Talk:Palmach

Comment

I have gone through this article and tried to put it in a more readable form. Towards the end there are a couple of paragraphs mentioning Palmachniks who went into politics. They should probably be grouped either into Left and Right, or those who are still active and those who aren't. However, I do not have the knowledge to do this. I'd be grateful if someone who knows about it, could sort that out. Regards, Joff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.166.124.5 (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect Information about the Palmach in 1948

The article reads: "By the war of 1948 it had grown from humble beginnings to three fighting divisions"

However, the Palmach consisted of three brigades in 1948, not divisions.

A Web search will yield references to this, see for example: http://www.balagan.org.uk/war/arab-israeli/glossary.htm (check the Haganah and Palmach sections).

Also, in Foundations Of Excellence: Moshe Dayan And Israel's Military Tradition (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1988/KAA.htm): "In early 1948, Yigal Allon, who succeeded Yitzhak Sadeh as Palmach Commander in 1945, had 6 fully-trained battalions at his disposal each of which contained 4 companies. By the early summer of that year, the Palmach contained 9 battalions and was capable of sustained, brigade-level offensive operations."

Nine battalions would correspond to three brigades of three battalions each. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.212.184 (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The objective behind demolishing villages.

All the sources I have found, well Morris realy, say the reason for demolishing villages was to prevent them being used as bases. The case of Qastal is taken as evidence of what would happen if they were left standing. The main consequence of the 'systematic demolition' is that the villagers could not return to their homes. I don't think the Haganah leadership were suprised by this consequence. But that is just my POV. Padres Hana (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources and NPOV in "The war for independence" section

Despite having many refrences, these are all to the same two sources - Morris and Khalidi - and both are highly critical of Israel. While Morris is biased but generally reliable, Khalidi is clear cut in his political views. The issue is even more problematic in issues based only on Khalidi's work. I also must say I get the un-easy feeling that the writer (or rewriter) of this section was intended on portraying a certain situation - otherwise I can't understand why he mentioned only Palestinian casualties or why the brutal lynching and mutilation of bodies of 35 Palmach fighters was described as "ill fated" (I've now edited this last issue). I've changed what I could, but I think it's important that people with access to more balanced historical sources get involved and help create a more balanced article.Gal Kr (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

True, to comply with NPOV the article does need to balance its sourcing and content.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Morris and Khalidi have political views. But could I point out that the Khalidi work quoted, "All That Remains", is not the work of an individual. Walid Khalidi is listed as Editor. Also listed are two Associate Editors, a Project Consultant, three Asociate Editors and two Researchers. I have only once found it to be inaccurate - al-Dawayima - and don't see what the problem is. Sure lets include Palmach casualties. I've got a reference to seven killed by British on Jerusalem road ... but I get the impression it wasn't often that they were on the receiving end. "Brutal lynching and mutilation of bodies" verses "ill fated" - I don't think we will ever bridge that gap. Padres Hana (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Gal Kr, thank you for the link to the Palmach site. Not the slightest possibility of bias in any of the pages I have managed to access. Well some of the language might be a little POV...There is some doubt about the figure of 1187 killed 'during the war of independence and the years before Israel's creation'. This figure seems to be made up of all Palmach deaths including those after June 1948. Looking at the breakdown of names by unit there are some problems e.g. a couple of accidental deaths and at least two double entries: Slor Yehiel (18) in Vav Company and 1st Battalion; "Shoka" in Palyam and Palmach Headquarters. The total of named deaths by units appears (my count) to be 1085 with a high percentage after the Palmach was officially disbanded. I don't think the short-fall is because the names are not known. All the casualties on the 1945 naval operation are named as well as those who died fighting the Nazis, Vichy and the British prior to 1947 (I counted 70). More of a problem is the total listed by operations: which I make 432. All the same a very useful source that I look forward to working with. It would be good if you could feel the same about Walid Khalidi's work.Padres Hana (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Another source you will find here http://zochrot.org/index.php?id=844 a testimony by Palmach's member Amnon Neumann about his part in 1948. 109.64.33.26 (talk) 07:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

on the use of the term massacre

According to Zero000, the Convoy of 35 is not a massacre because " soldiers killed in battle are not "massacred" ". So a humanitarian mission to a blockaded kibbutz (settlement, call it what you will), supported by 35 armed soldiers are ambushed by "hundreds of Arabs from a nearby training base" and killed and their bodies mutilated "beyond recognition" does not qualify as a massacre because it was during a 'battle'? By your logic, Deir Yassin should not be considered a massacre and all of the massacres ought to be reconsidered in that light. Ridingdog (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't a humanitarian mission, it was a mission to reinforce the garrison. But that is irrelevant anyway, since an action against armed enemy soldiers in a war is not a massacre regardless of what they are up to. Deir Yassin is called a massacre because most of the dead were women and old men. The later massacre at Kfar Etzion is called that because the soldiers had surrendered. Neither case is similar. Zero^talk 00:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally I don't know why you write "supported by 35 armed soldiers". It consisted entirely of 35 armed soldiers. Zero^talk 06:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Photo caption

I'm not sure how the photo of the Palmach members amongst the ruins came about but it would appear to be pure fiction. The Hebrew caption for the version of the picture in the Palmach archive is

אלבום: חטיבת הראל הגדוד הרביעי הפורצים יחידות המטה 5 תאור התמונה: החבלנים בכפר הרוס מופיעים בתמונה: למעלה ראשון מימין: יוסף אנוש, למטה שני מימין: מישקה נהוראי מס' עמוד באלבום: 18 מס' תמונה: 9316 נתקבל מ: יוסף אנושי

I can't read Hebrew but Google translates the photograph description as "sappers destroyed village." Unless there is other evidence shouldn't that be what Wikipedia says? Padres Hana (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

third stanza of song

Third Hebrew line is fourth English line + fourth Hebrew line is third English line. Mitch3000 02:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Spelling

Looking at the most authoritative sources, including historians Benny Morris and Anita Shapira, as well as two encyclopedias, the most accurate spelling is Palmah, as opposed to Palmach. For notable examples, see Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa, Encyclopedia Judaica, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, Revisited by Benny Morris, Yigal Allon, Native Son: A Biography by Anita Shapira, Historical Dictionary of the Arab–Israeli Conflict, History Dictionary of Israel (of the larger Historical Dictionaries series), History of Zionism, and The Making of Modern Israel, 1948-1967. This would also be consistent with official rules of transliteration.[1] Because Palmach is also a common spelling (due to Ashkenazic Hebrew pronunciation), I would retain it as an alternate spelling in the lede, but would have Palmah as the primary spelling. Assuming no objections, I can go ahead with the move, including both spellings in the lede. --Precision123 (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. Not an Ashkenazi issue - transliterating guttral ח to English (which does not have the exact sound) is a complex issue - but "ch" tends to win (the alt. "h" system in Hebrew (without dotted h) gives up and just maps letter 8 to letter 8... and there is one "official" rule set here - there are several competing onea)... In terms of commin usage - Google NGRAM - shows Palmach winning by some margin.Icewhiz (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I will also note that the transliteration pdf you linked to uses dotted h - not plain h. Dotted h is also a common way of specifying ח - but it doesn't work with plain English chars. See wiktionary on dotted h.Icewhiz (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Date when established

Established 14th ("History" section) or 15th (as in lead) of May 1941? Arminden (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)