Talk:Convoy of 35

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is already an article on this subject: Lamed Hey. The contents should be merged. --Zero 05:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Contemporary reports of this event report it as a military battle, with the 35 "fighting to the last man" (phrase used by Palestine Post repeatedly). The report on the funeral says they "went down like heros asking and giving no quarter". Attempts to portray it as a massacre are not based on facts and are not appreciated by people who prefer the heroic version. --Zero^talk 03:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

the battle went through courageously. It has nothing to do with the massacre. The massacre is the killing of prisoners, captives, after the ammo ended and they were left undefended. Your comments do not refute the massacre, for which references were brought. There was heroics, and then massacres. Two seperate things. Amoruso 09:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in Katz's hate-mongering. There is no evidence that a significant number of the 35 surrendered. They might well have run out of ammunition, but that would need a reliable source and you haven't got one. It was a military disaster, get over it. --Zero^talk 09:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

do not re-edit this page. take it to arbitration if you want. a military defeat is dir yasseen yet it is written as massacre. massacre includes dead soldiers, from the list. Katz is only one of all sources who claim that the arabs killed captives here. it's all facts. get over it. don't try to be one sided ALL the time. Amoruso 09:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Your sources don't satisfy WP:RS, especially not the discussion forum. If the evidence is what you say, a claim from the Irgun about some phonecall, that is hardly anything and I'm not surprised that historians in general make so such claim. Such anecdotes are below the evidence horizon for historical research. For example, right-wing historian Efraim Karsh, (The Arab-Israeli Conflict: The Palestine War 1948, p38), wrote:

Commanded by Danny Mass, the Etzion Bloc's commander until a few days earlier, the group left the Jerusalem area in the evening of 15 January, but failed to reach its destination before dawn and found itself surrounded by masses of Arabs who had swarmed to the area from their villages. Taking positions near the opening of a cave on the local road, the platoon fought to the last man. A British police officer was later to tell that he found the body of one of the fighters with a stone, his last weapon, in his hand. True or not, the death of the 35 would take its place in the Israeli collective memory as an epitome of heroism and in the Arab narrative as a shining military success.

If stories about overheard phonecalls are acceptable, there are many additional massacres of Arabs that can be added to the list based on the much better evidence of interviews with named witnesses. --Zero^talk 11:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

 ??? Overheard calls ? evidence ? Are you a history professor from Bar Ilan or something ? This is not overheard call, it's intercepted. This is a thorough research , strong evidence of a massacre, end of story. If you have more to add on other massacres, go ahead. Amoruso 12:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

and again, underlining most reserachs on the issue are modern, like explained. there's no discussion boards, it was all in the papers about the famous research who proved the massacre. it has nothing to do with the battle. the evidence is new and regardes the aftermath of the battle. some of the fighters did not die but were killed while injured. this is all hard facts. Amoruso 12:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Evidence of a massacre? 2 A little anecdote 3 incredible lies 4 The whole business of Kfar Etzion and the Convoy was act of calculated aggression 5 Lamed He

[edit] Evidence of a massacre?

Amoruso produced three articles on the internet to support his claim that there was a massacre of caputured soldiers. In this article he bypassed one of them to reduce it to two articles (we'll see why). All of the articles relate to a thesis written by Yochanan ben Yaakov under the supervision of Professor Yossi Avneri (well known as a researcher of religious history) at Bar-Ilan University. Since we don't have ben Yaakov's thesis to examine directly, we must consider whether Amoruso's claim is supported by these web articles.

