Talk:1929 Hebron massacre

message: in reality most who died were killed by their own Arab neighbours, not villagers from outside Hebron.
Where are the sources?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael1408 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why should I believe this? 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.tnr.com/story.html?id=0e100478-298c-438c-a994-e1800474ad19&p=1
** In 1929 Hebron massacre on 2011-05-25 02:59:20, 404 Not Found
** In 1929 Hebron massacre on 2011-06-02 03:41:40, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: Brewcrewer, could you please provide reliable sources supporting the term "ethnic cleansing" being applied to the subject of the article? nableezy - 06:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a few just to start: --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You really should do more than google "hebron massacre" and "ethnic cleansing". Of the sources you gave, this is a blog, this does not once say that this event was "ethnic cleansing" (and if you even looked at what you are googling you would save yourself the embarrassment of citing a source that says The Zionist movement has lost its momentum and support since its fundamental tenet of ethnic cleansing has come under severe criticism, even among Jews themselves.) The Case for Israel isnt a reliable source, nor is this. I repeat my request, please provide reliable sources supporting the term "ethnic cleansing" being applied to the subject of the article. Thank you. nableezy - 06:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be removed on sight as an abuse of the term. There would be some logical grounds, and considerable RS support, if these dopey cats were introduced, to attach this one to several dozen pages, like Jerusalem, the Western Wall (Mughrabi Quarter), Yanun, Susia, and well, virtually anywhere in the areas under Israeli occupation, asserted in many RS, not least of them Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine,  2006, or Baylis Thomas, The Dark Side of Zionism: Israel's Quest for Security Through Dominance, 2011 (who applies it to the whole project of Zionism.)  Nishidani (talk) 07:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ethnic cleansing cat 

message: a.* The Hebron Massacre of 1929: A Recently Revealed Letter of a Survivor
This is from a blog, consisting in a private letter in family archives, translated by a consultant at the family's request, and posted here. 
b.*(1)Jewish Telegraphic Agency September 12, 1929
* (2)Jewish Telegraphic Agency September 13, 1929
* (3)Jewish Telegraphic Agency October 20, 1929
* (4)Jewish Telegraphic Agency October 25, 1929 
* (5) Eye Witnesses Describe Horrors of the Moslem Arabs’ Attacks at Hebron on Saturday, August 24.
These are all primary sources. Numerous historians dealing with newspaper accounts in the immediate aftermath are sceptical of what many of the articles report (that Cafferata was an antisemite, that the British were in cahoots, that the police only fired only occurred after the mob dissolved, that the Mufti has ordered the massacre, etc.etc.etc. Unless policy-based grounds can be adduced to justify their presence, they ought to be removed. Nishidani (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. 1st sources cannot be used and blogs are not reliable. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent sourcing fails basic  RS criteria 

message: Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs is a reliable source. It is used on numerous other articles. Please explain why it is not allowed here. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really understand why you would think the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs is a reliable source for the history of Palestine in 1929 before the creation of the State of Israel. Do you also think the Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs is a reliable source for the history of Palestine ? How about the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China for the history of post-1949 China ? None of these are the kind of high quality sources, sources that meet the requirements of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, that should be used to write about history. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I would like to change this part of the article: "Cases of mutilation and torture were reported in the Jewish press (ref name=segev/)" to "Many cases of torture, rape, and mutilation were reported,(ref name=segev/)(Norman Rose, "A Senseless, Squalid War: Voices from Palestine 1945-1948", The Bodley Head, London, 2009. (p. 35))(ref name=forward>)()()" Are there any objections? --68.6.227.26 (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The book of Rose does not support either torture, or rape, or mutilation.  The archived Forward editorial by unnamed persons is below the radar for reliability. Krämer's book says "killing and raping men, women and children", which at least supports one of the three claims.  There is nothing here to challenge what appears in the very detailed and balanced account of Segev.  But that is not well reported either.  Segev is clear that the claims of rape, mutilation and torture came from the Jews of Hebron, not just from the Jewish press, see p324. Zerotalk 08:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't trying to challenge Segev, only to alter the wording and add more sources. Do you think the text should be altered to "Many cases of torture, rape, and mutilation were reported" and that it should be sourced by Segev, Krämer, and Human Rights Watch? --68.6.227.26 (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  The HRW source is not reliable.  Although HRW might be reliable for some modern things, it has no expertise regarding history of decades before it was founded.  In any case you can see that they give their source as Segev. Krämer also gives Segev as a source, together with a German book that I don't have (i.e., no primary sources, so Krämer did not do an independent investigation).  What we should do is identify the best source (clearly Segev, which is based on primary sources and not contradicted by other sources of similar quality), and report what it says precisely.  I have now attempted to do that.  Zerotalk 23:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Altering text and adding sources 

