Talk:Haganah

Founded by Ahdut HaAvoda?

Wasn't the Haganah founded by the Ahdut HaAvoda? If correct, why is this not mentioned once in the article? Just some vague "Formed out of previous existing militias" isn't up to Wikipedia standards. By whom/by which institution/organization? When decided? If untrue, then the Ahdut HaAvoda and Hashomer Wikipedia articles must be false. Carnifexx (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Accuracy, Not Bias, Please

I've provided 3 sources (one from the World Zionist Organization in Jerusalem, another from a volume by David Niv on the IZL, along with a NY Times article which reprints the 1947 British White Paper on Zikonist Terrorism in Palestine, and the links between the Haganah and IZL. The White Paper reference should be included, even if one of you thinks the at times 'shaky' relationship between the Brits and the Haganah "would mean that the British would use a favorable opportunity to get even at them." Unless you can prove the partnership DIDN'T happen, then it's your perspective that needs to be revised. Specifically, do you have information that contradicts that in the White Paper? If so, present it. If not, don't delete other's work because you think, without providing any basis for your comments, that the WP represents an attempt by the British to "get even" with the Haganah. Wilsonius

NPOV

There was some un-neutral bias in this article which I have removed. It said something like "It was clear that the British had no desire to protect the Jews". Maybe it is clear to you, however this is an encyclopedia, and we have to state cold facts.

The "Haganah's Terrorism acts" is not neutral and needs to be rewritten. Perhaps calling it "covert operations" and removing the Pro palestinian paragraph which is out of place here. The bombing of the King David Hotel is also contoversial and should be included in "covert operations"

However, fact remains that 25 members of the Haganah participated in the Deir Yassin attack, although this was later played down by the Haganah. AH YES BUT HAMAS IS CALLED A TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS([1]).

I removed this link for two reasons: first it was a general Israel-bashing page, backed by very random pieces of information. Secondly, the fact that a single Haganah company might have been somehow in the neighborhood of Deir Yassin is totally irelevant to the question whether the Haganah was a terrorist organization. uriyan

--- In July 1946 Britain published a white paper on terrorism that accused Haganah, Stern gang and Irgun of "violence and destruction".

The fact that the relationship between Haganah and the British was shaky at times would mean that the British would use a favorable opportunity to get even at them. In other words, hearsay is useless. --Uri

--- These paragraphs:

However the British cooling-down at the middle of the war unveiled the Jewish Yishuv's most hurting point - the plight of Holocaust survivors. A small stream of them began to arrive early in the war; by the time the war ended, hundreds of thousands of Jews were in Europe, who were left with no home and no homeland. The British had allowed only a limited number to come to Palestine; the Haganah set out to bring the rest.

The immigrants were brought in illegaly on old, small boats rented by the Jewish leadership. The Haganah played an important function in helping the ships arrive to shore and dispersing the immigrants safely. About 70,000 Jews were brought into Palestine in this way, and a similar number was captured on the way. The British were apallingly insensitive to the latter, arresting them in detention camps on remote lands (Cyprus and Mauritius), returning them to the places of their slaughter or simply killing them by inaction (as happened with the ship Struma).

fail the NPOV test. Phrases like "appallingly insensitive" don't belong here. The passage is also poorly organised and can be misleading. For one thing, a large part of the illegal immigration was the work of Etzel rather than the "Jewish leadership". As an example, the Struma was organized by Betar. For another thing, there is confusion here between war-time and post-war refugees. The Struma was sunk in 1942 but the article makes it sound like post-war. Also it is simply not correct to blame it all on the British. The Turkish government was under British pressure but it had its own motivations as well. Also they weren't all "old small boats", etc etc. I plan to replace these passages when time permits.

---

These edits and reverts are making me dizzy. Let's look at the disputed paragraphs.

Major General R. Dare Wilson, who served with the British troops policing the British Mandate of Palestine, reported that on Dec. 18, 1947, the Haganah murdered 10, mostly women and children, in the Arab village of al-Khisas. Wilson also claimed that on Dec. 31 the Haganah slaughtered another 14, again mostly women and children, in Balad Esh-Sheikh. (Aldershot: Gale & Polden, p.158, 1949)

This is not good because it refers to two events more or less randomly selected out of a war that had very many events. I think the issue of Haganah behaviour in the 1948 war deserves only a brief mention here plus a link to 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Also the details are inaccurate and the citation is nonsensical. "Aldershot, Gale & Polden" is a publishing company, which means that the book is not even named (it is a military memoir of the British 6th airborne).

