Talk:Jenin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Jenin is a Palestinian city on the Palestine West Bank territory, not part of the state of Israel or the nation Israel

jenin is a city in palestine..PALESTINE IS NOT ISREAL!!!

here it says 52 citizens died in the battle homat magen of jenin, 14 of which were citizens. however, on the israeli version, it says only 7 of which were citizens. can someone settle this debate?

---

filmed what IDF claims to be Palestinians carrying out a phoney funeral procession

I think that the "IDF claims" part is unnecessary. The pictures are self-evident and undeniable - looking at them makes anyone with half a brain think "this is a Palestinian funeral". Of course, the Palestinians could claim that the pictures are a fabrication. However, I've not heard so far of such a claim, and if it appears, it should be written down as another sentence, "Palestinians claim the IDF phootage is a falsification". --Uriyan

Actually I was trying to change to article in a way that anyone who follows the link to the images / movie will watch it with a open mind and then decide what they think about it. Now I found a article where the Palestinians say that this is wanted Palestinians fleeing. I will try to find some other sources confirming this. --Peter Winnberg, Saturday, May 4, 2002

That's surely a funny way to flee - in the middle of nowhere (the pictures were filmed from a pilotless aircraft, almost impossible to notice), with a stretcher, bearing a man that can obviously walk on his own, accompanied by a mob and with green (Hammas) flags. One needs only to apply Occam's Razor to determine what was that. --Uriyan

I added a new link which includes the "funeral" video. The first video seems not to work any longer. I read somewhere on the net that a Palestinian filmmaker claimed to have been making a film at the time. I guess the film was never finished; the actors ran away.Whyerd 17:49, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For those who keep inserting major changes, talk about them here first in the "Talk" section! You can't force major changes in a communal project by brute force, as you are currently doing. Encyclopaedia are made by intellectual consensus, not force. If you wish to back up your conspiracy theory claims that Jenin was somehow not the source of many homicide bombers against Israel, then you must back up these extraordinary claims with firm evidence. We're willing to read what you have to say, as long as you have logical arguments and reliable sources to back up your claims. [[RK]]

---

RK: since you are not neutral at all, there's no point in convince you about the truth of "conspiracy theory claims" with "logical" arguments. However, you should accept that there another points of view about what happened in Jenin and that those points of view will not match what you expect to be true.

I don't accept to argument against your thesis Jenin was "the source of many homicide bombers against Israel". Stating that is pointless as just claiming "Israel did a massacre in Jenin against civilians". However in Wikipedia not only the point of view of Israel should be shown, but also the point of view of the palestinians. The _readers_ will decide, based on the points of view (and sources) exposed, what will they accept as truth.

What about this link?

[1]

Is this link enough reliable for you?

---

Perhaps we could tolerate the occasional parenthetical phrase such as the Israelis, regarded as an occupation force by Arabs, did X. After all, the key to this and related articles on the Arab-Israeli conflit is both (A) what happened (facts) and (B) the meaning of what happened (intrepretation).

To give a personal example, when I was in the US Army I once bit another soldier; he had to have stitches. His statement and mine agreed on that fact. I was not punished, however, because my purpose for biting him was to make him release me from a headlock. The company commander accepted that interpretation of my actions.

I find in discussions of the Middle East partial to close agreement on facts but major disagreement on interpretation. This makes our task as article contributors rather difficult.

Ed Poor, Friday, May 31, 2002

---

I added an Arab POV, which I think I have attributed properly. Ed Poor, Friday, May 31, 2002

It should be noted that many Arab writers justify anti-Israeli terrorism on their view that Israel is unjustifiably "occupying" the West Bank.

Indeed many of these writers disdain the use of the term terrorism to describe their resistance, reserving the term solely for Israel, which they label "terrorist" and "racist".

Of course, the late Sheikh Izz Ad-Din El-Qasam was resisting against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. No, wait. There weren't an Israel or West Bank back in 1935. There were dead Jews though, Jews that he had killed. I will not reintegrate this passage, but link to the general discussion of Palestinian terrorism. --Uriyan

---

NPOV query: Why is there a "Munich massacre" (2 Israelis, 1 policeman and 5 Palestinians dead) but no "Jenin massacre" ("at least 52 Palestinians, of whom up to half may have been civilians, and 23 Israeli soldiers" dead UN Report)?

First of all, in Munich Massacre, 11 Israelis died. Secondly, the non-combatant Palestinian casualties were not killed deliberately, but rather died in the course of heavy fighting, which most parties recognize as justified on Israel's behalf, considering the terrorist infrastructure that existed in the city. Declaring it a "massacre" would demand that (a) Israeli soldiers had a choice of killing or not killing the Palestinians and (b) The Palestinians were not anyhow fighting the Israelis. Neither of these conditions was fulfilled. --Uri

How can there be a battle when its one army with deadly US-imported weapons vs civilians with handguns? Pnd 17:11, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ever talked to an IDF infrantryman before, Pnd? --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 00:53, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Regarding the changes that I reverted: declaring El-Qasam a "fighter against the Israeli occupation" is simply ludicrous. He died before 13 year before there was an Israel, and 32 years before Israel took over the Territories. Also, is there something wrong in mentioning the streets of Jenin were covered with posters hailing suicide bombers? --Uri

---

I moved the text from over from [[Jenin Massacre]]. I find having an article with such a title, while no serious party still entertains the notion that a massacre took place (e.g. systematic killing, see above for how I define a massacre) offensive, both to the soldiers that fought in Jenin, to the families of those soldiers who were killed, and to the victims of suicide bombers that came out of Jenin. --Uri

The alleged Jenin massacre of 2002, wherein supposedly 3,000 peaceful Arab Palestinians were killed in cold blood by Israeli troops was acknowledged by Palestinian Authority leaders to have resulted in far fewer deaths than originally announced. The final death toll was around 60 persons.

