Talk:David Ben-Gurion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Impressed

I'm impressed this article hasn't had to be locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.92.253 (talk) 04:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Disguisting article

This is not the place to settle political differences. Basing a quote on "searched in Google" is nothing short of slaunder. Either write a short anemic uncontroversial article, or get an objective professor to write a serious one (and picking the odd professor in Haifa that just happens to support your views does not count).

Rest

In response to the request for a source by AndyL to the quote: "If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England, and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Yisrael, then I would opt for the second alternative. For we must weigh not only the life of these children, but also the history of the People of Israel."

I initally read this on www.truetorahjews.com, and followed up on it with some google searching. It appears to be quoted often, and sourced primarily from a text by Lenni Brenner called Zionism in the Age of the Dictators.

--- can it please be re-added to the article then? ---

Brenner further sources the statement as being from Yoav Gelber, Zionist Policy and the Fate of European Jewry (1939-42), Yad Vashem Studies, vol.XII, p.199.

Yoav Gelber, to the best of my knowledge is a professor at the University of Haifa and is head of the School of History. Futhermore, he takes full credit for the article at http://hcc.haifa.ac.il/Departments/israel-stu/staff/ygelber.htm#ArticlesnotincludingarticlesinHebrew

Uhmmm, Andy, those are some tough credentials to beat. I'll leave the edit out until you have had a chance to respond. Perhaps we could collaborate on a timeline for Ben Gurion which could include both his distinguished war record and certain questionable statements.

Hi added quotes section

Quotes "We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population." David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.

"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." David Ben Gurion, quoted in The Jewish Paradox, by Nahum Goldmann, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978, p. 99.

"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country." David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.

"If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel." David Ben-Gurion (Quoted on pp 855-56 in Shabtai Teveth's Ben-Gurion in a slightly different translation).

== the article is full with lies ==dddd

you should take a lesson on the israely history and don't write lies. this article is have nothing with the real historic facts, and it's a graet shame to all of you!!!

i say get a life to both of you. --- big daddy sethory

Slanderous

First, this article is nothing short of anti-Semitic and biased. It attributes quotes to David Ben-Gurion falsely, and makes him appear to be an evil anti-Arab man.

Whoever wrote this article really should have taken more time to research real Israeli history and not have been so incredibly biased. This is disgusting and an insult to Wikipedia, David Ben-Gurion, and Israel.

And people wonder why I tried to add the NPOV tag. :( Jonathan Grynspan 23:21, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Why is it anti-semtic to attribute quotes by a person to him? Ben Gurion was anti-arab, thats not anti-semitic it's just a fact. There's nothing anti-jewish or anti-semitic about it, it only references one jew not all of them.

---

How do I sign my name? It's Nordentoft.Nordentoft 22:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Nordentoft.

Anybody who wants to know the part that Ben-Gurion played in setting up of Israel should read "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine". Published in the UK on the 1st November 2006. By an Israeli professor of History - Ilan Pappe I think.

It is a painful read, and looks like it is close to the historical truth - 90% of the land was owned and occupied by Palestinians until "Israel" was set up.

Ben-Gurion played a very important part in the clearing of most of these areas of Palestinians - his own diaries are full of it. The land HAD to be cleared of Palestinians. When Israel was created there were more than twice as many Palestinians as Jews living there. If the land had not been cleared of Palestinians the state would not have been Jewish. Brutal methods were used. Murder, summary execution of many large groups of men, rape, terror, demolition of whole villages, lots and lots of them.

That is called Racism, and Ethnic Cleansing. It is recognised in International Law as a crime against humanity. It is what Israel is based on. If it had not been done there would today be a Palestinian majority living within the current borders of Israel.

A very great pity. A tragedy.

It needs a Mandela type truth commission to sort it out.

Somebody needs to write a truthful piece about Ben-Gurian - great Israeli - and ethnic cleanser. Father of the current problems.

Disenfranchise a quote

"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country." David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.

Reason was indeed given, several times. No Chomsky-edited version of quotes, please. Original unedited ones only. - Jayjg

---

Jayjg Under whose authority were you granted the right to exclude content based on the source? --Uncle Bungle 00:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Same authority as any other editor. The quote is clearly edited, and comes from a dubious source. Please bring the whole quote directly from the source. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"dubious source" please elaborate. --Uncle Bungle 13:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The website this pseudo-quote came from, and Chomsky himself. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That wasn't much of an elaboration. Could you please explain "dubious source", and, more specifically, what qualifies a source as dubious. Then, please justify Chomskys classification as "dubious" withing the requested explanation. --Uncle Bungle 18:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A tertiary source providing a "quote" edited by a secondary source with an obvious political agenda is a "dubious source". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:28, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Consider the Source and a New Quote

Nahum Goldman was an infamous leftist and appeared to mentally off center. I didn't trust him.

