Talk:1929 Hebron massacre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Religion Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page.

	1929 Hebron massacre is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

This article has been the subject of prolonged and sterile revert-warring. Edit warring is unacceptable even if none of the editors violates the letter of the 3RR rule, and protection prevents all editors from improving the article. (If editors return to edit warring after an article is unprotected, the community has not forfeited the right to improve the article; rather, the editors have forfeited the right to edit. For the next month, ending May 15, I will enforce a limit of one revert per person per day. (Blatant vandalism is excepted, of course, but calling content edits that may have been made in good faith, "vandalism," is not acceptable.) Please discuss controversial changes on the talk page first, rather than editing and reverting and eventually discussing. Thank you. Thatcher131 00:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Archives

Beginning-March 2007Archive 2

[edit] Restatement

Restatement: Sometime ago I asked for source on the category "Islam and antisemitism". No sources were provided, though there was extensive discussion on the topic (and other topics).Bless sins (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Above user Bless sins consistent removes/edits articles related to islam and anti-semitism. Check his talk page to see criticisms, but note that you must check his talk page history as he consistently removes queries about justification for his edits (against wikipedia guidelines on Talk pages). TIf this comment is deleted by him (as other comments on this talk page have been), please reinstate asap). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.171.110 (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What source do you need. When there is a massacre as part of anti-Jewish riots how do you call that ? Zeq (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link with Islam underlined by a scholar :

Benny Morris, 1948, 2008, p.12.

Referring the events of 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1936-39, he writes : "(...) Violence did not emerge only from "modern" nationalist passions; it also drew on powerful religious wellsprings. Nothing, it seemed, could mobilize the Palestinian Arab masses for action more readily than Muslim religious rhetoric and symbols. It was no coincidence that the April 1920 outbreak was triggered by religious festivities or that the far larger outbreak of 1929, (...) was prompted by accusations that the Jews intended to take over the Haram al-Sharif (...), destroy its two sacred mosques, and rebuild the Solomonic temple at the site."

He also underlines that among the "130 Jews murdered", there were "sixty-six ultra-Orthodox, non-Zionist yeshiva students massacred by their neighbors in Hebron".

Rgds, Ceedjee (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Note 66, which is in contrast with 67 in the text, about which Jaakobou is so insistent. That in a country where there was no grounded inter-group national ethos, but only clan-based affiliations, it is only natural (as in European history in the early modern history) that national identity would form around the one common ideological denominator, which was a religious creed (with which, however, very few fellahin had much understanding, their religion being local shrine cults of a semi-pagan character according to the Islamic orthodoxies). Therefore this harping on some intrinsic 'Islamic' hostility to Palestinian nationalism is rather tendentious. In the Great Revolt of 36-39, al-watani (the nation) was the rallying cry against tribal fractionalism (Ted swedenberg9 and had a double valency, the '(Palestinian) nation', and 'the Arab nation', the latter with its great historical sense of an international identity. The attempt to link occasionally fierce opposition to what Palestinians saw as the loss of their native home to intruders to the nature of Islam (intolerant), is as absurd as an attempt would be to link Zionism's roots intrinsically to the theology of such rabbis as Kook, the senior Ashkenazi authority down to 1935, which was racist reinterpretation of the Bible that justified the return to the land as a fulfilling of a covenant that included annihilating local inferior species. Kook is the mirror of Al-Husseini, and what is said of one could equally be said of another, with one difference: Husseini's world was eclipsed by the events of 1948, Kook's took wing after 1967. When a people knows it is to be dispossessed it will latch onto any doctrine at hand to justify what is, however, not a religious matter, but a defence of native territory and rights. If anything, as many observers note (Robert Fisk), Islam has been (beyond the rhetoric) historically extraordinary patient with the overwhelming and violent intrusiveness of outsiders on an area that, for over a millenium, formed part of its domain. Nishidani (talk) 08:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Nishadani, can you explain what you want to say in simpler words ? Tnx. Zeq (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani's response is long, but not difficult to understand. Is there any specific part that you don't understand?Bless sins (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Since when is Benny Morris, a controversial historian, a reliable source on Islam? His opinions are controversial on the topic of Israel alone, and now you want to him as a source on Islam? Also he mentions "Muslim religious rhetoric and symbols". But he never relates that to the Qur'an or the sunnah, the only two universally accepted sources of Islam.Bless sins (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that Benny Morris is not an Ulema.

