Talk:Hadassah medical convoy massacre

"Massacre"

Yuber, why was the page moved? And even worse, moved without a post to talk? This is generally referred to as a massacre, just as Deir Yassin is. It certainly is not usually referred to as an "incident." Please give some justification before renaming pages. Some examples of the way the word massacre is used in context:

• " A "take no prisoners" massacre by Arab guerrillas of a convoy of medical personnel to Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus, that included Jewish medical personnel, occurred on the 13th in Sheikh Jerakh near Mt. Scopus" From the Red Cross Report on Deir Yeissen
• "The massacre of 77 members of a Hadassah medical convoy by Palestinian Arabs..." Encyclopedia Britannica
• During Israel's 1948 War of Independence, Mount Scopus was cut off from the rest of Jerusalem, and convoys were organized to transport the medical staff safely past Arab troops. That April, a convoy was ambushed and 78 doctors and nurses killed in the worst massacre in Israeli history. The hospital closed and didn't reopen until the mid '70s. St. Petersburgh Times
• ...there are many others, on both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian sites, and not a single reference I can find to an "incident"?

Please do not move pages without discussion in the future. Goodoldpolonius2 01:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see from the debate around Qana Incident that this was probably a disruption to make a point. Don't do that, please, Yuber - it starts edit wars that ripple through Wikipedia, it wastes my and other editors' time, and there is no linkage between these two topics. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If we call this a response for Deir Yassin, then we should call every single asttack a response for what happened immedietly before, this is a ridiculous proposition.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary. There is essential unanimity among historians that the exceptional severity of the attack, and maybe the attack itself, was largely due to the Deir Yassin massacre which occured only a few days before had every Arab (and quite a few Jews) inflamed with anger. Eye-witnesses reported the attackers crying out "Deir Yassin". The wording that you removed, which I will restore, only noted the temporal proximity and doesn't suggest any causal connection even though there was one. In my opinion, that is a compromise too far in the wrong direction but I'll accept it. --Zero 09:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Deir Yassin reference, redux

I've changed the reference to the "Battle of Deir Yassin" to the "battle and massacre of Deir Yassin". I believe this should keep both sides equally happy (or unhappy). A necessary compromise, imo. Cgingold 19:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

But Benveniste does not really say that the Hadassah massacre was retaliation for Deir Yassin: The Jews, too, paid a heavy price in blood. Five days after the massacre, on 13 April 1948, Arabs attacked ... The British forces in the vicinity did not intervene, explaining that they were 'letting the Arabs take revenge for Deir Yasin, so as to calm somewhat the rage of the Arab world.'" (p. 116, already quoted). Afaik, there are historians who see the Hadassah massacre as revenge for Deir Yassin, but Benveniste is no good source (he is a good source for Kfar Etzion as retaliation for Deir Yassin, though). --DaWalda (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Two historians who actually see Hadassah as retaliation for Deir Yassin are:

- Yoav Gelber: Palestine 1948. War, Escape and the Emergence of the Palestinian Refugee Problem. Second, Revised and Expanded Edition. Sussex Academic Press, Eastbourne / Chicago 2012, ISBN 978-1-84519-075-0. S. 317

- Benny Morris: 1948. A History of the First Arab-Israeli War. Yale University Press, New Haven 2008, ISBN 978-0-300-12696-9. S. 128. DaWalda (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Event ?

I removed the word rumors because it is reffering to Deir Yasin making it sound as if it were a rumor and in general is read and understood differently by people. Now their were rumors that it was exaggerated with rape claims and higher death tolls at the time, but the fact is that it did happen and news of it happening was not false. The convoys were being attacked lightly before the massacre at Deir Yasin but became horrific on the day of the Haddas massacare clearly in response to what happened. The article also needs some minor cleaning as it has many unsourced claims. I do have some material on the massacre and will help with the sourcing and clean up of unverifiable facts. Angry Ayrab 08:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What did happen for sure was the battle. The massacre itself is disputed. Writing here "massacre" and not expanding on it suggests that it's an absolute fact, and it provides a sort of justification. Rumors might hint the opposite - that it for sure never happened, which you can also claim to be POV. I suggest using "Battle of Deir Yassin" which also directs to the same article then, or alternatively to add the word "disputed" before the "deir yassen massacre" in this article. what do you think. Amoruso 11:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all the opening paragrpah is wrong: It is not an "evenet" it is a warcrime massacre of medical personal.

second, Haddas convoy was not attack because of Deir Yassin. The attacks on the hospital strted long before Deir yassin (see http://www.hadassah.org/education/content/StudyGuides/Convoy_ITAD.pdf . Zeq 10:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

it no longer says event which is indeed an unfitting term like you said. the link I see was added.