I interviewed Ben Gurion, in June, 1971. He impressed me as a peaceful, thoughtful, and practical man. His statement to me while walking at Sde Boker -- "Yes, I would return the occupied territories to Jordan in exchange for a peace treaty. All except Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Jerusalem, because it's our capital and they destroyed the Jewish Quarter and didn't give us access to the Wall. The Golan Heights because I am for peace, not suicide."

The Golan Heights - yes the great fear that Israel will be attacked from high ground. Is Israel really that stupid - any cannon/missle can easily fire over the little height of Golan, however, the water stolen from the Golan, now that's worth keeping - swimming pools, showers, flush toilets. Israel would be using outhouses and rationig drinking water if it wasn't for stolen water.

The reputation of Ben-Gurion used to be assiduously protected. He was painted as "a dove", perhaps acting as a restraint on the other creators on Israel (people like Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir).

However, the fact that he'd not slaughtered people himself didn't help - because he'd spent years encouraging "transfer" (a process the world now knows as ethnic cleansing).

There are lots and lots of very damaging quotes from him - and they go back well before the Holocaust. eg August 7th 1937, addresses the 20th Zionist Congress in Zurich. Square brackets added by Israeli Historian Benny Morris in "Righteous Victims" p143. Text from CZA S5-1543, original texts of the speeches: "..... We must look carefully at the question of whether transfer is possible, necessary, moral and useful. We do not want to dispossess, [but] transfer of populations occured before now, in the [Jezreel] Valley, in the Sharon [that is, the coastal plain] and in other places. You are no doubt aware of the JNF's activities in this regard. Now a transfer of completely different scope will have to be carried out. In many parts of the country new settlement will not be possible without transfering the Arab fellahin" PalestineRemembered 17:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Innapproprate Injection of Opinion

I removed the line "Ben Gurion was a great leader, to be honored and respected." that was added to the end of the article. Such a line does not belong in an encyclopedia entry about a modern political leader. I would object to such a blatant statement of opinion in an article about any US President, or other state leader for that matter. Let alone to mention the fact that Ben Gurion was and still is one of the most controversial leaders of all time.

"but also shocked by the pogroms"

Ha, shocked by "all the pogroms", in poland??? Perhaps you could give proof of "all" these pogroms, because they don't exist.

David Grün or Grin?

Grün seems rather strange for a Polish Jew. There's no ü in local variety of Yiddish, I'm afraid.

Quotes

There use to be a quotes section. Who took it out and why?

Pro- Israel supporters are embarrassed by their leaders, show they must try to suppress history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.131.20 (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Trivia

Re: FDR and David Ben-Gurion
I saw that quote in the Economist too, but really don't understand its relevence. Plus, I'm not 100% sure it indicates FDR was an anti-semite. I think a little more research would add some insight perhaps?
pkomma 15:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I found another source for the trivia in a Washington Post article, in the first two paragraphs:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/12/AR2006071201627.html

What I think is important is that Ben-Gurion came to DC in December 1941. Considering what was else was going on in the world at that time (Pearl Harbor, the U.S. entry into World War II), I don't think it's fair to assume Roosevelt was snubbing Ben-Gurion, though that may have been the case. Both the Economist and the Post put the non-meeting in the context of how different U.S. - Israel relations are today, and in that context is how I think it ought to be in the article. MorrisGregorian 07:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Bogus Quote

The following quote is not only bogus, but is in fact misattributed to Ben Gurion

"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population."

As noted on the Camera site (http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=22&x_article=775), this ringer was supposedly attributed to a commissioner Israel Koenig, although no source has ever been found for it.

It certainly does not appear in the cited biography of Ben Gurion.

The next quote is not only misattributed to Ben Gurion, but misleadingly edited as well:

"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." David Ben Gurion, quoted in The Jewish Paradox, by Nahum Goldmann, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978, p. 99.

As established by Camera, (http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=21&x_article=371), this is a distorted excerpt from a speech given by Moshe Dayan at Techion University in '69.

Camera may (perhaps) do a good job of research, but they are a highly partisan source. No possibility of a balanced summary of Dayan's views from them!

And Camera may not be very honest ....... they claim that the words "...we purchased the land from Arabs and set up Jewish villages where there had once been Arab villages..." were left out of this clip from Moshe Dayan. Then claim that this completely changes the meaning of the quote. Hardly - we know that the Zionists had only acquired 7% of the land of Israel by 1947 - hence most of the 400 villages were indeed ethnically cleansed (as Dayan is clearly intending to say - after all, he was a fighter, not a financier!).

