Talk:Deir Yassin massacre/Archive 9

Sept 2023

"Women" within the term "women and children" shoukd be temoved because it implies that mens lives are inherently less important than womens regardless of even age differences or parenthood. Apparently a 19 year old single father's life is less important that a 70 year old woman with no young children under her care whatsoever. All because one was botn male. Fathers liclves are just as important as mothers. Besides, male disposability is not an official position that should be taken by what should be a neutral website. Wikipedia should not endorse the belief that the lives of women are automatically more valuable than men (again regardless of age or parenthood status) as that is not only debatable but unethical and certainly not a neutral position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.219.62.165 (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Denying the Massacre

The section about denying the massacre is rather myopic, only talking about a dispute within intra-Israeli politics that Benny Morris examines in his article on the historiography of Deir Yassin. In the article itself, he says that this event likely had no later impact on the historiography of Deir Yassin. I think there ought to be information added about more recent attempts to deny that the massacre took place. This article is a great example: Penkin, Kenneth D. 2014. “Deir Yassin - the Massacre That Wasn’t.” Jewish Affairs 69 (3): 46–48. There ought to be a recognition of those who do not believe Deir Yassin was a massacre, as it is relevant for current political circumstances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnHarrisonDoe (talk • contribs) 02:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Dan Kurzman

Dan Kurzman's book "Genesis 1948" is a popular account of dubious reliability as a history book. If there is no source other than Kurzman for a concrete pillbox, we can't have it. Kurzman was not an eye-witness and could only have gotten this story from Irgun/Lehi sources. Zero^talk 01:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Call it a civil war is factually incorrect

The Jewish gangs that were in Palestine at the time were formed mostly by Jewish settlers and colonists from Europe. They were not indigenous Palestinian jews. Classifying the conflict as a civil war distorts the history and makes it seems as if these colonists had always been there. They were new comers from Europe. 2600:1700:DAD0:BD0:4510:65BD:5BAB:DFC4 (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

A New Book about the Deir Yassin Affair

Eliezer Tauber, The Massacre That Never Was: The Myth of Deir Yassin and the Creation of the Palestinian Refugee Problem (The Toby Press, 2021), 336pp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.91.28 (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 August 2022

I would highly suggest removing any part of the article that is not supported by sources and removing parts of the article quoted from source #67. History of Israel‘s War of Independence Uri Milstein is misquoted and the person quoting this clearly did not read it. If this false information is not removed, I will make sure the whole article is removed and replaced when it has been rewritten. It’s also interesting that this unsourced quotes are only used in the English version of the article, the German and Hebrew articles don’t use misquotes. 185.231.252.65 (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

If something is misrepresented in this article we'd definitely like to remedy that. Unfortunately I don't have access to the mentioned source material. Could you kindly indicate which existing text is unsupported (the source numbers frequently change so 67 might not be what you think it is) and suggest a proposed alternative? WP:EDITXY may be helpful guidance. Hopefully another editor with access to this source can verify any proposed changes and update the article accordingly.

If you make updates here, please ping me, leave a note on my talk page, OR just set the answered parameter on this edit request to no again to make sure the request stays open. Otherwise, this request should auto-close in 14 days. (you can still re-open it after that or just submit a new one if you see this later) --N8_wilson 🔔 16:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

“ They were to relieve of the revisionists but not before they had disposed of the bodies, something they had refused to do.”

Could someone clarify this; can not see what was meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.192.29 (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

"Including women and children" useless

I suggest removing this pointless information from the introduction. Is it necessary to remind that women's lives do not count more than men's? 193.52.194.235 (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

It is because the killing of male POWs is a more common form of war crime than massacres involving women and children. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Just because it was more common doesn't mean that it is okay to endorse male disposability. What about elderly men? Killing elderly men was relatively rare compares to killing youg men. What about men with disabilities? Wikipedia should not be endorsing male disposability.

