This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1950–1951 Baghdad bombings article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Iraqi Jews was copied or moved into 1950-1951 Baghdad bombings with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Naeim Giladi was copied or moved into 1950-1951 Baghdad bombings with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
I've added a COI tag to this article so that a few uninvolved editors are alerted to it - no offence to you both, but you both seem to be very very closely related to this issue, so I'm a little concerned that some unconscious bias may have slipped in. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 15:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmbr has removed the source citing Abbas Shiblak's book (The Lure of Zion: The Case of the Iraqi Jews) from this article on the grounds that Shiblak's publication is not a reliable source. However, Rayyan Al-Shawaf's review of this book in Democratiya magazine says
Shiblak’s book, which deals with the mass immigration of Iraqi Jews to Israel in 1950-51, is important both as one of the few academic studies of the subject as well as a reminder of a time when Jews were an integral part of Iraq and other Arab countries.
.
I am going to restore the citation unless Hmbr has a good reason for doubting the reliability of Shiblak's book. Factomancer ( talk) 13:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I've nominated it to be POV Checked, as some content areas are skewed one way, while others could arguably be skewed the other. I have little to no knowledge in the field, so a more specialized editor would be good. NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs/ Vote! 03:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmbr has made a series of edits with the obvious intention of promoting the POV that the bombings were committed by Arab extremists. This goes against scholarly consensus on the issue and is a violation of the WP:NPOV policy. In particularly, his edits of the lede to exclude any point of view other than that of Moshe Gat's is particularly tendentious and a complete contravention of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. I put a lot of effort into writing this article in a neutral fashion and it irritates me to see my work hijacked by someone with an obvious agenda.
The lede should not just represent a single scholar's opinion but should summarize the views of every notable party involved. Let's put the opinion of each party into 3 different categories:
Parties that support Jewish involvement in the bombings
Parties that support the testimony of Yehuda Tajar that Yosef Beit-Halahmi organized attacks after his colleagues were arresteds
Parties that are against Jewish involvement in the bombings
Parties that are neutral on the issue
The lede currently presents the views of Moshe Gat and the Mossad (incorrectly described as the views of the Israeli Government), which obviously does not give a balanced view of the subject. Factomancer ( talk) 10:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmbr, you cite page 224 in a book that only has 210 pages. What page is this material supposed to be on? nableezy - 18:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Seeing that Factomancer and a few other editors have existing strong opinions about the Arab-Israeli "two men in one pair of trousers" issue, with edits almost entirely to that particular subject, I've added the COI tag in addition to the neutrality one. 20:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk • contribs)
I agree that this is a misuse of the COI template, if you are that concerned CMLITC I suggest that you seek assistance at WP:COIN. Unomi ( talk) 04:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I have gone to WP:ANI about Chase me ladies behaviour, which I believe is unacceptable for an admin. Factomancer ( talk) 04:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, I don't agree with the COI tag either. I can't imagine many people having a COI regarding 60 year old incidents. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 15:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
This tag must be removed unless specific factual problems are listed below. Using this tag to sabotage this article because it disagrees with your POV is unacceptable behaviour, Brewcrewer. Factomancer ( talk) 04:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
<comment by sock of banned editor redacted>
I would argue that Pogonowski's article, "Jews killed Jews to create the state of Israel," is not an RS either. He makes WP:Fringe claims, summed up in the last paragraph: Thus, according to Naeim Giladi “Jews killed Jews to create the state of Israel,” the author of the book: “Ben-Gurion’s Scandals: How The Haganah and Mossad Eliminated Jews.” Provides ample proof for that statement. In the process of creating, enlarging and consolidating the state of Israel more than million two hundred thousand Jews were cruelly and brutally driven by terror from their homes in Europe and in the Middle East. This was planned and done in order to create a Jewish state in Palestine at the expense of the Palestinian Arabs."
Such a fringe piece does not belong as a source. Plot Spoiler ( talk) 14:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
There "responsibility" section is absurdly weighed toward fringe claims that Israel itself was responsible for those bombings. This must be addressed. Plot Spoiler ( talk) 15:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Plot Spoiler, your removal of the description of the relevant research of an Oxford historian on the grounds that is a "fringe claim" is truly biased and indefensible ( [1]). I intend to follow this up at the appropriate noticeboard if you continue this disruptive and contra-policy attempt to whitewash the article of anything you deem to be anti-Zionist. Factomancer ( talk) 14:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Factsontheground, you seem to have difficulty understanding the Wikipedia policy WP:Undue weight. You have placed an overwhelming amount of information, tendentiously leading readers to the conclusion to the contentious claim that Zionist agents were responsible for the bombings, with very few opposing viewpoints. I ran into the same problem with you on the Martin Kramer article in which you decided to push the tendentious point that he advocated "genocidal policies." WP:Undue isn't about whether the information comes from an WP:RS, but the balance of sources, of which this quite inadequate. I recommend you review the policy before screaming bloody murder again. Plot Spoiler ( talk) 04:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
<comment by sock of banned editor redacted>
The article said:
Arthur Neslen's recently published book "Occupied Minds" contains an interview with the convicted bomber Yehuda Tajar in which he reveals that fellow Mossad agent Yosef Beit-Halahmi organized attacks after his colleagues were arrested in order to cast doubt on their guilt.
While the source says that Neslen says Tager says Beit-Halahmi's widow said Halahmi speculated that, if a bomb were thrown, it would exculpate the falsely-imprisoned Jews.
I removed this gross misrepresentation of the source. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 07:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Arthur Neslen's recently published book "Occupied Minds" contains an interview with the convicted bomber Yehuda Tajar in which he recalls a conversation with the widow of Beit-Halahmi, a fellow Mossad agent. She implied that Beit-Halahmi, on his own initiative, and without orders from Israel, organized attacks after his colleagues were arrested in order to cast doubt on their guilt.
NativeForeigner, can you explain why you added the expert tag? The material is pretty well cited and I think we've reached an acceptable balance between the various points of view. Factomancer ( talk) 02:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
The Pogonowski reference is a self-published site. Can anyone show that his "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" per WP:RS? No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 09:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
<comment by sock of banned editor redacted>
I found a couple of relevant photos on random sites on the web. [3] [4]
I have no idea what to do to get them on wikipedia, so if anyone's interested... No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 14:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't care that much, but the background section specifically speaks of Operation Ezra and Nehemiah, which the picture I added is relevant to. The section it's in now is something general about emigration. Thoughts? No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 20:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Here are some of the sources for saying that a Zionist underground movement was responsible for these bombings:
Wilbur Crane Everland, a former advisor to the CIA who was in Iraq at the time, later gave a classic expression to this view ... "Just after I arrived in Baghdad, an Israeli citizen had been recognized ... his interrogation led to the discovery of fifteen arms caches brought into Iraq by the underground Zionist movement. In an attempt to portray the Iraqis as anti-American and to terrorize the Jews, the Zionists planted bombs in the US Information Service library and synagogues.
