Talk:Kafr Qasim massacre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israel Portal
Kafr Qasim massacre is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Kafr Qasim 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.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-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 is not an article about the village. It's mostly about the massacre which is part of the village history.
I think that this article should be edited, so that most of it will be a paragraph about the history.
What about adding some facts and info about the current village situation ?? ^^ Dod1 10:23, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Translated from the talk page for the corresponding Hebrew entry:

The casualty numbers are different from those that appear in the English entry. What is the data source? 217.132.33.12 10:57, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Indeed, different sources give different numbers of casualties, and this problem bothered me when writing the entry. In Meir Vilner's article, which appears under External Links, the number of fatalities that appears is 49, and I suppose this is the source of that number in the English Wiki. In written sources that were at my disposal I've found the number 43 fatalities. On the Snunit website I've found information that bridges the gap between the two numbers, based on the verdict on the matter, which I regard as the most credible source. It turns out that in addition to the Kafr Qasim massacre, which is a specific event in which 43 were killed, there were other events at the village, in which another four fatalities occurred, also in the first hour of curfew. The other fatalities are not of smaller significance, but they are not part of the Kafr Qasim massacre, and they were not the subject of the Kafr Qasim trial. As the verdict explicitly says "those four victims were included in the indictment by mistake and the prosecutor asked, as mentioned in paragraph 1 above, to acquit the defendants of the charge of murdering them". Therefore I have chosen to mention the number 43 fatalities, which is also a terrible number. Apparently Meir Vilner decided not to distinguish between the different fatalities and chose the number 49 (I don't know who the additional two fatalities that Vilner counted are). David Shay 12:00, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I saw that I'd actually mentioned in the body of the article all the numbers, in the sentence "The soldiers of on of the battalion's teams, under the command of Lt. Dahan, shot to death, in cold blood, 43 of the village's residents, including 12 women and 17 children and youths. The commanders of four other teams that acted in the village refrained from such extreme action, but within an hour of the beginning of curfew, another four (or six) residents were killed". David Shay 12:04, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

217.132.33.12 12:53, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


This article is written in a confusing matter and from a POV perspective. It needs a rewrite.

Guy Montag 01:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] POV

Would you give us a hint why you totally dispute this article's neutrality and factual accuracy?--Doron 02:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd be happy too. I need a little time to write a comprehensive argument.

Guy Montag 02:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually the article is quite accurate and balanced. --Zero 16:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree.

Guy Montag 21:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I put it all in the right order and I noted my commentary on the subject inside the article and where sources should be cited. The problem with this article is that it is based on specific texts that not everyone has access too. So The sources could be biased, the wording could be biased, something could have been withheld. There is no way to check this, and I've assumed mostly good faith, although the wording has led me to doubt it.

Guy Montag 21:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It already was in the right order - chronological. The claim that he said these things then is what's of interest, not the fact that he was quoted later. - Mustafaa 21:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"There is no way to check this" - actually, for $12.00 you can check it online. http://journals.cambridge.org/bin/bladerunner?REQUNIQ=1118439845&REQSESS=14662550&117000REQEVENT=&REQINT1=169256&REQAUTH=0 . - Mustafaa 21:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When I was reading the article I believed that there were alot of contextual gaps. First it was talking about the Jordanians going to war, then it starts quoting the commanders. I think that part should be filled with contextual information, and everything that was court related to be during the trial.

Guy Montag 21:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You ask "What was the motivation for the cerfew?" Well, "it was expected that Jordan would enter the conflict on Egypt's side" and it was imposed "upon all Arab villages in the area close to the Jordanian border". Aren't those two statements sufficient to clarify the reason? - Mustafaa 21:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You ask "Why is none of thus sourced properly?" I can only disagree. I much prefer an article sourced from books than from webpages; books tend to be better-researched, less POV, and more reliable. - Mustafaa 21:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not doubt that. The problem is that although I so very much want to assume good faith, I have to be a little suspicious when dealing with the Arab Israeli conflict. I value other people's pov, but something I cannot verify becomes an elitist edit that only few individuals with access can verify. There were also times when people used book names and pages that did not fit with the information provided, most notably the Revisionist Zionism article, which I had to painstakingly fix through proper book references. In theory, I love book sources, in practice I fear misuse. I have no doubt that the events happened, I just want readers to have the whole picture. I am interested too as I am only finding information from one sided sources.

