Jump to content

Talk:Moshe Sharett/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Neutral POV issue

The "fact" that "Hecht's claims... are not supported by documentation and are not regarded as serious by historians studying this period" is not neutral, and it is stll unclear who was correct. I changed it to be a bit less biased. Anyone want to comment? Can I leave it changed? —Gartogg 02:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The "Palestine Remembered" link was removed, as it was a very sharp POV article, with a clear political agenda. —This unsigned comment was added by Ngileadi (talk • contribs) 00:18, 7 April 2006.

I've re-inserted the link to the page on Palestine Remembered. All the other links are to Israeli government sites, to Zionist institutions, and one to a book by an Israeli author. They all have a clear political agenda, only the point of view is different from Palestine Remembered. It's not "NPOV" to censor any reference to the other side of the conflict with the Palestinians in an article about an Israeli politician. —Babelfisch 02:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to start a deletion war here. I don't think you read the links. Although the "Jewish Virtual Library" and the "Israel Ministry of Foreign affairs" are both obviously Israel supporters, I don't see anything there that isn't informative and encyclopaedic. They simply list events in his life, like neutral biography should.
You could argue against the "Jewish Agency" link which, especially in the last paragraph, seems like more of a memorial page than a biography.
Your implied claim that since the book was written by an Israeli, it supports Zionism, is plainly wrong.
First of all, I'm not sure Rokach is Israeli. The name is certainly a Jewish name, but I can't find any sources online that mention her place of birth. The book is titled "Israel's Sacred Terrorism" and doesn't support Israel. It should be included, in my opinion, because of its unique source of information - Sharett's diaries.
If by "Israeli author" you were referring to Chomsky, he is certainly not an Israeli (he is an American Jew), and he is one of the biggest critics of Israel's policies in the USA.
In contrast to the other links, "Palestine Remembered" is full of POV expressions. In the first half he uses Sharett's character to batter the rest of the Zionist movement, for example, in the second paragraph:
Sharett's policies with regard to the neighboring Arab states were characterized by vision and pragmatism, but this form of diplomacy was never given a chance by the hardliners, who mostly believed that "Arabs respect only the language of force".
"Arabs respect only the language of force" was never the official Israeli policy, and attempts to portray it as the common policy amongst politicians who opposed Sharett are manipulative.
In the second part, the author proceeds to delegitimise Sharett, while continuing the attack on Zionism:
What has been written above may have given the reader the impression that Moshe Sharett was a "white dove", which cannot be further from the truth. It's true that he may have been the savviest Israeli diplomat ever, one who always advocated the use of diplomacy over force. It's also true that he may had difference with the Israeli hawkish mainstream, but make no mistake about it, Sharett was an ardent Zionist.
This implies being an "ardent Zionist" means not being a "white dove". This is a view held by many critics of Israel. This opinion is based on ignorance regarding the broad definition of Zionism, which in its most basic form simply means "supporting the existence of Israel". Noam Chomsky defines himself as a Zionist, for example.
The "Palestine Remembered" link shouldn't be removed because it is affiliated with an anti-Zionist agenda, but because this affiliation is evident in the article itself, which is presented as a biography. Without the POV paragraphs the link doesn't provide any new information, apart from the quotes, which I admit were an interesting read, ignoring the comments of the author.--Ngileadi 09:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The following link was removed: Livia Rokach: Israel's Sacred Terrorism: A Study Based on Moshe Sharett's Personal Diary and Other Documents (Belmont, Massachusetts: Association of Arab American University Graduates, 1980; Third Edition 1986), ISBN 0-937694-70-3. I think it should stay. —Babelfisch 03:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification Needed

This article implies that a car crash led to Sharett's appointment as Foriegn Minister of Israel. Here is the passage in question:

Sharret's sister Rivka, Dov Hoz's wife, died in a car crash in December of 1940 while driving to an Aviron board meeting. Also killed were Sharret's other sister, Tzvia Sharett, daughter, Tirza Hoz, and Hoz's business partner, Yitzhak Ben Yaacov.