A number of bomb attacks were directed at Iraqi Jewish targets during 1950 and 1951, while the evacuation was taking place, and Iraqi authorities and some foreign observers charge that these attacks were the work of an underground Zionist network seeking to frighten local Jews into leaving for Israel. Although Israeli spokesmen deny these allegations, they have received some support from recent archival research.
Why exactly is it "controversial" that some people have blamed a Zionist underground movement for the attacks yet it is simply an assignment of blame that anti-Jewish Arab extremists were responsible? nableezy - 03:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Did Morris say that this is what happened or that this is what Eveland said happened? There's a pretty big difference. I'm a little busy today but I assure you I intend to engage on the issue. I didn't know we had a deadline to respond here. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 19:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Anyone object to removing this tag? If you do, please state specific problems. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 16:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I am reverting NPz1's edit. This is not meant to show my approval or disapproval of the edit but it was clearly in breech of 1/rr and BRD is good. Since another editor mentioned poisining the well in an edit summary it means it is time to use the talk page. Please feel free to contribute after your block. Cptnono ( talk) 02:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Follow-up: Second one. Oops. Already reverted by someone else. Cptnono ( talk) 02:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Plotspoiler, please explain your revert in detail. You have removed a number of high quality sources. The lead is very clear that culpability is both disputed and unknown, so your edit comment is meaningless.
Oncenawhile ( talk) 16:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The lead does not adequately summarise the article, and puts undue weight on the allegations against "Arab extremists". All our sources spend the vast majority of text space debating whether or not Israeli agents were behind the bombings, with only a small amount devoted to who else might have been behind it. I have no view as to "whodunnit", as frankly it is not our place to speculate. We should simply follow the weighting of the sources. My proposed rewrite of the two main paragraphs is below.
User:Brewcrewer and User:Plot Spoiler, could you please let me know your thoughts? Oncenawhile ( talk) 16:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I have fact checked a few more sources in this article, only to find that the support for scholars espousing the "Iraqi culpability" theory have dwindled to zero. So we have a number of scholars who blame Israel or the Zionist underground, and a number of scholars who raise questions around this. Below is my proposed amendment to reflect this:
Any comments would be appreciated. In the absence of comments, I will add this to the lead. Oncenawhile ( talk) 22:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
See here for Rayyan al-Shawaf's comparison of Shiblak and Gat. Provides some helpful focus which we can use to ensure the key areas of difference between the two main scholars on this subject are noted. Oncenawhile ( talk) 00:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
This article includes a number of statements sourced to Meir-Glitzenstein which I cannot find in her book. I have removed them from the article and brought them here - if anyone can quote from Glitzenstein a supporting sentence or paragraph, we can add them back in. The first two were added by User:Stellarkid in 2010 [7]
Oncenawhile ( talk) 18:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Something has happened to screw up the references in this article, but I can't see what it is, or how to remedy this. The ref list has two tags stating "Cite error: A list-defined reference has no name (see the help page)." However, there seems to be no way to identify which list-defined references are involved. Meanwhile, ref 1, which appears in the edit panel as "ref name=Morris91", appears in the ref list and pop-up as "Morris & Black, 1992". There is no title ascribed in the bibliography to Morris and Black, but there is a title "Morris, Benny (1992), Israel's Secret Wars: A History of Israel's Intelligence Services, Grove Weidenfeld, ISBN 0-8021-1159-9". However, there is no such book, and clicking on the link in the bibliography leads to Ian Black's 1991 book Israel's Secret Wars: A History of Israel's Intelligence Services. It looks as though, in the course of editing, two distinct works have become confused, but I really can't see how this has happened and what was intended. Perhaps one of the editors who has introduced this error during the past week ( Randomdice, Ykantor or Oncenawhile) could take a look at this and try to correct the error. RolandR ( talk) 18:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The proposed changes were made to the article after comments from Oncenawhile ( talk · contribs), Ijon ( talk · contribs), and 130.76.96.145 ( talk · contribs).
The discussion had limited participation. Because consensus can change and silence is the weakest form of consensus, if the changes are later disputed, they should be further discussed. Cunard ( talk) 04:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
A few questions relating to the lead of this article: (1) Should the allegations against the Zionist underground come ahead of alternative theories, or vice versa?; (2) Should the Lavon affair be mentioned at all?: (3) Should the British foreign office's view be mentioned at all?; (4) Should the scholar-attested views of the Iraqi Jewish community be mentioned at all? I have split this into sub-sections below for ease of commenting, and have begun each sub-section with my judgement, sources and proposal on each point. I am trying this route because I have been unsuccessful in encouraging other editors to discuss these point above. Oncenawhile ( talk) 17:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
All sources who cover this topic conclude that noone knows who the culprits were, but all writers present the claims against Israeli / Zionist agents first, usually beginning with the verdict of the Iraqi judiciary, and then subsequently present the counter arguments / alternative theories. So our lead should follow the same structure. I believe the structure most consistent with the sources is:
Does anyone disagree with this proposal? Oncenawhile ( talk) 08:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Most if not all writers on the topic draw the possible connection between this event and the Lavon affair, given the similarity of the accusations. A selection of those is below.
All these writers discuss the connection prominently, so I propose adding a reference to this into the lead. Does anyone disagree with this proposal? Oncenawhile ( talk) 08:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Most writers on the topic state the views of the British on the topic when considering the views of the various constituencies. It should be noted that the British were at the time still quite involved in Iraqi affairs, at least more so than other Western countries.
Again, all these writers discuss the British view prominently, so I propose adding a reference to this into the lead. Does anyone disagree with this proposal? Oncenawhile ( talk) 08:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Most writers on the topic state the views of the Iraqi Jews. The views of the victims, whether right or wrong, is highly relevant as a perception at the time, and are well attested. This is shown by the number of sources who refer to them in this context:
Again, all these writers discuss the Iraqi Jews' view prominently, so I propose adding a reference to this into the lead. Does anyone disagree with this proposal? Oncenawhile ( talk) 08:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I have added a couple of fv tags to key statements attributed to Gat in the article. For example, I can't see where in Gat he states his "belief" that it the perpertrators were Iraqi nationalists. Unless anyone can source these, the statements will be removed. Oncenawhile ( talk) 22:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Zero talk 08:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
-Concerning Mendes, I found a live link to the article.
