Talk:Battle for Jerusalem

message: Okay guys how's this, from http://www.palestinehistory.com/history/war/war1948.htm, a Palestinian site:
:"Battle of the Roads". The Arab League sponsored Arab Liberation Army, composed of Palestinian Arabs and Arabs from other Middle Eastern countries, attacked Jewish communities in Palestine, and Jewish traffic on major roads. The Arab forces mainly concentrated on major roadways in an attempt to cut off Jewish communities from each other. Arab forces at that time had engaged in sporadic and unorganized ambushes since the riots of December 1947, and began to make organized attempts to cut off the highway linking Tel Aviv with Jerusalem, the city's only supply route. The Arab Army cut off supplies and controlled several strategic vantage points overlooking the sole highway linking Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, enabling them to fire at convoys going to the city. By late March 1948, the vital road that connected Tel Aviv to western Jerusalem, where about 16% of all Jews in the Palestinian region lived, was cut off and under siege. (emphasis mine)Scott Adler 08:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been a siege (starting in Feb, culminating end of March) but the whole story is not a siege. After Nachshon, the city was not under siege any more. After 15 May, Jerusalem were again under siege BUT IDF and Arab Legion fought and it became a battle for Jerusalem. Alithien 18:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes, it was a siege

message: :The siege of Jerusalem was a complex series of military and terrorist events beginning on December 1, 1947 and lasting through January, 1949. The siege was initiated by local Palestinian Arab militias immediately after the United Nations adopted a resolution ordering partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. The siege was continued by the Transjordan Arab Legion, assisted by British officers and by the Egyptian Army until the signing of the 1949 Armistice Agreements.
:The intention of besieging forces was to isolate and destroy or disposess the 100,000 Jewish residents of the city. The siege lasted until Israeli forces were able to build a bypass road through the Judean Hills called the Burma Road and by conquering the neighboring towns of Lod and Ramle.
# The siege didn't start on Dec 1, 1947 but later in January
# The siege didn't start untlin Jan, 1949. Battles between IDF and Arab Legion stopped after 10 days' campaign in July
# The intention of Husseini was to prevent the partition plan and to fight his ennemies
# The siege was "broken" with Nachshon Operation.
# Lydda, not Lod.
:::===Please sign===
:::Writer of "facts": This is going to be a contentious article, but one which has to be written. If you believe your facts, please sign them (or even better, reference them), else they may be considered "inferior." --Seejyb 02:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  facts 

message: # The siege began slowly, but the first attack on the road was on Dec. 1, 1947. Six Jews were dragged out of a BOAC bus, separated from Arab passengers and shot. Travel on the road was no longer safe for Jews without armed escort.
# The siege started and was broken several times.
# All Jews were Husseini's "enemies" -- including the Jewish children of Hungary. He was responsible for killing 2,000 of them. And Jerusalem was not "partitioned," it was a corpus separatum with a guaranteed, gerrymandered Arab majority.
# If the siege ws ""broken"" (your quotes in my quotes) with Operaion Nachson in early April, what happed at Latrun in late May and early June?
#Lydda is Arabic for the ancient name Lod. It was Lydda in 1947, but has been Lod for 58 years (how it came to be Lod is another story). I will use both terms. 
I fully realized when I started this article that it would be subject to heavy POV comments and probably will be repeatedly vandalized. That goes with the territory. Scott Adler 23:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: In reply to the above unsigned writer:

message: As far as I know, for most of the war the blockade was not total, and Jewish convoys managed to get through occasionally. The situation became critical by March 1948, and in order to lift the blockade and resupply the city the Haggana initiated "Nachshon Operation" on the first half of April. But after the operation the blockade resumed. Evidence to that is that 12 members of Minhelet Haam were stuck in Jerusalem and were unable to attend the declaration of independence on May 14th. Later in May, the Jewish quarter of the Old city, which was in a siege of its own and cut off from the rest of the Jewish neighborhoods, has surrendered to the Arab Legion (I think that was on May 28th). Also on the same month, the Jewish outposts in Jerusalem region, Gush Etzion in the south and Atarot-Neve Yaakov in the north, were conquerred by the Arab Legion.
In my understanding, the blockade was lifted after the completion of "Burma Road", which enabled the Israeli forces to get to Jerusalem by alternative route that bypassed Latrun, that controlled the main road to Jerusalem and remained in Jordanian territory until 1967. This must have been sometime during the summer of 1948, a lot earlier that January 1949. Actually, there was de facto sieze fire in the Jerusalem theatre from the 2nd "Hafuga" till the end of the war, with the exception of another failed attack on Latrun in October.--Nitsansh (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Duration of the siege