I think "Muslim religious rhetoric" refers to sentences such as this : "The law of Muhammad is being implemented by the sword" that was shouted during 1920 riots.

Tom Segev, in One Palestine, Complete, chap.14: Hebron, 1929, p.325 writes :

"The attack on the Jews of Hebron was born of fear and hatred. The Muslims believed the Jews intended to violate the sanctity of Islam, and that the Zionists wanted to dispossess them of their country. According to the American consulate, the Jews were also murdered for economic reasons, as merchants and as moneylenders. The Arabs hated them as foreigners -most had come from Europe and America. And a few probably attacked Jews out of some appetite for murder, without any clearly defined reason. (...)".

Ceedjee (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly please see my comment below. You need a source that connects Islam and antisemitism. Secondly, the above quote suggests that the perpetrators wanted to protect Islam, not that Islam called for such behavior. Again I refer you back to two universal sources of Islam: the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Is something is related to Islam, then it will be based on these two sources.Bless sins (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note: If you are going to place the "Islam and antisemitism" category, then you need to find a source that mentions both. If something is either unrelated to Islam, or antisemitism, then the category doesn't belong. Also, so as not to violate WP:SYNTH, a reliable source must make the connection between Islam and antisemitism (and the topic of the article), not individual wikipedians.Bless sins (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't need anything.

I don't care you Jihad : I am a wikipedia's editor :-)

Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The massacure was preformed by muslims, therefore it relates to islam. It is not that complicated. Yahel Guhan 20:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

And by that logic all killings by Jews would relate to Judaism? I don't think so! --Ian Pitchford (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Judaism related controversies are in the Judaism category, so sure, that connection is made. Yahel Guhan 20:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Killing of Jews is not always antisemitism. And Killing by Jews is not always linked to Judaism. It depends on the motivations. Here, historians (and not only Morris and Segev) argue that the motivation was a hatred of Jews and a fear for Islam's interests AND the nationalist context in Palestine.

If somebody is shocked by that, the only solution is to put forward other historians analysis explaining the links with Islam symbols is not pertinent.

Ceedjee (talk) 06:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"The massacure was preformed by muslims, therefore it relates to islam." No ti doesn't. If an atheist kills a Jew, it doesn't mean the action is related to the person's atheism. Or if an African-American kills a Jews, doesn't mean antisemitism is related to the African continent.Bless sins (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

All this is funny.

The fact to know whether there was a antisemitic trend in Islam beginning of 20th century is not particularly relevant for the article but it is widely accepted. Do you want more quotes from Tom Segev where he explains Palestinians were mostly antisemites (like British) ? [and let's not talk about europeans at that time].

So maybe it is time to forget political agenda and consequences on judgements people could have today.

Once again :

"Referring the events of 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1936-39, Benny Morris writes : "(...) Violence did not emerge only from "modern" nationalist passions; it also drew on powerful religious wellsprings. Nothing, it seemed, could mobilize the Palestinian Arab masses for action more readily than Muslim religious rhetoric and symbols. It was no coincidence that the April 1920 outbreak was triggered by religious festivities or that the far larger outbreak of 1929, (...) was prompted by accusations that the Jews intended to take over the Haram al-Sharif (...), destroy its two sacred mosques, and rebuild the Solomonic temple at the site."

He also underlines that among the "130 Jews murdered", there were "sixty-six ultra-Orthodox, non-Zionist yeshiva students massacred by their neighbors in Hebron".

He analysis is clear, simple and pertinent while all your comments concerning Benny Morris or so are out of context (and Bless sins is just a shameful hypercritical approach).

Additionnaly, I could argue on the events proving what Morris writes here is correct but it is not needed. He is a true scholar for this period and that's all that have to be said.

Hebron massacre was of course an antisemite act (and you should take care before starting arguing the contrary, because if we can understand they were antisemite at the time, it would be harder to understand anybody would try to justifiy or minimize such an event today !) and the people who performed these acts were motivated by (manipulated ?) religious arguments linked to their religion : Islam.