- "Mendes says that Gat says ". I suggest to return to the previous citing . i.e. directly to Gat. Ykantor ( talk) 16:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Oncenawhile ( talk) 07:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
TTAAC's comment on JPS shows ignorance of how journals work. The claim is to be attributed to the author, not to the journal. But in any case I don't like this source as it is too derivative. The "tried before in Iraq" story comes from Marion Wolfshon, who (according to al-Shawaf) cited the 22 February 1978 edition of Jeune Afrique. There's a chance my library has that; I'll take a look. Zero talk 09:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Now I have the Jeune Afrique article from 1978. It attributes the admission to Lavon by any reasonable reading (checked with a native French speaker). However, no clue is given which would let anyone search for a more original source. Frankly I'm dubious, but this claim is famous enough (repeated lots of times) to include with attribution. If anyone notices this story from before 1978, or with a source before 1978, please speak up. Zero talk 13:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Ykantor, please could you add the quote for [8] the text underpinning this on p.183? I think we have it mixed up - the charge sheet exclusion refers to a different one? Oncenawhile ( talk) 21:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Anyone have this book in paper form? I want to confirm the page number. In the e-book the bombing incident is on page 208, the refs here (at least in the lead) talk about page 257. Anyone? No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 04:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Is this guy a reliable source? He is not an academic or a journalist. He is not an expert in anything. He's just a guy with an opinion. Why does he appear 3 times in the article? No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 05:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Done
No More Mr Nice Guy (
talk)
18:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy, can you please explain your edits [12] and [13]. Both are unsourced, and the second is the worst kind of unsourced - the text was added just ahead of five existing sources, to make it look like it was supported by those.
The claims regarding responsibility for the bombings that you suggest are "unfounded" is a judgement which goes right to the heart of this article. In the first edit you mentioned Gat and Meir-Glitzenstein, but then chose not to do the same in your second. I have read both Gat and Meir-Glitzenstein, and their works have been discussed in great detail above - neither make such blanket statements. They question the claims against the two specific activists who were sentenced, but as to the general sense held by Iraqi Jews and others at the time (i.e. that the bombs were thrown by or on behalf of Jewish organizations), they do not take a firm view either way. What they do is report the claims and then suggest that noone knows whodunnit, which is what we say. It seems your edits were "wishful thinking" at best.
Oncenawhile ( talk) 07:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I think you are mistaken about MG. When she says "Nevertheless, henceforth the emigration of Iraqi Jewry was linked to the bombs." what do you think she's contrasting with? She says the charges against the Israelis and others were groundless (meaning they didn't do it). She then says that bombs didn't hasten Jewish immigration. She explains what the British thought and then gets to the nevertheless part. What do you think she's saying? Seems quite clear she's saying the Israelis didn't do it but nevertheless Iraqi immigrants (and others) thought they did. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 18:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
MG's "nevertheless" refers to all the points she raised before and to the rest of the paragraph. That the charges were groundless, that the British though it was probably someone local working on their own initiative, and that the bombs did not influence the immigration rates (she addresses 1950 there as well, so you can stop bringing it up all the time). Again, the immigrants believe that Israeli agents threw the bombs and that hastened the immigration. She says specifically that it didn't hasten the immigration, that the charges against the Israeli agents were false and that the British though it was something local. Nevertheless the Iraqi immigrants believe what they believe.
To your points. 1 is addressed by MG. Read closely. 2. Not sure what you want here. 3. We're supposed to summarize sources, which is what I did. 4. That is missing a lot of relevant pages. Please tell me you read them elsewhere? No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 00:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Almost exactly a year ago, I added this text. It is still broadly in the article, in an unchanged fashion. It goes as far as I believe we can go based on her quote. What do you want to add above this - please provide specific drafting, and explain where in the article? And please self revert your OR from the article asap. Oncenawhile ( talk) 07:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The lead's last paragraph mentions nowadays politics and implies that the fault for the bombing is a matter of opinion. In my view it is better to eliminate nowadays politics from the lead and rewrite it as a wp:rs opinions. e.g. According to wp:rs Shiblac, Segev, etc... it was a Zionist plan since ... But According to wp:rs Meir, Gat, Mendes etc ... it was not a Zionist plan since... There are sufficient amount of wp:rs who analyze the case, so why should we cite primary sources. Ykantor ( talk) 19:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
This is unjustified removal of sourced content. Per The Telegraph: "In the Thirties, the rise of pan-Arab nationalism coincided with the second King Faisal's admiration of the Nazis."-- Khenigsberg ( talk) 11:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on 1950–51 Baghdad bombings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20415625&BRD=2731&PAG=461&dept_id=574902&rfi=_%27When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
This article employs a very large number of very large quotes - Is the level of quoting excessive? Nigel Ish ( talk) 14:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fixing broken ref names; Reference 67: Add <refname="gat178"> before the citation.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I've been reading the Gat and I think there's some things that could do with clarification.
I think this paragraph in the "Claims for Israeli or Iraqi Zionist involvement" section is misleading and should be cut:
According to Gat, Avnery wrote "without checking the facts...Marion Woolfson ... goes on to distort the dates of the explosions and the number of registrees, in order to prove her contention...Avnery’s article and Marion Woolfson’s book served as the basis for the arguments of the Palestinian author Abbas Shiblak".
I've copied the full footnote it shortens below for reference.