"Women" within the term "women and children" shoukd be temoved because it implies that mens lives are inherently less important than womens regardless of even age differences or parenthood. Apparently a 19 year old single father's life is less important that a 70 year old woman with no young children under her care whatsoever. All because one was botn male. Fathers liclves are just as important as mothers. Besides, male disposability is not an official position that should be taken by what should be a neutral website. Wikipedia should not endorse the belief that the lives of women are automatically more valuable than men (again regardless of age or parenthood status) as that is not only debatable but unethical and certainly not a neutral position 162.219.62.165 (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Due to historic lack of rights, etc., women have historically been either victims, or unable to defend themselves, though in the modern era perhaps they can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.192.29 (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

So men have never been victims in human history until recently? What a ridiculous notion and an extreme generalization. In many cases some women had more "rights" than men such as women from the upper class having more rights than men from the lowest classes in many societies.I guess intersectionality is too hard of a concept for your thick skull to accept. Plenty of women were capable of defending themselves in history while there were plenty of men imcapable of defending themselves. Men who were elderly, with disabilities, men who were blind, men who were deaf, men with injuries, men with illnesses, and men who were just weaker than the average women for whatever reason existed and were less capable of defending themselves than many if not most women. Stop endorsing male disposability.

"Women" within the term "women and children" should be removed because it implies that mens lives are inherently less important than womens regardless of even age differences or parenthood. Apparently a 19 year old single father's life is less important that a 70 year old woman with no young children under her care whatsoever. All because one was botn male. Fathers liclves are just as important as mothers. Besides, male disposability is not an official position that should be taken by what should be a neutral website. Wikipedia should not endorse the belief that the lives of women are automatically more valuable than men (again regardless of age or parenthood status) as that is not only debatable but unethical and certainly not a neutral position. 162.219.62.165 (talk) 02:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia should convey information as written in reliable sources, and most sources specify that it included massacre of women and children; not because men's lives are worthless but because women and children are more vulnerable. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Eliezer Tauber

I have now read Eliezer Tauber's book, "The Massacre That Never Was." Tauber is a reputable Israeli academic historian and cannot be dismissed as a propagandist, as Uri Millstein perhaps can. In this book, Tauber refutes many of the popular myths about Deir Yassin which are repeated as facts in this article. His main points are:

1. there was no "massacre" - all the deaths at Deir Yassin occurred during the fighting between 4am and 2pm.

2. no prisoners were executed, in the quarries, in Jerusalem or anywhere else.

3. no-one was raped or mutilated.

Tauber goes so far as to list all those Deir Yassin residents who were killed (approximately 107), by name and age as far as this can be known, and lists how each of them died. He concludes that 25 of those killed were combatants who were killed in action, leaving approximately 70 non-combatants. Of these 45 were children, most of the remainder women. These people were killed when the Etzel and Lehi fighters threw hand-grenades into houses.

Tauber points out that there were approximately 1,000 residents in Deir Yassin at the time of the attack. Of these, about 700 were allowed to escape via a route to the south-west which was deliberately left open for them by the Etzel and Lehi fighters. About 107 were killed. That means that about 200 were taken prisoner, mostly women and children. These were taken by truck to the Arab frontline in Jerusalem and released. All of this contradicts the assertion that Etzel and Lehi set out to massacre the residents of Deir Yassin, or that they did so after the fighting had ceased.

Tauber also identifies where, when and by whom the stories about women being raped and mutilated were invented. It was Husayn al-Khalidi, a member of the Arab Higher Committee in Jerusalem (and later Prime Minister of Jordan). He told Hazim Nusayba, news editor of the Palestine Broadcasting Service, to propagate these false claims in order to arouse Arab public opinion against the Jews.

In the light of this, this article needs to be both renamed and substantially edited. The title "Deir Yassin massacre" pre-judges the central issue and cannot be a NPOV title. A better title would be "Battle of Deir Yassin," because this was a military encounter fought by well-armed combatants on both sides, in the course of a war. It cannot be compared with an event like the Hebron massacre of 1929. The account given by Tauber need to be given its proper weight in setting out the debate about what happened at Deir Yassin. Constant Pedant (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

This work does not appear to be particularly academic in nature, however. The author appears to have published outside of academic publishing circles and there do not appear to be any academic reviews of the work. These red flags and the clearly POV title suggest that what we have here is a work that is more personal project than academic undertaking. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

You mean the book that every university press rejected? Fails weight to include as the overwhelming majority of reliable sources reject Tauber's out there views. nableezy - 17:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