message: The only wp:rs source in the article talks (quite logically) of the 1948 Jesuralem Battles. Numerous others do so. Ceedjee (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Oppose Current title is an accurate description of the events. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment "Ha-matzor al yerushalayim" is not English, and therefore this argument is void. Flamarande (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I just want to note that at that time the state of Israel was not yet established, so, there is no point refering to it as Israel or to those forces as Israeli forces.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.40.61 (talk) 04:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Israel was established in May.  The siege ended in July.  Thanks for playing.  --GHcool (talk) 06:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was it called Israel ?? 

message: Recent edits by GHCool are outrageously POV and won't stand.  When I have time...  Zerotalk 06:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at this: According to GHcool: "Before the British Mandate for Palestine expired, Palestinian Arab militias attacked Jews in and around Jerusalem with help from the British in the form of turning a blind eye or occasionally confiscating Haganah weapons."  But Morris in that very paragraph says that British troops were defending the Jewish Quarter from Arab attack!  This type of distortion can't be allowed.  Zerotalk 06:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually no, Morris does not explicitly say that British troops were defending the Jewish Quarter  - it says that after an Arab attack, "British troops took up positions around the quarter". He does, however, explicitly say exactly what GHCool wrote: "the British tried to confiscate Haganah weapons.". LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apparently you stopped reading halfway through the sentence.  Let me help you.  The whole sentence is "Following an unsuccessful attack by Arab militiamen on 11 November 1947, British troops took up positions around the quarter, forming an outer cordon sanitaire around the Haganah-defended perimeter." A cordon sanitaire is a defensive barrier.  Just like I said. Zerotalk 00:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A cordon sanitaire is a buffer zone, nothing more. The chronology outlined in Morris is: Arabs attack the Jewish Quarter, the Haganah sets up a defensive perimeter, the British intersperse themselves between the parties, creating a buffer zone. It does not say this was done to defend the Jewish Quarter - that it you personal interpretation, it could just as well have been to prevent reprisal attacks by the Haganah. The point is, the source explicitly says what GHCool wrote about confiscating Haganah weapons, and does not explicitly say what you claim - that the British were defending the Jewish Quarter. If there's anything that's "outrageously POV and won't stand" it is your spin which is not supported by the source. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The British defence of the Jewish Quarter, during which they sustained deaths and injuries, is described in Haim Levenberg's book. Zerotalk 22:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  wonderful. Please add the relevant material, and we can move on. 01:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: This must be about the most one-sided of all the articles on the 1948 war.  Almost every sentence conveys the Jewish point of view without the least pretence of balance.  The sources are distorted (see one example above, there are many) and inconvenient key events are not even mentioned.  And the use of a Likud heavy as a source is surely a joke. Zerotalk 07:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please reduce the level of invective in your edits. Dore Gold is a living person, and every Wikipedia page is subject to WP:BLP. I've addressed the example you mentioned above, in which it seems that you are just as guilty of source distortion as GHCool, if not worse. If you have additional specific examples, please list them - but you can't tag an article for "when you have the time". LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't delete the tag until there is consensus for deleting it.  The problems with this page cover nearly every section of it.  You removed the page without changing it at all.  Here is another example: "This occurred because the British had provided no escort..." Morris does say that no British escort was provided, but he doesn't say the attack was caused by it.  Actually he says very explicitly that the attack was in response to the Deir Yassin massacre, which is not mentioned on this page at all despite being one of the defining events of the period.  And another: "with help from the British in the form of confiscating Haganah weapons" - a grotesque distortion since the British also confiscated Arab weapons (and there's no mention of the fact that British were being regularly killed by the Irgun and Lehi acting in cooperation from the Haganah). Zerotalk 23:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't tag and then disappear "until you have time". I'll make an effort to address your concerns as you lay them out, but you do not get to tag articles until such time as you will grace us with your presence, and certainly don't make false claim such as 'You removed the page[sic] without changing it at all." - I changed removed the sentence for which there was no direct support in the cited source. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 01:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