The Arabs claim that forces of the Haganah played a large role in the expulsion and evacuation of Palestine Arabs living inside what today is Israel. One of their methods was to impose fear in the local populations. See proper discussion at Palestinian Exodus.

That's not so bad and the issue should be mentioned. I'd leave out the "fear" sentence at least as you shouldn't start on the question of mechanisms without finishing it.

Although the Haganah didn't play an active role in the Deir Yassin massacre, the Haganah commander David Shaltiel is said to have allowed (albeit, with eluctance) forces of the Irgun and Lehi to execute the attack against the village. (Kfir, Ilan, Yediot Ahronot 4.4.72) Haganah units assisted them by providing mortar fire, they later withdrew from the area before the massacre begun. (Levi, Yitzhak, op. cit. p343-344; Pail and Isseroff, op. cit.)

I'm not sure it deserves a mention on this page as the Haganah's role at Deir Yassin was little different from in a hundred places. The "citations" indicate that this was lifted without understanding from somewhere, as "op.cit." means that the full citation can be found earlier, which it can't. - zero 13:07, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The statements are noncontroversial and David Shaltiel was indeed the one giving the undergrounds his blessing. I agree that the examples are meaningless since the Haganah was responsible for a few dozen massacres and other atrocities during the war and they can only serve as a snapshot to them. I suspect they were added because a revision a long time ago contained some statements amounting to "the Haganah never did anything bad" and some avid Haganah supporter tried to preserve that pov. :-) BL 14:49, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's true the statements are non-controversial, but as far as the Haganah was concerned this was a very small and not very special operation. (I've never seen any allegation that the Hanagah knew that a massacre was about to happen.) So the fact that the Haganah played a part is not very important as far as the history of the Haganah goes, although it is a part of the story of Deir Yassin which is told elsewhere. -- zero 15:46, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I removed the assertion that the UN regards the Haganah as a terrorist organization. The citations were two papers submitted to UN conferences. That is hardly stating that the Haganah, a defunct organization, is a terrorist organization. Danny 22:09, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Even the israeli goverment has accused the Hagana as a terrorist group. British authority too, and the UN .. please don't remove truth because you are enthousiate or agree with Hagana actions. Europeen

Which government? The one headed by Sharon, who was a member of the Haganah? Yes, the British accused the Haganah of terrorism (actually the Palmach, much like they did the Mau Mau). As for the UN, you have to bring something a little better than papers submitted to a UN conference. As for assuming I am an enthusiast or in agreement with Haganah actions without stating what they are or knowing anything about me, that is just plain stupid. Danny 22:20, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It is the Israeli goverment in 1948/1949.. and in 1948 there were no computer or internet to find a paper about it.. and stop deleting the link..

The Israeli government headed by Ben Gurion, who also happened to head the Haganah? Danny 22:26, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

yes

evidence, please, before you make the assertion. Danny 22:30, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

in 1948 there was no pc's, and i don't know hebreu, so i can't see how you will beleive if i tell you a link in other language.. you won't beleive, and start your zionist propaganda, of etc and etc... and stop deleting the link...

ahem: The two papers cited as evidence don't say what you claim they say; one calls the Haganah "extremist" (not quite the same thing as "terrorist"), the other doesn't mention it at all. — No-One Jones (talk) 22:35, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

U may search well in the other to see.. and i have a third link saying explicitly that it is a "terrorist" organisation.

Danny, it seems that even if i changed the sentence or out anything that say that hagana is terrorist, u delete it.. it is not a zionist wikipedia, not Ziopedia...

Not even worth answering. Danny 22:47, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Very clever to protect the page... this encyclopedia is hopeless..

