Talk:Cairo–Haifa train bombings 1948

second bombing ?

I can't find any source for the alleged massacre. Lehi's site, the UN list and even anti Israeli/Jewish sites don't list this event. The only bombing listed is the first one on the 29th (wrongly written as on the 28th). I think Times was simply wrong, if this report existed (want to see it...) , it doesn't make sense that Lehi won't take credit for this operation if it was true. And nobody seems to know this incident. Sources needed here. Amoruso 01:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources that refute this alleged bombong :

• [1] Timeline of Zionist Terror

from a UN committee 01 October 1948 - doesn't mention the incident.

• [2] Full List of Lehi actions, including all bombings on trains, doesn't mention it.

Amoruso 01:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Your sources are not adequate. I added a second reference. The first paragraph of the Palestine Post report reads: "BINYAMINA, Wednesday--About 40 Arabs were killed and 60 were injured when a train was derailed by a mine between here and Zichron Yaacov at 1 o'clock this afternoon. The attack was carried out by the Stern group." The last sentence in the article says that none of the soldiers on the train were hurt. --Zero^talk 02:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a link for this report ? I don't know, Lehi didn't take responsiblity of this. It doesn't make sense. Nor did any report on the area made even when biased against the Jews after the bernadote assassination. Maybe there was an accident of some sort not related to Lehi or maybe it's wrongly linked to Lehi. Amoruso 02:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The full text of the Palestine Post is available on the web. Now we have two sources that are "reliable" by Wikipedia rules and both tell the same story. Your personal doubts do not constitute a case for a tag. Actually this event is perfectly consistent with Lehi's behaviour. --Zero^talk 03:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

well if it's available, provide the link. The sources may be somewhat reliable according to Wikipedia rules, might not be verifiable enough, but we have sources which indicate otherwise, including Lehi's own website and archives which lists dozens of events. This was most probably an accident that was blamed on a mine from what I see, because neither Etzel nor Lehi list this event in their archives, and they list everything. Therefore conflicted reports, tag stays for now. Amoruso 12:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No good at Google? The link is in Palestine Post. --Zero^talk 13:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I had problems opening this site because of a firewall so I wanted another link, but eventually managed. Thanks anyway. Anyway, the report is indeed there. But compare with the report of the first bombing where it says Lehi took responsibility. The fact they didn't take responsiblity and there doesn't seem to be any evidence of their involvement nor any followup like later evidence, witnesses, arrests pertaining this, points that this is disputed. Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be ANY followup on the incidient that I could find. So they think it was the Lehi... good for them, not good enough, not a single evidence (yet that I could see). Amoruso 19:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not for you or me to express opinions on this. If you find a source that denies these reports then you can quote it. It is just as likely that Lehi did not claim credit because they killed so many Arabs and no soldiers. That was not the public image they wanted at that time. Also the list of operations you found is not Lehi's list but a list compiled by some modern-day supporters of Lehi. The "UN committee" list only appears on some anti-Zionist sites and its genuineness is unknown. In the past I searched the UN's official catalogue of documents and could not find it. I can't be sure it is bogus though because the cataloguing system is chaotic. Here is another source (on a biased web site) that gives a citation:

31 MARCH 1948 The only known activity indulged in by the Stern, apart from the murder of Mrs. Ducas, who was unjustly suspected of being an informer, has been the blowing up of the Haifa train at Binyamina on 31 March, when some 40 Arabs were killed. The Stern announced that they were responsible for the action but omitted to mention their motive. WO 261/574" [3]

The notation at the end refers to document 261/574 of the British War Office archives. Documents like that are available on the web but cost serious money. --Zero^talk 03:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Lehi might have very well have done it. But I still think it's odd that Lehi didn't take responsibility. It had no problem to take responsibities of Arabs' death before. It was unfortunate but when it happened they admitted it. Their site is maintained by former Lehi members and it's official, it's the official remembrance for the irgun of the lehi. I can ask some former lehi members about this too, see what they say. Possibly this should have been attributed to Etzel or Haganah instead, and that's important too. The UN report, which is indeed very anti zionist, seems legit to me... Amoruso

seems this bombing by lehi is a myth

First of all, have a look at this link referenced from the List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war : [4] this list says that on the 31 March two bombings happened :

34 - "Haifa (Jaffa) Train" Massacre - 31 March 1948 The "Haganah" Zionist gang blew up the Jaffa-Haifa Train" while passing near "Nataniya", killing 40 people.(34)

35 - "Cairo-Haifa Train" Massacre - 31 March 1948 The "Stern" Zionist gang planted mines in the "Cairo�Haifa" express train, killing 40 persons and injuring

Strange no ? Two bomnbing on the same train with the same number of killed. Very accurate no doubt.