The Lavon Affair was used by some journalists and writers as proof of criminal actions carried out in Iraq by the Israeli representatives there. Uri Avnery, without checking the facts, wrote, ‘Suddenly some thing mysterious happened. Bombs started exploding in synagogues [he does not specify] and elsewhere at places frequented by Jews. Panic occurred, and the number of those seeking to leave grew overnight … After the disclosure of the Lavon Affair, … the Baghdad Affair became more conceivable.’ Avnery, My Friend the Enemy, pp. 135–6. Avnery wrote that the Baghdad Affair was first disclosed by his newspaper Ha-Olam ha-Zeh on 20 April 1966, where it was claimed that the explosions were the work of Israeli agents sent by Ben-Gurion. A similar position is cited by Marion Woolfson in Farewell to Babylon, pp. 183–201. She bases herself among others on Avnery's article in Ha-Olam ha-Zeh. She goes on to distort the dates of the explosions and the number of registrees, in order to prove her contention. Avnery's article and Marion Woolfson's book served as the basis for the arguments of the Palestinian author Abbas Shiblak, who wrote: “It is clear that the explosions came at a critical time, when other factors seem insufficient to ensure mass emigration … Whenever the fears [of the Jews] abated, a new explosion shattered the sense of security, and the chances of remaining in Iraq appeared bleaker.’ Abbas Shiblak, The Lure of Zion, pp. 123–4. See also: W.C. Eveland, Ropes of Sand, pp. 46–9; O. Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch, pp. 155–70. A similar position, though from a totally different viewpoint, is expressed by Shimon Mendes in his article ‘The Immigration from Iraq and the Government of Israel’ published in Ha'aretz on 22 May 1966. Mendes wrote: ‘Whether they did not know what to do or whether they did not wish to risk any initiative, the community leaders remained silent. Someone had to act, and he took the appropriate action at the right time. For only an act like the explosions would have brought them to Israel. Anyone who understood politics and developments in Israel was long aware of that. But not everyone sees it as a mishap, and those who called it this do injustice to David Ben-Gurion and to the memory of Shalom Salah “and Yosef Basri, whose names should be remembered alongside those who gave their lives for the country.”
The footnote is from a section of the book discussing the impact of the bombings, and whether they lead to mass migration(see taking issue with Woolfsons supposed distortion of the number of refugees, which is not relevant to attribution)- it's problems with the Woolfson and Avnery are whether they are correct about the impact of the bombings on imigration, not attribution of the bombings to Israeli or Iraqi Zionist.
I don't think it makes substansive points either way on attribution, and the material should be added in the "Effects on Iraqi Jewish emigration" section(which seems in need of extension)
If people aren't ok with that a possible replacement paragraph, focusing on his contention of factual failiures in the Avnery and Woolfson could be:
Moshe Gat asserts that Avnery wrote "without checking facts", that Woolfsons writing serves to "distort the dates of the explosions" and that these works "served as the basis for the arguments of the Palestinian author Abbas Shiblak"
Adacable ( talk) 11:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The trial section cites the Gat, however the Gat asserts that only they “were charged only with throwing the last three bombs (on 19 March at the USIS and at Jewish firms importing American cars).”
The Jewish Telegraph Agency notice from the time states that they were charged with both the jan 14th 1951 synagogue bombing and the 19th march grenade attack. [1]
We should cite JTA report(possibly note the difference with the Gat) and note that neither source suggests they were charged with all bombings listed in the section above. Adacable ( talk) 11:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
References
I foolishly tried to clean it up, then just stopped because there is so much repetition. Also, there are a number of references with extensive quotes that don't agree at all with the article content! I'll mention a few below. Then there's the fact that Iraq was allied with Nazi Germany and Italy during World War 2, so that wouldn't have helped Iraqi government attitudes to Iraqi Jews circa 1941. Not sure if that's covered by any WP:RS though. I'm not getting involved any further as every Zionism-related Wikipedia article quotes Ha'aretz and these " New Israeli Historians" like Benny Morris, and because there are so many disgruntled and argumentative people with strong opinions about anything and everything Levantine who are editing. It is too contentious for me.-- FeralOink ( talk) 22:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Regarding article and source disagreement, there's this:
It would have made sense for Iraqi Jews to flee Iraq in 1941, given that the German embassy in Baghdad bought a major newspaper, Al-alam Al-arabi and used it to publish Mein Kampf in Arabic as well as establishing "Al-Fatwa", a Hitler Youth group for Iraqis! The governor of Baghdad even told Jews to pack suitcases and to wait to be taken to "detention camps" "for their own safety". Sounds rather familiar. The Luftwaffe had already sent two squadrons of bombers and Messershmitzes from Germany as part of Fliegerführer Irak (Flyer Command Iraq) with help from Vichy France. Yet Reference 25 doesn't even mention any time interval prior to 1948, nor Mossad! Instead, it says,
"On 15 May 1948, three months after the Wathba, the state of Israel was proclaimed, the Arab armies invaded, and al-Said imposed martial law. A week later, newspapers in Iraq were calling for a boycott of Jewish shops, to 'liberate' Iraqis from the 'economic slavery and domination imposed by the Jewish minority'. This suspicion of Jews was encouraged by a weak and reviled government... the arrival in Iraq of eight thousand Palestinian refugees did nothing to calm things. Responding to a wave of popular anger, the Iraqi government declared Zionism a capital offence, fired Jews in government positions..."
Next, there's this. "Historian Moshe Gat reports that "the belief that the bombs had been thrown by Zionist agents was shared by those Iraqi Jews who had just reached Israel".[57] Sociologist Phillip Mendes backs Gat's claims, and further attributes the allegations to have been influenced and distorted by feelings of discrimination.[21]." However, Reference 21 does not support that at all:
"Historian Moshe Gat argues that there was little direct connection between the bombings and exodus. He demonstrates that the frantic and massive Jewish registration for denaturalisation and departure was driven by knowledge that the denaturalisation law was due to expire in March 1951. He also notes the influence of further pressures including the property-freezing law, and continued anti-Jewish disturbances which raised the fear of large-scale pogroms. In addition, it is highly unlikely the Israelis would have taken such measures to accelerate the Jewish evacuation given that they were already struggling to cope with the existing level of Jewish immigration. Gat also raises serious doubts about the guilt of the alleged Jewish bomb throwers. Firstly, a Christian officer in the Iraqi army known for his anti-Jewish views was arrested, but apparently not charged, with the offenses. A number of explosive devices similar to those used in the attack on the Jewish synagogue were found in his home. In addition, there was a long history of anti-Jewish bomb-throwing incidents in Iraq. Secondly, the prosecution was not able to produce even one eyewitness who had seen the bombs thrown. Thirdly, the Jewish defendant Shalom Salah indicated in court that he had been severely tortured in order to procure a confession."