The Human Rights Watch report stated that it found "no evidence to sustain claims of massacres or large-scale extrajudicial executions by the IDF". However, the same HRW report did accuse Israel of war crimes, including shooting and running over with a tank a man whose wheelchair flew a white flag, and crushing a paralyzed man in his home.

Amnesty International also came to the conclusion that there was no massacre.

See: Jenin

• Human Rights Watch report on Jenin

---

Uri, I have no problem with your movement of the Jenin massacre or even with deleting the article. I only created it to answer someone's question. However, the information needs to be merged into an article somewhere. Would you do this, when you get a chance? --Ed Poor

Most of the information is already in Jenin. The only information not found in the text is the description of the alleged war crimes. The discussion about the "shooting and running over with a tank a man whose wheelchair flew a white flag, and crushing a paralyzed man in his home." would need much more than just the HRW POV, and ultimately including them would do more harm than good. The major complaint about Israel's conduct is about the use of human shields. That is included in the article. --Uri

Given that HRW states the following: "Many [...] civilians were killed willfully or unlawfully. [...] the IDF used Palestinian civilians as "human shields" and used indiscriminate and excessive force during the operation," it hardly makes sense to reduce mention of these events to an afterthought, not to utterly downplay the involvement of IDF troops and their commanders in war crimes. I have accordingly reinserted references to these events in the main body of the text - hopfefully in an form which all can accept. --Faulenzer

---

I have never, ever been able to locate any direct quotation of the Palestinian officials who supposedly claimed 3,000 were killed in Jenin. I've come across right-wing Zionist websites saying so -- that's it. They did say that 3,000 were made homeless, which no one contests.

I've never even seen a mainstream source like FOX or NBC make the claim that Palestinian officials have said so. Rather, these sources say that a PA official, Saeb Erekat, claimed 500 were killed -- also false, but with a seed of truth to it.

On April 10, 2002, Erekat told CNN anchor Jim Clancy, "What we're saying, we see an opportunity in the secretary's visit. We want to help in order to insure the success of the secretary's visit, because insuring the success of implementing [UN resolution] 1402 means stopping the killing fields out there, and you know as the numbers I am receiving today is that the numbers of killed could reach 500 since the Israeli offensive began. Thousands of wounded. You know, the Jenin refuge camp is no longer in existence, and now we've heard of executions there."

There you have it. Erekat *never* said that 500 were killed in Jenin, but that 500 had been killed throughout the West Bank during Operation Defensive Shield.

Israeli officials, on the other hand, initially did much to make people suspect a massacre. On April 10, according to Ha'aretz, Foreign Minister Shimon Peres characterized the attack on Jenin as a "massacre". Unnamed military officers said, "When the world sees the pictures of what we have done there, it will do us immense damage."

---

"According to the Israeli Defence Forces, Israel chose not to bomb the spots of resistance using aircraft as it entered in order to minimize civilian losses [2], but rather to take hold of the city using infantry."

Well I think since the Battle of Hue military experts agrees that it's a very bad idea to bomb concrete buildings in an urban zone. A bombed building is a perfect refuge for snipers.

Ericd 19:49, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

With the amount of explosive Palestinians planted in the camp - there were no bombed building left for a sniper to hide in.

User: annon

---

Can someone help me with math? From the Jenin page "They agreed with the total casualty figures provided by the IDF but reported triple the civilian casualties" The IDF reported 52 Palestinian casualties of which 22 were civilian. "They" (not sure if its Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International) agree on 52 but claim 3 * 22 civilians. 3 * 22 = 66. 66 > 52. can this be fixed? does someone have the report that says 3 times? perhaps it was 2 times? (at least 2 * 22 = 44 < 52 is mathematically correct.) OneVoice 21:56, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

changed "triple the civilian casualties" -> "higher proportion of the civilian casualties" so that the arthimatic works after waiting 10 days for a response to the above. OneVoice 20:31, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Is there any truth to and seriousness in the 3000 casualty figure claim claim (yes, two words) or is this the same tactic that was used with Deir Yassin where the casualty figures were inflated by the perpetrators themselves only to trivialize the incident altogether by discrediting the opponents after they took over what appeared to be a self-confessed truth? Pretty disingenuous if you ask me. -- Dissident 23:06, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

i have tried to correct some of the grammar, spelling, etc. mistakes in this article. some of it still does not read well (it is clear that much of this article was written by a non-native english speaker) but it is a start.

i also would like to say that although i am generally sympathetic to israel, this article is completely POV in favor of the israeli position and makes essentially no attempt to remain balanced. --Benwing 02:28, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

This article is very anti-palistinian. The bold "False Allegations of Massacre" is absurdly POV, no attempt at all of neutrality. Perhaps "Possible Massacre" or similar could be a starting point for a more balanced article. Or possibly a total rewrite is necessary. --Bk0 04:44, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

The article does not expose enough the disgraceful tactics to use the alleged "massacre" for Israel-bashing:

• Guardian, April 20, 2002, definitely not a Israel-sympathetic source:
  • It was a fierce battle, not a massacre
  • Civilians were offered repeated chance to leave. Those who stayed did so of their own free will to help the fighters
  • Red Cross and Red Crescent were offered chance to go into camp but there was a restriction: only one entrance and all vehicles going in or out had to be checked by Israeli army. Few vehicles used it
  • There are no missing Palestinian bodies, other than those under the rubble. There is no secret grave in the Jordan Valley or Israel. Palestinian dead in Israeli hands identified, put in bodybags and buried
  • Estimate of Palestinian dead is no more than 100, and probably less. Damage to houses about 6% of the camp
• CNN interview with a senior member of Palestinian Islamic Jihad Tabaat Mardawi, April 23, 2002, not a pro-Israel source: Mardawi drew a map of the camp and talked about the course of the battle. Their weapons were guns and crudely made bombs and booby traps -- "big ones" for tanks and "others the size of a water bottle." He estimated 1,000 to 2,000 bombs and booby traps were spread through the camp.
• Recent news from Iraq: FALLUJAH, Iraq – U.S. Marines in the third day of a battle to pacify this Sunni Muslim city fired a rocket and dropped a 500-pound, laser-guided bomb on a mosque compound Wednesday, and witnesses said as many as 40 people were killed...

Compare to the IDF soldiers going on foot house-to-house (would you call booby-trapped "civilian"?) and not entering mosques and churches out of respect. There are a lot more, all one needs is little NPOV. --Humus sapiens|Talk 05:41, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

• The Guardian article is an interview with an Israeli soldier and a spokesman for the Israeli foregin ministry. jamesgibbon 28 June 2005 16:15 (UTC)

In general, pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian are not necessarily the same. I'd like the WP to work for peace, against any unjust killings, booby-traps and false accusations. --Humus sapiens|Talk 05:55, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Fine, add all that in provided you also provide a reasonable counter-argument to each and remove the obviously discriminatory language as I cited above. --Bk0 06:00, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

---

This raised questions over whether the Palestinians falsify other evidence as well.

Is this really necessary? I've removed it from the artilce, seems like it would be more relevant under the main Palestinian terrorism article. Bob McDob 10:27, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm a pretty pro-Israel guy, but this article still reads like it has a pro-Israel POV. It's not the facts that are presented; it's the way it's written.

This part in particular bothers me:

"Initially, officials of the Palestinian Authority claimed that the Israelis had deliberately massacred 3,000 people, and were burying them in mass graves. Some advocates of Palestinian nationalism claimed that "the Jews" were starting a "Holocaust" against Arabs. Many Western news agencies reported these claims uncritically and without confirmation."

• Were many Western news agencies claiming that the Jews were starting a Holocaust against Arabs? Because that's the way it reads right now, whether it was intended or not.
• Provide a definite source (not "officials") for the 3,000 number or retract the claim (also cite at least one of the Western news agencies which were reporting this number uncritically).
• Provide a definite source (not "some advocates") for the claim of a Holocaust against Arabs beginning at Jenin.

--68.43.122.246 14:37, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Type "Jenin massacre" or "jenin massacre + 3000" at Google and you will have planty of sources.

• "An Israeli military source told AFP some 250 Palestinians were killed. The Palestinians say hundreds more were killed and their information minister, Yasser Abed Rabbo, on Friday accused Israel of digging mass graves for 900 Palestinians in the camp." [3]
• Report that mention an accusation of 3000 death by PA officials: [4]
• Comparing the battle of Jenin to Nazi atrocities by prp-Palestinian groups: [5].

MathKnight 19:16, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Recent edits

• Is "En Ganim" used be anyone in English? Or at least a significant number of people?

Actually, no. Including the Hebrew name in parenthesis is satisfactory.

Guy Montag 16:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• The picture is that of the settlement of "Ganim", not "En Ganim", and it was just evacuated this week. If anything, the picture should be that of Jenin, not of a colony overlooking it.

If you can find a picture of Jenin that doesn't prominently use disemembered bodies for propaganda purposes, by all means.

Guy Montag

• Some issues were in this article before the recent edits as well.
• It does not have a "predominately Palestinian population", it is exclusively Palestinian.

Fix it.

Guy Montag 16:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Is it "definitely" the site of this ancient "Ein Gannim" or "believed" to be so for lack of better evidence?

It is definitenly. Ask Tomer.

Guy Montag 16:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Calling it anything other than Jenin, or laying claim to it for Israel, is pre-empting the final status talks.

The Hebrew name in parenthesis is fine.

Guy Montag 16:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Ramallite ^(talk) 14:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Soft Methods (not to be confused with spa massages)

"In contrast, the death of 23 Israeli soldiers during the battle raised criticism in Israel of the soft methods the IDF used"

Guy, the problem is with the phrase "soft methods". I don't think anybody would agree that bulldozing a path through a dense refugee camp or creating the images you describe as propaganda (as if they were killed by a cursed pez dispenser) can be described as "soft methods".