Now let's examine what soruces we have here. One is a Times report - does User:Zero0000:Zero0000 have a link for this ? The other is a Palstine Post link. Let's see what it actually says - it blames the "Stern Gang" for it, but why ? Is there any evidence linking the group ? None that we know. There are millions of articles in Israel linking attacks to certain organizations but until that organizaiton takes responsibility or admits it after being caught or Israel provides concrete proof of its involvement then one can't say that organization did it, simply a paper provides immediate-after-effect blame for that organization.

Furthermore, let's see what the paper said in the next day. Did it provide any statement from Lehi, some proof ? No, but it says on page 3 left column : "train service on the cairo hfaifa train has been resumed FOLLOWING THE WRECK near Binyamina on Wednesday" - since when is a terrorist bomb a wreck ? Usually an ACCIDENT is a wreck. Needless to say, it seems together with the other 2 sources already cited, that this is wrongfully linked to Lehi or possibly to any Jewish organization. Amoruso 15:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The Times and The Palestine Post are reliable sources for this article. --Ian Pitchford 16:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

they're reliabe in suggesting that it was done by Lehi with no evidence or followups, and the later reports suggest otherwise , unless further evidence can be brought. Amoruso 16:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If there are other reliable sources we can certainly refer to them. --Ian Pitchford 16:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources

This section does not comply with WP:V and has been removed: "However, Lehi, who is known for having a detailed account of all their operations, never took responsibility for this action. Furthermore, an alleged UN Report prepared in October 1 1948 for the New UN Commissioner to Palestine, allegdly compiled of all identified attacks on British, American and Arab individuals, using reports of the US Department of State, the British Foreign Office and various American and British press services, failed to mention this second bombing." --Ian Pitchford 20:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Maybe this section is not perfectly written. Nevertheless, the fact that UN's report doesn't list this "event" and that The Palestine Post of next day and finally the fact that this is not found on Lehi website (given they are rather proud of such actions) is enough to be less affirmative on this events (Note the 29 feb's one is reported both times). Alithien 19:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The policy is that "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.", i.e., the reader must be able to follow the trail from a claim in an article to a reputable published source. This section has no reputable published sources for the following claims: (a) "Lehi, who is known for having a detailed account of all their operations" (b) "never took responsibility for this action" and (c) "a UN Report for the New UN Commissioner to Palestine compiled of all identified attacks on British, American and Arab individuals, using reports of the US Department of State, the British Foreign Office and various American and British press services, failed to mention this second bombing." These three significant claims need to be supported by reputable published sources and as long as they aren't, according to the policy, "any edit lacking a source may be removed". Just read the supposed UN report and judge for yourself whether the language is more consistent with that used by the United Nations or that used by Jew Watch [5] --Ian Pitchford 20:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I don't want to discuss that way, Ian ;-). Prefer good faith to lawyer text but I understand why you have to think that way on the wp:en due to continuous edit wars... :-(

We have removed the info concerning the second bombing from wp:fr because we think there is enough to doubt its validity. Reported facts by journalists the day just after the "event" while this is never reported again whereas it is one of the most bloody "incident" of the war clearly indicates that there is something that deserves a deeper investigation. I think clues found by Amaruso go in the direction of the "doubt".

But wp:en is not wp:fr and you have your own policy depending on actual situation. Alithien 07:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The solution to this problem is to follow the rules of Wikipedia. We should state what the sources say and leave argument about it for a different forum. Arguing that it might not have happened because... is simply not allowed; we are only allowed to cite a reliable source (not ourselves) as making that argument, and we don't have one. We are also required to restrict ourselves to "reliable sources". The "UN Report" would quality as a reliable source except that we have no idea where it comes from and in particular we have no good reason to believe it is a UN report at all. There is no document of that name listed in the catalogue of the UN library. --Zero^talk 15:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

both sources are reliable, and no OR conclusions are there, simply stating the fact. the lehi site is official, I'll check more sources and add more cites soon from lehi books . Amoruso 16:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You haven't got a case and you know it. And don't remove tags. And since Lehi did not exist for 58 years it does not have an official web site. --Zero^talk 16:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

tag? what tag? the next line quotes the military line from the Post. It's you who don't have a case, the information is sourced to Lehi's official page - Lehi people do exist you know - and to a paper reciting a U.N report. Amoruso 17:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The article says only that the NYT and Pal Post attributed the attack to the Stern Gang. This is accurate whether the Gang was responsible for the second attack or not. Adding material of dubious provenance just weakens the article and violates policy. If you disagree let's take this through the dispute resolution processes instead of wasting any more time changing the article without consensus. --Ian Pitchford 17:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I will look through books of lehi like natan yelin mor's to search for clues for the incident and also possibly interview lehi members on the issue this week, if I had time i'd already do it. I agree that going into revert wars over what you consider dubious is wrong. Amoruso 18:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd be very interested in the outcome of the interviews. --Ian Pitchford 18:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Images

Photographs would be nice and seem to exist.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/124446949@N06/19779103409

https://www.flickr.com/photos/124446949@N06/19970655001

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)