Yet the article and some of the Wikitags (one of which was in the lead and I removed), have comments to the effect of, "According to who is there uncertainty?" with allegations that the bombings were all Mossad's fault. Okay, enough... sorry for rant. I'm already involved in other articles alleging that Zionists and Nazi Germany were collaborating to realize their common goals. It is all so messed up.-- FeralOink ( talk) 23:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1950–1951 Baghdad bombings article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Iraqi Jews was copied or moved into 1950-1951 Baghdad bombings with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Naeim Giladi was copied or moved into 1950-1951 Baghdad bombings with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
I've added a COI tag to this article so that a few uninvolved editors are alerted to it - no offence to you both, but you both seem to be very very closely related to this issue, so I'm a little concerned that some unconscious bias may have slipped in. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 15:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmbr has removed the source citing Abbas Shiblak's book (The Lure of Zion: The Case of the Iraqi Jews) from this article on the grounds that Shiblak's publication is not a reliable source. However, Rayyan Al-Shawaf's review of this book in Democratiya magazine says
Shiblak’s book, which deals with the mass immigration of Iraqi Jews to Israel in 1950-51, is important both as one of the few academic studies of the subject as well as a reminder of a time when Jews were an integral part of Iraq and other Arab countries.
.
I am going to restore the citation unless Hmbr has a good reason for doubting the reliability of Shiblak's book. Factomancer ( talk) 13:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I've nominated it to be POV Checked, as some content areas are skewed one way, while others could arguably be skewed the other. I have little to no knowledge in the field, so a more specialized editor would be good. NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs/ Vote! 03:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmbr has made a series of edits with the obvious intention of promoting the POV that the bombings were committed by Arab extremists. This goes against scholarly consensus on the issue and is a violation of the WP:NPOV policy. In particularly, his edits of the lede to exclude any point of view other than that of Moshe Gat's is particularly tendentious and a complete contravention of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. I put a lot of effort into writing this article in a neutral fashion and it irritates me to see my work hijacked by someone with an obvious agenda.
The lede should not just represent a single scholar's opinion but should summarize the views of every notable party involved. Let's put the opinion of each party into 3 different categories:
Parties that support Jewish involvement in the bombings
Parties that support the testimony of Yehuda Tajar that Yosef Beit-Halahmi organized attacks after his colleagues were arresteds
Parties that are against Jewish involvement in the bombings
Parties that are neutral on the issue
The lede currently presents the views of Moshe Gat and the Mossad (incorrectly described as the views of the Israeli Government), which obviously does not give a balanced view of the subject. Factomancer ( talk) 10:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmbr, you cite page 224 in a book that only has 210 pages. What page is this material supposed to be on? nableezy - 18:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Seeing that Factomancer and a few other editors have existing strong opinions about the Arab-Israeli "two men in one pair of trousers" issue, with edits almost entirely to that particular subject, I've added the COI tag in addition to the neutrality one. 20:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk • contribs)
I agree that this is a misuse of the COI template, if you are that concerned CMLITC I suggest that you seek assistance at WP:COIN. Unomi ( talk) 04:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I have gone to WP:ANI about Chase me ladies behaviour, which I believe is unacceptable for an admin. Factomancer ( talk) 04:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, I don't agree with the COI tag either. I can't imagine many people having a COI regarding 60 year old incidents. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 15:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
This tag must be removed unless specific factual problems are listed below. Using this tag to sabotage this article because it disagrees with your POV is unacceptable behaviour, Brewcrewer. Factomancer ( talk) 04:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
<comment by sock of banned editor redacted>
I would argue that Pogonowski's article, "Jews killed Jews to create the state of Israel," is not an RS either. He makes WP:Fringe claims, summed up in the last paragraph: Thus, according to Naeim Giladi “Jews killed Jews to create the state of Israel,” the author of the book: “Ben-Gurion’s Scandals: How The Haganah and Mossad Eliminated Jews.” Provides ample proof for that statement. In the process of creating, enlarging and consolidating the state of Israel more than million two hundred thousand Jews were cruelly and brutally driven by terror from their homes in Europe and in the Middle East. This was planned and done in order to create a Jewish state in Palestine at the expense of the Palestinian Arabs."
Such a fringe piece does not belong as a source. Plot Spoiler ( talk) 14:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
There "responsibility" section is absurdly weighed toward fringe claims that Israel itself was responsible for those bombings. This must be addressed. Plot Spoiler ( talk) 15:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Plot Spoiler, your removal of the description of the relevant research of an Oxford historian on the grounds that is a "fringe claim" is truly biased and indefensible ( [1]). I intend to follow this up at the appropriate noticeboard if you continue this disruptive and contra-policy attempt to whitewash the article of anything you deem to be anti-Zionist. Factomancer ( talk) 14:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Factsontheground, you seem to have difficulty understanding the Wikipedia policy WP:Undue weight. You have placed an overwhelming amount of information, tendentiously leading readers to the conclusion to the contentious claim that Zionist agents were responsible for the bombings, with very few opposing viewpoints. I ran into the same problem with you on the Martin Kramer article in which you decided to push the tendentious point that he advocated "genocidal policies." WP:Undue isn't about whether the information comes from an WP:RS, but the balance of sources, of which this quite inadequate. I recommend you review the policy before screaming bloody murder again. Plot Spoiler ( talk) 04:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
<comment by sock of banned editor redacted>
The article said:
Arthur Neslen's recently published book "Occupied Minds" contains an interview with the convicted bomber Yehuda Tajar in which he reveals that fellow Mossad agent Yosef Beit-Halahmi organized attacks after his colleagues were arrested in order to cast doubt on their guilt.
While the source says that Neslen says Tager says Beit-Halahmi's widow said Halahmi speculated that, if a bomb were thrown, it would exculpate the falsely-imprisoned Jews.
I removed this gross misrepresentation of the source. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 07:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Arthur Neslen's recently published book "Occupied Minds" contains an interview with the convicted bomber Yehuda Tajar in which he recalls a conversation with the widow of Beit-Halahmi, a fellow Mossad agent. She implied that Beit-Halahmi, on his own initiative, and without orders from Israel, organized attacks after his colleagues were arrested in order to cast doubt on their guilt.
NativeForeigner, can you explain why you added the expert tag? The material is pretty well cited and I think we've reached an acceptable balance between the various points of view. Factomancer ( talk) 02:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
The Pogonowski reference is a self-published site. Can anyone show that his "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" per WP:RS? No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 09:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
<comment by sock of banned editor redacted>
I found a couple of relevant photos on random sites on the web. [3] [4]
I have no idea what to do to get them on wikipedia, so if anyone's interested... No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 14:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't care that much, but the background section specifically speaks of Operation Ezra and Nehemiah, which the picture I added is relevant to. The section it's in now is something general about emigration. Thoughts? No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 20:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Here are some of the sources for saying that a Zionist underground movement was responsible for these bombings:
Wilbur Crane Everland, a former advisor to the CIA who was in Iraq at the time, later gave a classic expression to this view ... "Just after I arrived in Baghdad, an Israeli citizen had been recognized ... his interrogation led to the discovery of fifteen arms caches brought into Iraq by the underground Zionist movement. In an attempt to portray the Iraqis as anti-American and to terrorize the Jews, the Zionists planted bombs in the US Information Service library and synagogues.