message: Seems very balanced and well crafted (as well as concise), especially when considering the nature of the subject matter and its potential to arouse controversy. 81.158.173.241 (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article Recommendation?

message: No bias there.  
In the 2nd paragraph, "the event became 'a central symbol of Jewish persecution at the hands of bloodthirsty Arabs'".  
Disestablishmentarianism 17:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realize that is the image that was given (as in, "The Jews are being persecuted by bloodthirsty Arabs, please help us") and not a factual description, right? I'm afraid you both have some reading comprehension skills lacunes combined with a confirmation bias. TheMaskedTom (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "bloodthirsty Arabs"...  WOW 

message: Wlglunight93 You have just broken the ARBPIA rule on 1R for articles related to the I/P area.
*(1) here
*(2) here, which was, worse still, an automatic revert of another editor on sight, without examining the edit, which was a compromise
*(3) you then made a partial rerevert, which admitted in part that your second revert was wrong
This is edit-warring, without regard to thee substance, and you admit you are unfamiliar with the archives, with which you should familiarize yourself before jumping into a text. Thirdly, you hav not deigned to make an argument for your change ('rumour' vs 'false rumour' has also been discussed in these articles. Had you takn th care to look at this talk page, you would have seen the problem exhaustively analysed just above this section. Neglecting that discussion and insisting on your own preferred term means you are ignoring an established consensus. 'Rumours' were both false and true: the rumour an Arab had been killed in Jerusalem was true, the rumour Beitar groups were claiming a right to take over the Temple Mount reflected Beitar's own challenges in a demonstration, and therefore were not 'false'. Rumours that Jews were massacring Arabs were completely 'false'. Therefore you cannot apply the word 'false' to 'rumours' for that week, because it falsifies history by bundling several distinct pieces of gossip up into one, and treating a 'true' report with a 'false' report.Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I understand. But with the same criteria, you also broke 1RR: This could be considered your first revert because you are removing content that was there before you came. This is your second revert. Don't worry, I don't care about technicalities. I'm more interested in arguments. I just reverted myself.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not quite. Please read the relevant policy pages for clarification. You did those reverts within 24 hours, my two are separated by a week. One should worry about technicalities (not of course just to report people, that is, frankly vile, unless there is persistent bad faith, which is not the case in this small contretemps, clarly based on unfamiliarity with wiki). I appreciate the courtesy you have displayed here. Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring, 1R 

message: Hillel Cohen frames his recent narrative of the incident in terms of the murder of the Jaffa Awan family by a Jewish police constable called Simcha Hinkis.[16]
I'm afraid I don't really understand the meaning of this sentence. Is it really useful there? From what I understood, it means "Hillel Cohen centers his story around the murder [...] Hinkis." Why is that relevant? Cohen is not mentioned in the paragraph and I don't think it adds anything to it. There is no date to the murder, no details, it could imply that it is cause of the rumours but that is not proof and I don't feel the source adds anything to that. Does anyone have thoughts on this? TheMaskedTom (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear sentence 