Guy Montag 00:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You ask "Where is the information after this, why the sudden random break?" This I agree with; I think the reason is that it happened the same day, but the article needs to make that clear. - Mustafaa 21:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would be happy to cooperate with you in fixing this information.

Guy Montag 00:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So far you have not identified a single problem with this article. The only problem you really have is that it shows Israel in a bad light. Tough. --Zero 00:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have identified problems with this article and Mustafaa has agreed with me. Why dont you contribute something to the talk page other than your overt hostility? I showed what is wrong, if you don't want to add material to fix the article, don't respond with pointless tangents. Unless you didn't know, all the information on the net about this article comes from socialist/Islamist sources, and duplicated wikipedia pages. Unless accounts from the other side are provided, it will remain an incomplete article.

Guy Montag 08:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

I've made substantial contextual and accuracy changes to the article. I've removed a quote wrongfully attributed to Malinki (some philosopher made it), fixed the amount killed, added background about the military administration from 1948-1966 (very important, I can't believe it was left out), fixed sentence structure and npoved the wording. I've also added some more aftermath information, and added notes on things that still need to be looked at. Although it is not fully done, I think the changes I made have substantially improved the quality of the article to the point where individual changes can be made. I await commentary on the edit. At least now we know where to go from.

Guy Montag 12:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am out of time today. Many of your deletions are going back. The story of the "grush" is not from a US newspaper, but very famous. Every Israeli who is old enough remembers it. You can find it on page 411 of Robinson's article (congratulations for actually reading something; the link you gave doesn't work for people who didn't pay, though). The story of the cordon around the village is also from Robinson and is also going back. --Zero 15:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The link is a free copy I found. I've reinserted the Robinson cited quotes. In the future, watch your tone, I don't appreciate condescending attitude from you when I have done nothing other than cooperate.

Guy Montag 22:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Was Judge Halevy's insistance on disobeying illegal orders a clarification on the already established "Purity of Arms" military doctrine, or was it an addition to it?

Guy Montag 01:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There was no such doctrine in a strict legal sense. The principle that manifestly illegal orders had to be disobeyed had already entered Israeli jurisprudence via the Eichmann trial, which in turn relied on the customary international law established at Nuremburg. The Kafr Qasim case was the first of significance which tested its applicability to Israeli military personnel. Whether it was an innovation or a clarification is a matter of opinion. Incidentally the newer sources I have found show that the chronology of the trials in the article is a bit confused. I'll fix it. --Zero 12:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Um, not exactly. The Kafr Qasim trial preceded the Eichmann trial and was used as a precedent in the latter. Nuremberg precedents were cited in both trials. --Zero 13:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article finished?

So, what else needs work in this article? It looks pretty good to me.

Guy Montag 00:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "timeline" section is not well written and I plan to revise it a little after I finish reading the court judgment. The enigmatic link "Operation Hafarferet" near the end needs to be replaced by a sentence or two since I don't think there is enough material for a full article on that. Otherwise I agree it is finished. Incidentally the link [1] still gives me "Sorry, your right to access this content has not been recognized."; does it really work for you? --Zero 00:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the article works fine, perhaps it is your connection. If you are still having a problem, I suggest a public library computer, or I can save the document and e-mail it to you. Also, could you please eleborate about the "nine seperate instances"? Because now it reads awkwardly. Hmm, I haven't heard of an english version for that operation, and the previous article was originally in Hebrew.

Guy Montag 03:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have the paper already because my computer at work has a subscription. I get the failure from my home ISP. I suspect you are doing it from your university and that is why it works for you. --Zero 09:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As for the nine separate incidents: the villagers were killed in nine groups over a period of more than an hour, not all in the same place and not always by the same killers. There were from 2 to 17 deaths in each group. I'll try to clarify it; meanwhile I found another mistake. --Zero 09:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The basic information about "Operation Hafarferet" is given by Bilsky on p321 and by Robinson on p418. Not much is available in English as far as I know. --Zero 09:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Numbers problem again. This says [[2]] 47 died. Arab sources say 49. What do we put?

Guy Montag 06:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You will find 43, 47, 48 and 49 stated as the number of victims. Here is the explanation. There were 47 people shot dead by the BP soldiers. One old man died of a shock-induced stroke; that makes 48. One woman had an unborn child; that makes the 49 whose names are inscribed on the memorial. The soldiers were charged with the 47 shooting deaths, but during the first trial the court could not determine the identities of the perpetrators in 4 cases (it wasn't the same shooters each time) so 4 charges of murder were withdrawn. That's where 43 comes from. Dahan was convicted of all 43. --Zero 09:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why did you change 4:30 to 3:30? Robinson clearly says 4:30. --Zero 09:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This says 3:30. It also says 47 people died. How do we solve this? It would be very illogical if 350 some people were able to return from as far as Ramle and Jaffa in 30 minutes. Obviously either Robinson got the time wrong or David Shipler has it wrong.

