Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Tel Hai

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Levantine Shia versus Arab Shitte

[edit]

The article references Levantine Shia as “Arab Shitte”. Shias from the Levant are Levantine Shia and should be referred to as this. They are from the Levant. Lebanesebebe123 (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You think that only Arabian tribes are Arabs, but that is a fringe position. The great majority of modern sources refer to the Shi'ites of southern Lebanon as Arabs. This is also the position of Hezbollah. As for origins, nobody knows for sure but an account of descent from Arab tribes from Yemen is widespread. Zerotalk 05:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Genetic studies that Shia Levantines are mostly Canaanites genetically. 2. They are from the Levant so by default they are Levantine Shias/ you are following me from article to article and that’s kind of weird. You and I were discussing something on an entirely different article. If you are going to make the claim that they are in fact Arabs and not Levantine you are going to have to post proof of that. Otherwise they will be labeled after where they are from- Levant and Levantine. Lebanesebebe123 (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When someone is from Europe we call them European, when someone is from Latin America we call them Latino, and so on. These people were from the Levant, by default they are Levantine Arabs. I didn’t bring up Hezbollah or speak of Hezbollah. These people existed and lived in a time before Hezbollah. Please set your bias aside. Also Hezbollah is not a genetic or historical authority.
An account from Yemeni descent is based on tall tales/myth that has not been substantiated, there is no genetic basis for it and that has been proven. Lebanesebebe123 (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To call them Levantine Shias is not incorrect. To call them simply Shia Arabs is incorrect. They were from the Levant. If you are going to omit that then you are obviously just pushing your own bias as evidenced by your mention of Hezbollah. What does Hezbollah have to do with genetic origin and location. These men were from the Levant. They weren’t Bedouins. Lebanesebebe123 (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zionist bias in the first paragraph contradicted by later paragraph

[edit]

"In the course of the event, a Shiite Arab militia, accompanied by Bedouin from a nearby village, attacked the Jewish agricultural locality of Tel Hai."

Later in the article where the events are described in more detail it makes it very clear the Shiite were looking for French colonizers. "They demanded to search Tel Hai for French soldiers. One of the farmers fired a shot into the air, a signal for reinforcements from nearby Kfar Giladi, which brought ten men led by Trumpeldor, who had been posted by Hashomer to organize defense. Joseph Trumpeldor and his ten men attempted to influence the Shiites and roving village militias to go away through negotiation. Kamal Affendi was allowed to enter the village to search for French soldiers. He encountered one of the female Jewish residents named Deborah who pointed a pistol at Kamal, apparently surprised to see an armed Bedouin in the village. A shot was discharged during the struggle (unclear whether from the pistol or by another weapon) and a major firefight erupted."

Then after a ceasefire is negotiated it states, "Kamal Affendi asked to leave, saying it was all a misunderstanding, and the Jewish force approved the cease-fire. During the Arab retreat, one of the Jewish defenders, unaware of the agreements by his comrades and hearing-impaired by the previous firefight, shot at the Arab party, and the exchange of fire recommenced."

The events make it sound less like an attack and more like they were the ones attacked after trying to get rid of their previous colonizers. No part of the article says Arabs fired first, or that they showed up to destroy the settlement (regardless of the outcome).

I would recommend the first part use less biased language to summarize the events. An example maybe would be 'a firefight that erupted after a Shiite militia demanded to search the premises for French Soldiers.' or something along those lines. To call it an attack by the Arabs, is as accurate as calling it an attack by the Yishuv, which is to say it isn't. I recognize the events around this are represented differently by both sides, but going solely on the text in the article the first paragraph is inaccurate and clearly biased. 50.39.174.200 (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's really striking to see this bias from Wikipedia.
For context, the Arabs had recently declared the independent Arab Kingdom of Syria in response to increased pressure from France to take what was promised to them by the British in the Sykes–Picot Agreement. These sort of check-ups were a regular thing at the time.
In this specific incident it's debated why the first shot was fired. Zionist historians maintain that a civilian member of Tel Hai was caught off guard by the soldiers and fired a shot in self-defense.
At one point in the outbreak of shooting that followed, the Syrians realized there was a misunderstanding and called a truce. Which was respected by the Tel Hai members. Except apparently one of them didn't get the message and resumed firing on the sight of the soldiers leading to a further escalation.
Syrian historians have their own version of this story of course, but either way you slice it it's clear that "a Shiite Arab militia attacked" is a preposterously propagandized version of the events. Tr3ndyBEAR (talk) 04:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]