Ramm, you do know that you are using an anti semitic website for your argument? You do know that most of the houses demolished were booby trapped with explosives? Guy Montag 20:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

aztlan.net is not antisemitic, it is a pro-Chicano site, although I'd guess that from your perspective anything that criticizes Israel is anti-semitic by definition. I'd like to see a reference for that "booby trapped with explosives" claim. --Bk0 20:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

aztlan.net may be "pro-Chicano", but it is obviously anti-Semitic as well. Here are some simple examples from their own website: [6] [7] [8] What other conclusion can one come to when the head of the group starts and editorial with Those nefarious Jews are at it again! The same clique of Talmudic Jews who want to remove "One Nation Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance now have targeted the Christian Cross that is part of the "Official Seal of the County of Los Angeles." The Jewess Ramona Riptson, wife of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judge that voted to remove God from the pledge, and who is also Director of the Jewish ACLU of Southern California has just given the County Board of Supervisors an ultimatum to "REMOVE" the cross from its seal or face a massive suit in the Jewish dominated judicial system of California. etc. They also carry the full text of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion on their website, in English and Spanish, and here's the leader saying that only "Zionists" refute it as being "legitimate", and that it actually makes sense [9]. Here are some other analyses: [10] [11] [12] [13] Jayjg ^(talk) 21:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, I retract my defense of them. The images still stand on their own merit, however. --Bk0 22:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. The images are chosen for shock value. Do you have images of the Israelis killed? Do you imagine they looked pretty? Showing images of people killed in battle is the basest kind of propaganda. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually I was trying to find out what you were talking about when you said something about "dismembered bodies" above, and it wasn't until I did a google search for Jenin under "images" that I realized what you probably meant - I initially didn't read the content and was actually unable to look at the images themselves for more than a few seconds. Now that I do look at it, it seems to be an eyewitness report written by a "Jennifer Loewenstein" (doesn't sound Palestinian, probably American ), and the words "Jew" or "Jewish" are not written or implied once in the article so I fail to see how it is anti-semitic other than exposing images that some would not want to be exposed. One could always argue that these images are fabricated, but since 1- there are plenty of other separate witnesses, and 2- it simply makes some people feel better to believe these are fabricated, it's not worth it to me to argue with that notion. Either way I am not using it to make an argument, I linked to it based on an assumption that these are the images you were talking about above, that's all. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

More to the point, the citations you gave did not really have anything to do with "criticism in Israel of the soft methods". One is an IDF propaganda page (hardly neutral) and the other is of an army doctor criticizing Palestinian claims, not Israeli army actions. So this sentence above looks like OR. Do you have something more concrete? If not, do you mind replacing this sentence? (I can help) Ramallite ^(talk) 18:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Lets see, they could have just bombarded the camp with artillary shells or bombed it from the air, as opposed to risking the lives of soldiers with door to door fighting. There is widespread knowledge of this criticism.

Guy Montag 20:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

"There is widespread knowledge of this criticism" still sounds like original research to me, since a google search for "soft methods" and "jenin" only brings up 4 articles, 3 unrelated and one being the WP article. Also, they did bomb the camp from the air!! And they didn't need to use artillery, they went right in. Artillery is usually used against another army, not a civilian camp with a few kalashnikovs or booby traps lying around. You may be missing the point: the argument here is about "soft methods" and using a verifiable source, other than your opinion, that Israeli actions were considered "soft" in Israel. I haven't seen anything to the effect that the army's actions were considered "soft". Miscalculated maybe, but not "soft". That's where the problem with your sentence is. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

If it was a civilian camp with a couple of kalishnikovs as you say, Israel wouldn't have needed to launch a offensive focused on that area. If you read the Battle of jenin article, you will see that over 140 explosives were found, dozens of houses were booby trapped and gunmen used civilian buildings and people as shields. Calling the area a civilian camp at that time when it was host to the fiercest and longest battle in four years is disengenious. Finally, I did not write that part, I am merely defending it because it is true. Also, the Battle of Jenin article documents the change in tactics of the IDF when they went into Jenin despite the danger it involved sending troops in such cramped areas.

Guy Montag 00:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes - but you still haven't given a source for the criticism. If it's "widespread" then you should be able to source it please. 62.252.0.7 07:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Now it is sourced.

Guy Montag 23:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV edits

I'm interested in cleaning up the article in order to get rid of any POV comments (most of which aren't serious). Does anyone actually still monitor this page that I can talk changes over? Otherwise I'll just crack on.

Examples of the kind of edits I'm thinking of making:

• Talking about the gross initial exaggeration of the civilian death count is a little disdainful. Simply changing wording will make it a bit more factual and encyclopaedia-like.
• Jenin was the center of civil unrest during the so-called Great Uprising of Palestinians. Although including the words "so-called" isn't inaccurate its also not particular NPOV - instantly takes away its legitimacy which isn't the point of the article. George Bush has his "War On Terror", but you don't need "so-called" in there.

I probably don't know as much about the incident as the writers so don't plan on changing details (just wording), but there are a couple of discrepancies that I'd like to talk over to anyone who's still alive in this talk page. -- Tomhab 01:15, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I keep an eye on the article (since it was under attack about two months ago). So far, your edits seem reasonable and fair. MathKnight 14:13, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sure - I'm keen on doing just small edits to appease and make slightly more NPOV, but anything you don't feel appropriate feel free to revert (just the ones you don't like anyway).

I'm not going to edit the article on this but... is there any reason why this link from a reputable UK newspaper talks about apache helicopters swarming and "firing bursts of cannon-fire every five minutes". I realise from the date given it must have been a pretty rushed-to-press report but is it simply wrong? The article says aircraft weren't use, and makes no mention of helicopters, but implies to me that they covered by the statement about aircraft.

I'd just like to say that its a genuine question, not an attack on any claims from either side. -- Tomhab 21:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

post-April 2002

I added the following paragraph, which was immediately deleted as vandalism (by User:Guy Montag). I'm acting under actual best intent, but looking to extend the limited time of coverage so far, and not to clutter the page with excessive detail. Here's the paragraph:

The battle marked the de facto reoccupation of Jenin by the Israeli military. During and since the battle, residents of Jenin have been subject to impositions of curfews (over 150 days from June 18, 2002 to December 25, 2004 Palestinian Red Crescent), incursions of armored vehicles, extrajudicial killings of civilians including children, and targetted assassinations by the Israel Defense Forces.