Guy Montag 09:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are misreading. Your source says the BP soldiers were told at 3:30. Robinson says the Mukhta was told at 4:30. Those are completely consistent. As for the "illogic", not all of the village was absent at 4:30 and some were warned in time. A few were not killed even though they arrived at the dangerous time, and some did not arrive until after the killing was stopped some time before 7pm. Also (during the server failure for the past 10 mins) I found that there is an memo mentioned in the trial judgment which records Malinki's order to announce the curfew at 4:30pm. --Zero 10:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's remove that tag! Any remaining problems must be very minor. --Zero 10:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Roger that.

Guy Montag 16:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well done Guy & Zero! An excellent example of the wiki cooperation spirit!
Since so much effort has gone into the existing format, I would like to post additional data from the Hebrew wiki here for review, before posting it on the main article page:
Malinki was commander of a BP battalion (not just one of its commanders as mentioned in the English version). He was also in charge of 11 other vilages in the area where no vilagers were shot, because of direct orders by local commanders to disobey Shadmi's and Malinki's orders and to not open fire. Among the platoons stationed in Kafr Qasim itself, only the one led by Lt. Dahan actually openned fire.
altmany 22:28, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that's true. The fact that other local commanders realised they had to disobey the order was cited by the court as one of the reasons for denying Dahan's claim that he had no choice. --Zero 23:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be noted in the article? Also, is it possible to translate this article to Hebrew? It improves on the original.

Guy Montag 00:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Death toll

  • According to (Benny Morris, "Israel's Border Wars, 1949-1956: Arab Infiltration, Israeli Retaliation and the Countdown to the Suez War"), the death toll was 47, including 15 women and 11 children aged 8-15. Do you have any idea why the discrepancy?
  • The above does not mention the stroke casualty. Did he die as a result of an injury inflicted by the shooters?--Doron 07:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Benny Morris's largish footnote must have been written on a bad day because it has lots of errors. For example it says that 11 people were convicted whereas 11 were tried and 8 convicted. He also attributes a saying to Malinki that in fact someone else said. So I wouldn't worry about it too much. The number 47 is clearly accounted for in the court judgement so it is solid. The old man died of a stroke shortly after the massacre, and I don't know if he was injured himself (more likely he was related to some of the victims like much of the village was). The village includes his death in the total, but the court didn't include it in the indictment. I think both points of view were reasonable. --Zero 07:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


The "Little Triangle" consists of the seven Arab communities of Jaljulye, Kafr Bara, Kafr Qasim, Qalansawe, Tayibe, Tire and Zemer. The "Triangle" in the north consists of twelve Arab communities.--Doron 07:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Infiltrators

See Zero's edit summary for 12.07 13 June: "Shadmi was IDF, not BP; most infiltration was not fedayeen; Arabs were citizens." Fedayeen were overwhelmingly Palestinians, while infiltrators were most often Palestinian villagers: this was not clearly expressed. I hope that explains it.

In any case, in relation to your remark that you basically wrote the page with someone else, articles in Wikipedia are not subject to the copyright of the people who wrote them, so if something is simply badly expressed it is not necessary to ask anyone's permission to change it on the talk page.

In addition, deleting words which change the meaning (or make the meaning harder to get at, as in this case) is not a minor edit and should not be marked as such. See Wikipedia:Minor_edit. Palmiro 17:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by Palestinian villegers? I wasn't expressing any copywritten right, I was noting that I have a very large understanding of the article.

Guy Montag 18:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, sorry I misunderstood you. Historically, many infiltrators were Palestinian villagers (also Bedouin, but I don't know that there were many of them in that area), either inhabitants of villages on the Jordanian side of the Green Line who owned lands on the other side, or refugees from villages on the other side. The reasons for infiltration included pasturing animals (particularly for the Bedouin), tending land and getting agricultural produce (most often in the earliest years after 1948), and smuggling, inter alia. My point is that the fedayeen were generally Palestinians as well, whereas if you say "Palestinians and fedayeen" it incorrectly leaves the impression that the fedayeen were of another nationality. Hope that's clearer. Palmiro 18:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Many fedayeen were of Egyptian and Syrian origin.