text: The fitting revenge bit is just Morris's speculation; a speculation I find unlikely.  My own opinion is that the British just didn't give a shit who got killed just as long as it wasn't British soldiers or personnel.  --GHcool (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Between Oct 1, 1947 and May 14, 1948, casualties for the Britsh forces in Palestine were 129 dead and 271 wounded.  Apparently they were shooting at each other.  Zerotalk 22:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

text: The tag refers to the whole article, not just to that point.  As I wrote above "Almost every sentence conveys the Jewish point of view without the least pretence of balance."     Zerotalk 23:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, the tag says that there is currently a discussion on the talk page about the NPOV (or alleged lack thereof) of this article.  Since there is no current discussion, I think it might be time to remove the tag as it is inaccurate.  --GHcool (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Very funny.  Please scroll up and start reading.  The tag is going to stay on this disgraceful article until the issues with it are resolved. Btw, the word "current" does not appear in the tag.  It does however say "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved", which it obviously has not been.  Zerotalk 00:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Another problem: "The intention of besieging forces was ... in the case of the Jordanian forces, to conquer Jerusalem." It is well established that the Arab Legion was ordered to stay out of Jerusalem until it became obvious that Jewish forces were about to conquer it.  Zerotalk 00:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That statement is sourced to 2 reliable sources. feel free to add a statement (properly sourced, of course) that initially the AL was ordered to stay out.   Next. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 02:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No it isn't.  Morris denies the statement.  On p214 he describes it as an Israeli assumption that was not true.  Morris (and almost all serious historians these days) says that Abdullah never intended to conquer more than the East part and only entered that to prevent a complete Jewish takeover. So the text is not just biased, it misrepresents its source.  And Dore Gold is too close to the Israeli government to meet the requirements for a reliable source. (I can't help reporting that Amazon lists Gold's book for less than $1 (even 19c new) from 16 different bookshops.  That must be a record pulping for a book only published 5 years ago.) Zerotalk 03:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reported your BLP violations at WP:BLPN. And administrator told you that you are using a personal slur that is potentially libelous and asked you to refactor. Please do so. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

text: The best way to fix it would be to delete the current text and start over, since what is there is next to useless.  And stop preaching.  You can look at it yourself and see lots of examples where only the Israeli viewpoint is presented.  It's easy: "Jerusalem held special importance to the Yishuv for "religious and nationalist" reasons" (and no importance to Muslims?).  "The Arabs also fired off shells indiscriminately into West Jerusalem." (What about the Jewish attacks on the Arab quarter, Qatamon, etc etc?) "The fighting led to the evacuation of the kibbutz Neve Yaakov and the Jewish towns of Atarot, Kalya, and Beit HaArava, and the expulsion of the Jewish inhabitants of the Old City of Jerusalem." (lets not mention the much larger number of Arabs driven from West Jerusalem and surrounding villages), "brink of starvation" (emotive prose not supported by the source, which refers to shortages and food rationing).  And so on.  Why don't you try it, just pick a few sentences at random. Zerotalk 04:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Its becoming increasingly clear that Zero is against the idea of limiting the Siege of Jerusalem (1948) article to the Siege of Jerusalem in 1948.  Judging by the above, Zero appears to want a blow by blow account of the entire 1948 Arab-Israeli War.  Perhaps he/she is unaware that an article already exists on that topic.  --GHcool (talk) 05:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're admitting this article is a POV fork?  Good for you! Zerotalk 11:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Zero's attack on Dore Gold is quite funny. Look at the sources that pro-Arab editors are using as their Bible (Ilan Pappe, PalestineRemembered, and other assorted drivel) before you throw stones. --Gilabrand (talk) 07:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am on record as stating that I will not use Pappe as a source.  To the best of my recollection, I never did. I don't use PalestineRemembered either.  You are invited to discover any exceptions.  I believe my record in choice of sources is one of the best around. So what is your point, exactly?  I can't criticise one substandard source because someone else uses a different substandard source?  Let's get serious: I propose we trade off dubious sources on both sides and publically swear off them.  I'll trade Ilan Pappe against Efraim Karsh, and Palestine Remembered against the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.  Will you join me? Zerotalk 11:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