"You mean the book that every university press rejected?" — this cannot stand as the criteria for recent research being excluded or suppressed from a topic page; ANY topic page, but especially the page of a topic so hotly contested and debated. I would hope I am not the first person to inform you that "consensus" does not equal "fact"; I don't find it necessary to list examples throughout history of ideas and research met with Elite rejection and derision that has turned out to be completely accurate. Whatever one's personal beliefs, I do not believe that anyone acting in good faith could dispute the fact that there is an overwhelmingly dominant narrative regarding this particular issue — nor would I accept that anyone educated enough and as interested in current events as a Wikipedia volunteer editor would not be aware of that dominance specifically on the college campus. It would be exceedingly dishonest to suggest that the academic and intellectual elites of the American "university press" rejected a book disputing the pro-Palestinian & anti-Israel narrative due solely to their dispassionate analysis of the quality of the research. The idea is laughable, but to avoid the hypocrisy of asking you to just take my word for it, I could point you to the university press reply to Tauber citing the cause of their rejection as "harming...Palestinian interests." Should the arbiters of the world's biggest source of free and public knowledge be gatekeeping an expert's research not due to any dispute over its validity, but because one specialized group of likeminded Elites refuse to publish it for its potential political ramifications? If that is what Wikipedia deems the pursuit of knowledge and the seeking of truth, our teachers really were right when about this place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattydoogs (talk • contribs)

Have you read the book? It is a thoroughly researched and documented piece of historical research. And the author is a professor at a major Israeli university. So I don't think that line of attack will hold up. I suggest you engage with the points Tauber makes in the book rather than trying to discredit him. I would also suggest that the reason US university presses refused to publish the book had more to do with anti-Israel sentiment and dislike of the book's contents than its merits. Here is a review of the book: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/remember-deir-yassin Constant Pedant (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The lack of an academic publisher or any academic reviews is hugely relevant in establishing due weight with respect to real, scholarly sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Tabletmag...."The Toby Press was founded in 1999, with the purpose of publishing classical fiction and Contemporary Judaic and Israeli Classical Fiction." Indeed. Selfstudier (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I dont need to engage with anything, Tauber's view is a distinct minority one, and given that actual academic sources are nearly universally diametrically opposed to that view his non-academic work has substantially less weight. Tablet is also not an academic work, it is a popular magazine, one with a distinct bias with respect to Israel. Actual academic works that discuss Tauber's work are considerably less positive. See for example this article in the Journal of Israel Studies which notes numerous errors of fact in Tauber's analysis as well as undercutting the main premise of the supposed refutation: Radai, Itamar (2021-07-03). "The Palestinians in the 1948 War and recent historiography in Israel". Journal of Israeli History. 39 (2). Informa UK Limited: 301–324. doi:10.1080/13531042.2021.2075107. ISSN 1353-1042. Accordingly, Tauber rules out "the two-stage version of the event, which many cling to, according to which, after the battle had concluded and the Palmach had left, the Irgun and Lehi launched a full-scale massacre. It is clear that the majority of those who were killed in Deir Yassin were killed in battle and not in a deliberate massacre that was perpetrated afterward. Overall, when the battle concluded, the killing ceased."67 The author may be referring to a partial description which appeared in the 1970s in the History of the Haganah, which lends itself to this interpretation.68 However, later Israeli research did not claim that large-scale killing took place after the battle ended, as is also confirmed by the majority of the Palestinian testimonies, nor did the researchers allege that a preplanned massacre was perpetrated in Deir Yassin.69 Tauber effectively is arguing against a position nobody makes. Nobody is claiming, in this article or the mainstream sources, that there was a preplanned massacre. And he does this, again quoting from the same article, without even saying what would constitute a massacre.