The Haganah never exploded civilian Buses, nor did it open automatic fire on tourists in an international airport, and generally its acts against civilians were not as cruel as the PLO (in terms of statistical deaths of civilians. Land is not a civilian despite some esteemed cultures considering it eligible to register in the national census, bear children, die, take umbrage at insults to its honor and buy groceries). Therefore, if you want the Haganah labeled a terrorist organization, you ought to most enthusiastically want the PLO to be so labeled, as well. It is not, so the Haganah certainly doesn't have to carry this burden alone. Or, are you suggesting that killing Arabs is terrorism but killing Jews isn't? legitimate of you but it has to be explained so people who don't know anything about it understand the understandable semantic conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.8.119.102 (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

---

"Europeen" clearly does not have a clue. It is quite impossible that any Israeli government ever accused the Hagana of being a terrorist organization. I don't know of any such accusation from the UN in its official capacity either. As for the British....for example in 1946 they published the texts of some intercepted telegrams proving that the Hagana was cooperating with the Irgun and had prior knowledge of Irgun attacks (deva vu in reverse?). I don't remember if the word "terrorist" was used there but it was implied. On the other hand, the great majority of mentions of the Hagana in British documents do not treat them as terrorists (unlike the Irgun and Lehi, who were always so treated). --Zero 01:51, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The document that User:Europeen refers to is "Written statement* submitted by Europe-Third World Centre, a non-governmental organisations in general consultative status" to the United Nations. As such, it is not the opinion of a UN body. The UN publishes (circulates the document) as required by UN regulations: The Secretary-General has received the following written statement which is circulated in accordance with Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31. Information on the source of the document is available here and here OneVoice 04:56, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Following the Arab riots of 1929, that left 133 Jews dead and led to the ethnic cleansing of all Jews from the city of Hebron, the Haganah's role changed dramatically.

The article 1948 Arab-Israeli War seems to imply 67 were kill (paragraph 4 of the background). Which is it?

Covert/clandestine

There is a difference between covert and clandestine operations, so we should make sure to use each term precisely. Covert operations are so secret that the government or organization that orders them will deny any part in it - like the Mission:Impossible shtick. Clandestine operations are secret, but wouldn't be denied if the operatives are caught. --Leifern 16:31, May 15, 2005 (UTC)ŀ

I've never encountered that distinction. The dictionary definitions seem to indicate that the two words are synonymous. --Lee Hunter 17:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The article states, "The Haganah are known to be the foundation of the modern Israel Defense Forces (צה"ל)—Israel's army." I don't think this is quite accurate. Irgun and the Stern Gang, both terrorist organizations, were incorporated in the IDF.

More Appropriate Language and Missing Information

Appropriate Language

The article states, "Irgun and their off-shoot, the Lochamei Herut Israel (also known as the Stern gang after its leader), became well-known for their clandestine combat methods including attacks on civilians." I believe there are several problems with this paragraph. The phrase: "[Irgun's/Stern gang] became well-known for their clandestine combat methods," but to whom did these efforts become well known? Also, I've seen a few references to Irgun/Stern gang as terrorist organizations, which make me wonder if that would be a more accurate description for this Wikipedia entry. For example, in 1947, David Ben Gurion pleaded with the British to lift martial law in Palestine as " it did not influence the terrorists or put an end to their violence." (Saul Zadka, Blood in Zion: How the Jewish Guerrillas drove the British Out of Palestine. Brassey's: London & Washington, 1995, p 4). In a meeting with Haganah, Menachem Begin, commander of the Irgun, referred to the 3 military organizations which operated in Jewish Palestine: "In fact there is here a division of roles; One organization advocates individual terrorism, the other conducts sporadic military operations and there is a third organization which prepares itself to throw its final weight to the decisive war." (Blood in Zion, p12). In 1944, members of the Jewish Agency, which long supported the British in Palestine, resolved to (according to one Jewish Agency document) "extend all the necessary aid to the [British] authorities in order to precent acts of terrror to foil their organization." (David Niv, The Irgun Zevai Leumi.Jerusalem: World Zionist Organization (Dept for Education and Culture), 1980 p. 57). Also, the phrase, "attacks on civilians," is problemmatic. Does it refer to attacks on British, Palestinian Arabs, and/or Palestinian Jews? This should be clarified.

Missing Information First, the Stern gang was also referred to as Lechi, which may be useful to include (source: Niv, The Irgun Zevai Leumi. p.3). Second, between November 6, 1944 (the Lechi assassination of Lord Moyne, British Minister of State for the Middle East), and May 1945, the Haganah imprisoned members of the Irgun, and also handed over Irgun members to the British. (source: Niv) Finally, the Haganah partnered with the Irgun for a period after July 1945, Haganah partnered with Irgun and Lechi. According to Niv, "It was then that conditions were ripe and an agreement was eventually reached for wider cooperation, to include the Haganah as well." (p 58) He later states that Haganah had a role in the bombing of the King David Hotel and the killing of 82 British men and women, and then states, "It was not, however, until years later that [Irgun] revealed the part played by the Jewish Agency and Haganah in intiating the operation." (p. 69)

