Talk:Battle of Jenin 2002

The text implies (or at least "it may be inferred from") that the PA suggested the 3,000 death toll. Is this true -- if so, say it, if not, say who did say "3,000"... -- User:GWO

Beats me. I was just answering a question on a talk page, by copying a couple of factoids from the Jenin article. My impression was that some anti-Israeli political group was trying to get Israel in trouble with the UN, by claiming genocide or crimes against humanity.

Kind of like the "World Conference on Racism" in September 2001 which only found one country (suprise! Israel) as racist -- although it permits Arabs to be citizens and permits non-Jews to practice their religion. Other countries, such as the non-democratic Arab bloc which persecute non-Islamic people, got no criticism. --Ed Poor

Contents

1 identifying civilian[s] from combatant[s] 2 Massacre = Hoax 3 What DID the IDF say, and who said it first? 4 NPoV 5 Mistakenly, clarify

identifying civilian[s] from combatant[s]

I have removed a section from this text that claims that Palestinian civilian deaths can be imputed to the difficulty in "identifying civilian[s] from combatant[s]". This is POV and frankly does not tally with events as reported.

The many cases documented in the reports compiled by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch confirm that many of the civilians were killed

a) in situations where their role as non-combatant was beyond any reasonable doubt

See the cases listed in Amnesty International's report on Jenin: [1] (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE151432002?open&of=ENG-PSE)]

b) in houses that were demolished with little or no notice given to the occupants.

I quote from Amnesty International's report on Jenin:

"In several cases the IDF caused the deaths of Palestinians by demolishing homes while residents were still inside. IDF soldiers frequently failed to give adequate warnings before demolishing houses, refused to allow family and neighbours to warn residents, failed to offer help themselves or to call rescue units or ambulances and sometimes shot at those who tried to help." [[2] (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE151432002?open&of=ENG-PSE)]

User:Faulenzer

Problem is that the way you've changed it assumes that the "at least 22" bit is a fact - which is disputed. -- Tomhab 13:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I read some of the report, and found this diclaimer:

"IDF figures give 52 Palestinians killed and say that only 14 were not fighters (i.e every Palestinian male between 15 and 55 was counted as a fighter). Amnesty International has not studied each case; according to Palestinian statistics and Human Rights Watch about 22 of those killed were fighters. According to an UNRWA survey taken in the Jenin refugee camp after the IDF left the camp in April, only one person is currently reported as missing. See Israel, the Occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, and Palestinian Authority Territories : Jenin IDF Military Operations, Human Rights Watch Report.

Since they data relies on secondary sources, it is disputed. The situation is that now almost everyone agrees on about 52 death toll but there are still disputs over the amounts of civilian killed, and how many were indeed killed by the IDF and bot by their fellows militants' booby traps. MathKnight 13:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The same quote doesn't say that HRW didn't study each case though...? Actually why does the article say that 7 civilians were killed according to the IDF, when actually it was 14? -- Tomhab 13:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The text is based on a press report or citation, but since many links turned dead it will take time to find it. I'll do it soon. MathKnight 17:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I found earlier estimation in Time's article

Then came the counting of casualties — and arguments about the count. Throughout the operation, Palestinian officials had said that as many as 800 had been killed. As is the case in the Middle East, the figure was inflated to fit local beliefs of Israeli depravity and Palestinian victimization: last week an Iranian waiter in Rome told an Israeli visitor of 16,000 people slaughtered in Jenin. The reality was different, though body counts and estimates of civilian casualties vary. Charles Kapes, the deputy chief of the U.N. office in the camp, says 54 dead have been pulled from the wreckage and 49 Palestinians are missing, of whom 18 are residents of the camp. Human Rights Watch says 52 were killed, of whom only 27 were thought to be armed Palestinians. The Israelis say they found 46 dead in the rubble, including a pile of five bodies that had been booby-trapped. Of these 46, say the Israelis, all but three were "fighters," men ages 18 to 40. The Jenin Hospital, meanwhile, says 52 camp residents died, including five women and four children under the age of 15. Of the 43 dead men, eight were 55 or older and therefore probably not involved in the fighting. No matter whose figures one accepts, "there was no massacre," concludes Amnesty's Holley.

