the declaration. I expect a self-revert, as you know, the burden is on you to change this long-standing, and fully sourced version. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)