Due to this experience, Moshe Sharett became the first Foreign Minister of Israel. His pivotal achievement was the 1949 Armistice Agreements, which ended official hostilities between Israel and the Arab states during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

Sharett experts: is this true? If so, shouldn't we state exactly how it led to his appointment as Foriegn Minister? --(Mingus ah um 01:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC))

Livia Rokach

Livia Rokach's book is hardly scientific and Rokach herself is hardly a credible historian/political scientist. She's a journalist/culmnist with an agenda. Her findings are highly POV, and there are other books - published by political scientists or historians - that cast light on Sharet and his period, for example, Gabriel Sheffer's "Moshe Sharett : Biography of a Political Moderate" or his own books. As always, I am willing to discuss my position here. Karpada 11:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've re-inserted these sources. The eulogies at the websites of Zionist agencies aren't NPOV either. I suggest you add other references, such as the one you mentioned. —Babelfisch 09:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The question is, whether Rokach's book could stand as reference to such an article. Would Britannica (sorry for saying the forbidden name) put a book written by a journalist as reference to a subject, when there are books written by professors? I haven't found any reputable academic source quoting Rokach; only one journal - "The Journal of Palestinian Studies", which is published by an Arab lobby in Washington - has bothered to review her book. Yes, I'll add Sheffer, but that doesn't change my position regarding the validity of Rokach. If you think that "The eulogies at the websites of Zionist agencies aren't NPOV eithe", then remove them, and find something better. Karpada 09:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Babelfisch keeps inserting the following link into the article:

  • Moshe Sharett A brief biography and quotes (PalestineRemembered.com)