[3] (http://www.time.com/time/2002/jenin/story.html) So what we realy learned here that it agreed the only 52-54 Palestinian were killed, the inner body count and classification of the dead is still hotly disputed. MathKnight 21:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Massacre = Hoax

I have to say, I believe that when used in referece to Jenin, the term "massacre" is a gross exaggeration, but I feel calling it a "hoax" is also completely inappropriate. A hoax is something that is completely false, basely and quite POV. In my opinion it would be a hoax is the IDF never entered Jenin. I don't know if some people are in denial but people genuinely died in this conflict.

If no-one replies within 3 days or so I'll remove the category reference (which is what I'm writing this because of). Please reply with your views on this. -- Tomhab 03:50, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree, putting this in the category Hoax is a totally disproportionate and misjudged classification. I can't see any possible reasoned argument supporting the Hoax classification, please change ASAP. --Pluke 04:06, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the person who put it in this category feels that the many massacre accusations were a hoax, which they apparently were. Yes, people died in this conflict, which is only to be expected in a pitched battle between armed combatants; comparable numbers of soldiers on each side were killed. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I strongly oppose to removing this category. Since the accusation of alleged "massacre" and "mass atrocities" was so widely circulated, even in the Western media, and is still being used in anti-Israel propaganda, and since there is a long history of anti-Semitic blood libels, this is not just a mere hoax, but one designed to bring old hatred back alive. Words can kill, and a serious encyclopedia is the right place to reassert NPOV.

• Israel's actions in Jenin were "every bit as repellent" as Osama bin Laden's attack on New York on September 11, (Guardian, lead editorial, April 17 2002)
• "We are talking here of massacre, and a cover-up, of genocide," (a leading columnist for the Evening Standard, London's main evening newspaper, April 15.)
• "Rarely in more than a decade of war reporting from Bosnia, Chechnya, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, have I seen such deliberate destruction, such disrespect for human life," (Janine di Giovanni, the London Times, April 16.) [4] (http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/mediaobjectivity/Jeningrad$.asp) Jenin Jenin Film-Maker Admits Fraud (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1324221/posts) [5] (http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=217&x_context=8) [6] (http://www.aijac.org.au/updates/Apr-02/220402.html) [7] (http://jewishinternetassociation.org/articles/fishman_18dec04a.html) [8] (http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Culture/2021.htm) [9] (http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Jenin_Again!$.asp) [10] (http://www.rosenblit.com/big_lie.htm) ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have to go here with Humus Sapiens. The Jenin massacre was a fraud (a false allegation with deliberate intention to decive world opinion, as it was proved by the photoes of the fake funeral). Moreover, this fraud had deadly results for the Jews of Europe, who suffered from a violent wave of antisemitic which was spawned because of the biased report of this allegation in the European press. The "massacre" in Jenin is regarded by many as something similiar to the Protocols of Elders of Zions (a known antisemitic fraud, used as a pretext to 100 year of persecution against Jews and which is still count as a true document in Arab countries and Palestinian society (see Al-Manar for example). MathKnight 08:11, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"The Jenin massacre was a fraud (a false allegation with deliberate intention to decive world opinion, as it was proved by the photoes of the fake funeral)" i'm not arguing this point, the point that i am trying to address is the Battle_of_Jenin_2002, which both Israeli's and Palestinian's agree was a real event, classifying it under a hoax is therefore wrong. If events surrounding the battle can be proven to be as Hoaxes you may consider setting up a separate page, but to classify the Battle_of_Jenin_2002 as a hoax is misleading. Using the same argument you are trying to use, you could classify Bloody_Sunday_(1972) as a hoax because of some of the misleading 'propaganda' surrounding the event, or even more extreme you could classify WW2 as a hoax because of some of the misleading propaganda delivered by both sides.--Pluke 23:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point; you're saying that the Battle of Jenin was not a hoax, even if the Jenin Massacre was. Is that correct? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:11, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The difference is that a hoax is something that is intended to deceive. The world population generally agree it didn't happen, but saying its a hoax assumes it was used to fool people. My belief is that this was not the intention - people were genuinely worried at the scale of death and massacres going on. A false claim would harm any movement (hence why the Palestinian authorities came out with a more accurate estimate before any independent report did). I still feel calling it a hoax is a POV judgment making this a one sided argument within a neutral encyclopaedia. -- Tomhab 17:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually I notice that Fatah say only 56 died on April 30th, whereas western media were reporting "probably not massacre" from 25th or so. Anyway point is look at hoax category contents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes) - this is not similar to any of them. -- Tomhab 17:55, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The primary claim of those who consider it to be a hoax is that Arab spokespeople and leadership wilfully intended to deceive the world into believing thousands (later hundreds) of innocent Arab civilians had been massacred. The record tends to indicate that this is the case. I recall reading an article by Middle East correspondent Stewart Bell during the incident itself. He went looking for proof of the massacre, and was told by local Palestinians that a large refrigerated truck a ways off was filled with dead bodies. I guess they didn't expect him to actually check; when he did, he found it was filled with apples. There has been a lot of posturing and playacting going on for the Western press, with a willful intent to deceive. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:34, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Another cases of deliberate frauds by Palestinian were the noteable fake funeral, caught by IDF UAV. The drone captured on video a staged in funeral in which the mourner accidently dropped the coffin and the "body" ran away. Another case is that of a Jewish-French television crew that pretended to be pro-Palestinian and ignorant of Arabic, and while it pretend to cooperate with the Palestinian sharade, it documented how the Palestinian activists briefed the interviewed people what to say and made up stories for them. MathKnight 20:15, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm OK I see you guys feel quite strongly about this but point out that this is a little one-sided debate. I take it that most people here are Israelis? I'll arrange a RFC in a bit to get a wider range of views. -- Tomhab 20:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am not an Israeli, but why should it even matter? I do feel strongly about this because I happen to know a little bit from history of anti-Semitism and other hate crimes: creating such hoaxes is one stage in the process of dehumanization of an opponent. BTW, I'll have to disagree with your position: hoax category contents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes) - this is not similar to any of them. - please see Blood libel, Ritual murder, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, etc. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 23:14, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sure. I understand this is a sensitive issue, but you're moving your own personal feelings into a NPOV encyclopaedia article. The reason why saying it is a hoax is not right is because the examples above are baseless:

• Ritual murder - I presume it refers to accusaionts where it didn't happen. Well if it didn't happen its baseless
• The Protocols of Elders of Zion - written by someone who wasn't to do with Zionism in anyway
• Blood libel - Again, baseless

The difference is that in Jenin, people did die, and the fact that Israel didn't allow people to disprove it propogated it further. People have said it is possible summary executions were possible. I hope this clarifies. -- Tomhab 23:37, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to stay NPOV and would appreciate the same. Why did Zionism came into this picture is a logical jump I can't comprehend. Again, the question here is not whether "people did die", but rather was there a "massacre" or "genocide" or something "horrific beyond belief" (as the UN special envoy Roed-Larsen qualified it [11] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1937048.stm)). This case clearly demonstrated that the intl media and agencies - including the UN - were a little too eager to jump to conclusions vilifying Jews and Israel. IMHO, NPOV would be to stand up against that, not condone it. I offer a compromise: mark Jenin Massacre a hoax and this article a Category:Propaganda examples. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 00:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please see the proposed RFC below. Comment/change as you see fit. I'll add it to the RFC list in a week or so, so we have some time to edit it. -- Tomhab 23:25, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How about a different approach; separate this article into two, one about the Battle of Jenin, and one about the Jenin Massacre. The Battle of Jenin can be a factual description of the events, timelines, military actions, people killed, etc. The Jenin Massacre can outline the accusations of massacre, their various sources, and the subsequent disproofs/retractions. Thoughts? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:15, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Errm, actually that could work. I quite like it as an idea. -- Tomhab 03:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK got rid of the RFC bit. Just started the Jenin massacre stub. As i get more free time I'll add bits to it

What DID the IDF say, and who said it first?

I'm well aware that many of the websites put up in the last week have been emotive and twisting (ie sites that mention the radio report without the clarification). Looking for reports on the web from the slightly more reputable sites finds:

• 4th April

On April 4, Secretary-General of the Palestinian Authority, Ahmed Abdel Rahman, complained in an interview on Palestinian television about “…world silence over the massacres being perpetrated against the Palestinian people.” (BBC Worldwide Monitoring) Secondary source (http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=217&x_context=7)

• 6th April

On April 6, Nabil Sha'ath delivered a speech at a meeting of the Arab League, in which he charged that “a ?massacre’ was underway in the Palestinian refugee camp of Jenin.” (Deutsche Presse-Agentur) He also “compared Israeli actions in the West Bank towns of Jenin and Nablus to the 1982 massacres of hundreds of Palestinans…” (The Associated Press) Secondary source (http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=217&x_context=7)

• 7th April

On April 7, Abdel Rahman told NBC’s Tim Russert, “The victims so far has been over 250 Palestinians killed, many of them are children and women.” Secondary source (http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=217&x_context=7)