1. First there is an interview with Yochanan ben Yaakov here. He says that the corpses were mutilated, but he doesn't mention killing of captured soldiers.
2. Second there is the longer (second) of the two articles here. It reports quite a lot of details of ben Yaakov's work, but it doesn't say that captured soldiers were killed. Actually it says all the testimonies "even those of the Arab sources" indicate that "the Jews fought till the last bullet, and some of the dead held rocks in their hands". Then it quotes the nephew of Danny Mass (the leader of the 35) saying that the battle was "fair" but followed by mutilation of the corpses. He doesn't say that captured soldiers were killed. Finally it summarises ben Yaakov's contributions: (a) The participation of hundreds of Arabs from a nearby training base in the battle. (b) There was intelligence, which was ignored, about the presence of Arab fighters along the route. (c) The battle had two stages, four hours apart. (d) Etzel intercepted a phone conversation about the battle. If it had have been made known to the Hagana, a rescue mission might have been possible. (e) This is the first study in which data was cross-checked with data from Arab sources. (Item (d), which accuses Etzel of losing an opportunity to save some of the 35, is probably why Amoruso bypassed this web page and linked to #3 directly.)
3. Third we have the shorter (first) of the articles here. It comes from the "news" source Arutz Sheva, basically the voice of the extremist settlers, which is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. In Wikipedia we have seen several instances where Arutz Sheva reports turned out to be completely fictitious. In this article we learn that the intercepted telephone message mentioned that "many were killed and many wounded". From this, the Arutz Sheva reporter concludes that some of the 35 must have been killed after being captured. This conclusion is not credited to ben Yaakov, and as we have seen, he does not make such a claim even when he has the opportunity. In fact ben Yaakov established that there were two battles hours apart; why can't these words be referring to the first battle? This article also states that the last of the 35 who was alive lobbed a grenade, then a rock, before being shot, clearly contradicting the conclusion that captured soldiers were killed. In fact, it isn't even clear from what is said here that the "killed and wounded" weren't Arabs. Finally, this article makes the claim "the Arabs mutilated the corpses and tortured the survivors to death, there are shocking photographs". However, these photographs (taken by a British soldier named Duggin) have been reported on by more reliable sources. They do show mutilation but torture was not reported (example: Jerusalem Post, 16 January 1998).

So, in conclusion, even though Amoruso says that ben Yaakov established that captured soldiers were killed, we have no source attributing that opinion to him. The sole source for the claim about killing of captured soldiers is Arutz Sheva. By Wikipedia standards, that is no source at all. --Zero^talk 13:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Now we can consider some of the other claims in this article. One of the consistent features of the period before May 15, 1948, is that anytime something bad happened the British were blamed for it. Sometimes they deserved it, but this is not one of those times. The claim "The British in the nearby police station did not interfere until the battle was over." is simply the standard claim made without basis. To see the true role of the British we can read the interview with Hagana officers Uri Gavish and Eliezer Shmueli published in the Jerusalem Post, 16 January 1998. Gavish was initially a member of the convoy but had to drop out and return to Jerusalem. Shmueli was the communications officer who announced the news on the radio. The British didn't know about the convoy because elaborate measures were taken to conceal it from them. They took a long detour around the police station for that reason. After nothing had been heard from the 35 for a long time and wounded Arabs started arriving in Hebron, the British sent a platoon to investigate. "After threatening and exhorting the village mukhtars and notables", the British were finally led to the site of the battle. So much for that myth. --Zero^talk 13:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

After fable in the article is this: "They did not harm the Arab civilian, who hurried to sound the alarm." Well it is not strictly false, but the implication that they could have harmed the civilian is wrong. According to another Jerusalem Post interview (7 May 1998), the 35 were spotted by two women who were too far away to shoot and anyway "the shots would have given the fighters away". --Zero^talk 13:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

starting with the last claims of yours - the question of the British interference ornot is disputed. The question of the meeting with the shepherd is also disputed. Some say it never happened (it happened on a differnet incident with a different convoy), some say that they spared the lives of the two women, some say they spared the lives of both, and some say like you claim that they didn't want to shoot either for tactical reasons.

As to your claims of the articles, I only found the articles relating to the thesis on the net so people can have a reference. I'm refering to the actual thesis and the conclusions it derives. This is backed by other sources as well, as Katz who reports that captured soldiers were killed. So we have 2 WP:RS here, one can add more in the future, as there are indeed more in recent years more and more is found out about the incident. There's no denying it. The reason i didn't place the 3rd "article" is because it's not an article - it's a forum. internet forums are not WP:RS and this source was actually deleted I think by you becuse you claimed it's an internet forum. Weird ha ? Amoruso 14:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to claim something on the basis of the thesis you will have to establish that it says what you claim. So far you didn't even give a citation. Why don't you do what I always do with difficult-to-obtain sources: upload a scan of the relevant pages? --Zero^talk 12:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC) And the article you omitted (the best of the three) is a newspaper article like it says at the end. --Zero^talk 12:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A little anecdote