I think There doesn't seem to be any explanation here for the NPOV tag. Correct me if I'm wrong Zeq. so if it's not explained it should be removed. Amoruso 23:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The contemporary reports in the Palestine Post are available online to anyone who cares to read them. They report British rescue attempts beginning early that morning. One was fired upon by the convoy. --Ian Pitchford 07:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you're talking about. If something bothers you, correct it and remove the tag. Amoruso 07:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Question re smuggling of arms

I distinctly recall being taught when I was young (back in the mid-1960s) that Jewish forces had resorted to smuggling arms inside of ambulances (if I recall correctly, during the siege of Jerusalem). This information was imparted rather proudly, as evidence of their resourcefulness in the face of adversity. I haven't made an exhaustive search to document and confirm this, but I've been struck by it's omission from material that I've seen. Does anybody have solid information (either verifying or refuting) on this issue? And if it was taking place, did the Arab forces know about it, and if so, was it possibly a factor in this particular event? Thanks in advance for any useful replies on these questions. Cgingold 19:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a vivid memory from around ten years ago of an elderly woman boasting how she carried guns around Jerusalem under her skirt in case the Irgun men she was with were searched by the British Army. As to the question of how military was the convoy - how about the question how military was the hospital? One contempory reference that might be of interest is Thomas C. Wasson: Quotes from Wasson's reports to the United States State Department around the time of his death include:

On April 15 1948, in a report concerning the Hadassah Hospital Convoy Massacre, Wasson wrote, "American correspondent eye witnessed removal from trucks large quantities arms and ammunition and speculated whether for escort or other purpose."

On April 17 1948, he wrote " . . . queried as to whether convoy included armoured cars, Haganah guards, arms and ammunition in addition to doctors, nurses and patients, Kohn [of the Jewish Agency] replied in affirmative saying it was necessary to protect convoy."

I'm sure there's more. I'll have a look around.Padres Hana (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably, there was arms in the convoy, but there was a massacre. Also in Deir Yassin there was upon 100-120 fighters with light arms(20 or 30 men in guards, multiply by turns; 120 or 150 family, every arab adult man possesed a fire arm... Count this). And? A massacre is a massacre--83.138.204.5 (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

References

NPOV

seems very pro israel and particularly anti british, have balanced it a little but needs more work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.104.87 (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not anti-British at all. It extolls the heroism of Jack Churchill, who was very British, as far as I can see.--Gilabrand (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It does however refer to British forces declining to intervene, yet they had done so and were attacked by the Jews. The survivors were eventually rescued by British troops, the convoy having been entirely abandoned by Haganah. The article is not particularly biased, though clearly written from a Jewish perspective. The main problem is the title. This was an ambush of a military convoy (which did include doctors and nurses), not a massacre.122.59.167.152 (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Potential useful reference

Victims of Hadassah massacre to be memorialized, April 7, 2008, taken from this attempt to start a new article on this topic. The new article, Hadassah Massacre was a stub and now redirect here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

recent

to Ashely: yes, the victims were jews. Amoruso (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

wp:rs

I don't think this can be considered as a wp:rs source to state that the massacre was not performed in retaliation of Deir Yassin in comparison with Lapierre and Collins who state the contrary... Ceedjee (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Arab Casualties

or should that be Palestinian casualties? I would like to note the editing of my contribution - 'The Times' (London) reported on April 14th 1948 that the 'number of Arabs killed at Mount Scopus was at least 10, the number of Jewish deaths is now 39.' into "one British soldier (no reference)". Padres Hana (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian Arab would be ok.

What is the source of that information ? (I mean, where did you get this ?)Ceedjee (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Times. I'll double check and get a photocopy. It'll take a few days but its not difficult.Padres Hana (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If you checked yourself, that is ok for me !