Does defining the events that occurred in Deir Yassin or elsewhere as a “massacre” carry meaning that transcends semantics? In wartime noncombatants are often killed. What would be considered a massacre? In a review of Tauber’s book, Gadi Hitman writes, “The question of the massacre is by its nature a subjective matter in the eyes of the author (and the readers). The occupation with it in the book seems to lack a more comprehensive theoretical discussion of the definition of the term ‘massacre’ […] This historical question will likely remain open.” Hitman raises the possibility that the house-to-house fighting and blowing up homes with their occupants inside, as described by Tauber, can also arguably be termed “a massacre in every respect.”75 In fact, Tauber’s book is totally devoid of any theoretical discussion about what constitutes a massacre. Hillel Cohen addresses this issue in his book Year Zero, based on Jacques Semelin’s study. According to the latter’s definition, “a massacre is the murder of defenseless people in a distinct time and place, when the killers are not in danger.”76 However, open questions remain even according to this definition, and Cohen notes, pursuant to Semelin, that the question arises of the number of victims required for an act of killing to be considered a massacre (some set the minimum at ten or even fewer, according to Semelin); how immediate the danger to the attackers needs to be for the event not to be considered a massacre; and whether physical proximity must be present between the assailants and the victims.77 In the light of these questions, in the present case Tauber would have been better advised, and his comprehensive and detailed study would have benefited, if he had made do with his initial declared goal to do his best to describe the events “as they were,” and if he had endeavored to avoid being over-judgmental of the objects of his study and attempts “to shatter the myths” – which, as is known, have a life of their own.

nableezy - 21:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but none of this is to the point. The point is not whether Tauber or Millstein are right or wrong. The point is that the assertion that there was a massacre at Deir Yassin is not a settled historical fact, but is contested, and contested by reputable writers and not just by propagandists. This article needs to reflect that, and not assert as facts things which are contested. That should start with the title of the article, which prejudges the issue. In the opening section, this sentence in particular needs to be qualified: "A number of prisoners were executed, some after being paraded in West Jerusalem, where they were jeered, spat at, stoned, and eventually executed." Constant Pedant (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

It isnt though, it is disputed in a work that could, not for a lack of effort, not get a single reputable academic publisher to print. Some were executed after yes, not the majority as the supposed refuted claim is. Beyond that, the sourcing for the mainstream view is much stronger, given it is the mainstream view. And as such it is given much more consideration in our text. If academic works start to question it then sure, but that isnt what youve brought. nableezy - 00:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Fascinating. Somehow the user nableezy "forgot" to mention that Radai wrote in his review that the book "is undoubtedly the most comprehensive work written about this affair". One may also read the review lately published in the Middle East Quarterly,https://www.meforum.org/64218/review-the-massacre-that-never-was, where the reviewer wrote about the book that "the author appears to have perused virtually every primary and secondary source that addresses the events of that day", and that "Tauber has written the definitive account of the battle of Deir Yassin". So if it is important for some that the massacre myth continues that's their own business. But if Wikipedia wishes to bring an accurate article about the Deir Yassin AFFAIR, then the most important book ever written about it cannot be ignored. 147.235.214.11 (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

ME Forum is itself an unreliable source by consensus, so that review carries no weight. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to leave the article in its current situation where almost every fact in it is inaccurate according to Tauber's book. Mind you, most of the facts in Tauber's book are based on first-hand testimonies of Arab survivors from Deir Yassin, and always with an exact reference where these testimonies are available in order that anyone interested will be able to see them too. 2A06:C701:4802:C000:12:E484:F626:C1B1 (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Tauber’s book is his personal nonsense; no respectable academic press will touch it as it is the same quality as the Protocols of the elders of Zion. His “facts” are his opinions; something I have found common among Zionists who seek to deny the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. 65.92.155.74 (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand this. Tauber's findings ARE mentioned in the article (see note 78), but there they are only based on a newspaper interview with him. Now, that the entire book is available in English, either that the book is utilized for the article, or, if the book is unreliable, then note 78 and its related paragraph should be omitted. 2A06:C701:4836:400:1C8:A287:DB91:358A (talk) 07:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems we can never get truth in these histories —- no one wants to admit their side did anything wrong. But it is too often the situation is muddled and conflated into politics. At least Wikipedia tries, in spite of attempts to interrupt fact-finding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.192.29 (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

"So, was there indeed a massacre? In his forensic survey of events surrounding the battle, Eliezer Tauber goes some way to debunking many of the myths surrounding Deir Yassin. … Tauber has produced an important account of the battle, and one grounded in extensive use of the available documentary and oral evidence held in archives in Israel, Palestine, the UN, the United Kingdom and the United States." (Professor Clive Jones, Durham University) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00263206.2023.2243230 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A06:C701:480C:C900:796C:C675:4C59:C899 (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

You mean Clive Jones of fathom? Just another Zionist bigot trying to deny Zionist crimes. Sorry but the massacre was very real regardless of how Zionists try to deny it. 142.189.242.234 (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