And here's an attempt at a slightly more NPOV version:

Since the battle, Jenin has been under de facto occupation by the Israeli military, marking an end to the period of autonomy. In that time, residents of Jenin have been subject to impositions of extended curfews (over 150 days since June 2002 Source: Palestine Red Crescent), incursions of armored vehicles, and extrajudicial killings of civilians including children. Several suspected Palestinian militants and nearby civilians have been killed by the Israel Defense Forces, which terms these actions "targetted killings". UN worker Iain Hook was also killed by an Israeli sniper on November 22, 2002.

targetted killings are already well documented in the IDF page. The impacts of curfews, including "extrajudicial killings of civilians including children" are discussed by B'Tselem in Lethal Curfew. If anyone wants to add IDF descriptions of these actions, feel free. However, I think it stretches NPOV too far to characterize the above actions as "complaints" by human rights groups, rather than as actual occurrences.--Carwil 18:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Could you provide specific sources for your various claims? I don't think a three year old general document really covers the current situation in Jenin. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The B'Tselem report does cover two incidents of enforcement of curfews with lethal force in Jenin (p. 14-15, p. 18). More on curfews and incursions at [14] and [15] ("On 28 September 2004, Israeli troops killed a mentally handicapped civilian and a child in Jenin refugee camp."). The other, nonlethal events in the second page are an example of the regularity of incursions and injuries. Targetted killings are listed in the Wikipedia page Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2004 (on 13 and 15 September). For Iain Hook, see [16] --Carwil 20:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

UN report doesn't support the Israeli case that only a few died

The UN team was never able to visit the Jenin camp (in fact, the team had been disbanded before the GA requested a report, as it says in the first paragraph of the report [17]).

The report produced does not dispute the Israeli case (though it makes some very harsh criticisms of the action), but neither does it support the Israeli case that only some 80 people died there:

Death toll: Four hundred ninety-seven Palestinians were killed and 1,447 wounded in the course of the IDF reoccupation of Palestinian areas from 1 March through 7 May 2002 and in the immediate aftermath. Most accounts estimate that between 70 and 80 Palestinians, including approximately 50 civilians, were killed in Nablus. The IDF lost four soldiers there. In Jenin camp, by the time of the IDF's withdrawal and the lifting of the curfew on 18 April, at least 52 Palestinians, of whom up to half may have been civilians, and 23 Israeli soldiers were dead. Allegations by Palestinian Authority officials in mid-April that 500 or more persons were killed in Jenin camp were not substantiated by the evidence that subsequently emerged.

And observers who persevered (not HRW) came away convinced that the number of deaths was an underestimate, and there had been a concerted attempt to conceal the number.

Jenin Inquiry (invasion of the Jenin Refugee Camp from 3-18 April 2002)

The Jenin Inquiry, a group of 12 internationals from the US, Britain, Ireland, Canada, and Norway - including an international lawyer - conducted detailed, in-depth interviews with people of the Jenin Refugee Camp from 11 April until mid-May, 2002.

......... People saw tanks and bulldozers run over bodies repeatedly in the process of bulldozing homes and moving around, sifting bodies into pieces and scattering them in the rubble. This has made it difficult to identify exactly how many have been killed.

......... members of Jenin Inquiry viewed many such partially decomposed bodies and severed, decomposing body parts in homes and in the streets of the camp.

......... Residents of the camp .... faced grave threats by Israeli soldiers and snipers for trying to witness what was happening. Residents were frequently shot at and sometimes killed for appearing in their windows while trying to view the situation. A doctor at the Jenin Hospital, which overlooks much of the camp, said that Israeli soldiers forced them to keep their windows closed and the blinds shut the entire time of the Israeli invasion.

......... bodies were still being recovered from under the rubble as late as early August. On 4 August, the bodies of one young boy and two adult males were discovered when an outer edge of the piles of rubble were sifted through. Four days later, another body was found compacted into the floor of his home. Public discourse about the number of dead has not taken such additional discoveries into account.

Here's what the report says about Jenin: "By the time of the IDF withdrawal and the lifting of the curfew on 18 April, at least 52 Palestinians, of whom up to half may have been civilians, and 23 Israeli soldiers were dead." Jayjg ^(talk) 19:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou. As you've quoted, the report states there were "at least 52 Palestinians" killed. It makes no attempt to estimate how many more were killed, and their bodies hidden or destroyed, while the Israelis kept them out of the camp (Israel did this for so long that the team had to be disbanded, and never went to Jenin).

HRW report in a similarily restrained fashion.

There was a group of 12 International observers who did manage to get to the area 7 days after the start of the offensive, however. Their language is muted, and they only recorded some 40 hours of (horrifying) interviews. But they did see body parts strewn around, they reported the smell, and they reported the finding of at least 4 more bodies in August. Sadly, they spent so long recording what they could (which was not very much) that their report was virtually ignored.