Also, Camera is quoting from a University speech in 1969, when Dayan was a big Israeli hero. Pilger quotes him saying exactly the same thing (but without the slightly qualifying sentence) on his sudden retirement after the 1973 Yom Kippur War. PalestineRemembered 20:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

CAMERA - double check their checking. They seem to have all Jewish leadres never saying anything that isn't nice. From some of their actions these leaders must have used some words - or is it all telepathy? Go to Alternative Insight for a good discussion of CAMERA's tricks involving quotes.

Besides being extraordinarily partisan and POV - the AI article you've referenced appears to look forward to the "downfall of the Israel Lobby" - AI never establishes the CAMERA has ever been wrong about a bogus quote. They just make the unsourced claim that a certain quote from Ben Gurion in the Mearshimer paper discussed by CAMERA was actually cited (by CAMERA) from a secondary author other than the one they attributed it to - Benny Morris.

A quick Google search confirms that the bogus quotes I discussed above were misattributed to Ben Gurion, as they were actual originally stated by Israel Koenig and Moshe Dayan, without some later additions intended to make them look anti-Arab. The early mainstream Zionist leaders weren't unsophisticated enough to make openly racist statements where they could be easily quoted.

That doesn't mean, however, that many of them; like Golda Meir and Theodore Hertzl, for example, didn't hate Arabs. Kamandi

Um, anonymous user, what article are you refering to? Please clarify, and remember to sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. -Fsotrain09 22:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I did sign it - my user name, Kamandi. And the article I was referring to was the one from AI cited by the anonymous user who replied to my notes about the bogus DBG quotes (which have now apparently been removed). Kamandi 19:04 15 August 2006

Removing links

can somebody explain why the following external link was removed? Many of its contents are being used on this page!!! *"David Ben-Gurion Quotes and Biography".

I appreciate a response!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.182.2.221 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 21 October 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)

It does not violate WP:EL, maybe you could provide the actual bit that you think is problematic? 24.218.111.14

Erm the bit that is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.252.72.61 (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Nov. 6th, 2006

Hello Guys, this the person who add this link. there is a documented proof here that peope on this topic wanna goose out documented fact. The link to *"David Ben-Gurion Quotes and Biography" contains the most comprehnsive 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 emphasised the PalestineRemembered.com is being used actively by tens if not hundreds of Wikipedia's articles.

The rules that you have pointed out VERY geenral and could be applicable toremove any link.

If the site provides differnt points of veri 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 profetional 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)

_____

Let me see if I understand you corerctly. 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 prooof 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 assoicated 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) 17:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

A quick perusal of PalestineRemembered shows that it is a collaborative effort to document the pre-1948 Palestine with countless testimonials from survivors, before/after pictures of the towns that were destroyed, anecdotes and family trees for those that want to preserve a bit of their history - 24.218.111.14

---

Nov. 8th, 2006

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 Ben-Gurion 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 Jewish National Fund link are you talking about? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Father of the Nation

Israel's Father of the Nation is Theodor Herzl, Don't David Ben-Gurion !!! --Dream100 02:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

To add something to that from an outsider observer's point of view: I'm not even sure which one of them was worse. You should read some words of Herzl and give them a thought. Some of his thought are as hateful and twisted as the most perverted lines from Babylonian Talmud. A peaceful and honest nation should never accept people like him, Ben-Gurion or M. Begin. It's a history paradox, that people like that can even receive Nobel Peace Prize. Jassir Arafat should have never got the prize as well for that matter. It's like the Nelson Mandela paradox. - Matt C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.9.164.40 (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The Grave of Ben Gurion

I've been to Ben Gurion's grave in the Negev desert. Why dont you tell us where he's buried??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.162.50.93 (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Trivia addition

There is also a Ben Gurion University. Could someone please add this.

Conversion to Mormonism

In “Born to Kvetch” I came across a passage where it is mentioned in passing that Ben-Gurion was converted to Mormonism posthumously, which I thought was staggering. Naturally I logged onto wikipedia to learn more, only to be shocked to discover that there is no mention of it whatsoever. What gives? — Muckapedia 15:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm late and all, but maybe someone else was wondering the same: the Mormon conversion thing is (was?) something done without the deceased persons' consent by some fanatic Mormons who would convert people of other faiths as well as Atheists posthumously. I'm not sure, I mean I've read somewhere that Mormons denied doing this, but acoording to Wiki they do: see Baptism_for_the_dead#Controversy.--109.196.118.133 (talk) 04:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

POV text

Too much emphasis is being placed on ben-Gurions supposed "militarism". This is POV and disregarding evidence to the contrary (eg negotiations with Arabs, acceptance of the partition of Palestine), this stuff is anachronistic.