For your information, Professor Clive Jones is an esteemed professor of Middle Eastern studies from a top British university. 2A06:C701:4835:8E00:B6:FE70:F31E:D83C (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

That’s nice; does not stop him from being biased. His review is sycophantic nonsense. 216.208.206.165 (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

"Tauber’s book is of immense importance for anyone who wants to understand the 1948 war and the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem. Even if it will not change the mind of those who choose to continue to deride the Deir Yassin battle as a massacre, it will be hard to ignore Tauber’s conclusion that Palestinian propaganda that was intended to entice the Arab states into intervening in the conflict became instead an essential factor that helped Israel win the war." "It is unlikely that any future scholar will be able to present a different picture of what happened." (Professor Elad Ben-Dror in a review just published in the scholarly journal Israel Affairs. 2A06:C701:4824:EA00:11BF:D8B6:41B7:5B93 (talk) 10:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Taylor and Francis is not RS. Keep trying! 69.159.57.53 (talk) 12:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

So, now there have been multiple esteemed historians arguing that Tauber's book is worthy of serious consideration. This does not mean everything he says is correct, but surely this is grounds for treating it as a countervailing point to the traditional narrative? I am trying to understand why it is not being included -- even a brief mention would be worth adding. Remthebathboi2 (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Only just saw that this discussion has been continued at the bottom.

After reading through these posts, I agree that the fact it was summarily rejected by many academic presses is warrant enough to not treat it as a valid source. The reviews of it are also too sparse imo. Remthebathboi2 (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-protected edit request on 12th October 2023

Is there any chance of us removing the citation to Tauber in the 'Number of Arabs killed' subsection?

There have already been discussions on this talk page in which it has seemed to have been agreed that he is not a credible source. Giving only a single sentence to what seems to be a credible source (and likely roughly accurate based off of other numbers I've seen) and almost an entire paragraph to someone with no academic review, a populist book title, and claimed facts that don't pass an initial sniff test (i.e. that any massacre was performed by a single rogue actor) feels a little unbalanced from my perspective. S eoJ (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems that Tauber's book is the most reliable source for the study of the Deir Yassin affair, as confirmed by Professor Clive Jones and many other academics, but people here refuse even to read it, not to say to use it, as it utterly destroys the accepted narrative. Unfortunately for an encyclopedia, politics has the upper hand. 2A06:C701:4835:8E00:B6:FE70:F31E:D83C (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

No academic press will touch Tauber’s book. Stop lying. 216.208.206.165 (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

"Stop lying bla bla"? For your information, Tauber's book is mainly based on testimonies of Arab survivors from Deir Yassin, most of which he got from archives in the Palestinian Authority. So evidently, you just try to prevent people from reading the book. A futile effort. It is already there on the shelves. 147.235.216.119 (talk) 10:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

So Tauber’s book is a reliable source? Can I see the peer reviews please? Sorry but Tauber’s work is nonsense no matter how many Zionist sites insist it has merit. 216.208.206.165 (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Tauber brings a complete list of all the people killed in Deir Yassin, with the exact circumstances how they were killed. So you can write a thousand times that the book is nonsense and ten thousand times that Tauber is a liar, but you battle against the book is lost. Everyone can read it and learn the truth. 2A06:C701:4824:EA00:1120:2890:A246:4881 (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Wow good for Tauber. Koren press (publisher) peddles fiction. Where are the peer reviews? Tauber’s work is not a reliable source. 216.209.170.244 (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

This is not how peer review works. They are typically anonymous, and privately relayed to the authors of a scholarly work before further revision and subsequent publication. So no, you can't see the peer reviews, because you can almost never see the peer reviews of any publication.

(Also, books are usually not peer reviewed as a whole.) Rvosa (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

One note to the editors of this article. The insistence not to use the most comprehensive work about Deir Yassin, which contains findings about every single aspect discussed in the article, makes the article on Deir Yassin in Wikipedia irrelevant and political.