Ceedjee (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have the photocopy in front of me: Wednesday April 14 1948: Headline: ARABS AMBUSH CONVOY - 34 JEWS KILLED -Rescue by British Troops. From Our Own Correspondent. etc 'Part of the convoy turned back to the city, but the remainder became heavily engaged.' What I hadn't noticed until today is the bottom paragraph, dated: Jerusalem, April 13: ...'One of the vehicles destroyed when a land mine blasted the two leading armoured cars was the Jewish Red Shield ambulance.' It also mentions British troops rescuing 'a score of Jewish survivors'. The Scotsman's report is second half of a report from Lake Success, headline is BATTLE FOR CONVOY - 'British Troop Rescue Jews from Arab Ambush' TWO REPORTED KILLED (sic)'Jerusalem, Tuesday - Two British soldiers were reported killed and a senior British police officer and two soldiers were seriously wounded etc' ... 'killing at least five' Arabs '...' The bodies of 35 Jews mostly burning were counted and more were scattered by the roadside.' The Scotsman 16th April has four lines at the end of a longer report headed: OVER 100 ARABS KILLED IN JEWISH ATTACK (Mishmar-Haemek)...'The Jewish death roll(sic) in the Arab attack at Mount Scopus two days ago, on a convoy going to Hadassah Hospital, is now 77. They include doctors and nurses.'Padres Hana (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sheikh Jarrah

Not an Arab neighbourhood but a mixed one, Sheikh Jarrah contained the Sephardi and Teimani neighbourhoods of Nahalat Shimon and Shimon HaTzadiq, depopulated the month before by the Arab unit al Shabab, this should be mentioned as these events were an important contributing factor leading to the event in question Spanglish (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Medical convoy

• "The massacre of 77 members of a Hadassah medical convoy by Palestinian Arabs..." Encyclopedia Britannica
• On this day: The Hadassah medical convoy massacre The JC

This was a medical convoy, and the title should reflect this. Ankh.Morpork 20:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Benny Morris refers to this as the Mount Scopus Convoy. (1948, Index p. 517). There were 10 trucks in the convoys : 2 armored cars, 2 buses (with the doctors, nurses and students) and 6 others trucks (p.128). The last 4 were trapped and coud not escape.

Could you please, on your side, profide wp:rs (not internet website but books written by scholars) who refer to this event with other words ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit) This is not a wp:rs but it is interesting to point out that people who have the higher claim about the event refer to {http://www.hadassah.org.il/English/Eng_MainNavBar/News/Press+messages/The+Hadassah+Convoy+annual+memorial+ceremony.htm Hadassah Convoy massacre]. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

primary sources

This use of archival material is not allowed:

On April 15, 1948, the American Consul in Jerusalem, Thomas C. Wasson, reported that an "American correspondent eye witnessed removal from trucks large quantities of arms and ammuntion and speculated whether for escort or other purpose." On April 17, 1948, he wrote "queried as to whether convoy included armoured cars, Haganah guards, arms and ammunition in addition to doctors, nurses and patients, Kohn [of the Jewish Agency] replied in affirmative saying it was necessary to protect convoy."<ref>Telegrams 439 & 455, Jerusalem Consular Files, Series 800 Palestine, Record Group 84, National Archives</ref>

Though I don't have it here to check, I suspect this has been taken from Michael Green, Taking Sides, which is not a reliable source. If the same or similar material can be found in a reliable secondary source, it might be acceptable. Zero^talk 04:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You are right.

This material is also used in the article about the massacres of the '48 war and this should be removed if there is not 2nd reliable sources corroborating this.

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I am confident it is here : Henry Laurens, La Question de Palestine : Tome 3 - L’accomplissement des prophéties (1947-1967), t. 3, Fayard, 13 juin 2007, 838 p. (ISBN 9782213633589), p. 76. but I can't check because I only had access to this book in a library. Would someone have this or an easy access to this ? Pluto2012 (talk) 09:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

'On the 14th of April, a medical convoy flying the sign of the Star of David (a sign not recognized by the Red Cross) and protected by combatants left for the Mt Scopus enclave. The combatants of the Arab quarter through which the convoy had to pass, having been tipped off beforehand that the convoy would pass there by an Australian officer, who assured them that the men of the Haganah had a mission to use the enclave to attack the Arab quarters and cut the route to Ramallah, set up an ambush. The route was blocked and the battle lasted several hours. The Zionists interpreted this as a violation of the conventions, but the convoy also carried reinforcements and munitions for the enclave. The British ended up clearing the position and getting the survivors out. The losses arose to 76 dead. Reynier succeeded in (getting an agreement that) in the future humanitarian convoys would be devoid of military protection and would travel under the the authority and flag of the Red Cross, which is what happened in the following days. On the other rhand, he set down as a condition for placing the Hadassah hospital and the Hebrew Univeritry under the protection of the Red Cross flag, the withdrawal of the Jewish garrison from the enclave, something which the Zionist authorities refused to do.' Hurried translation as I'm racing against the rain to get a ton of firewood stacked in the woodpile. Nishidani (talk) 11:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

