Talk:Al-Hamma incident

"vague"

Why does the article determine that the armistice agreement was vague? The agreement and subsequent statements by the chairman of the Mixed Armistice Commission and the Security Council clearly stated that civilian activity must be approved by the chairman and that all military and paramilitary activity is strictly forbidden. By claiming that the armistice agreement was vague this article is expressing a POV. Who claims that the armistice was vague with respect to the subject of this article?--84.108.213.97 (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You are right. There was argument about exactly what was allowed, but the article overstates it badly. The armistice agreement is much clearer on the nature of the demilitarized zones than our article suggests. It needs to be rewritten with a proper source. Zero^talk 11:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Since the article speaks of "enforcing sovereignty" (the Israeli POV was that Israel had sovereignty over the DMZ) it's also worth mentioning that the armistice agreement deliberately refrained from settling the question of sovereignty, and this has also been pointed out in subsequent UNTSO and UNSC statements.--84.108.213.97 (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a more correct statement would be that Israel sought to assert sovereignty. But we can't write anything without a proper source. Zero^talk 13:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"Palestinians"

The use of this term in relation to Arabs living in the Mandate/Israel/Jordanian occupation in the 1940s/50s is anachronistic and not found in Morris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.203.11 (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

No details about incident itself

Nothing: where, who, how.

• Who were the "Syrians"?
• Where did it happen, on the way to the village, just outside it, inside it?
• How come Syrian soldiers were there if it was inside the DMZ?
• How did the incident develop?
• What did the UN do?
• Was there an exchange of fire?
• Did the Syrians have casualties?
• How did the surviving Israeli soldiers make it out?
• Were the dead repatriated?
• Was there a greater mobilisation of forces during the incident?

"Background" much more voluminous. Arminden (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

It is fine for you to put your questions and comments on this talk page. It is not fine for you to litter the article with them. Please desist. Zero^talk 13:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding police presence in the DMZ, the following from the Chief of Staff of the UN Truce Supervision Organization explains the situation. (S/2833, Nov 1952). Since the Al-Hamma incident is not specifically addressed, I won't put this into the article.

With the exception of Nuqeib, El Hamma and Shamalne, Israeli police acting under orders from police headquarters outside the Demilitarized Zone exercise control over practically the entire Demilitarized Zone. The Chairman has maintained that the provisions of article V of the General Armistice Agreement and the Explanatory Note of Dr. Bunche quoted in the Security Council resolution of 18 May 1951 call for police of a local character within the Demilitarized Zone. Israeli authorities, however, have not agreed to remove their non-local police from the Demilitarized Zone and no arrangement has been worked out.

Zero^talk 14:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Armiden; it is 10 years since I looked at the sources for this "incident" (Morris, 1993 & 2004), but basically, the Israelis were dead set on getting the DMZ under Israeli control. Because it was a DMZ, they couldn't (officially) send in Israeli soldiers; they sent them in disguised as "policemen". The Syrians didn't buy it, of course. Incidentally, the Israelis did exactly the same in the DMZ on the southern front; see Auja al-Hafir: there they started a "civilian settlement", "settled" by Israeli soldiers. Have you read what Morris, 1993 & 2004, writes about this? Huldra (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

["Edit conflict". Step 1, putting this back in.] As far as I know, the procedure is to put a "clarify" or "dubious" tag within the article, in order to draw attention, and add a section on the talk-page. Has nothing to do with littering, and not just because the user doesn't see the content.

Thanks for adding the two versions from the NYT article. It answers some of the questions listed here, and maybe that is all that is known - unless the UN managed to figure out more, which might not have been the case. We now know who the Israelis were, but not the Syrians ("Syrian police outpost" inside the DMZ also appears to be a violation, but is not pointed out as such). The way one formulates creates one impression or another, even an opposite one. As of now, I'm not much smarter after reading the paragraph than I was before. But maybe that's my fate. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Armiden; from my understanding; having policemen there was not a violation, but disguising soldiers as policemen would be, Huldra (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

[Step 2, replying to Huldra's 1st posting.] Hi Huldra. I know the procedure, the Israelis did smth. similar at the Hebrew U campus on Mt Scopus, sending in soldiers dressed as police. It was an open secret and the Jordanians joked with the Israelis about it. The Syrians did their bit, and it wasn't an idyll like between Swiss cantons, for sure. Precisely the same trick with soldiers dressed up as civilians was also done later on by the Syrians in New Quneitra; nothing new under the sun, I bet the trick goes back centuries, at least. A Palestinian friend once answered to an Israeli friend: "You have your stories, we have ours". No, I openly admit I was too lazy to read up all what I should have and was hoping for a quick overview from Wiki. I often come to Wiki as a common user and get stuck because I'm not satisfied with what I get :) Arminden (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

[Step 3, replying to Huldra's 2nd posting.] And from my understanding of how the Chief of Staff of the UN Truce Supervision Organization presented the situation (see Zero's posting), only "local police" was permitted. So no "outpost" or anything else of the centrally commanded Syrian police. Which of course was nonsense and not expected by anyone to be respected. Nor is it to be expected that police overwhelms army troops and kills a large part of them with no casualties of their own. That's exactly what bias consists of: noticing and pointing out the cheating of "the other", but kinda understanding why the side one likes broke the rules a little bit and kinda sweeping it under the carpet. Not much, just a bit. I guess nobody is immune to that, no matter what one pretends.

Do you know the old Communist-era joke? Pravda reports: At the USSR-Chinese border enemy tanks cowardly attacked our peaceful peasants in their tractors. The tractors responded with fire and destroyed the enemy tanks. The Peking Red Banner reports: At the China-USSR border enemy airplanes cowardly attacked our peaceful peasants in their rice paddies. Our heroic peasants fired on the airplanes and brought them down. The Red Star of Bucharest reports: At the USSR-Chinese border, Soviet and Chinese agronomists held a fruitful conference on topics of mutual interest. Arminden (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, since the main source for this affair is Benny Morris: of course the "story" will be centered on the Israeli POV. (He certainly didn't have access to Syrian sources), Huldra (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)