with the justification "every quote is properly sourced. No need to censor critical links." Aside from the policy-violating use of the term "censor", there are a number of issues with the site itself. To begin with, it is obviously highly propagandistic and arguably extremist, referring to itself as "The Home of All Ethnically Cleansed Palestinians". In addition, it appears to be the personal website of an unknown individual, who resides at "P.O. Box 59067, Schaumburg, IL". It contains clearly factually incorrect information; for example, it states "Based on this [United Nations General Assembly resolution 194], every single refugee has the right to go back to his or her home, and to be compensated for any loss of their properties, pain, and suffering." Not only does UNGA 194 not state this, but in any event UNGA resolutions are not binding and do not confer any "rights" under international law. It's clearly a non-encyclopedic link of the type WP:EL says should be avoided. Critical links are desirable, but let's try to find high, or even moderate-quality critical links. Jayjg (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a censorship issue. External links don't have to be neutral. This article contains three links to Israeli government and Zionist sources (Jewish Virtual Library, Jewish Agency for Israel, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs)—those propaganda sites are hardly neutral either. Wikipedia is not an Israeli hasbara site.
Apart from that, the quote you give ("Based on this ...") is not not from the page linked. —Babelfisch 07:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it's an non-encyclopedic link issue; please desist from using that policy-violating term. Links don't have to be neutral, of course! It's quite difficult to find neutral links on many subjects. However, the links given are at least encyclopedic; they're reasonably well-written, not extremist, and you know who their authors are. For example, the Jewish Virtual Library's publisher, The American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE), "was established in 1993 as a nonprofit 501(c)(3), nonpartisan organization to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship by emphasizing the fundamentals of the alliance — the values our nations share." On the other hand, palestineremembered site is a personal website of unknown provenance that operates out of a P.O. box, and contains "factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources" - something to be avoided, according to WP:EL. Oh, and the quote I gave is from the website's "Mission Statement". Jayjg (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Of the ten points listed under Links normally to be avoided in WP:EL, that link doesn't violate a single one.
The fact that PalestineRemembered.com is maintained by someone who only gives a PO box as their address is not a criterion for deleting the link: we don't have to know the authors of a site to link to it. The material on the page I've linked is very well documented and verifyable.
I'm not insulting anyone, I just disagree with you on this issue. Are you threatening me with a ban? —Babelfisch 03:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I specifically mentioned one of the points listed under Links normally to be avoided in WP:EL that palestineremembered.com violates. In addition, personal websites of unknown provenance are inherently un-reliable. Finally, I haven't threatened to ban you, I've just pointed out that continually violating WP:CIVIL over a content disagreement is a bad idea, and you should stop doing it. Jayjg (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Which point? I must have missed it. —Babelfisch 01:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, it contains "factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources". Jayjg (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No! The page linked does not at all contain "factually inaccurate material or unverified original research". The quote ("Based on this ...") you refer to as "factually inaccurate" or "unverified original research" is from another page. —Babelfisch 06:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The website itself contains this material, therefore it is all suspect. It also fails under "Links to websites run by anonymous individuals." Jayjg (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Please have another look at the Wikipedia guidelines on external links. These are your private opinions and are not part of Wikipedia rules. Neither of the two "rules" you quote actually exists. —Babelfisch 02:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I was quoting from this version. All versions prohibit "factually inaccurate material or unverified original research". The source you are using doesn't qualify as a reliable source, and, in fact, is an anonymous personal website, and should be avoided. Jayjg (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The rule about anonymous sites doesn't exist anymore (probably for a reason).
The page I had linked was fully referenced, so it can't be called "factually inaccurate" or "unverified original research".
If you think that the page is "factually inaccurate" and "unverified" etc., please give concrete examples from the page linked.
At this point I think you're trying to bend the rules to exclude a critical link.
I've re-inserted the link to balance the three links to to Israeli government and Zionist sources (Jewish Virtual Library, Jewish Agency for Israel, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs). —Babelfisch 02:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The "anonymous author" part got removed as part of a larger edit-war, for no other reason. The page itself is a thesis about Sharett not being what he appeared to be, "BASED On Declassified Israeli Documents & Personal Diaries", written by an anonymous author of an anonymous website. The entire page is the very definition of original research, and violates Wikipedia policy. Inserting bad sources does not "balance" anything. I'm removing the link again; do not re-add it. Feel free to add links from sources which do not violate WP:EL. Jayjg (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The "anonymous author" rule doesn't exist any more, so it can't be applied.
The page linked is in fact based on declassified Israeli documents and personal diaries, and they are quoted correctly. (By the way: the pages at the Jewish Virtual Library, the Jewish Agency and the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs of course don't quote a single source.)
Please give concrete examples from the page for policy violations. —Babelfisch 07:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
It's still original research, and pages that contain that are forbidden; it's just a theory someone made up on a personal webpage. You have no evidence that any of it is factual or accurate, and no way of finding out, since the author of the page is anonymous. The other pages you've mentioned are at least from recognized registered and audited organizations. Jayjg (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
It's mostly a collection of properly sourced quotes by Moshe Sharett. Look at the footnotes for the evidence and read the sources that are quoted (Avi Shlaim: The Iron Wall / קיר הברזל, ישראל והעולם הערבי; Benny Morris: Righteous Victims; The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem; Nur Masalha: Expulsion of the Palestinians; Simha Flapan: The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities; Tom Segev: 1949, The First Israelis / הישראלים הראשונים).
Links to other pages to the site can be found in about 110 Wikipedia articles — although I've noticed that you've started to delete these links. —Babelfisch 02:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
"Mostly" doesn't cut it, and nothing on that website can be trusted because it is an anonymous personal propaganda site. I'm willing to debate the issue as an External Link, but if I find you wikistalking me to other articles and reverting its removal there, I'll simply revert you there without discussion. In particular, there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for using this site as a source for any material in an article; there is no way it qualifies as a reliable source. Jayjg (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether palestineremembered.com is a proper link or not, it has nothing to do with Moshe Sharet. It might be a source for "palestineremembered" issues (I'm guessing ol' villages), but obviously not a source for Moshe Sharet. If the site also mentioned something about choclate chip cookies, we wouldn't include it in Chocolate chip cookie article either. Off topic, based on this [1] it's obvious why this link should be removed from all other wikipedia articles too. Amoruso 00:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The link in question was to an original theory about Sharett written by an anonymous author. Jayjg (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Amuroso, you've obviously not even looked at the page in question. —Babelfisch 02:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

In List of villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, we uncovered several major errors (but probably missed most of them). As you can tell, the entire list of Arab villages there is from Palestine Remembered. Therefore, Palestine Remembered can't even get it right in its own area of expertise. Why should we trust them on Moshe Sharett when he's a highly notable figure having countless publications about him? Having said that, I agree with JayJG that something taken from Palestine Remembered and written by an anonymous author, which is supposedly based on some secret uncovered documents, does not satisfy the requirements of WP:RS and therefore should not be used in the article. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 14:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


Nov. 6th, 2006

Can you be kind and point these errors in PalestineRemembered.com?