In other words, (a) it was attacked because the Arabs had information that part of the function of the convoy was to refurnish the Jewish garrison with military supplies that would be used against them. It was under Haganah protection. Laurens's sources are Dan Kurzman, Genesis 1948: the first Israeli War, 2nd edition, Da Capo Ptress 1992 pp.189-199, and Reynier. I can't see at the moment whether this refers to 1948 à Jérusalem, Éditions de la Baconnière, 2nd ed. pp.59-62 or to the source given in Milstein, Jacques de Reynier, A Jerusalem flottait sur la Ligne de Feu, Neuchatel, Editions de la Baconniere, 1950, pp. 69-78 (Uri Milstein,History of the War of Independence: Out of crisis came decision, 1998.Nishidani (talk) 11:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Nishidani! Pluto2012 (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Does the information about the Australian officer appear in any other source? I don't recall ever reading about it. If it appears only in Laurens, it should be attributed.

Another question, just out of curiosity, does the bit in parenthesis about the red Star of David not being recognized by the Red Cross appear in the source? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi NMMGG,

Regarding Laurens, it is not required it is attributed. He is the most famous French scholar on the topic of the Middle East and he is not controversial (eg like Pappe). The material we are talking here is a 3 volume book (2500 pages) related to the history of Palestine from 1900 to 1967.

If another scholar gives another vision, then it should be attributed. Here it sounds logical he just give much more details than others like Milstein does in his 4 books about the first months of '48 war.

Nb: to answer your question : 1. As you, I never read this in another source ; 2. yes, it is in the source. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying everything he says should be attributed, but if he says something that doesn't appear in any other source, then I think it should be. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Laurens is an outstanding archive historian, and he alao uses two Arabic sources here, one certainly of the highest quality (Arif al-Arif. As Pluto said, there's no attribution needed. By the way Pluto, it's now 4 vols, with the appearance of his history from 1967 to 1982.(La question de Palestine,Tome 4, 1967-1982, le rameau d'olivier et le fusil du combattant.)Nishidani (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I know you like him. He's apparently now your go-to historian. That doesn't change the fact this information appears only in one source (out of what? Dozens? Hundreds?) and can't be stated as fact in the encyclopedia's neutral voice. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem unable to raise any objections but personal ones. I like all good historians, whatever their POV. Morris is indisputably brilliant and eminently readable. I may dislike Morris's and can pull it apart privately, but I never, as an editor, question him where he mentions facts you only find in his books (normal: he does archival work) as you are questioning Laurens. It's called quality, and people who had the right teachers don't give a flying fuck for what results come out from thinkers or researchers on the cusp. Your silly objection that it only occurs in this source is childish. The premise is, I've only heard it mentioned in this source. That does not mean that that is the only source documenting the fact. Neither you nor I are experts, and when experts distinguished for their equilibrium, close archival research, and impeccable documentation write as a fact something, we should only question it when a rival scholar comes forth with a contradictory statement, or where he has, per many other sources from the world of peer scholarship, slipped up. There is no evidence that Laurens has done so, and we're not going to attribute to every Arabist using those sources any statement not found in Western books. We take Morris at his word for primary research, and the same applies to Laurens. Cite a policy that is convincing or forever keep your peace.Nishidani (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

We do not "take Morris at his word". Stuff is attributed to him all over the place. And to others. When something appears in only one place, it's normal to attribute it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

One does on details comparable to this. And your objection is only that you can't google a similar item of information to confirm its validity. That is not a valid objection or reason for attribution.Nishidani (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