The same applies to the (bizarre) claim he did not adhere to universal values. This is an entirely subjective issue and does not belong here. There is just not sufficeint evidence to make such a claim. Stalin, Ho Chi Minh and Mao were all socialists and no less nationalist then Ben-Gurion. Except that Ben-Gurion was also a democrat.

PS the grave is beautiful. that is not POV. but I may change it to panoramic.

Telaviv1 (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Ben Gurion built up the Israeli Military as a deterrent and a negotiation tool, but was one of the first to advocate returning the occupied territories immediately after the Six Day war. He was a great believer in democracy and "missed" many opportunities to consolidate power during Israel's early years. Jimmy1988 (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Teveth and Shapira

Ceedjee, if you insist that Teveth and Shapira should be used as sources here, you should either:

• cite the original sources, or
• cite Morris including the qualification he gave it. The qualification is also on page 6 of The Birth revisited.

--JaapBoBo (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sternhell qoute

Telaviv, please don't remove this quote from Sternhell:

According to Zeev Sternhell Ben-Gurion's 'intentions to which he adhered throughout the rest of his life' were well described by a declaration he made in December 1922:

[...] Our central problem is immigration ... and not adapting our lives to this or that doctrine. [...] We are conquerers of the land facing an iron wall, and we have to break through it. [...] How can we run our Zionist movement in such a way that [... we] will be able to carry out the conquest of the land by the Jewish worker, and which will find the resources to organise the massive immigration and settlement of workers through their own capabilities? The creation of a new Zionist movement, a Zionist movement of workers, is the first prerequisite for the fulfillment of Zionism. [...] Without [such] a new Zionist movement that is entirely at our disposal, there is no future or hope for our activities

According to Sternhell 'This concise, concentrated, programmatic and important speech, contained not a single word about equality, justice, universal values, or the creation of an alternative society. Only one objective was mentioned and all the energy, strength and capabilities of the young movement were directed toward achieving it.' Ben-Gurion was committed almost exclusively to building a Jewish state.

It is extremely relevant and it is from a reliable source. It indicates some of Ben-Gurions real thinking and this article would not be complete without it. If you think Ben-Gurion thought different, than find a reliable source saying that and add it. Wikipedia policy is clear: An article can be written in neutral language and yet omit important points of view. Such an article should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda. Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it. [[1]]. So if you can find another source you can add it (not substitute it) and if you can't find it, apparently there is only one pov.

Besides, why should only pro-Zionist sources be allowed in this article? Sternhell's more neutral pov makes this article more NPOV! --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

References

"He immigrated to Palestine in 1906"

There was no district, sanjak, vilayet, or any other Ottoman subdivision known as "Palestine" in 1906 or at any time prior to the founding of the British Mandate. On the other hand, David ben Gurion would certainly have referred to himself as living in Eretz Israel, the Land of Israel in Hebrew-speaking discourse. --J.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The political subdivisions of the 19th century Ottoman Empire aren't entirely relevant to a discussion of Palestine. It was a territorial jurisdiction of the Western Powers through their Protectorates of the Holy See, the French Protectorate of Jerusalem, and various other Consular missions. The Palestine Exploration Fund (PEF) was founded in 1865 by a group of distinguished academics and clergymen. They managed to survey and map the place decades before Ben Gurion ever arrived.

The Western Powers, including the United States, had secured capitulations and concessions from the Ottomans which granted them legal jurisdiction over their own citizens and corporations doing business in the Ottoman Mideast. The United States had a Consul for Syria and Palestine, with US government establishments in Damascus, Beirut, and Haifa from 1832-1914. Many of their records are available online in the University of Wisconsin Digital Collection, under Foreign Relations of the United States (1861-1958/1960). Here for example is a communication of sympathy, from 1865, in the aftermath of the Lincoln assassination.

The US Supreme Court explained these extra-territorial legal jurisdictions: 'At that time, statutes authorized American consuls to try American citizens charged with committing crimes in Japan and certain other "non-Christian" countries. These statutes provided that the laws of the United States were to govern the trial except:". . . where such laws are not adapted to the object, or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies, the common law and the law of equity and admiralty shall be extended in like manner over such citizens and others in those countries; and if neither the common law, nor the law of equity or admiralty, nor the statutes of the United States, furnish appropriate and sufficient remedies, the ministers in those countries, respectively, shall, by decrees and regulations which shall have the force of law, supply such defects and deficiencies."... ..."Under these statutes consuls could and did make the criminal laws, initiate charges, arrest alleged offenders, try them, and after conviction take away their liberty or their life - sometimes at the American consulate." [REID v. COVERT, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)]

The United States refused to recognize the British Mandate for Palestine, even after the two countries had signed the Palestine Mandate Convention. The UK had failed to properly recognize the American's special extraterritorial legal privileges. [United States Department of State Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, 1922-1925]