A number of bomb attacks were directed at Iraqi Jewish targets during 1950 and 1951, while the evacuation was taking place, and Iraqi authorities and some foreign observers charge that these attacks were the work of an underground Zionist network seeking to frighten local Jews into leaving for Israel. Although Israeli spokesmen deny these allegations, they have received some support from recent archival research.
Why exactly is it "controversial" that some people have blamed a Zionist underground movement for the attacks yet it is simply an assignment of blame that anti-Jewish Arab extremists were responsible? nableezy - 03:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Did Morris say that this is what happened or that this is what Eveland said happened? There's a pretty big difference. I'm a little busy today but I assure you I intend to engage on the issue. I didn't know we had a deadline to respond here. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 19:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Anyone object to removing this tag? If you do, please state specific problems. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 16:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I am reverting NPz1's edit. This is not meant to show my approval or disapproval of the edit but it was clearly in breech of 1/rr and BRD is good. Since another editor mentioned poisining the well in an edit summary it means it is time to use the talk page. Please feel free to contribute after your block. Cptnono ( talk) 02:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Follow-up: Second one. Oops. Already reverted by someone else. Cptnono ( talk) 02:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Plotspoiler, please explain your revert in detail. You have removed a number of high quality sources. The lead is very clear that culpability is both disputed and unknown, so your edit comment is meaningless.
Oncenawhile ( talk) 16:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The lead does not adequately summarise the article, and puts undue weight on the allegations against "Arab extremists". All our sources spend the vast majority of text space debating whether or not Israeli agents were behind the bombings, with only a small amount devoted to who else might have been behind it. I have no view as to "whodunnit", as frankly it is not our place to speculate. We should simply follow the weighting of the sources. My proposed rewrite of the two main paragraphs is below.
User:Brewcrewer and User:Plot Spoiler, could you please let me know your thoughts? Oncenawhile ( talk) 16:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I have fact checked a few more sources in this article, only to find that the support for scholars espousing the "Iraqi culpability" theory have dwindled to zero. So we have a number of scholars who blame Israel or the Zionist underground, and a number of scholars who raise questions around this. Below is my proposed amendment to reflect this:
Any comments would be appreciated. In the absence of comments, I will add this to the lead. Oncenawhile ( talk) 22:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
See here for Rayyan al-Shawaf's comparison of Shiblak and Gat. Provides some helpful focus which we can use to ensure the key areas of difference between the two main scholars on this subject are noted. Oncenawhile ( talk) 00:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
This article includes a number of statements sourced to Meir-Glitzenstein which I cannot find in her book. I have removed them from the article and brought them here - if anyone can quote from Glitzenstein a supporting sentence or paragraph, we can add them back in. The first two were added by User:Stellarkid in 2010 [7]
Oncenawhile ( talk) 18:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Something has happened to screw up the references in this article, but I can't see what it is, or how to remedy this. The ref list has two tags stating "Cite error: A list-defined reference has no name (see the help page)." However, there seems to be no way to identify which list-defined references are involved. Meanwhile, ref 1, which appears in the edit panel as "ref name=Morris91", appears in the ref list and pop-up as "Morris & Black, 1992". There is no title ascribed in the bibliography to Morris and Black, but there is a title "Morris, Benny (1992), Israel's Secret Wars: A History of Israel's Intelligence Services, Grove Weidenfeld, ISBN 0-8021-1159-9". However, there is no such book, and clicking on the link in the bibliography leads to Ian Black's 1991 book Israel's Secret Wars: A History of Israel's Intelligence Services. It looks as though, in the course of editing, two distinct works have become confused, but I really can't see how this has happened and what was intended. Perhaps one of the editors who has introduced this error during the past week ( Randomdice, Ykantor or Oncenawhile) could take a look at this and try to correct the error. RolandR ( talk) 18:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The proposed changes were made to the article after comments from Oncenawhile ( talk · contribs), Ijon ( talk · contribs), and 130.76.96.145 ( talk · contribs).
The discussion had limited participation. Because consensus can change and silence is the weakest form of consensus, if the changes are later disputed, they should be further discussed. Cunard ( talk) 04:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
A few questions relating to the lead of this article: (1) Should the allegations against the Zionist underground come ahead of alternative theories, or vice versa?; (2) Should the Lavon affair be mentioned at all?: (3) Should the British foreign office's view be mentioned at all?; (4) Should the scholar-attested views of the Iraqi Jewish community be mentioned at all? I have split this into sub-sections below for ease of commenting, and have begun each sub-section with my judgement, sources and proposal on each point. I am trying this route because I have been unsuccessful in encouraging other editors to discuss these point above. Oncenawhile ( talk) 17:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
All sources who cover this topic conclude that noone knows who the culprits were, but all writers present the claims against Israeli / Zionist agents first, usually beginning with the verdict of the Iraqi judiciary, and then subsequently present the counter arguments / alternative theories. So our lead should follow the same structure. I believe the structure most consistent with the sources is:
Does anyone disagree with this proposal? Oncenawhile ( talk) 08:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Most if not all writers on the topic draw the possible connection between this event and the Lavon affair, given the similarity of the accusations. A selection of those is below.
All these writers discuss the connection prominently, so I propose adding a reference to this into the lead. Does anyone disagree with this proposal? Oncenawhile ( talk) 08:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Most writers on the topic state the views of the British on the topic when considering the views of the various constituencies. It should be noted that the British were at the time still quite involved in Iraqi affairs, at least more so than other Western countries.
Again, all these writers discuss the British view prominently, so I propose adding a reference to this into the lead. Does anyone disagree with this proposal? Oncenawhile ( talk) 08:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Most writers on the topic state the views of the Iraqi Jews. The views of the victims, whether right or wrong, is highly relevant as a perception at the time, and are well attested. This is shown by the number of sources who refer to them in this context:
Again, all these writers discuss the Iraqi Jews' view prominently, so I propose adding a reference to this into the lead. Does anyone disagree with this proposal? Oncenawhile ( talk) 08:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I have added a couple of fv tags to key statements attributed to Gat in the article. For example, I can't see where in Gat he states his "belief" that it the perpertrators were Iraqi nationalists. Unless anyone can source these, the statements will be removed. Oncenawhile ( talk) 22:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Zero talk 08:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
-Concerning Mendes, I found a live link to the article.