message: I think the article could mention that none of the Arab casualties in Hebron were inflicted by Jews. In fact, the matter of lumping attackers and victims together was discussed at length during the inquiry into the riots and found to be misleading.
Here is a transcript extract from the Palestine Commission of Inquiry meeting dated 18th November, 1929 - Page 135-137. Harry Luke, who served as Officer Administrating the Government until the High Commissioner returned from leave on the morning of the 29th August, is being questioned by Sir Boyd Merriman. 
:::"---A. [Luke] There are a number of under-statements in these bulletins. I thought I made that clear in one of my general answers to one of your questions that they were intended to be covering statements such as some of those in the War were intended to reassure people, and were not full statement of what had occurred. It is not a history. Q. May I suggest this difference between the two. In this case you had the population at home which was not on the scene of action, and you had an enemy also at home to whom you did not wish to give information. Here you had everybody on the spot. There is that difference, is there not? ---A. There is that difference, but it was in our opinion necessary to make [cont. on page 136] these bulletins as reassuring as possible. The time for full publication of all the facts could come later. These things we could not get out from day to day. That was not intended to deprive the people of the news, but to give them a sort of news which would not make the feeling in the country and tension greater. That is my explanation for under-statements which I freely admit probably did take place. [... relating to bulletins] Q.You say the actual fact about Hebron was this, was it not, that Hebron was, so far as the inhabitants were concerned, quite plainly nothing but this, a butchery of Jews, [cont. on page 137] not a single one of whom apparently wounded an Arab? ---A. I subscribe to that. Q. And that the casualties were the casualties inflicted by Mr. Cafferata in the lower part of the town? ---A. By the government. Q. By Mr. Cafferata and anybody who assisted him? A. Yes, that is so. Q. Would you tell me whether there was any legitimate object in lumping the Jerusalem and Hebron casualties together? [... relating to bulletin] Q. I quite agree that it shows the Hebron attack was an Arab attack, but it also shows - just turn back to bulletin No. 1 - it also shows that there was a considerable number of Moslems killed, 8 killed and 10 wounded, without stating that those were not killed by Jews at all, but were killed by the Police after the massacre had occurred? ---A. Yes, as I said before these statements did not profess to be complete chronologies of what took place." --ארינמל (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Arab casualties

message: I would also like to correct the following sentence "In mid-August 1929, hundreds of Jewish nationalists marched to the Western Wall in Jerusalem shouting slogans such as The Wall is Ours and raising the Jewish national flag." The following communique by Luke was presented at the same meeting of the Inquiry Commission as evidence [page 12]: "On the 15th August during the Fast commemorating the destruction of the Temple, in addition to the large number of Jews who proceeded in the ordinary way to the wall to worship, some hundreds of young Jews exercised their right of access for purposes not confined to the usual practice of prayer, but were associated with the making of a speech and the raising of a flag." Luke adds that "There is another matter which is not mentioned. The crowd also sang the Hatikvah" --ארינמל (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In both cases, this is a primary source, giving a government version, and the testimony of one person. One generally needs a secondary source, which takes in not only a single official document, but all of the available evidence for the event that has come to light. As to the Betar chanting at the Wailing Wall, dozens of secondary sources analyse that.Nishidani (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that the two Western Wall descriptions are consistent.  Two independent truthful witnesses could easily give these two descriptions.  About the Hebron massacre, this testimony is in line with everything I remember reading, but it should be possible to find a secondary source. Zerotalk 12:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Jewish demonstration