PalestineRemembered 20:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Canaanite origins

That Jenin's name has Canaanite origins is sourced to Shahin's book. Those changing it while retaining the source are misleading readers as to the books contents. Please stop. Further, per the Palestine article, naming conventions including Canaanite origins of each city's name is appropriate, contrary to the edit summaries of editors deleting this information. Tiamut 14:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Most cities have several names as well as origins, but the convention is to only include the primary ones. If you want a good template for how to build this article, look at the newly Featured Article Jerusalem. If there is specific information you challenge, please make use of the {{cn}} template, and do not mass-revert. Another issue is that I've seen you using this Shahin book all over as of late, and while it can be very helpful, a travel book does not have expertise on archaeology and such, and it would be more useful if you cite whatever source Shahin cites, of course noting that you saw it in Shahin. Tewfik^Talk 15:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added the information in question to the body of the article. Shahin is a valid source for this information. You have no reason to dispute the accuracy of this source. The sentence I added is one of the only sourced sentences in the whole article. Why be selective and pick on it? Why not add fact tags to everything else? Tiamut 15:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, it is a travel book and not an RS in and of itself for much. I'm assuming that whatever archaeological information comes from an archaeological work, and I request that you cite that, but Shahin cannot be used alone for such claims. Tewfik^Talk 16:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Added some info about Ein-Ganim. This can be expanded - there are numerous sources identifying Ein Ganim as the Israelite/Jewish city.Amoruso 17:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reinserted Canaanite. I reject the allegation that Shahin is not a RS. I will however find another source for that statement to satisfy the unnecessarily high bar you have set. In the meantime, I ask that you do not delete the word Canaanite from that sentence. It misrepresents the source to do so. Tiamut 10:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is another source: [18]. I should point out that Tewfik's assertion that Shahin is not a reliable source for archaeological evidence (while the Bible is - see Amoruso's additions sourced to the book of Joshua?!?) is rather ridiculous. I will be adding this link to the article. I hope that the attempts to deny the reader this information will cease immediately. Tiamut 10:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"...attempts to deny the reader this information" - please. Shahin is a travel book, and all I ask is when using her for fields such as archaeology or history, that whatever source she cites be included in the citation. The Bible is a very reliable source for something being mentioned in the Bible, which is what it is used for. Tewfik^Talk 05:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you read Shahin's book Tewfik? I didn't think so. While you pick on my edits, you don't seem to mind the rest of the article being based on dubious sourcing. I have already provided you with another source, so your point is rather moot. Please stop stalking me and disrupting my work. There are plenty of other articles in your area of interest that you can go to. Tiamut 19:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Shahin's book is, at best, a tour guide and not a reliable source for claims such as these. Shahin herslef, and this book in particular, have been criticized as propaganda tools, whose aims are to obliterate any mention of a Hebrew or Jewish history in Palestine. This is not a relaible source for these kinds of contentious claims. Former user 2 19:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You are ignoring the other source and repeating tired old arguments. Here is the diff: [19]. Please, I have asked both you and tewfik to stop harassing me. I am asking again now. Be reasonable. Tiamut 19:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

My challenging your use of a travel-book as an RS is harassment? I'm sorry that people vetting your sources is frustrating, but this is an open encyclopaedia, and the proper response isn't to allege wikistalking, harassment, or deletion of information that 'does not accord with your POV'. Tewfik^Talk 20:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Mariam Shahin's book, Palestine: A Traveler's Guide

This is not a reliable source for the referenced subject matter. It is an odd place to seek historical, archaeological and related information.

Noted historian Daniel Pipes has said about Mariam Shahin's book, Palestine: A Traveler's Guide:

Perhaps the book's strangest aspect is the pretense that Israel does not exist."

Conceptualized as a propaganda tool, the guidebook contains more than its share of inaccuracies. The first page falsely informs that "Palestine is a Holy Land to Muslims." The assertion that "archeologists have yet to verify the historic existence" of the Temple of Solomon is laughable nonsense. And Lord Balfour was hardly "of Jewish descent."

Daniel Pipes, The Middle East Quarterly, Spring 2006 Vol XIII: No 2 -Doright 02:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently we're supposed to appeal to a noted zionist for information about Islams holy places. Tom Dubya 08:15, 1 Nov 2007 (EST)

In any case, it's not a "traveller's guide" as Pipes claims, it's an introduction to the overall history and geography of the region and it's been reviewed in an academic journal, the Journal of Palestine Studies here. When the material cited from her was challened at Palestine (on more than 40 cites) I was able to find it in other sources (though it took days). I'm not going to accept the word of Pipes, a clear partisan, who even got the title wrong. It's Palestine: A Guide. Tiamut^talk 20:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Jenin

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Jenin's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "PCBSCensus":

• From Gaza: "Gaza Governorate: Palestinian Population by Locality, Subspace and Age Groups in Years". Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS). 1997. Retrieved 2009-01-19.
• From Bethlehem: Palestinian Population by Locality, Sex and Age Groups in Years: Bethlehem Governorate (1997) Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved 2007-12-23.
• From Nablus: "Summary of Final Results: Population, Housing and Establishment Census-1997". Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS). 1997. Retrieved 2008-04-24.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Population figures

There is constant vandalism by anonymous editors (only IP numbers) changing the population numbers. The sources have been checked, and checked over; even when taking into account the difference between Jenin as city (subject of this article) and Jenin Governorate there can be no doubt whatsoever about the PCBS Census data, which is also backed up (for the camp by UNWRA): city= 39,004; refugee camp=10,371 residents with 9,571 UN reggistered refugees. I cannot understand how there can be such persisstant anonymous vandalism....If one doubt the official census data, add your claims here or in the Demographics section, add detailed references backing your claims... But please desist from such further crude and false edits. Bleddynefans (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ancient times?