I see the discussion not discussing facts whatsoever? as if there is a campaign to present one point of view.

  • Moshe Sharett A brief biography and quotes contains the most comprehensive quote and data about sharett!!!! Each source is backed by the book and page numbers, something I cannot say about most source you use!!


If there is errors in the page, or things are being quote out of context or factually wrong guys, plerase be kind to point them out?


By the way, Jayjg wrote that UNGA 194 does not call for Palestinian right of return, but failed to bring the exact quote? Also failed to explain why Israeli still refuses to honor it if it does not say so? FYI, parpagraph 11 of 194 states: Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid or the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible. Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations.

For the full resolution click below http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/historicaldocuments/32.shtml

Who is in charge of that PalestineRemembered site? It appears to be a personal propaganda website without editorial oversight run by an anonymous P.O. box. Can you clarify? Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

________________________________________________________________________________________ 2006.

The link should stay. There are too few sources quoted in this article, and this page provides a lot of material and proper sources (see also Talk:Moshe Sharett#Dubious link).
Jayjg will argue that the link violates Wikipedia policies, but I don't see which policies it is actually violating. Earlier, he/she has invoked current and obsolte Wikipedia rules on External links, now he/she cites rules on reliable sources and verifiability. The link to that page doesn't violate any of those rules.
Please don't remove the link before this dispute is resolved. —Babelfisch 07:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

As explained, it violates WP:EL. Please don't re-add links to that anonymous personal propaganda site again. Jayjg (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Nov. 6th, 2006


Hello Guys, this the person who add this link. there is a documented proof here that people on this topic wanna goose out documented fact. The link to *"David Ben-Gurion Quotes and Biography" contains the most comprehensive source about Ben Gurion on the internet. Each fact is documented by a source and page numbers.

So can you kindly point where rules are being violated?

It should be emphasized the PalestineRemembered.com is being used actively by tens if not hundreds of Wikipedia's articles.

The rules that you have pointed out VERY general and could be applicable to remove any link.

If the site provides different points of view BASED on facts that you can verify from the provided sources, then why that is propaganda? Let other people (especially on this board) judge?

There is a history here to show Ben-Gurion from one point of view, he is a lot more complex than that. I appeal for professionals conduct on this board. Things happen here with checks and balances.

Who is in charge of that PalestineRemembered site? It appears to be a personal propaganda website without editorial oversight run by an anonymous P.O. box. Can you clarify? Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


_____

I wonder why are you so determined not to argue the fact? Why you have not argued about UNGA 194 and if it does or does not call for right of return? HMMMMMM!!! Do you have an agenda here??? Let me see if I understand you correctly. You are saying PalestineRememeberd.com is a propaganda and the Jewish Agency (whom you are allowing its links to be present) it is not? HAMMMMMM. Nice argument.


Now having a PO box or not having is a proof that a site is personal? or not credible? What about you? do you have a personal agend!!!!!! Are you ganna be a link inspector at Wikipedia? and selectively brand the links that you do not like?

Sorry, but I have not seen this in the rules and regulations? Who makes you the judge the and jury?

Can Somebody please help out here?

This a typical argument of most Zionists. Let us not argue the facts, and it is better let attack the messenger????


Based on WHAT FACT in the associated link you dispute? I do not see a rational argument here.

Again I appeal for people with some sense of fairness to help this board. It is being hijacked by Zionist who wanna present only their point view. they want the whole world to see the world the way they see it.

Can you please explain who runs the PalestineRemembered site, and how editorial quality and accuracy is ensured on it? In what way does it differ from the millions of personal websites and blogs found littering the Internet? Jayjg (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)



Nov. 8th, 2006

I wonder why are you so determined not to argue the fact? Why you have not argued about UNGA 194 and if it does or does not call for right of return? HMMMMMM!!! Do you have an agenda here??? FYI, parpagraph 11 of 194 states: Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid or the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible. Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations.