As for the documents I've referenced, Zadka's book is still in print, but I'm not sure if Niv's article was ever published. (I ran across it at the British Library a few weeks ago.) I don't have the entire document, but do have many of the pages. Wilsonius 10:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Irgun vs Lei in caption

פעולות האצ"ל בתל-אביב לסחיטת כסף מסוחרים תוך שימוש באמצעים אלימים, אזהרה כי ההגנה תעניש אנשים אלה. נמצא בתיק הכרוזים הגדולים מס' 13. Source: archives.mod.gov.il El_C 00:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist acts

Please refer to the sources I mention here. El_C 00:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Bad Grammar

Since the page is protected, I'll post the mistakes here:

"about attacks on Palestinian Jews, , and created the Haganah" - double commas.

"nearly all the youths and adults in the" - youths should be youth

"the Haganah created the (Palmach, or Assault Companies) the Haganah's" - misplaced parenthesis

The First Terrorist Organization Of Modern World

Yes, It was the first terrorist organization of the civillized world which laterally took the shape of IDF which is performing terrist activities nowadays in the land of Palestine and Lebanon. Abulfazl 10:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

WRONG!!!

NOT WRONG! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.192.181 (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Teddy Kollek

Teddy Kollek repped in Washingon in 1947-8 and helped buy weapons.--Gkklein 19:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Kollek was NOT scorpion. this is a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.157.215 (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Patria disaster

Should there be mention of this incident in this article? Thanks, --Tom 17:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"It can therefore be concluded that Haganah was a Jewish Terrorist organisation which gave out leaders like Begin who were later elected to office in Israel."

Uh... Can anyone say biased? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.170.22 (talk) 02:30, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

And your saying the Haganah wouldn't be called a terrorist organisation today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.87.52.51 (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah.. Cover it up you UGLY CABAL

You ugly cabal

Yeah.. keep covering the truth.. and pretend this is a true honest encyclopedia.

Reverting between two versions

For the past two weeks, this article has been reverted between two versions, a longer one and a shorter one. Currently the longer one is in place, which I agree should be preferred.

The following are reasons why the longer version is better:

• The longer version includes references and external links. The shorter one doesn't.
• The longer version has images of two photographs, two posters, and a leaflet. The shorter one doesn't have any.
• The shorter version has problems with bias. For example, the shorter version includes a section titled "Hganah's Terrorism acts" [sic -- with proper grammar and spelling, that would be "Haganah's terrorist acts"]. However, that section is focused almost entirely on the Deir Yassin massacre which was committed by Irgun and Lehi, not by Haganah.
• In addition, the lead of the shorter version describes Haganah as a "Zionist terrorism organization". Wikipedia has a guideline against using the word "terrorist" or "extremist" unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group one of those names. See WP:TERRORIST (a section of Wikipedia:Words to avoid). The guideline recommends the use of words such as insurgent, paramilitary, or partisan instead, and the longer version does use "paramilitary" to describe Haganah.

Therefore, please don't revert this article to the 8,014-byte version. Please use normal editing to improve the article instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• I see that the most recent reversion to the shorter version corrected the spelling of "Hganah's" to "Haganah's", but all of the other problems are still there. In addition, the shorter version eliminates the interwiki links to the Catalan and Russian versions of this article. I would recommend against reverting to that shorter version unless one is willing to explain why the Catalan and Russian versions of this article should not get interwiki links. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The articles with pictures are the standard of quality articles

Isn't that ridiculous??

As if the pics and wiki version links can't be added to the other article (Ohh THATS A GREAT IDEA.. IT WILL BECOME A GREAT ARTICLE THEN.. BUT WITHOUT PICS ITS BAD..) ridiculous..

And what else do you call grouping innocent people and making them a target of a killing spree? Maybe you consider it a hunting picnic??

And why is it here?? Coz -if you read carfully- "authorized the irregular terrorist forces". So don't EVER consider yourself a judge on the better article and play innocent and fair about it coz you are NOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.178.224.163 (talk)

(Trying to delete my text is very very fair to you now haaa?? hehehe) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnaHona (talk • contribs)

You ugly cabal

• Well, I still don't see how removing the photos, the references, and two of the interwiki links improved the article. It appears that some editors may have preferred the shorter version because it described Haganah as a terrorism organization, notwithstanding the violation of WP:TERRORIST. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well... YOU don't see.. you have your reasons.. coz who add those pics could have add them to either version.. but he add it to the version which approve his side of the story after deleting the parts of the story which he didn't like. And not just that.. He insist on BLOCKing everybody who diapprove his side of story.. and he even accuse them with vandalism..