Speaking of historical connections in modern, reconstituted, Hebrew can result in a number of logical fallacies. The ancient Hebrew speaking people recorded that Moses died on Mt. Nebo, just outside of Eretz Israel. 'Do not distress the Moabites, and do not provoke them to war, for I will not give you any of their land [as] an inheritance, because I have given Ar to the children of Lot [as]an inheritance.' They also recorded that Esau left the land of Canaan, and went to another land away from his brother Jacob, and once again that 'You shall not provoke them, for I will not give you any of their land not so much as a foot step, because I have given Mount Seir to Esau for an inheritance.' Yet modern Hebrew speaking people, like Ben Gurion or Begin, included all of those locales, and other places - such as Sde Boker - in their definition of "Eretz Israel". They said that was because those places were a part of Palestine. harlan (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"Drive Them Out!" quote

Looking into the edits of an editor implicated in this wiki-lobby campaign [2] led me here, as one of their first edits was to this article, to remove this sourced quote:

"We walked outside, Ben Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, 'What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said, 'Drive them out.'" - (quoted in version of Yitzak Rabin's memoirs published in the New York Times, October 23, 1979).[3]

The reason given for this removal was: "dumped the Allon quote. It is supposedly "aleaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, pub in the New York Times, 23 October 1979" Unless verified, it is more slander than anything eles)"

The question, is that true? It it from an unverified heresay leak to the NY Times? I recall reading this quote elsewhere before, and found a reliable source that supports the account:

"In 1948, when General Yigal Allon asked him, "What is to be done with the population of Lydda and Ramle?" -some 50,000 inhabitants -- Ben-Gurion, according to his own biographer, waved his hand and said, "Drive them out." Upon the occasion of BenGurion's first visit to Nazareth, he looked around in astonishment and said, "Why are there so many Arabs, why didn't you drive them out?" This is from the book here:[4] on page. 39.

Putting aside the strong possibility that this was removed by someone organized as part of a trolling organization to POV push on WP, the second question is: do we restore this edit--would it make sense to, in anycase? Or is it better left without it? I leave it up to those editors interested in creating a neutral article to assess these questions. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sternhall Quote

The article includes a Sternhall quote which seems to me only partially relevant and dubious in nature: "According to Zeev Sternhell,[1] Ben-Gurion's 'intentions to which he adhered throughout the rest of his life' were well described by a declaration he made in December 1922:

[...] Our central problem is immigration ... and not adapting our lives to this or that doctrine. [...] We are conquerors of the land facing an iron wall, and we have to break through it. [...] How can we run our Zionist movement in such a way that [... we] will be able to carry out the conquest of the land by the Jewish worker, and which will find the resources to organise the massive immigration and settlement of workers through their own capabilities? The creation of a new Zionist movement, a Zionist movement of workers, is the first prerequisite for the fulfillment of Zionism. [...] Without [such] a new Zionist movement that is entirely at our disposal, there is no future or hope for our activities

According to Sternhell 'This concise, concentrated, programmatic and important speech, contained not a single word about equality, justice, universal values, or the creation of an alternative society. Only one objective was mentioned and all the energy, strength and capabilities of the young movement were directed toward achieving it.' Ben-Gurion was committed almost exclusively to building a Jewish state.

"

The words "according to Sternhall" appear several times which is poor writing. I don't think the quote is very interesting (ti disturbs the flow of the article). Sternhall is an expert on Fascism and in this quote was talking about socialist Zionism arguing that it lacked a universalist dimension (it is out of context). This point is more relevant for socialist zionism then for the article on Ben-Gurion and is anyway a dubious argument (not universally accepted)as this argument could be used against most forms of socialism: I think one could easily make the same point abut stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Pol Pot or Kim Il Sung. Saddam Hussein and Nasser have also been described as socialists. Telaviv1 (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think you have a point. This quote might be undue. -- Nudve (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If there is no objection registered in the next few days I will removed the quote. Telaviv1 (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Date inconsistency

Per the article, In 1902 he volunteered with HaShomer (in Palestine), yet a few lines above it is stated that He immigrated to Ottoman Palestine in 1906. And per HaShomer, the group founded out of Bar-Giora in April 1909. Hard to see how he was in the group before it was founded and before he moved to Palestine....

Presumably, the correct date is sometime between 1906 and 1912, when he moved to Turkey to study law. Enoent (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE do not delete relevant text cited to RS without discussion

Telaviv1: It is not OK to delete relevant text cited to RS. It is especially not OK to do it without discussion as you have just done. Please do not do it again - it is against WP policy. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What makes the text relevant? Which policy are you referring to? Why do you think you can tell me what to do?