"Jenin was known in ancient times as the village of "Ein-Jenin" or "Tel Jenin"." Please specify absolute chronology. --Sreifa (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The ref [20] you removed from this section actually says:

Jenin was originally built on the old Canaanite city which was called ”Ayn Jenim”. This name meant "the head of paradise." The ancient city of Jenin was situated on the Tell right in the middle of the present city, next to the bus station. Under the Roman Empire Jenin was called ”Ginae”, which belonged to the Roman commune of Sebastney. In the time of Saladin Al Ayubi, around the year 1187, there was a castle in or near Jenin. Saladin's army took over this city in one day. Jenin became an important town during the 13th century because the Mamluks, who feared more Crusader invasions, destroyed the coastal Palestinian towns and fortified several inland cities including Jenin.

During the World War II the Germans built an airport runway in Jenin to help the Turks. On the western edge of the town there is a memorial to the pilots who died during the war. At the southern entrance of the city is another memorial for Iraqi soldiers who fell during the 1948 war.

Jenin's geographic location close to the Jordan valley to the east, the Mediterranean to the west, and right in the center of the most fertile plain in Palestine, Marj Bin Amer, makes it an ideal site for growing fruit trees and vegetables. Citrus trees are abundant, and its vegetable market is a shopper's pilgrimage for the residents of nearby cities and villages. In Spring, the road to Jenin, whether the official Nablus-Jenin road heading north-west, or the less trodden road through Tubas (south-east and then heading north), or the trip southward from Nazareth, the hills and mountains on the way are covered with wild yellow and purple flowers growing amidst the green grass. Wheat fields are abundant, as well as olive and almond trees. A hike and picnic along the way in the middle of what seems to be nowhere is recommended in May, before the summer heat creeps in.

The fifth holiest Christian place and the third oldest church in the world is located in the village of Burqin, 3 kms west of Jenin. The Burqin church is also known as St. George's church.

So rephrasing the chapter, using this information, should be the solution, not just removing the ref altogether... GlobalSecurity.org seems a respectable source. Bleddynefans (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

third largest

not in Palestine as this edit says, but rather in the West Bank as a whole and fourth largest in the Palestinian territories . The third largest city in Palestine is, as best I can tell from the WP articles, is Hebron (1. Jerusalem, 2. Gaza 3. Hebron 4. Tel Aviv 5. Jenin). This should be corrected to either say 3rd in the West Bank, 4th in the Palestinian territories, or and this probably isnt necessary, 5th in Palestine. I favor 4th in the Palestinian territories, but I cant make that edit. nableezy - 08:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Gila, its third in the West Bank, fourth in the Palestinian territories. Actually, 4th in the WB, 5th in the Pt as EJ is also more than Jenin. You can see the 2007 census here nableezy - 09:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Rather than adding needless boasts about how big things are (and violating your ban), your time would be better spent finding a decent photo. Amazing that a city with 39,004 people can't find anybody who cares enough to write about it in passable English or post one representative picture.--Geewhiz (talk) 10:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I havent written any needless boasts, nor have I violated a ban. Rather than condecsendingly claim that others are the problem when you make basic factual errors or removing material just because it says Palestine as here, your time would be better spent cleaning up your mess instead of repeatedly either removing factual material or removing anything that you personally dislike. nableezy - 14:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian Control

The details of the murder of Juliano Mer-Khamis end with the sentence, "Suspicious parents regarded Mer as an Israeli agent and a prosletyzer for Western values." Who cares what the parents thought? No parents were ever suspected of killing him and being a parent doesn't qualify someone as having professional qualifications to determine criminal responsibility.

What is missing from the mini-paragraph is an indication that this was a politically motivated murder. Mer-Khamis wasn't killed by a family member, a jealous husband or an unpaid creditor: the most common murder suspects. I suggest following the word murdered with "... by masked gunmen..." as the entry on Juliano Mer-Khamis says. Labellesanslebete (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, made the changes. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Antiquities

I removed globalsecurity.org as a source since I see no reason whatever to treat it as reliable for anything before the modern era. The best summary of the earliest literary evidence on Jenin that I know of is here (which is one chapter of a dissertation whose specs are here). The story is quite complex and few claims are universally accepted. Zero^talk 04:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Demographics

This section have problems. For one thing, the 1945 Hadawi cannot possibly be p 45 (which is in Gaza), more likely p. 54. But then Hadawi shows a completely different number from the one presently in the article. Actually, the article now shows the population of the whole district. Should that not be in the Jenin Governorate article instead? Also, the total number in the Jenin sub-district in 1945 seem to have been 56, 880, see the bottom of p. 55. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, "Meyer, 1907" is not defined. The only "Meyer, 1907" I know is

• Meyer, Martin Abraham (1907). History of the city of Gaza: from the earliest times to the present day. Columbia University Press.

...in which case p. 108 is about ...Gaza City! Huldra (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

And Robinson, vol 3, p. 155 wrote that Jenin had about 2000 inhabitants in 1838, Huldra (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

And the 1922 number is sourced to Meyer, 1907, p. 108 (!) Huldra (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• AAAAARRRRRGH...this MAJOR vandalism has been here since January 2010: this addition from a Jordanian IP is totally wrong, will remove/rewrite it all. When I saw a sourced "Demographics" section, I assumed it was made by User:Al Ameer son, who can alway be trusted on this, however, a lot of the structure seems to be directly copied from the article on Gaza City.
• This is an article that gets at least 3000 views pr month; this false information base been seen 150 000 ++ times .....I will start changing/correcting it in a moment. Huldra (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jenin. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101210081942/http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/Portals/_PCBS/Downloads/book1487.pdf to http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/Portals/_PCBS/Downloads/book1487.pdf

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) 03:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 June 2020

Early Muslim period

Early Arab sources started to use the name "Jenin". Yaqut Al-Hamawi mentioned that it was a town located between Nablus and Beisan.