Saeb Erekat is quoted by Washington Post as having said “This is not fighting between armies, but a massacre in Jenin camp." Secondary source (http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=217&x_context=7)

• 9th April

"They [Palestinians] estimate that more than 100 people have been killed by Israeli fire since the army ringed the camp on Wednesday" Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,680480,00.html)

"The number of Palestinians killed in Jenin is unclear. Israeli sources say it could be 150, but the Palestinians say it's higher." Children's BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/world/newsid_1919000/1919689.stm)

• 10th April

"As many as 100 people have been killed in the camp since the start of the invasion", most likely a Palestinian source. Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,681097,00.html)

Palestinians "reportedly suffered as many as 100 dead", most likely a Palestinian source. Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,681647,00.html)

"Israel says 150 Palestinians died in Jenin but Palestinians say the number is far higher" - BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1920463.stm)

On April 10, Sha'ath claimed, “We have 300 martyrs in Jenin in the last few days.” (Agence France Presse) Secondary source (http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=217&x_context=7)

According to one site  (http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=217&x_context=7)Saeb Erekat made four statements of "more than 500", "could reach 500", "more than 500" again, "They are burying more than 300 Palestinian in Jenin refugee camp alone"

• 11th April

Quite emotive pro-Palestinian columnist in the Guardian, UK: "Hundreds are reported killed, including many civilians", most likely a Palestinian source. Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,682143,00.html)

• 12th April

Palestinian Information Minister, Yasser Abed Rabbo, accuses Israel of digging mass graves for 900 Palestinians in the camp, - reasonably common knowledge

Saeb Erekat "hundreds dead" [12] (http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=217&x_context=7)

United Press International quoted the Secretary-General of the Palestinian Authority, Ahmed Abdel Rahman, as saying "[that] thousands of Palestinians were either killed and buried in massive graves or smashed under houses destroyed in Jenin and Nablus." [13] (http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=217&x_context=7)

IDF spokesman Brigadier-General Ron Kitrey mistakenly says hundreds killed when meant "hundreds of casualties" [14] (http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/12/163750.shtml)

• 15th April

IDF put palestinian dead at 45 (common knowledge?)

• 16th April

Unqualifiable report of two IDF spokesmen saying: "Early yesterday an IDF spokesman said the figure was likely to be 'several hundred' dead Palestinians and 23 dead Israelis. Another spokesman put the estimate at a precise 250 Palestinians dead but by last night the IDF count of dead Palestinians had been wound back significantly to 45." http://smh.com.au (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/04/15/1018333482108.html?oneclick=true)

Sites that mention the AFP report about IDF source claiming 250 killed:

• http://www.khaleejtimes.co.ae/ktarchive/140402/middleeast.htm - twice

<did not have time to complete list - found 1 other site but lost the link - the site was dedicated to pro-arab cause though> Could not find ANYTHING of the sort on new.bbc.co.uk, guardian.co.uk. Google yielded the above.

Sorry meant to do a more complete list but should be enough. Have to go now. You guys decide who said what first from that but I wouldn't weigh it all on Ron Kitrey. [15] (http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=217&x_context=7) was the most useful

Hope it all helps. Sorry about relying on guardian.co.uk -- Tomhab 16:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think your list sum up the issue very well. MathKnight 20:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I think basically we can say that

• IDF predicted 150 dead at around 9th with the estimate reducing to probably less than 100 on 11th/12th then finally at 45 on the 15th from an actual body count.
• There wasn't any real official palestinian number but: Saeb Erekat first spoke of a massacre on the 7th, and on the same day Abdel Rahman said 250 killed many of them men and women. By the 10th, Saeb Erekat claimed 500 dead, and 12th Yasser Abed Rabbo, a Palestinian minister, claimed 900 were dead. 12th again Secretary-General of the Palestinian Authority, Ahmed Abdel Rahman, claimed "thousands" dead. This was the same day as IDF spokesman Brigadier-General Ron Kitrey made his report with the mistake "hundreds killed" when he meant to say "hundreds of casualties".
• Independent reports actually seemed to stay constant at around "up to 100 killed".

Scary what a bit of ignorance in the media can do. Anyway, unless someone points to something I've missed, we can say the the reports of "hundreds dead" did not originate from the IDF. -- Tomhab 20:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK I'll admit that the format of my edit is a little edgy, but it includes every source anyone could really want, and cannot be argued with. Reverting can end now hopefully -- Tomhab 00:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"IDF spokesman Brigadier-General Ron Kitrey mistakenly says hundreds killed when meant "hundreds of casualties"" : It's just an opinion. Maybe Ron Kitrey is good enough in english and he wanted to say "hundreds killed". The medias listening to Ron Kitrey cannot imagine he doesn't know what means "killed".