And, yes, I like Laurens. He uses Arabic and Western sources with equal attentive facility, unlike most of our RS, which are written by people who just read and synthesize secondary sources, guided by a POV. What is striking about his 3400 pages is the quantity of material in accessible sources which he musters and which everyone who has seen it simply didn't mention because it didn't fit the standard model.Nishidani (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I can check Kurzman soon. As for de Reynier, I have "À Jérusalem, un drapeau flottait sur la ligne de feu" but is that the source? Zero^talk 12:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it. 1948,à Jérusalem Georg, Genève (1950) reprint 2002 pp.59-62, appears to be (from earlier notes) the text he is following. If you can email me a snap of those pages I'll check and if necessary translate. He also mentions a third source Dominique-Debora Junod, La Croix-Rouge en péril for this event. By the way, he thinks Uri Milstein's work can't be classified as revisionist, and well worthy of the historian's trade.Nishidani (talk) 13:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

What I have is published Neuchatel : La Baconniere (1950). Seems like the wrong text, but I do recall it has a far amount on this subject. Milstein, on the contrary, seems to have very little on it. Zero^talk 22:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That looks by the date, to be the right one. The publisher I gave is of the 2002 reprint. Nishidani (talk) 11:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

For the clarity of our readers, Jacques de Reynier was the Jerusalem representative of the International Red Cross. He wrote (my very rough summary): On May 12, the Jews made a complaint that the Arabs had violated the Geneva Convention by attacking a medical convoy that displayed the Red Shield (Bouclier Rouge, presumably a Magen David, since he says Croix-Rouge for the Red Cross). On investigation, the Jews admitted that the convoy was also supplying the Hadassah garrison. De Reynier lectured them on the requirement to separate medical and military missions—either choose a military convoy or an unarmed convoy under the Red Cross flag. The Jewish Agency agreed but the Haganah insisted that military protection was necessary. To prove his point, de Reynier led a small unannounced convoy with Red Cross flags to the hospital and back on the same route, without any problems. After this, he says, both sides gave orders that medical and military affairs be completely separated. I won't edit the article since my French is épouvantable. Nish, feel free. Zero^talk 09:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

New lead

According to what is brought here above, I propose this new lead :

The Hadassah convoy massacre took place on April 13, 1948, when a convoy escorted, by Haganah militia bringing medical and military supplies to the Hadassah enclave on Mount Scopus, was ambushed by Arab forces

Pluto2012 (talk) 12:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I've no problem with that. I think one should add what de Reynier highlights at the end of the lead, namely that, as a result of the Hadassah incident, a strict separation of military activities from humanitarian aid was established, to avoid the kind of confusion which led to this tragedy.Nishidani (talk) 13:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Revenge attack?

Another issue about this article: a great number (probably a majority) of sources call this massacre a response or revenge for the Deir Yassin massacre of a few days before. This used to be in the article but it was edited out. It should be mentioned. Zero^talk 21:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The simplest solution would be to find the passage wrongfully removed, and, if well sourced, restore it.Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you both. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

"led by Haganah tanks and armoured cars equipped for battle"

Well... De Reynier may not be the most reliable source. Have in mind his 254 bodies for Deir Yassin.
This sentence is another example that discredits his testimonies. Haganah had no tank. They stole (or received) 2 Cromwell's some days around 15 May. And the only equipment for battle that the cars were equipped was armoured plates... So talking about "armoured cars equipped for battle" gives an unfair description of what was the situation.

This should be removed. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I suspect he referred to a type of armoured vehicle as a "tank" despite the military inaccuracy. He wasn't the only one to do that. We should delete this part. Zero^talk 09:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Pluto. Just the sort of lynx-eye we need round here. The text I translated runs:

il n'est pas moins vrai qu'il était précédé et suivi de tanks et de voitures blindées équipées pour le combat

'Haganah shouldn't be there but it was run by them, the rest is what de Reynier asserts. I take your word for it re "tanks". I'm less sure about "armoured cars" (the somew buses were "armoured" weren't they? It certainly looks like de Reynier has 'spun' the story to split what sources often called an 'armoured convoy' in order to make a difference between a battle-readied armoured escort and the vehicles carrying the hospital personnel). There's considerable confusion in the reportage of where what Ben-Gurion called 'escort cars' were.Nishidani (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't speak French, but from what I can make out De Reynier's book appears to be a personal memoir (of someone personally involved in the events) written in 1950. I don't think it meets the standards of an RS for facts. It would seem more appropriate that we find a modern historian to interpret his memoir rather than try to do it ourselves. Dlv999 (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that what Laurens does? Zero^talk 11:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

There is only one citation to Laurens in the article and 6 citations directly to De Reynier's 1950 memoir. (unsigned statement by Dlv999)

Hi Nish,

You translation is perfect as ever, no worry about this :-).