Nahum Goldman was wrong as Israel is now sixty years old so why should it be in the article? What makes Goldman an expert on Ben-gruion or Israel's Arab policy? I will delete it until you explain why it is necessary.

Telaviv1 (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Telaviv1: I see you are not a new editor, but one who has had an account for almost two years. And that in that time you have received more than one warning about edit-warring, so your claimed ignorance lacks credibility. Nonetheless I will AGF and answer your introductory questions as if you had no experience editing WP:

• What makes the text relevant? - The text is a clear statement of Ben-Gurion's view of Palestinian Arabs, by a prominent man who knew him well. Since this is a section titled Ben-Gurion\Zionist Leadership\Palestinian Arabs that makes it relavant.
• Which policy are you referring to? - The policy I am referring to is the one discussing reversion of the work of another editor: HERE. You have failed to abide by several of the guidelines in that page; if you continue to do it I will report you.
• Why do you think you can tell me what to do? - Because you are failing to abide by WP policy and are turning editing into a WP:battlefield. Please read the citations I have given you and stop doing so.
• Nahum Goldman was wrong as Israel is now sixty years old so why should it be in the article? - This makes no sense - this is an article about a man who was born more than 120 years ago - please state this in understandable English.
• What makes Goldman an expert on Ben-gruion [sic] or Israel's Arab policy - Please read the page devoted to Nahum Goldman who is one of the important figures in creating the nation that you now live in, and who had a long-time relationship with Ben-Gurion and knew him very well. He is relating not his opinion of Israel's Arab policy, but that held by Ben-Gurion as related to him by Ben-Gurion. Since this is an article about Ben-Gurion, it therefore belongs in this article and should not be deleted.

Telaviv1: I have now answered all of your questions, so I ask you again to refrain from reverting the material I carefully researched and added with proper citations to WP:RS. Please ask any further questions here and I will be glad to answer. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like butt in here, and give my perspective on this. Jgui, you say you will AGF, yet your first sentences are personal attacks. That's not good form. As for some of your other points:

• From WP:REVERT, the guideline which you cite: "Don't revert to undo a good faith reversion of your change."
• As for WP:BATTLEFIELD — it takes two to tango.

I not going to take sides on actual content issue. I just like to point out fallacies when they occur. Rami R 07:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Rami, thank you for your perspective. I disagree with you about my making personal attacks. I think it is reasonable that an editor will look at the edit history of another editor who has failed to follow WP policy in order to ascertain whether that editor is new to editing and thus unaware of standards of conduct that are designed to maintain harmony here at WP. And I was surprised to see this editor had a long history of edits, some of them causing a fair amount of conflict. So his statements such as Which policy are you referring to and Why do you think you can tell me what to do seemed to me to be a stretch and rather combatative - surely he has run into these policies and debates before when involved in reverting the good-faith edits of other editors without any discussion in the Talk page. Nonetheless I hope you will agree that I AGF and did my best to answer his questions fully.

Rami, secondly you failed to note the preceding paragraph of the WP:REVERT policy I was referring to:

Revert vandalism and other abusive edits upon sight but revert a good faith edit only as a last resort. A reversion can eliminate "good stuff," discourage other editors, and spark an edit war. So if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible - reword rather than revert. Similarly, if only part of an edit is problematic then consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit - don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Rami, I have a hard time believing that my text insertion, properly cited to a RS, was believed to be a case of vandalism and other abusive edits which is the basis given for reversion. Certainly he did not state as much, and thus I would have expected at least a discussion here in the Talk pages rather than reversion without discussion and without any attempt to improve my edit. I hope you will agree that pointing out one side's fallacies as you see them while ignoring the other side's is not always productive, but I appreciate your input. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, sorry if I was rude but the text was not discussed before you inserted it so I see no reason why it should be discussed before it is removed. I have recieved no warnings that I can remember.

I will look up Goldman to see if I have underestimated him but I dthink the quote spoils the flow of the article and is not phrased in proper neutral tones.

Telaviv1 (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Among the numerous biographies written by scholars, ie secondary sources, there is no reason to see the analysis of Goldman, which is a primary sources given out of context.

To have this here is WP:OR and/or WP:undue.

A section about the involvment of BG in the '48 events could be developed and this material (Goldman) inserted.

A general comment : don't make Morris or any other say something he didn't say. Faking sources deserve immediately expulsion from wikipedia. So take the highest care with this. Ceedjee (talk) 08:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

is that addresed to me? what is the problem with Morriss? Telaviv1 (talk) 11:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tel-Aviv, it was not addressed to you. It refers to the title of this section on the talk page and what was in the article a few hours ago.

There is no problem with Benny Morris.

But stating Israel expelled the Palestinians under BG orders and using Morris books to source this is vandalism.

