Who deleted the original page and directed it to an entry with anti-Israel biased title? Indeed, the title makes it clear that there is no dispute that there was a massacre. In point of fact, no massacre has ever been proven. The only proof offered in thelast 50 years has consistently shown that the supposed massacre of over 300 Arab civilians never took place. No proof of this massacre of civilians exists. In stark contrast, the only proof is that a battle did indeed take place, among a fortified Arab source of attacks against Jews, and that in the course of this battle less than 120 Arabs dies. I understand that Arabs claim that all these people (or almost all of them) were not involved in the fighting. But no proof whatsoever exists for this claim. I also understand that Arabs claim that "the Jews" mass murdered over 300 civilians. But no proof these 300 people exists! Even the Palestinians now admit that these numbers were a gross distortion. So why is this article so heavilly biased towards accepting these unproven claims as indisputable facts? RK

Jennifer, please list some sources for your claims other than biased Arab ones. -- Zoe

The most detailed study of the incident to this date was made in 1987 by independent Palestinian college researches at Bir Zeit University. They found that although there was indeed a massacre "the like of which has seldom been seen",

At the time, the Jewish leadership did not deny that there had been a massacre, by forces not under its control, and in fact apologized to King Abdullah of Jordan. http://www.ariga.com/peacewatch/dy/dycg.htm

Mordehai Gihon, intelligence officer of the Haganah Etzioni Brigade, wrote in his report, submitted April 10 1948:The murder of falachim and innocent citizens, faithful allies of the western sector, who kept faith despite pressure from the gangs, even during the conquest of Sharfa, {Mt Herzl} may lose us the trust of all those Arabs who hoped to be saved from destruction by agreements with us.

Dr Engel, who visited the village with the Red Cross on April 12, reported:"...It was clear that they (the attackers) had gone from house to house and shot the people at close range. I was a doctor in the German army for 5 years, in WWI, but I had not seen such a horrifying spectacle."

Eliahu Arbel, an officer of the Haganah, visited Deir Yassin on April 10, 1948 at the request of Haganah District Commander David Shaltiel. He wrote: "On the following day, after the operation, I inspected the village, in accordance with the order of General Shaltiel. Accompanied by an officer of the attacking unit, I saw the horrors that the fighters had created. I saw bodies of women and children, who were murdered in their houses in cold blood by gun fire, with no signs of battle and not as the result of blowing up the houses."

And so on and so on... Then we also have a few hundred eye-witnesses who claims that there was a massacre but they are obviously all pro-Arabic? Show a credible source (ZOA is not) that claims there was no massacre. --BL

This is obviously anti-Jew propaganda, created by Arabs. No proof of this massacre of civilians exists. show us the proof - where is it? Besides, everyone knows that the IDF never, ever acts in this kind of way at all. And even if they did, they deserved it. Stevert

The following was moved from Talk:Deir Yassin incident:

This is awfully biased to the verge of propaganda. Even the name.. the Deir Yassin INCIDENT???? --BL

The join in the effort to balance these pages. It appears Jennifer is going to make a stand. I'll chip in as far as I can too. -- GayCom

the fire was quickly neutralized by Haganah units using mortar fire sometime between 10:00 or 12:00 A.M, after which Haganah units left. (Levi, Yitzhak, op. cit. p343-344; Pail and Isseroff, op. cit

If I understand correctly, Morris cites exactly the same sources to say the opposite. How can one explain the contradiction?

--Uri

Yugoslavian Muslim officer, whose identification papers indicated he had been with the all-Muslim units of the Nazi SS that had been organized in Yugoslavia during World War II by Haj Amin el-Husseini, the Palestinian Arab leader and Nazi collaborator. (Milstein, p.263 (interview with Zalivensky).)

Sid Zion says the Yugoslav was a SS, but the source (Uri Milstein) they are quoting on that statement does not mention that.

It is not clear whether the civilians had chosen to stay of their own free, or were held as human shields by Arab soldiers who thought their presence would deter the Jewish forces. (Milstein, pp.264-265, interviews with Ezra Yachin, Mordechai Ra'anan, Benzion Cohen and Yehuda Lapidot; Testimonies of Mordechai Ra'anan, Benzion Cohen, and Yehuda Lapidot.)