All this is quite banal in human history. Islam is not an exception. And the fight to "preserve" a philosophy or a religion as well as to tarnish this is not acceptable on wp:fr

So, stop your jihad. Ceedjee (talk) 06:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can say "Hebron massacre was of course an antisemitic act". Or are you saying that any action by Israel against the Palestinians must be an Islamophobic? I don't think there are many who would make that latter statement - despite it being much, much more defendable than the former statement!

While you're at it, can you explain why "JewsAgainstZionism" is being branded an "extremist, unreliable source". I'd have thought it was a far better source than many, and certainly doesn't display hatred against anyone. It's quite shocking to take out the statements of a survivor who claims the Zionists caused the massacre, whether we agree with him or not. PR^talk 13:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well. From my point of view, only antisemite or non-educated people could deny that this event is not also (or let's say partially) antisemite.

I don't see how somebody could argue any other way the murder of +130 people out of any context of war or urban violence, just because some of their ethnic fellows are accused of threatening a holy place.

So, decide yourself if you want to go on that way.

Concerning reliabiliby : are JewAgainstZionists academic/scholars or are they "normal" people who defend with virulence a point of view ? This should answer your question.

Concerning their alleged extremism, it seems they invest much time in defending their pov and also denying the shoah...

For wp, I think they can be considered non reliable even if their mind is -of course- notorious and so deserve a room in the article.

Ceedjee (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your my friend. Benny Morris and Tom Segev are not the only reliable sources. It is not Morris's period, nor Segev's either. Hillel Cohen's book, over which we exchanged notes this morning, shows there were significant sections of the Palestinian population quite happy to collaborate with Zionism. I will go to details if necessary. Many things in it lend vigorous witness to facts that challenge the notion that this can be defined as part of 'Arab antisemitism'. What those who, nowadays, parade the Arab = antisemitic rhetoric so freely are doing is rewriting history in terms of contemporary confusions and clichés, for instrumental ends. The creation of this myth, the reading of Arab/Palestinian resistance to their colonization and dispossession, as rooted in some age-old 'antisemitism' grievously misreads the great difference between Western antisemitism (its true breeding ground), traditionally vitriolic and chronically murderous, and Arab legislation, occasional outbreaks of pogroms, which can in no way bear comparison to what 'our' eurocentric world thought and did. Ibn Sa'ud roared at the Hebronites on hajj to Mecca in 1930 for the cruelty of this episode. We know that Hebron was predominantly under Nashashibi influence, the clan opposed to the Husaynis of Jerusalem who pushed the Islamic line of non-compromise (for political ends, to gain ascendency for themselves). Sheikh Musa Hadeib, from Duwaimah,just near Hebron, and leader of the local Muslim National Association (opposed to the highly anti-Zionist Muslim Christian Association) and also leader of the Hebron Hills farmers association, was murdered, perhaps by Husayni's men, two months after the Hebron Massacre (i.e. Oct.29) because he was well-disposed to Zionism, and supported by Zionists. Zionists fresh from Eastern Europe, where in the Ukraine alone 60,000 Jews had been massacred from 1917-1919, read every minor disturbance in the land they declared they would build their foreigners'(to the Arabs) homeland in, in the light of that Western experience, as Anita Shapira shows in her 1992 study. We know that the ethics of 'neighbourliness' (Huquq al-Jar, the law of neighbours)were very strong through Palestine. In the 1936 Uprising some Bedouins who had long resisted the idea of attacking Jewish settlements near them, actually moved themselves away, in order not to breach this law of not hurting neighbours, but hurting/killing those they had no such relationship with. We know that the Zionist records (and Segev remarks that 2/3rds of the Hebron community found refuge in their Arab neighbours' homes) name 435 Jews whose lives may have been saved due to Arab Hebronite acts, often simply of not informing the pogromers (Yes historians trim that down to about 300, we do not know the true figure). We know that there was movement from Jerusalem into Hebron by Arab inciters, and from outlying villages, not Hebron proper, behind the riot that led to the massacre. Segev (One Palestine, Complete', citing from memory) says few episodes in the history of Jewish persecution can offer a similar level of assistance by non-Jews to save Jews from a pogrom. There is nothing wrong intrinsically with Kaplan's testimony. He was there, he was an extremely pious conservative Jew who disliked Zionism, saying it upset the relative harmony of traditional Jewish-Arab relations. We know much irritation was caused in Hebron by immigrant Zionist youths, poor and in difficult economic straits, having difficulties in meeting their rents to Arab landlords, that the banker Slonim had to deal with these problems, that unlike the old Hebron mainly Sephardi community, fluent in Arabic, the newcomers from Eastern Europe and America could not communicate, created the usual tensions (walking into Arab houses without the customary care to see that women had time to repair to other rooms, as if they were lodging in Polish or Bronx digs, etc. also caused friction. Economic tensions, the knowledge that Zionist was intent on taking some part of what was land they thought promised to Arab suzereinty in the McMahon-Sherif correspondence, (1915), published statements in Doar Hayom, and foreign newspapers regarding 4 successive bids by Chaim Weizmann and others to buy the Wailing Wall, which they denied abroad or publicly, but pressed for, and perhaps the Temple Mount. The thick history is far more complex that the two works you cite allow (Segev I thnk gives the better account) and would take much time to document. I am writing off memory, since I have had to spend much time this afternoon visiting someone in hospital, and am rather to tired to check my files now. But, Ceedjee, I think you wrong, and that User:Bless Sins, User:Ian Pitchford and User:PR do have good reasons for opposing a generic label like 'antisemitism' on this. Antisemites do not bargain with Jews, asking them to hand over the Zionists in their ranks, saying the other Jews of long-standing in the town will be untouched if they do. Antisemites kill every Jew they can lay their hands on. And as Ibn Sa'ud drummed home to his Hebronite guests a year later, whoever did this did it in obscene violation of the rules and customary law of Islam regarding Jews.Nishidani (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani's argument for why the Hebron massacre is not a case of anti-Semitism largely relies on a false dichotomy: a group's actions can only be considered anti-Semitic if the group "kill[s] every Jew they can lay their hands on." This notion is, of course, false as there are other universally recognized acts of anti-Semitism (such as the Jewish ghettos in Europe) which were not necessarily violent in and of themselves. The Hebron massacre is a case of anti-Semitism and must be labeled so. --GHcool (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I support reinstating category too, due to it clearly being targetted at Jews (the yeshiva students were not zionist in nature, and it being a specific case of Islamic antisemitism due to being incited by islamic clerics 91.104.171.110 (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Ashirus