Ceedjee (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

violation of NPOV

This article presents a very biased picture of both Ben Gurion and the events of 1948 he was involved in. This is because it excludes all presentation and discussion of the proposition that he was responsible for orchestrating the systematic ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Recent Israeli and Jewish scholarship, I should add, provides detailed referenced evidence in favour of this proposition, before we even mention the recollections of Arabs and their historians. I am referring to "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine" by Ilan Pappe and works by Normal Finkelstein. Others have already referred to some of these works on this page. Why have these scholar's views not been represented, please? The use of the word "exodus", which implies voluntary withdrawl of the Palestinians, is similarly unscholarly and in clear violation of NPOV. If these works are not mentioned soon I will include a section on them myself. Thank you. Amateur63 (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Amateur63 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amateur63 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ilan Pappe and Finkelstein are controversial and the article relies primarily on Bennny Morris who is both the leading researcher of the topic and is generally accepted as NPOV. His work is accepted by most on both sides and the article mostly refers to his latest book "1948". Not all Palestinians were expelled and the departure of the Jews from the Arab world is also generally described as an exodus (see Exodus of Jews from Arab lands) so the word is not a NPOV violation: the article it references also uses the word exodus. Expulsion would be a NPOV violation.

The issue is currently under "Military Leadership". Needless to say this issue is very sensitive on both sides and needs to be addressed carefully otherwise we will simply have an edit war (and wikipedia should be a force for mutual understanding). I suggest changing the title of the section to either "Military Leadership and the Nakba" or "Military Leadership and expulsion of Palestinian-Arabs in 1948".

Telaviv1 (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I renamed the section to the second option. Telaviv1 (talk) 05:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Amateur63 doesn't know the topic.

Most publications talk about the "1948 exodus". Part of the exodus was due to expulsions but there is still debates among scholars about the way to describe the events and about the responsibilities of all protagonists.

Even if Morris is a Reference on that topic, he is not the only one. There are many other Israeli and Palestinian scholars who published on the topic. Ceedjee (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to the above points (in order raised):

It is not good history to ignore controversial views and arguments, as if they did not exist. On these grounds Morris' views would also be excluded (see the Wikipedia article on Morris which correctly points out that his views have been criticised by all sides in this debate. Also the article you reference Exodus of Jews from Arab lands includes reference to Pappe.) If you want to edit all controversial views there will be no articles on these topics. The only grounds for exclusion should be quality of scholarship, and Pappe's and Finkelstein's works (and Khalidi's) pass the bar on this as they get into peer reviewed journals, and are widely cited elsewhere in Wikipedia. So there are no grounds in this objection for omission of reference to the thesis of expulsion / ethnic cleansing and its published advocates.

The point is at the moment not adequately covered under the 'military leadership' section because that section does not reference the proposition that the Palestinians were forcibly expelled with Ben Gurion responsible for the alleged ethnic cleansing. Morris' views are a half-way house. I agree that the issue needs to be sensitively handled for the reasons you state, but not to acknowledge the thesis and its advocates distorts the debate in a manner that ill-befits an encyclopedia.

The degree of my expertise in this topic is beside the point - if an ignorant fool presents a good argument, it is just as good as if an emeritus professor presents it. We should be discussing the argument. On that, it is unfortunate that in colloquial english 'exodus' is often used for voluntary mass movement (e.g. the 'exodus to the suburbs' in housing). However, you are right to point out that the word is widely used in this area and does not appear to be the favourite of one side or the other. So 'unscholarly' is not a correct criticism. I guess in the absence of a better term it should stand. If the ethnic cleansing thesis were properly acknowledged, that is the main thing and would counterbalance any voluntaristic implication of colloquial English usage.

Thus, I still intend to reference these views, within a week or so, perhaps in the Military Leadership section as suggested. If someone else with more experience wants to attempt this first in a sensitive manner, all well and good. Amateur63 (talk) 07:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Amateur63

University

What's wrong with specifying what part of Anatolia Ben-Gurion went to university in? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

ibid

I'm removing problems on ibid tagged articles and normally by the history this is working. Here I got a big problem: here add the IP the ibid tag, but this doesn't make any sense: the url above the ibid isn't separated in pages, and a link to the concrete book isn't given. Can somebody check this? I'm not familiar with this topic. Please leave a talkback on my talkpage if there is any progress/question. mabdul 20:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Ben Gurion 1959.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Ben Gurion 1959.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Goldmann

How true is this?

"Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country ... There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance. So it is simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army..."