My suggestion to you is at least to appoint someone on your behalf to read the book, and then you will be able to make your own conclusions. 2A06:C701:4824:EA00:1120:2890:A246:4881 (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Tauber’s book is his own personal nonsense. Stop trying to push it as a reliable source. 216.209.170.244 (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I am doing this because Wikipedia should be objective, and not influenced by people like you, who do their best to prevent other people from reading the truth. 2A06:C701:4824:EA00:D124:ECAF:8E3F:AF9D (talk) 06:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure you are. You are pushing non reliable sources as reliable. 216.209.170.244 (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2023

First line reads, “fighters from the Zionist paramilitary groups Irgun and Lehi killed at least 107 Palestinian Arab villagers“

The word killed should be replaced with massacred. Mbakir90 (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: This doesn't appear to be quite right. As detailed in the second paragraph, Some of the Palestinian Arab villagers were killed in the course of the battle, while others were massacred by the Jewish militias while trying to flee or surrender – the term massacre is correctly applied here to those trying to flee or surrender, but note it is correctly not used to refer to those killed in the course of the battle. As the "at least 107" figure represents the group as a whole, "massacred" would be inaccurate as a replacement. Tollens (talk) 10:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 October 2023

Grammar error: Change The Irgunists got one of the three Bren machine gun to The Irgunists got one of the three Bren machine guns Ttenraba (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Tollens (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

despite having earlier agreed to a peace pact...stiffer resistance than expected

at the top of the lede, these two sentences don't make sense together: "fighters from the Zionist paramilitary groups Irgun and Lehi killed at least 107 Palestinian[s]... in Deir Yassin, a village of roughly 600 people near Jerusalem, despite having earlier agreed to a peace pact. ... The village put up stiffer resistance than the Jewish militias had expected and they suffered casualties, but it fell after house-to-house fighting."

There's an implication that a peace pact was betrayed, but evidence given is that both sides broke the pact, or at least it's not clear what it says. If the lede is trying to say the truth is murky, success. 2603:8001:D3F0:87E0:0:0:0:10D0 (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Eliezer Tauber 2

Note: I didn't realize there was a discussion about this before, see: Talk:Deir_Yassin_massacre#Eliezer Tauber

Is Eliezer Tauber a reliable researcher on this topic or a propagandist? He wrote a book about the Deir Yassin massacre titled "The Massacre That Never Was". Can anyone confirm if the reference (Footnote 76) which supports the information about Tauber's research is a reliable source? It's in Hebrew so I can't assess it. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

You can also read it in English in the book you mentioned (available on Amazon). 2A06:C701:4804:FB00:5D55:609C:306D:1F66 (talk) 12:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

But is his book "The Massacre That Never Was" the source given in the reference on the page? Also, I suspect that book wouldn't qualify as a reliable source, not peer-reviewed or anything like that. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

It was peer-reviewed dozens of times, mainly in academic journals. Both the English and the Hebrew versions of the book. Of course, if one wants to prevent readers from reading it, in order to conceal the truth, then he writes that the book is not RS.

But then, the battle to prevent readers from reading the book is already lost. Everyone can read it and learn the truth for himself, even if some users here are doing their best to prevent Wikipedia from being a reliable source as far as this article is concerned. 2A06:C701:4804:FB00:5D55:609C:306D:1F66 (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Source for the claim that it was peer-reviewed? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Just read above a few examples. 2A06:C701:4804:FB00:5D55:609C:306D:1F66 (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? From what I can tell the book has been published by Toby Press and Koren Publishers Jerusalem, neither of which are academic or peer-reviewed. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

You can read many reviews in academic journals, some of which are mentioned in the former section titled "Eliezer Tauber", above. Furthermore, if you look into the book you will be able to discern that while Toby Press was the imprint of the book, it is actually a publication of the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa (ASMEA), which according to Wikipedia "is an American learned society, dedicated to promoting research and teaching in Middle Eastern and African studies, and related fields." 2A06:C701:4804:FB00:5D55:609C:306D:1F66 (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

So not actually a peer reviewed reliable source. Keep trying! 69.159.57.53 (talk) 19:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, a source for the claim that the book "The Massacre That Never Was" has been peer-reviewed has not been provided. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

You are both talking nonsense. What is peer-review? Peer-review occurs when a book is published by a scholarly organization. The reviewers are always anonymous, unless it is a book review in a learned journal. Evidently, you both don't know what you are talking about, but just keeping the futile struggle to prevent the readers from discovering the truth. 2A06:C701:4804:FB00:D1B9:76B6:6F73:AE21 (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