And that shows the very so called FREEDOM face in the so called "Free encyclopedia" you call it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaZiltHona (talk • contribs) 15:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Indeed, the pictures could be added to either version. That's why it would be preferable for the pictures not to be removed from the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Why have my comments being deleted?

Is there some kind of censorship going on here? My previous comments that Haganah should be called a terrorist organisation in this article have been deleted. Since I did not offend anyone and was not rude, simply having made a statement, it is difficult to understand why my lines were erased. Can anyone explain to me WHY Haganah is not called a terrorist group here? If that is the case, in order to be consistent and neutral, all other organisations called terrorist must be not called so in Wikipedia. Thank you, and please dont show more authoritarianism by deleting a non-offensive, objective statement like mine here. Tango. UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.181.79 (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• See the style guideline Wikipedia:Words to avoid, particularly the section at WP:TERRORIST, which says: In line with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, the words "Extremist", "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". In an article the words should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article. Note that the article on Hamas says Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by Canada,[7] Israel,[8] Japan,[9] and the United States,[10] and is banned in Jordan. Hezbollah says Six countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, officially list Hezbollah, or its external security arm, as a terrorist organization, though its designation as such is not unanimous among world powers (perhaps most notably, the European Union). ETA says ETA is proscribed as a terrorist organisation by both the Spanish and French[3] authorities as well as the European Union as a whole,[4] the United States, and the United Nations. Provisional Irish Republican Army says The organisation is classified as an illegal terrorist group in the United Kingdom[5] and as an illegal organisation in the Republic of Ireland.[6] Note that all these articles indicate who considers the organizations to be terrorist organizations, rather than just saying outright that they are terrorist organizations. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Metropolitan90, you must not censor a talkpage. How are we supposed to find sources to User's above facts if you deleted them? This is unacceptable.78.131.137.50 (talk) 08:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Check the edit history. I never removed any other editors' comments or sources from this talk page. I will assume good faith and assume that you are referring to somebody else. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Palmach

The article says that the Palmach wasn't large with only 2000 men. The Palmach consisted of men and women equally. Women in the Palmach had the same jobs as men in everything - they weren't banned from combat, etc. I don't know if the 2000 men is just a figuraive number or not so I'm not changing it now. If someone want to they can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.5.63 (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Political assassination of Jewish opponent(s)

Haganah was not only active against Arab and British groups, it was willing to assassinate perceived opponents within the Jewish community. Jacob Israel de Haan was assassinated by the Haganah member Avraham Tehomi in Jerusalem on 30 June, 1924.
This was an act of political violence against an important member of the Jewish community resident in the British Mandate of Palestine. Is this event considered to be of some significance, and if so should it be include in the article?
Dean Armond 19:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Avraham Tehomi led a a radical right-wing splinter of the Haganah that left to form the Irgun. Assassination was not a standard policy of the Haganah or Irgun, but was embraced by Lehi (the Stern Gang). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.186.219 (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

de Haan was killed by Tehomi who was then a member of the Haganah.

Haganah was a 100 % pure terrorist organization — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.85.150 (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Massacre on Arabs in Deir Jassin

I'm surpriced it is not mentioned in the article. Can someone please find good English-language sources to include this78.131.137.50 (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Abu Laban family

Disappointed (but not suprised) that this didn't stay around long: On August 15, 1947, in the Haganah's first major post-war attack against Palestinians, it blew up the house of the Abu Laban family, prosperous Palestinian orange growers, near Petah Tikva. Twelve occupants, including a woman and six children, were killed. ref: Walid Khalidi. "Before their Diaspora." IPS 1984. ISBN 0 88728 143 5. Page 253. Benny Morris, "The Birth of the Palestinian refugee problem, 1947-1949", 1987, ISBN 0 521 33028 9. Page 156. Morris gives no precise date or number of casualties but describes the house as "suspected of being an Arab terrorist headquarters." He also states that on 20 May 1947 the Palamach blew up a coffee house in Fajja after the murder of two Jews in Petah Tikva. Padres Hana (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Now totally sanitised. -

Why was this taken out? Can we have a "criticism section" to show another point of view about this organization? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achamy (talk • contribs) 02:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The Abu Laban farm after the Haganah attack on August 15, 1947.