--Marcoo 00:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From my understanding of the situation, Ron Kitrey has probably never seen Jenin. He sits behind a desk all day at some Israeli office for media relations and every now and then gets handed somethin to say to the press. He is told what the IDF want him to say and thats what he says (hence the title IDF spokesman - he speaks for the IDF). If the IDF quickly say he made a mistake, then his report was a mistake. His opinion doesn't matter, because he's representing the IDF opinion. Maybe he misread what was handed to him in the first place. Does this really matter? -- Tomhab 01:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It matters in a way. Two possibilities : IDF thought first, had enough information to think that hundred of Palestinians were killed, and after the IDF realized (maybe asking officers and soldiers) that it was not possible, so they explained Kitrey meant "hundreds of casualties", but it's not necessary true that he meant that. (Israel estimates 150 dead on the April 10).

The other possibility is what you propose : Kitrey made a mistake reading a paper.

I think there is no reason to choose between the first or the second possibility. --Marcoo 21:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again does it really matter? "hundreds" is quite a vague number. The original reason for this quote being included was that Ron Kitrey was to blame for the overblown numbers. I've shown you that numbers of up to 900 were suggested long before, so Ron Kitrey was not (solely) to blame. Could you be any more pedantic? I'm sorry for being short but what do you want me to say? Israel DID kill 52 Palestinians with dubious reason and possible (probable?) breaches of human rights, but "hundreds" of them were not killed. There was wanton killing. There were no mass graves. I'm pretty sympathetic for the Palestinian people (note distinction from militants) but you really cannot pin the blame on them for this. -- Tomhab 22:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"The original reason for this quote being included was that Ron Kitrey was to blame for the overblown numbers." -> No, I just wanted the article to be a little bit more precise and complete on a confused context about the figures. --Marcoo 23:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No thats what I changed it to, to make sure the quote wasn't used out of context:

• 2 Jun 2005, 193.56.241.67, Its first use which, quite POVly, ignored the clarification. It also said it wast the first use of an inflated death toll - quite wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Jenin_2002&diff=14589591&oldid=1458952516:13,)

• [16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Jenin_2002&diff=14628302&oldid=14601672)20:21, 2 Jun 2005, Tomhab, After approaching a revert war I change the text within the paragraph to put it as a possible cause for the media hysteria. Only did a few minutes research but since the original user provided one example I assumed there was only one example of an inflated number. I knew that Palestinian exaggerations came before so made that clean.

• [17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Jenin_2002&diff=next&oldid=14628302)07:20, 3 Jun 2005, Marcoo, You enter the conversation and change the chronology to make it appear that the Ron Kitrey's comments were announced before any exaggerated estimates. I'll assume good faith here and it was just a mistake

• [18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Jenin_2002&diff=next&oldid=14666351)00:27, 4 Jun 2005, Marcoo, After entering a revert war insisting that the Israeli comment was before all, then changed to most comments of a massacre (you did 4 reverts so should have been banned for a day as punishment), you include a second quote about 250 from not a news site, but a pro-Palestinian "fan site".

Are you happy yet? Because of your insistance on following your own ignorance on the matter I had to spend over an hour researching the topic and finally providing the dates, and announcements of anything relevant to the body count above. I don't normally flame new wikipedians and I wouldn't have if you hadn't have insisted on your petty points in order to make israel look bad. You've been unable to take a NPOV and solely attempted to promote pro-Palestinian points (even though some are long dead or did you not hear that only 52 people died in Jenin?) typical of someone who is unable to take both sides of an argument. -- Tomhab 23:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"You enter the conversation and change the chronology to make it appear that the Ron Kitrey's comments were announced before any exaggerated estimates"

Not "before any", don't exagerate, I wrote "before most". The only link which was in the article was [19] (http://www.rense.com/general24/900.htm), with the date of April 16,2002. This date made me make a mistake on the chronology, that's true, I recognize it. But your resume gives all the blame on me ! :-(

I just would like to notice that Chanting Fox [20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Jenin_2002&diff=14589966&oldid=14589591) simply deleted the Ron Kitrey's declaration, and MathKnight did the same [21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Jenin_2002&diff=14601672&oldid=14597161).