message: The article cites Benny Morris correctly: Israeli historian Benny Morris has challenged traditional accounts that most survivors were saved by Arab families. He wrote, that "in fact, most were rescued by British police intervention and by the fact that many Jews successfully fended off their assailants for long hours – though to be sure, Arab neighbors did save several families". (One-State, Two-States).  However, in his book "Righteous Victims" he wrote "Hundreds of Jews were saved by Arab neighbors (and, at a later stage, after Cafferatta had reimposed his authority, by Arab policemen)." (p114).  The contradiction is obvious and I don't see why we should cite just one of these sources.  I believe that the reason for the difference is that between these two books Morris had his political conversion and started writing unreliable polemics; but that's just my opinion. What to do? Zerotalk 11:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Cite both of his statements. One could add Segev's remark in One Palestine(p.326) that 'Jewish History records very few cases of a massive rescue of this dimension,’ if you can confirm that. I read it in Kathleen Kern As Resident Aliens: Christian Peacemaker Teams in the West Bank, 1995-2005  Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2010  p.17, and that notes that the Sefer Hevron gives the relevant numbers and details in lists. I knew that, but not the hearsay she records of settlers in Hebron buying up all copies of the book and burning them, which could, were it true, only be motivated by a desire to erase the primary source on the Arab rescue (whatever the facts) Nishidani (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Segev wrote as follows: "Most of Hebron's Jews were saved because Arabs hid them in their homes. The community confirmed this, writing, "Had it not been for a few Arab families not a Jewish soul would have remained in Hebron." The Zionist Archives preserves lists of Hebron Jews who were saved by Arabs; one list contains 435 names Over two-thirds of the community, then, found refuge in twenty-eight Arab homes, some of which took in dozens of Jews "Arabs were hurt defending their neighbors," one Jew testified afterward.  ... Some of the saviors may have expected a reward in exchange for their help. Still, most saved the Jews out of human decency, putting themselves at risk, acting in the tradition of hospitality ... In any case, Jewish history records very few cases of a mass rescue of this dimension." (pp 325–326).  Segev cites several Hebrew sources and files in the Central Zionist Archives. Incidentally, it is quite misleading to link Morris to New historians in connection with something he wrote after turning his back on that group. Zerotalk 02:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several aspects of that event not adequately dealt with in the available sources. When I studied the case a decade ago, it was quite apparent from numerous stray bits of circumstantial evidence that the riot was very much influenced by a very large influx of villagers from outside Hebron into the town. That doesn't absolve local responsibilities of course, but sociologically it makes sense, since you had significant numbers of  townbship neighbours rushing to defend people with whom they had long liens of friendship. The other thing is the role of peasant debt and banking: no one even explores this possibility, though it often lay behind massacres (the Damascus blood libel). In  any case, you're right about BM linked to New Historian. After his turn, he let enmity  get the better of archives and their austere interpretation. Unless a source points out the contradiction, there's nothing one can do but merely juxtapose the contradiction, and then add the info from Segev that the Sefer hevron and Zionist archives confirm  Morris's earlier view. Go ahead, by all means.Nishidani (talk) 06:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting that the villagers were indebted to Jews? Hebronite Jews were quite poor. There were only 3 money lenders among 757 Jewish residents in 1918, and the community owned neither land nor houses outside of the small ghetto, which was also mostly mortgaged. Regarding the Arab rescuers- it appears to be widely overlooked that some, if not most, were landlords saving their own tenants. Some of the rescuers also partook in the plunder. --ארינמל (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benny Morris 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1929 Hebron massacre. 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/20110816165944/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1145961357122&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1145961357122&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am new here (on this page) and I am not sure if this has already been discussed, so pardon me if it has, but my reading of the sources brings me to the understanding that the Jews of Hebron were not "evacuated" by the British, which implies a kind of "rescue," but rather were "evicted" which means more like what happened, they were kicked out. I think the use of the word 'evicted' would be more accurate here, and I am requesting this change. I noticed one other problem. The shore description says "Arabs residents" and it should say "Arab residents." That's all for now. DaringDonna (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Evacuated is correct. (Would you want to remain among the population that just massacred you?) Anyway you have to bring a reliable source for changes like that. Can you still see "Arabs residents"; I can't find it. Zerotalk 18:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though in theory you are right, and many people would probably want to leave Hevron after such a horrible event, the fact is that many that survived wanted to stay, since Jews had a religious connection to the city. What they would have preferred would have been better police protection and swift punishment to the perpetrators of the crimes. But you are correct, this needs a source. I will look for one. No promises. As far as the short description is concerned, you need to turn this feature on to see it. Go to your preferences, then to Gadgets, and all the way on the bottom select the box under "testing and development" that says "Show page description beneath the page title (not compatible with Page assessments gadget)". Be sure to save. then you can see the short description in the upper left side of the article. DaringDonna (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the short description.Selfstudier (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eviction versus evacuation edit request 

message: I am requesting that the word "evacuated" be replaced by either the word "expelled" or "evicted" in the following sentence in the article: Soon after, all Hebron's Jews were evacuated by the British authorities.[4] Many returned in 1931, but almost all were evacuated at the outbreak of the 1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine. in both occurrences of the word. Here is one source: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/hebron-riots-1929-consequences-lessons/ Here is the quote from the source: "But, in the years before the 1967 Arab–Israeli war, the area was exclusively Arab because the Jews had been expelled. In some cases, as in Hebron, the expulsion was accomplished through mass murder."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaringDonna (talk • contribs) 06:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The events are well described in sources. The decisions to evacuate them was based on security grounds, and they went in 1936, save for the milkman, of their own will after listening to their elders.Nishidani (talk) 08:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