May be once you explain who is behind the Jewish National Funds site (whom you link), may be it is time to explain who is behind? PalestineRemembered.com?

I don't fee the JA links should be taken? Points of view based on facts should be present? otherwise I would have taken the JA's links!!!

It seems you are scared to discuss the facts, I wonder what scares you?

Is PalestineRemembered.com telling the truth and that is why you are scared? PalestineRemembered.com presents the Palestinian point of view, and much of its research is BASED on declassified Israeli documents? I wonder why are you scared of the whole world knowing whom Moshe Sharett was? Why do you want the world to see this person the way you see it? if not can you kindly point that out?

Again PalestineRemembered.com is being from thousand of links on Wikipedia, why single it out now? Why are you so scared of the truth?

Can you argue the truth? You are scared. I have been trying to get you to argue the facts, and you avoid them. This unprofessional.


BTW, whom do u represent? Is the truth your objective or promoting the Zionist point of view?? HAMMM.

Which JNF link are you talking about? Please avoid using the page for WP:CIVIL violations. Jayjg (talk) 02:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Legacy

In his book "Perfidy", Ben Hecht claimed that Sharett purposely prevented Joel Brand, a member of the Jewish Agency's rescue commission, from saving an immediate 1,000,000 Hungarian Jews from certain annihilation.

Two questions.

1) Were there a million Jews in Hungary at the time?

2) What is an immediate Hungarian Jew?

Someone with knowledge of the issue might want to clarify.

Cheers Io (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


Sharett Diary quote

that quote is Sharett describing Dayan's view, not Sharett's view, and in context, it is obvious that Sharett vehemently disagrees with Dayan.Bad Dryer (talk)

@Bad Dryer: then since this quote was added to Sharett's diary, its more appropriate to add that he was talking about Dayan instead of complete removal of the quote.--Makeandtoss (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Anyone with any familiarity with Sharett would immediately find that quote to be so out of character as to be suspicious. Add to that the horrible source you used, and I really can't describe this as anything other than a blatant POV push. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Source was changed and the one who made that conclusion was identified.--Makeandtoss (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The source was changed to a book by a psychologist and nothing was identified. There is no consensus right now to add this stuff and I strongly suggest you stop edit warring with multiple editors over multiple articles. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Sharett talking about Dayan's view was identified. If you don't like psychologists don't worry I got several more sources. And no, none of them are Quranic codes. here here here here --Makeandtoss (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not a matter of what I like, it's a matter of what Wikipedia considers RS for what kind of information. You obviously don't understand what constitutes RS since you have now linked to a philosopher who's saying this is Sharett's opinion.
Anyhow, since we know know this is Sharett describing something he thought about Dayan, I'd say putting it here is UNDUE. His diary is full of quotes. Why this one? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Because this is obviously something you won't read everyday.--Makeandtoss (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Please elaborate. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Dayan had thoughts of provoking Arab countries so that they can get involved in wars. How is that point not interesting?--Makeandtoss (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
It may or may not be interesting, but it is not relevant to a biography of Moshe Sharett. Bad Dryer (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Why not, it falls into context while mentioning his diary. If you two insist, I don't mind moving it to Dayan's article.--Makeandtoss (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Because it is Undue Weight. Bad Dryer (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Its a 2 sentence quote, probably the most prominent from his diary.--Makeandtoss (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
What makes that 2 sentence quote the most prominent, as compared to the others which make up ' thousands of passages ' , and which you have never read? Your own source brings up another passage, where Sharett says his son told him a well explosion was fabricated so as to trigger the Suez crises, and you own source immediately says that entry is obviously wrong - should we put that into the article, too? Do we know if the passage you favor is similarity wrong? how about the thousands of other passages? Hopefully this explains why cherry picking for inclusion in a biography of someone just two sentences out of tens of thousands, all from a primary source, is undue weight. Bad Dryer (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I provided 4 other sources...--Makeandtoss (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Moshe Sharett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moshe_Sharett/Archive_1&oldid=1174654298"