text: In that case, 99% of all articles tagged for WP Palestine will have to be dumped. I wonder how far you'll get with that.--Gilabrand (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And quite a lot of the articles tagged for WP Israel.  But dumping won't be necessary in most cases, just a lot of trimming.  To answer your wonder: no, I won't get anywhere at all with it, alas.  Zerotalk 13:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

text: The Accusation: "Let's get serious: I propose we trade off dubious sources on both sides and publically swear off them.  I'll trade Ilan Pappe against Efraim Karsh, and Palestine Remembered against the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs." - Zero.  11:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

text: The Reality: If Wikipedia did not quote the Israeli government on the issue of terrorism and Israeli history, the integrity of the encyclopedia would be severely compromised.  Israeli government organizations, army, and elected officials are as reliable as any other country's government organizations, army, or elected officials.  Because Israel is a democracy and has a greater degree of freedom of the press than any other nation facing similar circumstances regarding its security, much of what the IDF and the government claim can be easily verified by independent research.  Critics of Israel could easily do their own research into official Israeli claims rather than flat-out condemning them all as "unreliable."  --GHcool (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course the Israeli government can be cited for the opinion of the Israeli government on any issue.  Probably I've done that myself. "According to the Israeli Department of Foreign affairs, ...." is fine in the right circumstances.  But it shouldn't be cited as a source of fact regarding contentious historical events involving Israel.  It's actually right there in the rules: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources..." (my emphasis). (I'm not including uncontroversial matters like who is in the Knesset or what the population of Ashod is, just matters which are disputed.) And you contradict yourself: if Israeli government claims can be easily verified from independent sources, then we don't need the Israeli government as a source. And finally, these principles apply to every government. Of course. Zerotalk 02:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not just that.  The Israeli MFA cannot reasonably be compared to PalestineRemembered.com.  --GHcool (talk) 05:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: Including the Haifa convoy was intended to illustrate the dangers involved in the convoy strategy. And also that no such disaster ever occurred on the road to Jerusalem. The Kafr Etzion convoy should stay because like the Mt Scopus convoy it was taking supplies from West Jerusalem to an outpost. Otherwise they should both go. Again there was no setback on the same scale amongst the Jerusalem/Tel Aviv convoys. I hope to be able to give a better account soon. Padres Hana (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a constant problem with Israel-Palestine articles that they gradually expand in scope until they cover the entire conflict.  That is not good.  It is important to confine the text to matters directly related to the article subject. Zerotalk 07:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convoys 

message: I am thinking of removing the sentence about celebrations in Amman - the reference just leads to the Ha'aretz website. I think I have  a reference about Haganah radio broadcasting herb recipes.Padres Hana (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think everything sourced to Gold should be removed.  Very much an unreliable source.  Zerotalk 22:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope.  --GHcool (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cooking mallow 

message: The "blown up by accident" quote is cited to "The Scotsman," a source from 1948.  Unless the secondary source that quotes "The Scotsman" is provided, I will delete the entire sentence.  Thanks.  --GHcool (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused - can I not use contemporary newspaper reports? But I see that Collins/Lapierre has the "Arabs had cut the city's waterline." Page 324. So the situation is unclear. Padres Hana (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  And Levin has 12 May: Water rationing started today. We have had none for six days. Yesterday, just as the damage to the pipeline was repaired, the British guards suddenly left the spring-head at Ras-el-Ain and Iraqi soldiers walked in." Pages 143,144.  Also 10 May "No water in the taps yet." Page 139. But I can find no comment about how the pipeline was damaged. Also 10 May he writes "Fighting growing fiercer along the Jerusalem road, but Haganah still blacking out all information." He may not have known but I feel if he had heard it was Arabs he would have said so. I'm sure I've seen another account. Will keep looking. Padres Hana (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