text: "evacuated by the British authorities" is a precise statement of what actually happened according to multiple detailed sources, and there is no cause to change it. Besides that, neocons like Douglas Feith are not reliable sources. I also wonder why you think your source is adequate for changing the description of 1936 events that your source claims didn't happen (it says that no Jews lived in Hebron from 1929 to 1967). Zerotalk 09:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt there are quite a few sources in Hebrew about the most remarkable Yaakov ben Shalom Ezra, who refused to take the Brits' advice in 1936, and stayed on, until either late 1947 or early 1948, on the eve of war. He ran a dairy with his son, and, throughout those 12 years, no Arab in Hebron appears to have harassed them. He deserves an article.13:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Expelled versus 'evacuated'

message: Remove ref 35 and insert the ref name of ref 20(or create a reference name for ref 20 if there is none). Reasoning: duplicate reference.
Remove ref 37 and insert the ref name of ref 20. Reasoning: broken reference, refers to ref 20 source.
I cannot check the refnames used, so someone with editing rights will need to check and update the reference names. Sennecaster (talk) 23:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Volteer1 (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2021 

message: The beginning of the article states that "a total of 133 Jews and 110 Arabs were killed" in the 1929 Palestine Riots. This is misleading as it could easily leave one with the impression that the Jews and Arabs had killed very similar amounts of each other's member. In fact, as reported in the Shaw Report and in Causes and Consequences of the Arab Israeli Conflict by Ross Stewart (both quoted in the article on the 1929 Palestine Riots), while the Arabs were responsible for most of the Jewish deaths, the majority of Arab deaths were at the hands of the British police.
:Is it not explained in sufficient detail in the lead of the wikilinked 1929 Palestine riots? (Please sign your post).Selfstudier (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "133 Jews and 110 Arabs were killed" is very misleading 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafr_Qasim_massacre links to the "Massacre" page. Consequently, anyone who reads https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre sees "Israel" under the heading "List of massacres". This page (and others relating to massacres carried out against Jews) does not link to the word "Massacre" and there is no mention of them under the "Massacre" page.
I don't care whether you keep or remove the "Massacre" links, but its application should be consistent across all relevant pages. Cowwoc (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Afraid I don't follow, can you be more specific please? Selfstudier (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistent use of Massacre label 

message: hebron massacre 105.164.27.213 (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 105.164.27.213 (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of palestine 

message: I think it's important to note that this person would later on become the greatest arab ally of nazi Germany.
Besides that, I copy in English some things I think should be added to the page too:
Events:
A day before the massacre, Palestinian leader and Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Amin al-Husayni openly incited the Arabs of Palestine to go out and kill Jews, which effectively began immediately after Friday prayers.
Hebron was the city where the events took on the greatest severity: while the Jewish community – which numbered around 800 and lived peacefully alongside thousands of Arab neighbors – was already resting on Shabbat, 67 members were brutally murdered inside their homes and synagogues. and 66 more were injured. Hebron became a city of rape, terror and murder. The attack was carried out with all kinds of humiliation, so the population fled in terror and the survivors were transferred to Jerusalem, leaving Hebron devoid of its ancient Jewish community, a fact described as ethnic cleansing.8​
The riots [of 1929 in Palestine] were accompanied by militant Arab slogans such as... "Palestine is our land and the Jews our dogs..." [and] brutal acts committed by Arabs... such as the massacres in Hebron, where Child murderers tortured them before killing them. The Jewish community in Palestine found itself in the midst of a wave of violent unrest that furiously swept through Jewish settlements and neighborhoods across the country. The danger now threatened the very survival of the Jewish community.
9​
Safed massacre
Main article: Safed Massacre
In Safed, Jews also suffered a massacre, with around twenty murdered, including women, children and the elderly. The massacre continued throughout the next day until the British mandatory authority managed to control it. YYeshuaHaMashiach (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not an edit request, and it also full of nonsense. Zerotalk 04:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 May 2024