Padres Hana (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Haganah created after Nabi-Musa riots?

In the opening paragraph it claims that the Haganah was created after the 1920 Nabi-Musa riots. Infact the Haganah had already been formed shortly before the outbreak of the riots. The specific events usually cited by most historians as being the impetus of the Haganah were the March 1920 attacks by Syrian bedouin on the remote Jewish settlements near the Syrian border. Most famously the attack on the Tel-Hai settlement that killed Jewish veteran Joseph Trumpledor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.129.106.112 (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Achamy, 14 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Can we have a Controversy or Alternative History or Criticism section for the Haganah? There are a wide variety of viewpoints from revisionist Israeli historians and Arab historians that contradict the mainstream Israeli narrative presented in this article. I think we should keep what is there now but also add a "Revisionist Perspective" or a "Critique" perspective.

Basically Israeli revisionist (Israeli historians Benny Morris, Ilan Pappe, etc.) and Palestian historiography sees them as a terrorist organization or at least a militant paramilitary group. Zionist historiography sees them as freedom fighters. We can put in the title "seen as a paramilitary, independence group by some, terrorist group by others" and give evidence for both.

Here is one source that is an entire article exploring how Arab historians label them as a terrorist group:

The Haganah by Arab and Palestinian historiography and media. Israel Studies | September 22, 2002 | Ozacky-Lazar, Sarah; Kabha, Mustafa By not showing hte Arab viewpoint and censoring this we are not allowing people to make up their own minds about the subject. If they are truly a freedom fighting group, the evidence will be clear.

Here is a source from Ilan Pappe (Israeli historian) that critiques their use of military force and connects them to the human massacre of civilians are Deir Yassin as well as directly involved in ethnic cleansing episodes:

"The systematic nature of Plan Dalet manifested in Deir Yassin, a pastoral and cordial village that had reached a non-aggression pact with the Hagana in Jerusalem but was doomed to be wiped out because it was within the areas designated by Plan Dalet to be cleansed. Because of a prior aggreement they had signed with the village, the Hagana decided to send the Irgun and Stern Gang troops, so as to absolve themselves from any official accountability.

...Jewish soldier sprayed the houses with machine-gun fire, killing many of the inhabitants. The remaining villagers where then gathered in one place and murdered in cold blood, their bodies abused while a number of the women were raped tehn killed.

Recent research has brough dowtn the accepted number of peopel massacred at Deir Yassin from 170 to ninty-three. Of course, apart from the victims of the massacre itself, fozens of others were killed in the fighting,, and hense were not included in the official list of victims."

Four nearby villages were next - Qalunya, Saris, Beit Surik, and Biddu. Taking only an hour or so each village, Hagana units blew up the houses and expelled the people. Hagana officers claimed they had to struggle with their subordinates in order to prevent a frenzy of looting at the end of each occupation. Two villages in the same area were spared: Abu Ghawsh and Nabi Samuil. This was because their mukhtars had developoed a relatively cordial relationship with the local commanders of the Stern Gang. Ironically this saved tehm from destruction and expulsion: as the Hagana wanted to demolish them, the more extreme group, the Stern Gang, now came to their rescue.

Illan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, 2006, New World Press, pg. 90-91

Also note other wikipedia articles that show Haganah military officers were present at the Deir Yassin massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre#Accounts_from_Haganah_Officers)

Achamy (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)AChamy

Note, as this is not a simple "Please change THIS to THAT", I have cancelled out the {{editsemiprotected}} template. Hopefully, other editors will discuss your suggestions here, and form a consensus for some changes. If this results in a direct request to edit, please use a further {{editsemiprotected}}.  Chzz  ►  22:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Spelling mistake on page

It should be 'Guild of Watchmen', not 'Guild of Watchman', right in the first part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magic-neophyte (talk • contribs) 06:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the error. I've corrected it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Please add a disambiguation link to Krav Maga

The martial art Krav Maga is also known as the "haganah system", and "haganah system" is a redirect to the Krav Maga article. So please include a disambiguation link at the top of the article, because people searching for information on "Haganah" (Krav Maga) will wind up here. Thanks.--108.193.118.126 (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

References

The source cited for an average membership of 20,000 doesn't seem to exist anywhere. Can someone please provide documentation that this source is accessible or provide a different source?