- "Mendes says that Gat says ". I suggest to return to the previous citing . i.e. directly to Gat. Ykantor ( talk) 16:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Oncenawhile ( talk) 07:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
TTAAC's comment on JPS shows ignorance of how journals work. The claim is to be attributed to the author, not to the journal. But in any case I don't like this source as it is too derivative. The "tried before in Iraq" story comes from Marion Wolfshon, who (according to al-Shawaf) cited the 22 February 1978 edition of Jeune Afrique. There's a chance my library has that; I'll take a look. Zero talk 09:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Now I have the Jeune Afrique article from 1978. It attributes the admission to Lavon by any reasonable reading (checked with a native French speaker). However, no clue is given which would let anyone search for a more original source. Frankly I'm dubious, but this claim is famous enough (repeated lots of times) to include with attribution. If anyone notices this story from before 1978, or with a source before 1978, please speak up. Zero talk 13:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Ykantor, please could you add the quote for [8] the text underpinning this on p.183? I think we have it mixed up - the charge sheet exclusion refers to a different one? Oncenawhile ( talk) 21:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Anyone have this book in paper form? I want to confirm the page number. In the e-book the bombing incident is on page 208, the refs here (at least in the lead) talk about page 257. Anyone? No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 04:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Is this guy a reliable source? He is not an academic or a journalist. He is not an expert in anything. He's just a guy with an opinion. Why does he appear 3 times in the article? No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 05:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Done
No More Mr Nice Guy (
talk)
18:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy, can you please explain your edits [12] and [13]. Both are unsourced, and the second is the worst kind of unsourced - the text was added just ahead of five existing sources, to make it look like it was supported by those.
The claims regarding responsibility for the bombings that you suggest are "unfounded" is a judgement which goes right to the heart of this article. In the first edit you mentioned Gat and Meir-Glitzenstein, but then chose not to do the same in your second. I have read both Gat and Meir-Glitzenstein, and their works have been discussed in great detail above - neither make such blanket statements. They question the claims against the two specific activists who were sentenced, but as to the general sense held by Iraqi Jews and others at the time (i.e. that the bombs were thrown by or on behalf of Jewish organizations), they do not take a firm view either way. What they do is report the claims and then suggest that noone knows whodunnit, which is what we say. It seems your edits were "wishful thinking" at best.
Oncenawhile ( talk) 07:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I think you are mistaken about MG. When she says "Nevertheless, henceforth the emigration of Iraqi Jewry was linked to the bombs." what do you think she's contrasting with? She says the charges against the Israelis and others were groundless (meaning they didn't do it). She then says that bombs didn't hasten Jewish immigration. She explains what the British thought and then gets to the nevertheless part. What do you think she's saying? Seems quite clear she's saying the Israelis didn't do it but nevertheless Iraqi immigrants (and others) thought they did. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 18:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
MG's "nevertheless" refers to all the points she raised before and to the rest of the paragraph. That the charges were groundless, that the British though it was probably someone local working on their own initiative, and that the bombs did not influence the immigration rates (she addresses 1950 there as well, so you can stop bringing it up all the time). Again, the immigrants believe that Israeli agents threw the bombs and that hastened the immigration. She says specifically that it didn't hasten the immigration, that the charges against the Israeli agents were false and that the British though it was something local. Nevertheless the Iraqi immigrants believe what they believe.
To your points. 1 is addressed by MG. Read closely. 2. Not sure what you want here. 3. We're supposed to summarize sources, which is what I did. 4. That is missing a lot of relevant pages. Please tell me you read them elsewhere? No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 00:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Almost exactly a year ago, I added this text. It is still broadly in the article, in an unchanged fashion. It goes as far as I believe we can go based on her quote. What do you want to add above this - please provide specific drafting, and explain where in the article? And please self revert your OR from the article asap. Oncenawhile ( talk) 07:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The lead's last paragraph mentions nowadays politics and implies that the fault for the bombing is a matter of opinion. In my view it is better to eliminate nowadays politics from the lead and rewrite it as a wp:rs opinions. e.g. According to wp:rs Shiblac, Segev, etc... it was a Zionist plan since ... But According to wp:rs Meir, Gat, Mendes etc ... it was not a Zionist plan since... There are sufficient amount of wp:rs who analyze the case, so why should we cite primary sources. Ykantor ( talk) 19:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
This is unjustified removal of sourced content. Per The Telegraph: "In the Thirties, the rise of pan-Arab nationalism coincided with the second King Faisal's admiration of the Nazis."-- Khenigsberg ( talk) 11:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on 1950–51 Baghdad bombings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20415625&BRD=2731&PAG=461&dept_id=574902&rfi=_%27When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
This article employs a very large number of very large quotes - Is the level of quoting excessive? Nigel Ish ( talk) 14:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fixing broken ref names; Reference 67: Add <refname="gat178"> before the citation.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I've been reading the Gat and I think there's some things that could do with clarification.
I think this paragraph in the "Claims for Israeli or Iraqi Zionist involvement" section is misleading and should be cut:
According to Gat, Avnery wrote "without checking the facts...Marion Woolfson ... goes on to distort the dates of the explosions and the number of registrees, in order to prove her contention...Avnery’s article and Marion Woolfson’s book served as the basis for the arguments of the Palestinian author Abbas Shiblak".
I've copied the full footnote it shortens below for reference.