I'll record a little anecdote on this talk page because it is Original Research and probably isn't important enough to put into the article anyway. When Chaim Guri heard about the death of the 35, he was in Europe (Vienna if I remember correctly). He was very upset so he wrote a poem Henay M'utalot Gufoteinu (Here Our Bodies Lie), but when he finished he decided it wasn't good enough. He screwed it up and threw it towards the fire, but it fell short. Later his wife Aliza rescued it from the floor and convinced him it was worth saving. He sent it to Palestine where it became very famous. Chaim and Aliza told me this story themselves. --Zero^talk 14:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] incredible lies

Your sources don't satisfy WP:RS, especially not the discussion forum. Zero^talk 11:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

And the article you omitted (the best of the three) is a newspaper article like it says at the end. --Zero^talk 12:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso 17:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The whole business of Kfar Etzion and the Convoy was act of calculated aggression

I'd like to know what the Zionists think the Settlers at Kfar Etzion were doing. They were far, far outside the region set aside for the new Israel.

They had three choices that I can see, one of them suicidal. They chose the suicidal one.

And gunmen were trying to shore up this aggressive outpost - normal people would be outraged by villagers being confronted by thugs on such a mission. And celebrate the fact that they were stopped. Heroism against very heavy odds.

Why is this article written as if armed intruders were the good guys?

PalestineRemembered 20:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right that the article is written from an Israeli point of view, though I don't entirely agree with you. The situation is that these were legal settlements (legal according to British mandatory laws), and the UN partition decision did not require their evacuation. So in the event of a peaceful implementation of the UN decision, these Jewish settlements would have become part of the Arab state and the residents could have stayed there either as Jewish-state or Arab-state citizens. Of course it didn't happen that way for two reasons. One was that the Arab side did not agree to the partition plan at all, and the other is that the Jewish side did not agree to the Etzion Bloc being under Arab sovereignty (either Palestinian or Jordanian). The Jewish intention was to annex it by force to the Jewish state. You could say that the convoys were to defend the people there, or that they were part of the campaign of annexation, and be right both times. --Zero^talk 02:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I know these were/had been legal settlements, but the only two legal ways forward for them was to live under Arab sovereignty (/at peace with their neighbours) or evacuate. They chose to stand and fight - to oppose the Arab sovereignty that the Zionists had supposedly agreed to. Now, what I've said is OR and can't be used - but it's nonsense to treat the settlements as anything other than heavily armed unwanted intruders.

And the same for the convoy - whose destruction (if it is to be remembered) would be celebrated. Villagers caught unawares, managed to stop these people (who, by the sound of it, fought to the death). Why this 'proud' suggestion that the members didn't start killing unarmed villagers immediately (especially when there is no attempt at any kind of verification - nothing to suggest the ridiculous implication that the goatherder/women stopped to chat with a large group of armed men and walked away).

Really, my question is - what is the WP doing hosting such a very POV article?

(And a further question to any of its supporters - are there any similar examples of the opposite POV being tolerated by WP and WP editors?).

I'm new to this business, but my first impression is that this article is an NPOV disgrace and nothing could be done to save it.

PalestineRemembered 17:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't engage in the WP:SOAPBOX and your personal WP:POV on talk pages. I find it odd that you Zero has now added the discussion forum link you previously blanked AND IN HEBREW LOL. [1] [2]. Amoruso 11:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I see no response to my carefully expressed opinion that this article is blatantly POV. If it belongs in the encyclopedia atall, then it should be written up as "Glorious victory of villagers over a heavily armed group of infiltrators". If this is not going to happen, then it should be deleted, as being unfixable. Supporters of this article are probably lucky I'm a newby, and a pretty cautious one at that.

PalestineRemembered 16:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion, "carefully expressed" or otherwise, is just that - your opinion. You're welcoem to it, but please don't force your POV into this article. I think that a notable event in the Israeli-Arab conflict is worthy of an encyclopedia article, especially one such as this which was notable enough to have an entire Kibbutz named for it. You may think that the killing of 35 soldiers carrying medical supplies to a besieged civilian community , and the subsequent mutilation of their dead bodies beyond recognition is some 'Glorious victory'. I find it repugnant. keep your POV out of the encyclopedia. Isarig