That source [1] doesn't say anything about the Arabs using human shields. --[user:BL|BL]

I was the one who originally removed the "pro-only-a-battle"-quotes. Most of those quotes were either blatant falsifications, misquotes or quotes cut in half. IMHO, they don't belong to the page, because then you got to write paragraphs like "the gathering Uri Milstein refers to was a meeting held by the ALA between the village elders of Deir Yassin and Ein Kareem requesting them to allow troops in their villages, Deir Yassin refused and the troops left the village this was documented by the Haganah intelligence. Uri Milstein also writes about their departure but this certain malicious quote is most likely orginated in Sid Zion's 'Deir Yassin - history of a lie' ".

It doesn't make sense to include them as they aren't true and easily rebutted. They fit better in an article about the pro-only-a-battle arguments and their rebuttals. Then stuff like this:

Until recently, Arab sources claimed that there was a deliberate massacre of several hundred Arab civilians, and refer to this incident as the Deir Yassin massacre. In this view, the massacre was part of a Zionist plan to ethnically cleanse Palestine of Arabs. In later years Palestinian university scholars have reanalyzed earlier data, and have come to the conclusion that the earlier reports were greatly exagerrated, that many of the casualties were caused by warfare and fighting (as opposed to earlier claims of genocide),

A statement based on a source that is unsourced. I really wish the informal rule "do not remove unless its proven false" would change to "remove unless its sourced". BL 00:53, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Huh? I don't know what you are talking about. The Palestinian Arab survey sources are named and cited. It is the previous claims about their being a deliberate massacre of hundreds of civilians which even the Palestinians themselves now admit is a gross exagerration, and false. RK 14:27, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In reply to RK:

Huh? I don't know what you are talking about. The Palestinian Arab survey sources are named and cited.

Really? From the article:

Until recently, Arab sources claimed....

I've seen you use this technique many times before. Put words in other peoples mouths to support your personal view. Where are these arab sources? Tell me! Paste here cause you see things I cannot find. Furthermore:

claimed that there was a deliberate massacre of several hundred Arab civilians

First the number. Severeal hundred? Are this statement from a written source or on the web? Do you speak Arabic and have access to sources I cannot read? Isn't it true that the infladed number orginated from an Irgun officers mouth? Also, the fact that there was a massacre is, even among those Zionists, the accepted view.

In later years Palestinian university scholars have reanalyzed earlier data, and have come to the conclusion that the earlier reports were greatly exagerrated, that many of the casualties were caused by warfare and fighting (as opposed to earlier claims of genocide),

Does this paragraph refer to Deir Yassin or the 1948 war? In either case it is wrong and if the study referred to is the one from the Bir Zeit university it showed for everyone to see that the Haganah was responsible for executing the ethnical cleansing of Palestine.

Huh? The Palestinian Bir Zeit university study showed no such thing. Is this a bad joke? The Palestinian study admitted that their propaganda of many hundreds of murders was false, and exagerrated by over 100%! They also admitted that many of these deaths were from battle, not genocide. Finally, nothing in their report says anything about the "ethnic cleansing" of all of Palestine. We will probably have to revert your changes, because your statements have no basis in reality at all. You are currently so pro-Palestinian biased that you seem to be outdoing their own rejected propaganda! For shame. RK

And in a preemptive effort to stop you from revering I ask you again, should Sid Zions maliciously and blatantly wrong quotes be left in the article along with rebuttals showing what a lying dishonest ass he is or should they be removed? BL 20:21, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Denouncing him as a "lying dishonest ass" is curious, as you (see above) wrote some rather obvious untruths about the recent Palestinian study from Bir Zeir university. Given this fact, our trust in you is pretty thin, at best. RK 22:56, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Actually Deir Yassin did overlook the main road going into Jerusalem. But not the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem but another large road running south on the eastern side between Jerusalem and Deir Yassin. If I remember correctly. BL 16:16, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I don't believe so. My information came from a British topological survey map. The geographical layout is accurately shown here: http://domino.un.org/maps/m0104_1b.gif . You can see the main road to Tel-Aviv about a mile to the north and a lesser road about the same distance to the south. There are no closer roads of significance. From the contours on the survey map it is clear that the main Tel-Aviv road was not visible from Deir Yassin except possibly in the far distance to the west. Of course the reason Deir Yassin is often claimed to have been overlooking the road is to enhance its military importance. -- zero 11:29, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)