You dont know what you are talking about. ASMEA is not RS. It is a right wing think tank. Thanks for trying and also showing the desperation of Zionist trolls who wish to distort the historical record. Shall we start citing from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion next? 69.159.57.53 (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Tauber’s work is not RS. 69.159.57.53 (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Anon 2A06 above doesn't know the difference between peer-review and a review. Anyway, Tauber has plenty of publications in academic outlets but somehow, despite this reputation, failed to publish this book in one. There has to be a reason and in my opinion, having just read the book, it is rather obvious. Tauber brings forward a great amount of evidence, but somehow manages to not bring forward the evidence pointing the other way or dismisses it as propaganda. And his rhetoric is really strained. Here is Tauber arguing there was no massacre: "The closest story to the lining up of a family against the wall was the incident of the Zaydan family. When they came out of their house, an Etzel combatant standing nearby holding a Bren opened fire on them, killing eleven and injuring others.." And again "The results were especially severe for the Zahran family...after an exchange of fire, Lehi's combatants threw hand grenades into the complex and burst in firing on full automatic. More than twenty members of the family were killed.." Apparently not a massacre, though. Tauber acknowledges that only the village residents were present, and that the "exchange of fire" consisted entirely of villagers defending their village against attack by two terrorist groups (though of course he doesn't call them that). I don't think this book should be in the article, but if it is then quotations from it like those I brought here must be included. Zero^talk 13:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

since he's already there, I tweaked the article, and added the bit about the looting motive. At this particular moment, his misreading of the meaning of 'massacre' stands out. Terrorists attack a peaceful village, which defends itself and 101 people died. That ring a bell? Hamas attacked Kfar Aza, Of 52 believed killed so far, 41 residents have been identified, and 12 of them had a military function and could be said to have been killed while defending the kibbutz. Using Tauber's logic, any evidence emerging of any of the 52 killed dying in combat, or in self-defense, absolves Hamas of accusations of a massacre. That is how farcical Tauber's POV is. Nishidani (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the improvements to the page. However in my opinion, the content of "The Massacre That Never Was" should not be included in the article. As per Wikipedia:DUE: "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." Also there is a very real possibility that this work is promoting historical revisionism and Nakba denial, which should not be taken lightly. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Tauber's book appears to be similar to some work by David Irving. Meticulous details welded to profound cognitive flaws, POV-driven, that systematically distort the interpretation of the extensive evidence mustered. Empirical research runs from evidence to hypothesis: ideological research starts with a 'big picture' assumption, and trawls and interprets the details to isolate and showcase whatever consolidates the big picture premise (here: it was morally impellent to establish a state for Jews by creating conditions that would utterly uproot, economically dispossess and disinherit the indigenous population)

It is incorrect, as asserted above that no positive peer-review assessment of his book exists. Yoav Gelber, 'Three Case Studies of the War in Palestine in 1948,' Tel Aviv Review of Books Winter 2019.

Nakba denial is an official Israel view, perhaps the majority or default view of a majority of Israelis, if one can speak of that rather than a diffuse sense that whatever happen(ed)s to the other side is just negligible, not relevant to our (hi)story. The problem with Tauber is that (a) one peer review doesn't make it RS on the basis of the proverb that one swallow sighted doesn't make a spring (una rondine non fa primavera). (b) were it accepted as RS, the whole article in every detail would have to be rewritten to annotate it point by point with his interpretation, meaning WP:UNDUE, by turning a so-far marginal interpretation into the default authority. (c) Therefore the only intelligent approach is to eventually accept its use in terms of how it is cited in the peer-review scholarship in the future, i.e., via secondary sources.

I think the majority view here is that it is not at present usable. If my additions are reverted, I have no problem with that. But I'm not unnerved by arguments that challenge deep-standing views: to the contrary.Nishidani (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nishidani there's a not so subtle distinction over there; deir yassin combatants initiated fire on forces that had apparently intended only to occupy - and gave away the element of surprise with a loudspeaker, whereas kfar aza "combatants" presumably would've been returning fire after the onslaught of the attack had already been initiated on the part of Hamas.... MoshiachNow (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

sorry that was supposed to be a reply to your previous post. I'm new here... MoshiachNow (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

LOL

sorry but the Jewish militias (terrorists) attacked a peaceful village that defended itself. The village did not initiate the fight; the foreign Jewish terrorists did. 70.55.18.241 (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)