Johnson, Paul (May 1998). "The Miracle". Commentary 105: pp 21–28. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.186.219 (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no requirement that sources be electronically accessible. The citation given is sufficient to identify it. On the other hand, it ought to be possible to do better than an article in Commentary for this information. Zero^talk 23:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Kollek and Scorpion

The identification of "Scorpion" as Kollek was published many times, including in a 2008 paper in Intelligence and National Security by Steven Wagner. However, Wagner's thesis published in 2010 refutes it: "This statement is an error, one which unfortunately has caught on." Wagner provides adequate documentation to show that Scorpion was actually the codename of a British operative who Kollek was in contact with. This issue is too peripheral to this article to justify several sentences on it, so I will delete the mention of Scorpion here and check that it is covered in other more relevant articles. Zero^talk 02:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 February 2012

This article is unsourced and is heavily pro-Israel. A number of assertions are factually inaccurate and this article should not be published in its current state.

202.67.122.33 (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: The {{edit semi-protected}} template requires a specific request with a 'please change X to Y' degree of detail. Also, relaible sources are required for any factual changes. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

TERRORIST

By all intense and purpose - Haganah was a terrorist organization. And yet, in the entire article there is not a single mention of teh word "terrorist". --Autismal (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:TERRORIST and WP:V. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

From the Encyclopædia Britannica: " After World War II, when the British refused to open Palestine to unlimited Jewish immigration, the Haganah turned to terrorist activities, bombing bridges, rail lines, and ships used to deport “illegal” Jewish immigrants." http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/251461/Haganah

I think this source is reliable enough. So, people or groups which "turn to terrorist activities" are de facto Terrorists, no? Now can we include the term terrorist in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.22.17.25 (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 December 2013

Official Hagana website in External links. The addres are changed. The new address is: http://www.irgon-haagana.co.il.

212.25.80.227 (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Done - Based on what I see from Google Translate, the previous website was discussing taxes and such. --ElHef (Meep?) 00:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

"Arab gangs"

Wikipedia claims to be neutral and doesn't allow any biased POVs yet that doesn't stop pro-zionists from calling local palestinians who tried to repel the invaders "arab gangs". In Ben Gurion's Scandals: How the Haganah & the Mossad Eliminated Jews, Giladi discusses the crimes committed by Zionists in their frenzy to import raw Jewish labor. Newly-vacated farmlands had to be plowed to provide food for the immigrants and the military ranks had to be filled with conscripts to defend the stolen lands. Yet such facts are overlooked in this neutral "encyclopedia" because it doesn't suit the "neutral" political POV of its administration.

World War II participation

World War II participation 'On May 14, 1941, the Haganah created the Palmach (an acronym for Plugot Mahatz—strike companies)' I don't know Hebrew, but shouldn't that be 'abbreviation', not 'acronym'?

Pronunciation?

How do we pronounce "Haganah" in English? Can someone please add that to the article? DBlomgren (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2020

I suggest adding the following sources to the "further reading" section:

1. Elam, Ygal. (1979). Hagana – the Zionist Way to Power. Tel-Aviv, Israel: Zmora, Bitan, Modan (in Hebrew). 2. Ben-David, Yehuda. (1995). The "Hagana" in Europe. Israel: Tag & Galili center for defense studies. ISBN 9654870142 (in Hebrew). Mottisa (talk) 05:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Hebrew works are not likely to be helpful to readers of the English Wikpedia. Further reading sections should be extensions of the Wikipedia article. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 16:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Page's name

Hi. The name of the page should be 'hahaganah', not 'hagana'. If you'll look at the hebrew page, you'll see two 'hay' letters. (ה) In hebrew, ה before a word, means 'the'. So hahagana, translates to 'the defence' 'hagana' by it self just means defence. 2A00:A040:1A3:1035:EDBA:5608:B667:18C3 (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

transcription edit

Revise

• Haganah (Hebrew: הַהֲגָנָה ha-Ganah, lit. 'The Defense')

to

• The Haganah (Hebrew: הַהֲגָנָה ha-Haganah, lit. 'The Defense')

As it stands, it gives the (incorrect) impression that the definite article ha- is subsumed into the name like in Hashomer, which is simply not the case. Kyoto Grand (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed it. Zero^talk 00:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)