As Zero says, Laurens gives credit to De Renier but after the comment of Dlv999 I wonder if this one is an excerpt from Laurens quoting De Reynier or is this directly from De Reynier ?

If this is from Laurens this is embarrassing and just reminds us that 'errare humanum est'.

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Laurens uses several sources, al-Arif, abu Gharbieh, Kurzman, Reynier, and Junod. I don't see where he slipped up (he says the convoy had 'l'enseigne du bouclier de David' and the Australian tipped off the Arabs, and that the medical convoy also served to supply the enclave's troops with reinforcement and ammunition). I'll leave it to you guys to decide how to work this, but personally I think Reynier's text utilisable, at least regarding the subsequent negotiations (repeated also in Laurens) in which he managed to get the Haganah to separate military and civil operations. He wasn't an observer of the convoy incident. But he was involved in the subsequent negotiations. I'd prefer as always a secondary source, but, in this area, all too often (that's why I like Laurens) secondary sources ignore a lot of perfectly valid (and balancing) information that somewhat complicates a rather simplistic picture. History is always messy, and no one comes out clean. :)Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding primary sources, we also have Dov Yosef and Harry Levin cited, both of them leading Jewish participants. (Levin was in charge of Haganah radio broadcasts, i.e. a professional propagandist.) At least de Reynier was not a member of either side. I'm not convinced about the arguments for his unreliability. The boundary between "tank" and "armored vehicle" is not clear to a non-military person and I've seen other cases of this inaccurate language use. Besides that, it doesn't effect his story in a significant fashion. The Deir Yassin matter is also not an argument for unreliability. It is clear from his account that he accepted the figure of 200+ from the Irgun leader on-site and didn't actually count bodies. Zero^talk 22:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Nish, "'l'enseigne du bouclier de David'" is in agreement with de Reynier and your translation is a bit misleading there. De Reyier's "Bouclier Rouge" is a red Magen David. The word "Magen" is Hebrew for "shield". De Reynier never calls a red cross by that name, he uses "Croix Rouge". Zero^talk 23:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have been unclear, but that's exactly how I took it. Laurens in brackets said that the Red Shield (Magen) was never recognized by the Red Cross.p.76 It's just that when translating stuff like this, a bloke has to be an idiot, and give the literal reading without adding her interpretation, so that more informed readers are not mislead and can then use to figure out what was going on. I basically agree with you re Reynier, but when Pluto came up with his point about tanks, thought we must modulate the text. We can't use the word tank evidently. 'Armoured cars' is fine, much better than 'escort vehicles'.Nishidani (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it might be better to paraphrase more, following Laurens in bulk but citing de Reynier as well on points he supports. Btw, I missed the chance to examine Kurzman this week; I'll try again next week. Zero^talk 08:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think we all agree that bad editing comes from haste, which only suggests that an editor is trying to prove a point. Probably the best shot is to wait on the Kurzman results before proceding. No hurry. Nishidani (talk) 12:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a detailed description of the whole battle in Martin Levin,It Takes a Dream: The Story of Hadassah, Gefen Publishing House, 2002 pp.219 I recommand all editors consult it,Nishidani (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Sources on casualties

• Henry Laurens:76 dead (Laurens 3:76)
• Meron Benvenisti 78 killed, 24 wounded. (Remains of 24 victims never located) (Sacred Landscape: Buried History of the Holy Land Since 1948, p.116)
• Meyer Wolfe Weisgal 77 killed. (So Far: The Autobiography, Transaction Publishers, 1972 p.259*

p.259Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

NPOV title

This was a battle, not a massacre. The Jews admitted that the convoy was armed, and it is clear that there was a battle lasting several hours. It should be described as an ambush or battle, not a massacre.122.59.167.152 (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2023

"in which Zionist militant groups of Irgun and Lehi massacred at least 107 Arab Palestinian villages, including women and children" should have villageRs. (People, not settlements) 2A02:908:2619:D3A0:8883:35D3:AE31:5C78 (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 04:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done To editor Aviram7: reliable sources are not needed to fix typos. Zero^talk 09:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)