Guy Montag 03:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Black Flag Defense

I have attempted to edit this article, with the statement and cite "However, 50 years have passed since the Kafr Qasim massacre, and the "Black Flag Defense" has failed to protect any IDF serviceman from conviction for "refusing to obey orders" eg [3]".

The statement I added has been summararily deleted, with no attempt at any form of explanation or discussion. The words quoted come from Israeli servicemen - they cannot possible be unacceptably Palestinian POV. (and it's very unlikely that they're unreliable - though I'd struggle to prove a negative).

I have no intention of stooping to edit-war, but I think these words should go back. PalestineRemembered 20:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the statement is nowhere to be seen in the site you linked to. In fact, there have been countless times where soldiers were not judged for refusing an illegal order. These times are so common that they are in no way notable and are not documented, except in borderline cases where there are those who claim that the order is legal (like in the case of those 26 pilots who refused to bomb Palestinian areas). If the order was proven legal by the military court, which operates on the same basis as a civilian court, then obviously the soldier refusing the order would be judged. There are tons of legal orders which pro-Palestinians consider illegal, but the IDF military court, rightfully, doesn't care about what they think, and follows military law which gives a generally clear distinction between 'legal', 'illegal' and 'clearly illegal' orders. Having said all that, it was not me who deleted the statement, but I agree with the person who did it. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 04:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I found that statement immediately on the same link I've given you [4].
And you've failed to address the point at issue - the "Black Flag Defense" (at least according to this web-site, and it does come from people who would know) has never been accepted by an Israeli court.
Since the "Black Flag Defense" came about as a direct consequence of this massacre, some serious discussion of it must belong on this page. Under the circumstances, a single sentence appears to cover it completely, which makes the lead an entirely proper place to put it. The strange part is that you and others seem to consider it some form of POV edit - yet the only objection I can see is that it undermines militarism. I fail to understand why people are taking it out without addressing the issue of "illegal orders" and what it means in court. PalestineRemembered 21:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I note that my attempt to bring this feature into the article has again been reverted, and with no attempt at discussion or consensus.

I'm not interested in an edit-war over this edit or any other - but I have to wonder about the intentions of editors who make no attempt to come to a consensus or use the Talk pages.

PalestineRemembered 21:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This "feature" is OR. It's high time you read and familiarize yourself with that important WP policy. Isarig 21:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm still a newby - but I'm slowly losing my shyness. What I posted could be borderline WP:RS, but it's clearly not WP:OR.
In fact, what I posted is really quite good information - and if anyone felt it should be proved false, then it would be very easy indeed to do so. After all, proving a positive is always simple, it's me, in the position of proving a negative who is on the back foot. You've had several opportunities to disprove it now, it's time to put up or shutup.
You'll be pleased to know that I've checke the words of [[WP:OR], it says the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say. Which is what I'm doing, my source (at least in this respect) is very WP:RS indeed. I'm less than convinced that others are as careful.
As I've said before, I'm not interested in an edit-war, good information belongs in the encyclopedia. It's difficult to understand the motivation of people who persistently take it out. I note you've ignored my challenge to provide a single contrary example.
PalestineRemembered 22:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
What you posted is clearly OR. In fact, it is exactly what is described in the very first paragraph of WP:OR: (My emphasis) "Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position ". This article is about the Massacre. It is relevant to mention the "Black Flag defense" in that context, because as noted, this is an important legal concept, and this is the first time it was referenced in Israeli legal proceedings. However, the claim that this defense has never been successfully used thereafter is an argument, not published by a WP:RS, and you are using it to advance a position. It is textbook OR. Please cease your attempts to add POV-pushing OR to the encyclopedia. Isarig 22:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Then you've abandoned the objection you were making earlier, that the source wasn't WP:RS.
On the grounds of WP:OR it's bullet-proof, the edit I've been trying to make is based on the following statement: `Black Flag' is an allusion to a famous Israeli court ruling following the 1956 Kafr Qasm massacre. In this ruling, the judges said that any soldier has the right and obligation to refuse clearly illegal commands, above which `hangs a black flag'. In the 45 years that passed since then, not even a single soldier was protected by a military court for refusing to obey a command because it was a `black flag' command at [5]
Just to repeat myself, the source is potentially wobbly, being of a "campaigning" nature. However, there's no real dispute possible with the factual basis of the claim, which tends to undermine the "campaign" message of the site. (Unless something has changed in the meantime, since it's now 50 years since the massacre - I'm sure you'd correct me if with evidence if I was factually wrong).
Can I take it you'll have no further objection to my using this reference and putting it in?
PalestineRemembered 00:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
You need to read more carefully:" "Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source." What you posted is OR, and published in a non WP:RS. The first part of your edit, which reads "`Black Flag' is an allusion to a famous Israeli court ruling following the 1956 Kafr Qasm massacre. In this ruling, the judges said that any soldier has the right and obligation to refuse clearly illegal commands, above which `hangs a black flag."- is fine. It is not OR, and it is relevant to this article. The second part, which reads "In the 45 years that passed since then, not even a single soldier was protected by a military court for refusing to obey a command because it was a `black flag' command" is an argument being used to advance a position which is not germane to this article , and comes from a non-WP:RS. This is exactly the kind of POV-pushing edit that WP:NOR was written to prevent. Isarig 01:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that this insertion is original research, but I have to say that I don't like it much and would not personally put it in the article. The reliability of the source for this information is dubious because it doesn't relate directly to the subject on which the source is expert (the opinions and fortunes of the refusers-to-serve). But mainly I dislike it because it is incomplete and potentially misleading. The most literal interprettation would be "no soldier has been charged for disobeying an order and then successfully used the black flag defence". Maybe that is true, I don't know. But that is not the most likely way a soldier would be defended by the principle. In a case so blatant that the black flag defence would be likely to succeed, the soldier would probably not be charged. The military would prefer such cases to disappear from public exposure as soon as possible, not to give them the publicity of a court case that might even lead to an embarrassing failure. --Zerotalk 14:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Difficult to understand the removing the highly credible claims of Israeli servicement