text: John Roy Carson: "The desperate shortage in Jerusalem resulted, of course, from the Arab smashing of the water-pumping station at Latrun..." Page 270. This source gives a lot of eye-witness accounts which I am fairly confident about. In this case he is repeating, "of course", the official line and is wrong about the pumping station being smashed so I not so sure. I'm certain I have seen other accounts. Perhaps the scorned Scotsman, or the UN Consular Commission ... I'm on it. Something else has come up. When did the trains stop running? Joseph, Page 90: "On March 3 the economic adviser of the Jewish Agency, D. Alfred Bonne, informed me that the city had supplies of gasoline for two or three days only and that the large users like the Egged Bus Company had no storage facilities. That meant that if the railway stopped running for five consecutive days we would be completely out of gasoline." Are the correct conclusions: 1. gasoline was being brought to the city by train; 2. there was a 5 day reserve; 3. the trains were running 3 March. Padres Hana (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia citation guidelines state that you must write where you got it, not where the author of the book you're holding in your hand got it.  So, if, for example, Joe Shmoe wrote a book that cites The Scotsman, you would write in the footnote something like this: The Scotsman, page 20.  Cited by Joe Shmoe in What Scotsmen Think About Jerusalem, page 300. --GHcool (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I live close to a public library which has micro films of "The Scotsman" newspaper which can be viewed and photocopied. So my source in this case is a photocopy of a micro film of the original newspaper. The Scotsman 7 April 1948. I could go back and find the page number? There is quite wide coverage in this source, local interest being in casualties amongst the Scottish soldiers. One of the correspondents was shared with the Daily Telegraph newspaper. Padres Hana (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blown up by accident 

message: 3,300 civilians killed would mean 500 per month - nothing I have read indicates that kind of slaughter. Padres Hana (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Jewish dead 

message: Reading the caption with this photo in Herzog I would guess that it is of the first of the convoys that came through during Operation Nachshon. Can anyone confirm? Padres Hana (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of picture of convoy. 

message: Thank you very much for this new picture Zero! I think you are wrong to say there is no sign of explosions. All the glare on the right-hand-side must be from the impact of whatever is being fired. I would suggest the picture was taken from the south of the old city. The Dormition is clearly visible. I would go further and suggest that it is three Davidkas being fired from Mount Zion into the Armenian Quarter. If this is an example of what a mortar (or simillar) round looks like I would suggest the other picture we are discussing is of flares fired from mortars.  I could suggest a couple of dates for this attack. Padres Hana (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are assuming the trajectory is from left to right, correct?  But is it? Zerotalk 22:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes and that would fit with the most authoratitive comment in the previous discussion. Is that Bishop Gobat's School on left?  Padres Hana (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  A definitive source for this photo from a reliable source containing authoritative and verifiable information regarding the date (if only roughly) it was taken, where it was taken, what it was taken of, who took it, etc., etc., would be not only appropriate, but necessary for its addition to an already contentious article. We have the supposition of one person who makes good points regarding their theories as to what the photo shows, but that is at best "original research", and this photo otherwise could be of almost anything, taken almost anywhere at any time, or even merely a Photoshop effort: I'm not really suggesting the latter is the case, but until we have a reliable source, we have no way of knowing otherwise and both parties in the conflict in question have shown their willingness to fabricate "evidence" whenever it suits their version of the story. The site the photo is originally credited to is no longer on-line, and the whole article subject/context is sensitive enough that un-/poorly sourced or contentious material - including photographs whose relevance is dubious - should probably be avoided until a mutually satisfactory consensus is reached. Not having a contested photo in the article does not diminish it, especially as the photo in question doesn't really add any information. besiegedtalk 23:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New picture 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Battle of Jerusalem which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 19:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Arminden (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  No paragraph on the Old City and/or Jewish Quarter 

message: Hi, I assume the link to the article "Kolonia" is not correct, since it refers to Kolonia, Micronesia ItsThutmosis (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link reference wrong.