The Ron Kitrey's declaration was deleted in every article where it has been inserted, which is, for me, but maybe I'm wrong, a kind of vandalism. ([22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_anti-Semitism&diff=14627905&oldid=14609754), [23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_anti-Semitism&diff=14629999&oldid=14629819) by MathKnight, [24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_anti-Semitism&diff=14664993&oldid=14664581), [25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_anti-Semitism&diff=14708191&oldid=14665727) : declaration deleted twice by Jayjg)

When you wrote "the only IDF report with such a large body" "and came after inflated Palestinian reports of a massacre.", it wasn't a correct presentation, as your complete chonology shows after. So maybe my reverts were not correct (I continue with my first mistake), but the version I reverted 3 or 4 times also were not... I don't think I commited a crime when reverting ; and, for my opinion, to delete relevent facts, as it happens for Ron Kitrey's declaration, is more problematic on Wikipedia.

And about "fan-site" , when you wrote "from not a news site, but a pro-Palestinian "fan site"", please notice that I used the same site that was in the paragraph before (13 May 2005 version [26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Jenin_2002&oldid=14589525), part "Allegations of a Massacre", 3rd paragraph, I couldn't guess it was a fan-site).

About my "own ignorance on the matter", please be less categoric, I've lived in Palestinian cities and some friends of my friends were injured during Jenin operation, some of them lost a leg or more (there are not included in the only 52 people killed). I can make mistake about facts, but I try to be honnest and not to hide anything.

"You've been unable to take a NPOV and solely attempted to promote pro-Palestinian points (even though some are long dead or did you not hear that only 52 people died in Jenin?) typical of someone who is unable to take both sides of an argument."

 :-( Your conclusion is unfair. The article at the beginning didn't mention anything of the confused context of figures. I wanted to provide a more NPoV adding a fact I read on the net about IDF rumors. Bu it has been deleted many times. Many people in April 2002 gave false figures, based only on rumors, but there were no mention at all of the false figures given by the Israeli side.--Marcoo 09:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I reverted your addition because they were factually disacurate, to say the least. The way you wrote it clearly implied that the Palestinian allegations massacre came only after the IDF made such "allegation", which is simply not true, and thus removed. It was explained in the edit summary serveral times. MathKnight 10:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I just got frustrated when you refused to let the issue die. Next time, before there is a revert war, please just use the talk page. Using "removal of correct facts is vandalism" does not give people the right to continue revert wars. -- Tomhab 11:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPoV

"This appears to be the only IDF report with such a large body count and came after inflated Palestinian reports of a massacre." : This is not at all a NPoV.

Can you explain why did you deleted "The same day, an Israeli military source told AFP some 250 Palestinians were killed[27] (http://www.rense.com/general24/900.htm)." ? (so it's not the only IDF report).

"and came after inflated Palestinian reports of a massacre" : It's just a PoV. There were Palestinian allegations BEFORE and AFTER the 12th. Why do you choose "before" ?

--Marcoo 00:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The point was that the western media mass hysteria could have been caused by his mistake. Point was that it wasn't the first report of an inflated estimate. Besides I've diced that whole section up now -- Tomhab 01:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mistakenly, clarify

I'm sorry, Tomhab, not to close the issue, but Jayjg insists to write "Ron Kitrey mistakenly says hundreds killed" with the argument : "of course it was a mistake since hundreds weren't killed."

Ok, so it means that I can write: "Saeb Erekat mistakenly make mention of a massacre" since there was no massacre or "Saeb Erekat mistakenly estimates 500 or more dead" since 500 weren't killed.....

For every reader, "mistakenly" supposes that Ron Kitrey misundertood what IDF explain to him, it's just the interpretation given by IDF, but it's not neutral to suppose it true.--Marcoo 15:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unless you are saying there was some conspirecy, given the quick clarification, it is very reasonable to believe that Kitrey made a mistake in his statement (i.e. slipped in his tongue) rather than he "told the true" and was "covered up" by IDF statement. Moreover, since he is IDF spokesman, he was the one responsible for issuing the clarification. This was not the case with Saeb Erekat. MathKnight 16:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have to repeat what I said above :

In the chronology of the article, we can find three items about israeli declarations :

On April 10, Israel estimates 150 dead

On April 12, Ron Kitrey mistakenly (or not) says hundreds killed

On April 14, the estimation progressivley came down (from 250 and 188) to a final figure of 45

