This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 have gone through this article and tried to put it in a more readable form. Towards the end there are a couple of paragraphs mentioning Palmachniks who went into politics. They should probably be grouped either into Left and Right, or those who are still active and those who aren't. However, I do not have the knowledge to do this. I'd be grateful if someone who knows about it, could sort that out. Regards, Joff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.166.124.5 ( talk) 04:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
The article reads: "By the war of 1948 it had grown from humble beginnings to three fighting divisions"
However, the Palmach consisted of three brigades in 1948, not divisions.
A Web search will yield references to this, see for example: http://www.balagan.org.uk/war/arab-israeli/glossary.htm (check the Haganah and Palmach sections).
Also, in Foundations Of Excellence: Moshe Dayan And Israel's Military Tradition ( http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1988/KAA.htm): "In early 1948, Yigal Allon, who succeeded Yitzhak Sadeh as Palmach Commander in 1945, had 6 fully-trained battalions at his disposal each of which contained 4 companies. By the early summer of that year, the Palmach contained 9 battalions and was capable of sustained, brigade-level offensive operations."
Nine battalions would correspond to three brigades of three battalions each. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.212.184 ( talk) 21:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
All the sources I have found, well Morris realy, say the reason for demolishing villages was to prevent them being used as bases. The case of Qastal is taken as evidence of what would happen if they were left standing. The main consequence of the 'systematic demolition' is that the villagers could not return to their homes. I don't think the Haganah leadership were suprised by this consequence. But that is just my POV. Padres Hana ( talk) 22:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Despite having many refrences, these are all to the same two sources - Morris and Khalidi - and both are highly critical of Israel. While Morris is biased but generally reliable, Khalidi is clear cut in his political views. The issue is even more problematic in issues based only on Khalidi's work. I also must say I get the un-easy feeling that the writer (or rewriter) of this section was intended on portraying a certain situation - otherwise I can't understand why he mentioned only Palestinian casualties or why the brutal lynching and mutilation of bodies of 35 Palmach fighters was described as "ill fated" (I've now edited this last issue). I've changed what I could, but I think it's important that people with access to more balanced historical sources get involved and help create a more balanced article. Gal Kr ( talk) 21:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
According to Zero000, the Convoy of 35 is not a massacre because " soldiers killed in battle are not "massacred" ". So a humanitarian mission to a blockaded kibbutz (settlement, call it what you will), supported by 35 armed soldiers are ambushed by "hundreds of Arabs from a nearby training base" and killed and their bodies mutilated "beyond recognition" does not qualify as a massacre because it was during a 'battle'? By your logic, Deir Yassin should not be considered a massacre and all of the massacres ought to be reconsidered in that light. Ridingdog ( talk) 16:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how the photo of the Palmach members amongst the ruins came about but it would appear to be pure fiction. The Hebrew caption for the version of the picture in the Palmach archive is
אלבום: חטיבת הראל הגדוד הרביעי הפורצים יחידות המטה 5 תאור התמונה: החבלנים בכפר הרוס מופיעים בתמונה: למעלה ראשון מימין: יוסף אנוש, למטה שני מימין: מישקה נהוראי מס' עמוד באלבום: 18 מס' תמונה: 9316 נתקבל מ: יוסף אנושי
I can't read Hebrew but Google translates the photograph description as "sappers destroyed village." Unless there is other evidence shouldn't that be what Wikipedia says? Padres Hana ( talk) 18:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Third Hebrew line is fourth English line + fourth Hebrew line is third English line. Mitch3000 02:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Looking at the most authoritative sources, including historians Benny Morris and Anita Shapira, as well as two encyclopedias, the most accurate spelling is Palmah, as opposed to Palmach. For notable examples, see Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa, Encyclopedia Judaica, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, Revisited by Benny Morris, Yigal Allon, Native Son: A Biography by Anita Shapira, Historical Dictionary of the Arab–Israeli Conflict, History Dictionary of Israel (of the larger Historical Dictionaries series), History of Zionism, and The Making of Modern Israel, 1948-1967. This would also be consistent with official rules of transliteration. [1] Because Palmach is also a common spelling (due to Ashkenazic Hebrew pronunciation), I would retain it as an alternate spelling in the lede, but would have Palmah as the primary spelling. Assuming no objections, I can go ahead with the move, including both spellings in the lede. -- Precision123 ( talk) 17:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Established 14th ("History" section) or 15th (as in lead) of May 1941? Arminden ( talk) 18:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 have gone through this article and tried to put it in a more readable form. Towards the end there are a couple of paragraphs mentioning Palmachniks who went into politics. They should probably be grouped either into Left and Right, or those who are still active and those who aren't. However, I do not have the knowledge to do this. I'd be grateful if someone who knows about it, could sort that out. Regards, Joff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.166.124.5 ( talk) 04:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
The article reads: "By the war of 1948 it had grown from humble beginnings to three fighting divisions"
However, the Palmach consisted of three brigades in 1948, not divisions.