Crusader period

The city of Jenin fell under the Crusader rule in 1103 AD. The Crusaders changed its name to "Grand Grin", in order to distinguish it from the town of Zir'in, which they called "Petit Grin". Jenin remained in the hands of the Crusaders until the year 1187 AD, when Saladin destroyed its nearby fort, Castellum Beleismum. After the Battle of Hattin, Jenin fell into the hands of the Muslims, when Saladin held peace with his adversaries, and accordingly he left for Beisan. In 1229, a peace was concluded between Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor and Al-Kamil during the Sixth Crusade, whereby the city was given to the Crusaders, but As-Salih Ayyub was able to control it permanently in 1244 after the Battle of La Forbie. In 1255, it was agreed between An-Nasir Yusuf and Izz al-Din Aybak, the first of the Mamluk sultans, to give him all the lands that lie west of the Jordan River, and thus entered Jenin in the possession of the Mamluks.

refs

bibliography

• Boas, Adrian (2006). Archaeology of the Military Orders: A Survey of the Urban Centres, Rural Settlements and Castles of the Military Orders in the Latin East (c.1120-1291). Routledge. ISBN 9781134422845.
• Khalidi, W. (1992). All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948. Washington D.C.: Institute for Palestine Studies. ISBN 0-88728-224-5. 14.42.107.201 (talk) 10:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, we will review these proposals. About the first one, "early Muslim period" refers to the years between the Islamic conquest and the Crusades. Yaqut was not in that period, but he does belong in the article (Le Strange p464 is a better source). Zero^talk 12:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: The Yaqut source is already included, I added the Crusader period section. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 11:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Minor edits

@Eggishorn: In Crusader period section, the last sentence should be "and thus Jenin entered in the possession of the Mamluks." In the Ottoman era section, During Ottoman rule in Palestine (1516–1918) (should be year 1516 and –). 58.233.224.191 (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2020

Same place different spelling: Beisan was mentioned in Crusader period, then as Baisan (linked) in Mamluk period. I recommend to keep the same spelling and make the first linked. 184.22.178.220 (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC) 184.22.178.220 (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2020

In Crusader, Ayyubid and Mamluk periods section: Baisan is linked to a wrong article, should be Beisan to be directed to Beit She'an. 221.167.245.87 (talk) 08:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC) 221.167.245.87 (talk) 08:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Thjarkur (talk) 11:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 January 2021

Correct the spelling error of "religious endownment" to "religious endowment" in the Ottoman Era section of the article. Thanks! MerelyPumpkin (talk) 08:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Zero^talk 09:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March 2022

Please remove the following paragraph in the History section of Jenin: "Four terracotta lamps of Phoenician origin dated to the 8th century BCE were discovered in Ain Jenin by archaeologist G. I. Harding, and are interpreted as attesting to some form of contact and exchange between the residents of Jenin at that time and those of Phoenicia."

This is incorrect. Hadidi references Lankester Harding's short article "Some Objects from Tranjordan", Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 69/4, and as the title suggests, Harding wrote about Phoenician lamps discovered at Ain Jenin, which, according to Harding, is a spring near Buseirah and Tafileh, places in then-Transjordan, now modern Jordan (east of the Jordan River). Near that spring there was a ruin called Khirbet Jenin. Two places with the same name but miles apart. As an aside, the lamps were not even discovered by Harding himself, but by local fellahin. פלטיהו (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Confirmed and deleted. Zero^talk 02:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Earliest history of Jenin

So now we have:

• Gina (Canaan), mentioned in the Armana letters (c. 1360–1332 BC); probably here.
• List of minor biblical places#En-gannim =two towns mentioned in the Hebrew Bible; this being "A town in the territory of the Tribe of Issachar, according to Joshua 19:21."
  • • • Anem (ancient city) = En-gannim, according to William F. Albright, but not according to Hagen Martino (all this is taken from Wikipedia, so read it with all due caution)
• En-gannim redir to Anem (ancient city)
• (+Ein Ganim; a modern settlement, perhaps we need a dab-page?)

• My 2 cents; when an authority like William F. Albright thinks it is the same place, should we treat it as different places? Comments? Huldra (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 April 2022

Just wondering why the word 'Palestine' was deleted in the latest edit, might it be put back again? What was the justification for removing/expunging it? Is the refugee camp for Israeli settlers to live in also? Don't think so. It's only for Palestinian people by virtue they are forced into being refugees in their own country of origin. Kind of important and relevant. So it would be absolutely correct and proper to refer to it as a "Palestinian refugee camp" wouldn't it. Context is important for a reader/researcher. I am mentioning this because people like to slowly delete Palestine from everything so in the end it doesn't exist and slowly erodes away, this is the method Palestine deniers use to shape public opinion and attempt to occupy the entire region, it's quite a slow-moving and insidious process, so it is actually an important thing when the word Palestine is removed for any reason from any place at all on record and important to stay on top of. Every example of removal must be treated as important and be fully justified due to the overall effect it has cumulatively over time. An explanation/justification on what prompted the removal would be appreciated and why it makes any sense or is better not to have the word there. Taurusthecat (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: It was changed to link to the article on the specific camp, which goes into detail about it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 February 2023

Make the mention of "The Freedom Theater" in the Contemporary period section a wiki-link Cloudlessly (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Done. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

clarification...

I mean no disrespect but I do not believe that there has been international recognition (yet) in the UN or any other body of a "State of Palestine". Please clarify why this nomenclature is used? thanks. Truthfortruth'ssake (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I've linked your query.Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)