So for me it's not very clear if IDF first thought on the 12th that hundred of Palestinians were killed and realized only after this figures was not possible, or if Kitrey misunderstood something. I never talk about "conspirecy", but everybody knows that boths sides in a conflict (which is also mediatic) sometimes say things a little bit different from the truth. If we always believe IDF only on their declarations and adopt their interpretation, it's useless to talk about neutrality here. That's why I propose to only report the facts : Kitrey says this, and IDF quickly explain he meant this. --Marcoo 17:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You failed to address the issue of quick clarification. Unless you are assuming some wierd conspirecy theory I think "clarification" is suitly reasonable. MathKnight 19:15, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A little lie, if it is, is not always a conpirecy. I think you want to see everywhere conspirecies. --Marcoo 22:33, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK I've had enough of this argument. What it comes down to is that this is Marcoo's speculation. The website provided says "clarification", so thats what we're using as its source. We CANNOT and WILL NOT include anything else until a link can be found that says the second statement was anything other than a clarification. If one is found, MathKnight (nor anyone else) can possibly argue with Marcoo - thats all that can be said about it.

Wikipedia can only report what others have said about the topic, not what editors think may have happened(its called original research, which wikipedia does not like). Thats the end of the topic - there is nothing more that can be said. -- Tomhab 02:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't exagerate everything please ! And I'm bored to be accused to think about conspiracy when I just want to say that IDF's point of view is not above everything. I've never ask to include any original research. My proposition was "IDF spokesman Brigadier-General Ron Kitrey says hundreds killed, IDF quickly explain he meant hundreds of casualties"

Where is the original research in my proposition ?

What's wrong with my proposition ?

And more, the website provided wrote "clarification" but between two '"', see here : "The army quickly issued a "clarification" saying that Kitrey meant to say "casualties - those killed or wounded" rather than just the number of those killed.". It's presented as IDF's word. That's why my proposition is more neutral. If we can't agree on this, we could make a request for a mediation. --Marcoo 12:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong is you're trying to re-word the source to say what you think it should have said. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

???

You didn't tell me where is the original research in my proposition, because there's not. You're unable to tell exactly what's wrong with any word of my proposition, any meaning, the only thing you say is an interpretation about my proposition, which doesn't exists in it.

If I wanted to re-word something, if I was obsessed by a conspiracy, if I wanted to say that IDF lied when telling that Kitrey meant something else, I would have proposed "Ron Kitrey was told to talk about hundreds killed, but later IDF realize that the figure was over-estimated and decide to save themselves by insinuating that he meant hundreds of casualties". If we want to stay on the facts : Ron Kitrey said X, and IDF explain Y. What is more neutral ? Really, I don't understand your point of view. --Marcoo 20:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please re-read Tomhab's comments. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've just re-read them, and I've already answered to Tomhab's comments. If we report what others have said about a topic, we have to present a fact as a fact, and an interpretation/PoV as an interpretation/PoV. Here, if we stay on the facts, we could write : "Ron Kitrey said X, and IDF explain Y". If we want to present a PoV, we could write : "Ron Kitrey said X and IDF explain later he mistakenly said this". But Wikipedia is not IDF, isn't it ? --Marcoo 22:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK - just read through this entire talk section and I'm not sure, but this might be what Marcoo is after (but wasn't explicit in his first comment). Changing:

IDF spokesman Brigadier-General Ron Kitrey mistakenly says hundreds killed, but IDF quickly clarify he meant hundreds of casualties (killed or injured).

to

IDF spokesman Brigadier-General Ron Kitrey says hundreds killed, but IDF quickly clarify he made a mistake and meant hundreds of casualties (killed or injured).

If thats right it looks reasonable. To me Marcoo's first comment implied removing the entire second half of the clarification as irrelevant hence the confusion. -- Tomhab 23:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will be OK with : "IDF spokesman Brigadier-General Ron Kitrey says hundreds killed, but IDF quickly explain he made a mistake and meant hundreds of casualties (killed or injured)."

For my level of english, "clarify" means "to make understandable", so if we use the verb clarify, it means that we'd suppose true the fact that he made a mistake. That's why I proposed before "explain", which doesn't presume if the explanation is the good one or not.