A Web search will yield references to this, see for example: http://www.balagan.org.uk/war/arab-israeli/glossary.htm (check the Haganah and Palmach sections).
Also, in Foundations Of Excellence: Moshe Dayan And Israel's Military Tradition ( http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1988/KAA.htm): "In early 1948, Yigal Allon, who succeeded Yitzhak Sadeh as Palmach Commander in 1945, had 6 fully-trained battalions at his disposal each of which contained 4 companies. By the early summer of that year, the Palmach contained 9 battalions and was capable of sustained, brigade-level offensive operations."
Nine battalions would correspond to three brigades of three battalions each. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.212.184 ( talk) 21:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
All the sources I have found, well Morris realy, say the reason for demolishing villages was to prevent them being used as bases. The case of Qastal is taken as evidence of what would happen if they were left standing. The main consequence of the 'systematic demolition' is that the villagers could not return to their homes. I don't think the Haganah leadership were suprised by this consequence. But that is just my POV. Padres Hana ( talk) 22:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Despite having many refrences, these are all to the same two sources - Morris and Khalidi - and both are highly critical of Israel. While Morris is biased but generally reliable, Khalidi is clear cut in his political views. The issue is even more problematic in issues based only on Khalidi's work. I also must say I get the un-easy feeling that the writer (or rewriter) of this section was intended on portraying a certain situation - otherwise I can't understand why he mentioned only Palestinian casualties or why the brutal lynching and mutilation of bodies of 35 Palmach fighters was described as "ill fated" (I've now edited this last issue). I've changed what I could, but I think it's important that people with access to more balanced historical sources get involved and help create a more balanced article. Gal Kr ( talk) 21:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
According to Zero000, the Convoy of 35 is not a massacre because " soldiers killed in battle are not "massacred" ". So a humanitarian mission to a blockaded kibbutz (settlement, call it what you will), supported by 35 armed soldiers are ambushed by "hundreds of Arabs from a nearby training base" and killed and their bodies mutilated "beyond recognition" does not qualify as a massacre because it was during a 'battle'? By your logic, Deir Yassin should not be considered a massacre and all of the massacres ought to be reconsidered in that light. Ridingdog ( talk) 16:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how the photo of the Palmach members amongst the ruins came about but it would appear to be pure fiction. The Hebrew caption for the version of the picture in the Palmach archive is
אלבום: חטיבת הראל הגדוד הרביעי הפורצים יחידות המטה 5 תאור התמונה: החבלנים בכפר הרוס מופיעים בתמונה: למעלה ראשון מימין: יוסף אנוש, למטה שני מימין: מישקה נהוראי מס' עמוד באלבום: 18 מס' תמונה: 9316 נתקבל מ: יוסף אנושי
I can't read Hebrew but Google translates the photograph description as "sappers destroyed village." Unless there is other evidence shouldn't that be what Wikipedia says? Padres Hana ( talk) 18:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Third Hebrew line is fourth English line + fourth Hebrew line is third English line. Mitch3000 02:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Looking at the most authoritative sources, including historians Benny Morris and Anita Shapira, as well as two encyclopedias, the most accurate spelling is Palmah, as opposed to Palmach. For notable examples, see Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa, Encyclopedia Judaica, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, Revisited by Benny Morris, Yigal Allon, Native Son: A Biography by Anita Shapira, Historical Dictionary of the Arab–Israeli Conflict, History Dictionary of Israel (of the larger Historical Dictionaries series), History of Zionism, and The Making of Modern Israel, 1948-1967. This would also be consistent with official rules of transliteration. [1] Because Palmach is also a common spelling (due to Ashkenazic Hebrew pronunciation), I would retain it as an alternate spelling in the lede, but would have Palmah as the primary spelling. Assuming no objections, I can go ahead with the move, including both spellings in the lede. -- Precision123 ( talk) 17:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Established 14th ("History" section) or 15th (as in lead) of May 1941? Arminden ( talk) 18:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)