[edit] survivors testimonies

• [1] Ok. There are survivors (note events took place 80 years ago...) who explain that Zionist were targeted and not Jews. This is relevant given the main stream considers the contrary (so this is a controversy) but this is not far to be WP:PR if there is no 2nd source to point this out. This also a little bit WP:Undue. A few lines refering to all the testimonies would be enough. Ceedjee (talk) 06:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Zionists were initially targeted, and Slonim, with great dignity, turned down the deal, is already reported earlier on the page. (One actually suspects that the horror his household went through relates to pure banditry, not opposition to Zionism, a banditry using the riot as an excuse to ransack the local banker's home for gold or money. Just a personal view). I have quite a lot of material on this actually, but with all the niggling administrative snafus and fracas have never got round to using it, material dealing with the tensions or rivalries between teh two groups. One must remind oneself that, whatever those tensions, reflected strongly in Kaplan's evidence, they have little weight in an article dealing with a violent massacre in which all those who were slaughtered were innocent victims of fanatics, Zionism or no Zionism. The mob killed all Jewish people they could lay their hands on, indiscriminately. The section, PR, is far too long and needs a strong précis. The essence of an encyclopedic article (rarely observed on these I/P pages, should be proper detail, duly weighted for relevance, precision of description and economy of style and outlay. We need to begin addressing this.Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Kaplan's testimony about relatively peaceful relations before the Zionist immigration are also already recorded in note 3, sourced to the Jewish Virtual Library article, and could be conserved by adding his name there talk

Ceedjee. What is your opinion of 'The carnage had a deep impact on the Jewish community' in the lead? I've always thought it ugly. When I first read it I thought 'You kill 64-5 people and don't leave the survivors traumatized?'. It is so obvious that I fail to see why it is there. My principle with carnage, slaughters, pogroms is that of Raul Hilberg and classical historians. It is more effective to be precise, sparse in language, if one is to bring home with effect the nature of violence. There is no need to egg the pud.?Nishidani (talk) 06:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nishidani,

It is a hard question because it refers to a human drama...