The Lavon Affair was used by some journalists and writers as proof of criminal actions carried out in Iraq by the Israeli representatives there. Uri Avnery, without checking the facts, wrote, ‘Suddenly some thing mysterious happened. Bombs started exploding in synagogues [he does not specify] and elsewhere at places frequented by Jews. Panic occurred, and the number of those seeking to leave grew overnight … After the disclosure of the Lavon Affair, … the Baghdad Affair became more conceivable.’ Avnery, My Friend the Enemy, pp. 135–6. Avnery wrote that the Baghdad Affair was first disclosed by his newspaper Ha-Olam ha-Zeh on 20 April 1966, where it was claimed that the explosions were the work of Israeli agents sent by Ben-Gurion. A similar position is cited by Marion Woolfson in Farewell to Babylon, pp. 183–201. She bases herself among others on Avnery's article in Ha-Olam ha-Zeh. She goes on to distort the dates of the explosions and the number of registrees, in order to prove her contention. Avnery's article and Marion Woolfson's book served as the basis for the arguments of the Palestinian author Abbas Shiblak, who wrote: “It is clear that the explosions came at a critical time, when other factors seem insufficient to ensure mass emigration … Whenever the fears [of the Jews] abated, a new explosion shattered the sense of security, and the chances of remaining in Iraq appeared bleaker.’ Abbas Shiblak, The Lure of Zion, pp. 123–4. See also: W.C. Eveland, Ropes of Sand, pp. 46–9; O. Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch, pp. 155–70. A similar position, though from a totally different viewpoint, is expressed by Shimon Mendes in his article ‘The Immigration from Iraq and the Government of Israel’ published in Ha'aretz on 22 May 1966. Mendes wrote: ‘Whether they did not know what to do or whether they did not wish to risk any initiative, the community leaders remained silent. Someone had to act, and he took the appropriate action at the right time. For only an act like the explosions would have brought them to Israel. Anyone who understood politics and developments in Israel was long aware of that. But not everyone sees it as a mishap, and those who called it this do injustice to David Ben-Gurion and to the memory of Shalom Salah “and Yosef Basri, whose names should be remembered alongside those who gave their lives for the country.”
The footnote is from a section of the book discussing the impact of the bombings, and whether they lead to mass migration(see taking issue with Woolfsons supposed distortion of the number of refugees, which is not relevant to attribution)- it's problems with the Woolfson and Avnery are whether they are correct about the impact of the bombings on imigration, not attribution of the bombings to Israeli or Iraqi Zionist.
I don't think it makes substansive points either way on attribution, and the material should be added in the "Effects on Iraqi Jewish emigration" section(which seems in need of extension)
If people aren't ok with that a possible replacement paragraph, focusing on his contention of factual failiures in the Avnery and Woolfson could be:
Moshe Gat asserts that Avnery wrote "without checking facts", that Woolfsons writing serves to "distort the dates of the explosions" and that these works "served as the basis for the arguments of the Palestinian author Abbas Shiblak"
Adacable ( talk) 11:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The trial section cites the Gat, however the Gat asserts that only they “were charged only with throwing the last three bombs (on 19 March at the USIS and at Jewish firms importing American cars).”
The Jewish Telegraph Agency notice from the time states that they were charged with both the jan 14th 1951 synagogue bombing and the 19th march grenade attack. [1]
We should cite JTA report(possibly note the difference with the Gat) and note that neither source suggests they were charged with all bombings listed in the section above. Adacable ( talk) 11:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
References
I foolishly tried to clean it up, then just stopped because there is so much repetition. Also, there are a number of references with extensive quotes that don't agree at all with the article content! I'll mention a few below. Then there's the fact that Iraq was allied with Nazi Germany and Italy during World War 2, so that wouldn't have helped Iraqi government attitudes to Iraqi Jews circa 1941. Not sure if that's covered by any WP:RS though. I'm not getting involved any further as every Zionism-related Wikipedia article quotes Ha'aretz and these " New Israeli Historians" like Benny Morris, and because there are so many disgruntled and argumentative people with strong opinions about anything and everything Levantine who are editing. It is too contentious for me.-- FeralOink ( talk) 22:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Regarding article and source disagreement, there's this:
It would have made sense for Iraqi Jews to flee Iraq in 1941, given that the German embassy in Baghdad bought a major newspaper, Al-alam Al-arabi and used it to publish Mein Kampf in Arabic as well as establishing "Al-Fatwa", a Hitler Youth group for Iraqis! The governor of Baghdad even told Jews to pack suitcases and to wait to be taken to "detention camps" "for their own safety". Sounds rather familiar. The Luftwaffe had already sent two squadrons of bombers and Messershmitzes from Germany as part of Fliegerführer Irak (Flyer Command Iraq) with help from Vichy France. Yet Reference 25 doesn't even mention any time interval prior to 1948, nor Mossad! Instead, it says,
"On 15 May 1948, three months after the Wathba, the state of Israel was proclaimed, the Arab armies invaded, and al-Said imposed martial law. A week later, newspapers in Iraq were calling for a boycott of Jewish shops, to 'liberate' Iraqis from the 'economic slavery and domination imposed by the Jewish minority'. This suspicion of Jews was encouraged by a weak and reviled government... the arrival in Iraq of eight thousand Palestinian refugees did nothing to calm things. Responding to a wave of popular anger, the Iraqi government declared Zionism a capital offence, fired Jews in government positions..."
Next, there's this. "Historian Moshe Gat reports that "the belief that the bombs had been thrown by Zionist agents was shared by those Iraqi Jews who had just reached Israel".[57] Sociologist Phillip Mendes backs Gat's claims, and further attributes the allegations to have been influenced and distorted by feelings of discrimination.[21]." However, Reference 21 does not support that at all:
"Historian Moshe Gat argues that there was little direct connection between the bombings and exodus. He demonstrates that the frantic and massive Jewish registration for denaturalisation and departure was driven by knowledge that the denaturalisation law was due to expire in March 1951. He also notes the influence of further pressures including the property-freezing law, and continued anti-Jewish disturbances which raised the fear of large-scale pogroms. In addition, it is highly unlikely the Israelis would have taken such measures to accelerate the Jewish evacuation given that they were already struggling to cope with the existing level of Jewish immigration. Gat also raises serious doubts about the guilt of the alleged Jewish bomb throwers. Firstly, a Christian officer in the Iraqi army known for his anti-Jewish views was arrested, but apparently not charged, with the offenses. A number of explosive devices similar to those used in the attack on the Jewish synagogue were found in his home. In addition, there was a long history of anti-Jewish bomb-throwing incidents in Iraq. Secondly, the prosecution was not able to produce even one eyewitness who had seen the bombs thrown. Thirdly, the Jewish defendant Shalom Salah indicated in court that he had been severely tortured in order to procure a confession."
Yet the article and some of the Wikitags (one of which was in the lead and I removed), have comments to the effect of, "According to who is there uncertainty?" with allegations that the bombings were all Mossad's fault. Okay, enough... sorry for rant. I'm already involved in other articles alleging that Zionists and Nazi Germany were collaborating to realize their common goals. It is all so messed up.-- FeralOink ( talk) 23:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)