Israeli servicemen who've refused orders from their government claim that the "Black Flag Defense" has never succeeded in acquitting anyone.
While the means of publishing this statement (a campaigning web-site) would normally be considered a little on the suspect side, in this case it amounts to excellent WP:RS.
Anyone removing this statement has it easy, all they have to do is provide a case where the "Black Flag" defense has been acceptable when a soldier has been prosecuted. (We can ignore the time I was sent to a Wikipedia Hebrew reference that I'm pretty sure said nothing of the kind).
4 times I've asked for proof of what what's been claimed ..... which was: "There have been ma[n]y cases since 1956 in which soldiers have claimed "patently illegal orders" and were acquitted" and "Soldiers have succ[e]sssfully used this defense on charges of, for ex[a]maple, refusing to throw away fresh produce".
I appreciate the care with which some editors write in the Wikipedia and the thoughtful way they discuss postings before carrying out unilateral action that could otherwise easily be mistaken for vandalism.
(This editor is determined not to enter into edit-wars. He would appreciate similar consideration before people unilaterally remove his edits, particularily when it is other completely independent editors who put them back in, apparently considering them worthwhile).
PalestineRemembered 21:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Why should we ignore the referne given to you, from the Hebrew wiki, which not only provides the needed reference, but also directly addresses the claim from your source, and refutes it? Isarig
Because this is the English Wikipedia. References such as yours can be used, but what I've been told about the article in the Hebrew Wiki does not refute the claim of the servicemen.
The article (of which you've not provided a translation, and mysteriously managed to send me to the wrong place) only quotes Israeli court members as having stated that "the Black Flag Defense" would have worked in certain minor cases (eg misuse of army vehicles). It does not state that a single serviceman has ever successfully used this defense for anything.
I'm putting the claim back in, without any reference, since it clearly doesn't need one. It's a fact so well known that written confirmation in a 100% WP:RS source has so far eluded me.
PalestineRemembered 10:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Even you say that this is a claim, not a fact (which makes it OR by default). In fact, military tribunals are not held in public and there are close to 400 people awaiting judgement at any given time, bringing the total to thousands each year, and tens of thousands since the Kafr Qasim massacre. Even without evidence for either argument, the likelihood that no one has ever been acquitted with this defense is minute. It is not easy (might be impossible since this information isn't public) to check this for sure, but so far you have not provided a single reliable source (which would basically be just the IDF, since they are the only ones who can know for sure whether at least one of the thousands of people were acquitted), or in fact any source, to back up your claim. Therefore, please stop re-inserting original research. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 16:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename article

Suggest renaming to something more neutral like "Qasim incident" or "Qasim raid" Rune X2 14:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Negative. Even the Israeli courts called it a massacre and anyway this is its most common English name. --Zerotalk 14:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)