--Marcoo 23:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I prefer Tomhab's version; governments and organizations issue "clarifications" all the time. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seconded as quickly explain sounds odd --Pluke 16:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't accept "clarify", because it's a way to suppose true the fact that he made a mistake. So it's only a PoV. If there is no solution, I will ask for a mediation, but I don't consider Jayjg's position as impartial. --Marcoo 21:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My position? There are three people so far here who consider the wording fine, only you disapprove. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If it's your position as an admin (so as a possible mediator), I persist to say that your position is not impartial at all. You're three so you're right ? New rule on Wikipedia ? For me the respect of NPoV is more important than how many are on each side. It should be the same for a mediator, not considering how many support a proposition. --Marcoo 22:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's my position as an editor. And now there are four people who think the word is fine, against one who does not. This is called "consensus" on Wikipedia, and it's not a new rule at all. What you think is a NPOV issue is simply not, according to the consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Marcoo, Please don't take offense at what i'm about to say, but you seem to be having a problem properly grasping the meaning of the english in this statement. From my position as having British English as a first language, this is not POV in the slightest. If English is not your first language are you sure you can make statements querying the validity of phrases that you are not fully familiar with? Even with your interpretation of the word clarify, if you go back to the article this was taken from [28] (http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/12/163750.shtml) it quotes IDF spokesman Brigadier-General Ron Kitrey as saying "there were apparently hundreds of people killed in the Jenin refugee camp.". Note the use of apparently, this shows a level of uncertainty and would therefore need clarification, and thus making clear. Again, please don't take this as an attack.

As everybody knows, english is not my first language. Ok. But when I go on Merriam-Webster online dictionary, I read for "clarify" that one of the meanings is "to make understandable". So it appears that this word have the exact same meanings in French. So from what I understand, if we write : "IDF quickly clarify he made a mistake", it means that we suppose true the fact that he made a mistake. Am I right ot not ? So I ask for a verb which doesnt suppose if it is true or not. And notice that in the link, the article used two """ for the word "clarification", they is a reason. If "quickly explain" is "too odd", you can propose something else, after all, you know english better than me.--Marcoo 08:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Note the use of apparently, this shows a level of uncertainty and would therefore need clarification, and thus making clear." -> It's not the point here. IDF didn't clarify the word "apparently", they said that Ron Kitrey meant "casualties" when he said "killed people". It's not the same thing at all (that's maybe why the article put "clarification" between two """). Using two """, the article from Newsmax is more NPoV than your proposition. --Marcoo 08:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I feel it is the word mistakenly giving you real problems. would a statement such as

IDF spokesman Brigadier-General Ron Kitrey tells Israeli Army Radio that there are apparently hundreds killed, the IDF quickly [[[clarifies/corrects]]] this position, stating that there were hundreds of casualties (killed or injured).

clear this up? Clarifies is still a perfectly good alternative. Feedback please --Pluke 12:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I explained since the beginning, the problem doesn't come only from "mistakenly", it also come from "clarify". I repeat : using two quotes """ for the word "clarify", the article from Newsmax is more NPoV than your proposition. I ask for a neutral verb (which doesn't suppose if Ron Kitrey made a mistake or not) : "to say", "to explain", "to tell", whatever you want. I think it's not too much to ask for... :-( --Marcoo 12:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

so IDF spokesman Brigadier-General Ron Kitrey tells Israeli Army Radio that there are apparently hundreds killed, the IDF quickly corrects this position, stating that there were hundreds of casualties (killed or injured). is ok with you, though please understand in my eyes it is the same as clarifies? --Pluke 14:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

saying that they clarrified is not POV - look back at the source [29] (http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/12/163750.shtml) - it directly implicates that the second statement from the IDF was related to the first. Quoting Marcoo which doesn't suppose if Ron Kitrey made a mistake or not - if you look at the source the second statement is released solely to explain Ron Kitrey DID make a mistake! To imply otherwise is not just POV, its wrong. I suggest the best move you could do is put a double quote (") around clarify, to make it clear that it was their wording, not wikipedia. -- Tomhab 18:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That would look like scare quotes. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Possibly, but it is what the source uses... -- Tomhab 19:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And since it's neutral and accurate, we can use it to; no need to make it look like we don't believe them, which is exactly what it will look like. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm OK with Tomhab's proposition. Ok with : "IDF spokesman Brigadier-General Ron Kitrey tells Israeli Army Radio that there are apparently hundreds killed, the IDF quickly "clarify" [or issued a "clarification" saying that] he meant hundreds of casualties (killed or injured)." (even if I'd have prefered to use a neutral verb like 'explain' instead of using a verb between two double quotes ; it would have been more simple !). --Marcoo 01:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)