I don't feel at ease.

I think what you write is perfectly correct. Such events always leave deep impact on a community.

If we try to take distances with the events, I would say :

• are there(several) secondary WP:RS that point out this massacre was a particular one and that it left a deep impact on the Jewish community ?

Please, note one important thing. I think here it refers less to the survivors (nobody care about them, as well as the victims... ! :-( ) but rather to the whole jewish community

Concerning the '20 and '21riots, Tom Segev eg points out that Zionists were shocked also (not only but also !) because in a way it proved that even in Palestine, they were not secured, which in some way could harm the Zionist project.

My suggestion would be to remove the sentence from the lead (per your argumentation) and only add it back (in the core of the article) if somebody can find secondary wp:rs where it is argued these events had particular consequences (in comparison with such other events).

A typical exemple is Deir Yassin massacre. Many historians argue it was a banal one from the number of victims and even attrocity point of view (this is what they say, not me !) BUT it is extremelly important to explain the impact of Deir Yassin on Palestinians (of that time but also of today ! - with 2nd wp:rs) and also on the jewish and the international community.

I hope my comments were not too cold. I don't mean to banalize any tragedy.

Ceedjee (talk) 06:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, CJ that is a very sensible and sensitive reflection, not at all 'cold'. That particular massacre did have a very large impact on Jewish communit(ies) worldwide. Perhaps, probing my lingustic and conceptual prejudices, I dislike the word 'community' I find everywhere (when I heard it in English in my homeland in the 80s, as it was beginning to replace the word 'society', I turned up my nose, and still never use it, though my brother and sister do) as slightly nuanced to a myth of seamless consensus. I took it here as alluding also to the present 'community', being in the singular. It actually shocked more than the Jewish communities worldwide. Gentiles were no less shocked at the ominous signs of incipient mayhem, to gather from contemporary accounts. I think one could write, taking your suggestion as the model:-

This massacre, together with that of Safed, sent shock waves through Jewish communities in Palestine and across the world.

The shock was twofold of course. One over the obscene barbarity characteristic of this massacre, and geostrategic, an awakened awareness of the risks and costs that would be born in expanding the Zionist project. I vaguely recall it being discussed as it hit hard home on a Jewish community in America, in Chaim Potok's novel The Chosen.I agree with you and Segev here. I've no particular 'animus' against the phrase other than regarding tone and style, and won't touch it, until it's been well discussed. One shouldn't run in like a bull in a China shop on these articles. I still do lament the fact that it is poorly written.

p.s. Did you know that Ibn Sa'ud, when Hebronite notables made the hajj to Mecca in 1930, hauled them all over the coals, and gave them a roasting saying their behaviour to the Jews had been unspeakably atrocious, in violation of all norms, and more or less an insult to the Prophet? This harsh remonstration in part explains (other reasons were economic and natural shame about the violation of a deep code over the obligations of neighborliness)why in 1931 H.A.Cohen found several notables willing to assist a Jewish return to the town, which in fact did take place, lasting all too briefly.Nishidani (talk) 07:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You've removed it on the grounds that it is not sourced, which is fair enough. But I don't know how often I have read that it did have a deep impact. I think I can find sources for it. I have restored the text in the form you suggested, as I haver rewritten it. After all, it did have a major impact and warrants mention in the lead. Hope you agree.Nishidani (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

no worry.

I think such porcelan articles should be modified with high care indeed.

But also they should be re-written.

A solution is to discuss the structure, then to discuss what to put in each section of the structure, then to fill these sections. 100% with secondary wp:rs...

Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You have an excellent record for defining structures, indeed a reputation for this in I/P Wiki circles. Without haste, then, perhaps you could eventually create one for this article as well. Everything of course according to wp:rs, you will certainly find no objections to that principle from me. Best Nishidani (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)