The quote seems to come from the memoirs of Nahum Goldmann and not a book written by Ben Gurion. The paragraph seems so out of place and unbalanced. Does it really deserve a presence in the article? I'm not an expert on BLP though. Wikifan^{Be nice} 05:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Any BLP experts want to weigh in here? Wikifan^{Be nice} 03:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

BLP stands for "Biography of Living People". What possible BLP issue could exist for a subject dead for nearly 40 years from a source dead for nearly 30? nableezy - 15:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

"We must start working in Jaffa"

Regarding today's edit of the article and the request for a citation, Ephraim Karsh attributes the passages to "Ibid., pp. 34-35," which refers to an earlier endnote (26) pointing to "'Partikol—Yeshivat Ha-memshala Ha-zmanit,' June 16, 1948, pp. 15-16." This is at "Benny Morris and the Reign of Error." Since the context of the quote is a polemic between Karsh and Morris, I'm not sure how it's best to integrate it into the article, particularly the text that surrounds the quotatation right now.—Biosketch (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be from a cabinet meeting of the provisional government. WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT says it has to be cited to Karsh. Ben-Gurion said lots of different things at different times, so unfortunately biased authors can always find quotations that suit them. In this case the missing context is that most of the Arabs of Jaffa had fled and Ben-Gurion was dead set against them returning. Maybe we should look for sources other than Morris or Karsh for this? Zero^talk 22:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

File:A Biography of Ben Gurion by Robert St. John.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:A Biography of Ben Gurion by Robert St. John.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 13 February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:A Biography of Ben Gurion by Robert St. John.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Religion

It says that Ben-Gurion's religion is Judaism. Is there a source? I mean, of course he was Jewish by nationality, but I heard that he was an atheist/agnostic. -- Northern (talk) 07:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Ben-Gurion was not an atheist. Those sources that say he was may have mistaken his secular lifestyle for atheism.

Here is an interview. At the end, he firmly states he is a believer.--RM (Be my friend) 10:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

RM, in that interview he identifies himself with pantheism and names Baruch Spinoza as another Jewish pantheist. A quick look on Google Books shows that he is often claimed as an atheist, as Northern heard say 1 2 3 4 5. In one 1974 work, Ben-Gurion is called a 'freethinking deist [who] had profound reverence for the Bible' 6. I've not been able to confirm his pantheism anywhere else, but a quote from the man himself should be considered more reliable, even though this may only have been his opinion at the time of the interview (1970). According to source 5, he identified as an atheist during the 1960 census, so perhaps his views changed or were fluctuant. It seems that it's hard to label him as anything, although whatever he was, it looks like he wasn't a theist and rejected traditional religious views of Judaism. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Whether he was or wasn't an atheist doesn't mean that he was Jewish by religion. You can't presume that every Israeli who is Jewish by nationality, is also Jewish by religion. Hence, 'Religion : Judaism' doesn't make sense until we can actually establish that he in fact a practicing Jew. -- Northern (talk) 05:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Why only West Germany?

Why was it only West Germany that was forced to give money to jews? The East before 1945 had as much to do with the enslavement and persecution of Jews (if that's true as anyone else)? Is it because David was a Communist and wanted Capitalists to pay? (120.149.116.39 (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC))

Minister of Defence

In the infoboxes it says that he served as prime minister and as minister if defence at the same time. Then in the article it says that he resigned as prime minister and served as minister of defence. They can't both be right. Richard75 (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Interview with morris

First of all why we need to use counterpounch source?What does it add?Second of all please propose in talk what do you want to add.The addition should properly summirize the view of Morris on Ben Gurion?--Shrike (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Counterpunch carried the interview by Ari Shavit with Morris, originally publishd in Haaretz. Ari Shavit'Survival of the fittest ,' Haaretz 8 January 8, 2004.

"The worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110), Lod (250), Dawayima (hundreds) and perhaps Abu Shusha (70). There is no unequivocal proof of a large-scale massacre at Tantura, but war crimes were perpetrated there. At Jaffa there was a massacre about which nothing had been known until now. The same at Arab al Muwassi, in the north. About half of the acts of massacre were part of Operation Hiram [in the north, in October 1948]: at Safsaf, Saliha, Jish, Eilaboun, Arab al Muwasi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa. In Operation Hiram there was a unusually high concentration of executions of people against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion.That can't be chance. It's a pattern. Apparently, various officers who took part in the operation understood that the expulsion order they received permitted them to do these deeds in order to encourage the population to take to the roads. The fact is that no one was punished for these acts of murder. Ben-Gurion silenced the matter. He covered up for the officers who did the massacres."

Counterpunch doesn't have a paywall, unlike Haaretz, so editors with the former source can verify the matter more easily.There is nothing problematical about a journal lik Counterpunch being used to access an article whose contents are known to be those of an historian of Morris' stature and a journalist of Shavit's notability.Nishidani (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)