I think you wrote it twice, palestineremembered. Please see WP:SOAPBOX again and WP:NOT. Btw, the article quoted in arutz sheva is WP:RS. Makor Rishon and Arutz Sheva for general knowledge is also largely the same. Obviously, Days of Fire is WP:RS too. Amoruso 04:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm still getting zero response to my questions "What do the Zionists think the Settlers at Kfar Etzion were doing?". Nor my question - "Why is this article written as if armed intruders were the good guys?". Nor my next question - "What is the WP doing hosting such an article?". If there's nobody prepared to defend the central pillars of having this article in this project, then I think it should be deleted. I'm still a newby, which explains why I've not yet attempted to apply the process to deal with this most un-encyclopaedic entry. PalestineRemembered 22:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Your questions have been answered, more than once. What those settlers in Kfar Etzion were doing was living. They had bought land with thir money , and set about living their lives there, cultivating the land. It appears that you think this is some sort of egragious provacation, but many people don't view it that way. Your next question - I don't think this article is written froma certain POV, but if you have suggestions on specific sentences- let's hear them. Finally, what WP is doing is hosting an article about a notable event during a notable conflict. If you think the article should be deleted, I suggest you start an AfD about it. All it takes is following a simple, well documented procedure, and I think the experience will help you a lot in becoming a better editor.Isarig 22:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've repeatedly asked for evidence that the settlers of Israel bought any of the land they claim to have done. 62 years after the birth of Israel they're not buying land, they're just seizing it (plenty of references for that). 115 years ago they were bringing in guns (or persuading some of their neighbours they were bringing in guns, anyway) and upsetting people. Was Kfar Etzion any different? (Most unlikely it was "their money" either, it came from Zionist donors!).

Zeron tells me that Kfar Etzion was (by 1948, anyway) intent on seizing land between itself and the new Israel. Your claim that they were "living" in the ordinary sense of the word bears no relation to my own concept of "living" - this was an armed camp.

Again I ask - why is this article written to defend the aggressors?

PalestineRemembered 20:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You need look no further than the first paragraph of the Gush Etzion article which states "The location was purchased". If you want addition sources, have a look at this, from a pro-Palestinian source: "the land which had been the site of Migdal Eder was purchased by Shmuel Yosef Holtzman in order to establish a Jewish community in the area between Bethlehem and Hebron. Holtzman named the community “Kfar Etzion". I don't know what your concept of living is, mine is that people buying land and ciltivating it are living there. Isarig 20:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of the land was purchased in the 1930s, and resold to the JNF in 1940. According to John C. Lehr and Yossi Katz, International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2003, pp. 215–228, this resale was illegal. In fact, they say that the JNF concentrated its efforts in this region because it was illegal. However, Zionists were not in a position to simply seize land until 1948 (after which they made up for it by blatantly stealing huge areas). Somewhere I read that a further portion of the Etzion land had been owned by Germans but was seized by the British when the owner was interred during WWII as an enemy alien. (Can't find the source for that, don't trust my memory too much.) --Zero^talk 00:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Illegal as in it's ok to massacre them and then it's not ok to come back ? Seems logical... Amoruso 22:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have an idea. You state your opinions and I'll state mine. --Zero^talk 02:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I re-phrased the whole paragrah and maintained accuracy. there are 2 differnet sources here, saying there's no source is not true. But now I feel it's adequate and highly NPOV and everyone can agree to it. Cheers, Amoruso 22:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You have not provided any reliable source for your claim. Arutz 7 and Katz are not acceptable. --Zero^talk 00:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

They're acceptable if we say it's who said them, and we did. One is a major news station although with a political stand and the other is perfectly ok of course. Amoruso 00:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither of them are noteworthy as sources. Their speculations and wild claims are not of interest. In fact there were lots of different rumors at the time, including that some of the 35 were captured and taken away and that one of them was a woman. It was also alleged that the garrison at Kfar Etzion were aware of the battle but refused to help. Rumors like this are rarely notable and it is not acceptable to cherry pick something that suits your politics and insist that it get special treatment. --Zero^talk 02:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, maybe it's not of interest to you, and maybe it's not acceptable to you, but it is acceptable and of interest to other wikipedia users and these sources are perfectly fine and relevant and they fit all the criteria of WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:RS. So respectfully you'll have to learn to live with it. Cheers, Amoruso 03:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What is your source for "photos of mutilated bodies were spread, some of them allegdly still alive"? --Zero^talk 10:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a leftover from one of the attempts to blank the whole thing. I'll remove it, although this is well known of course and been told many times. Amoruso 10:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You inserted it in exactly this form. Now we can look at another one of your sources. You have been citing "Katz, Shmuel (1968). Days of fire. W.H. Allen . ISBN 0491002319, p. 369." as supporting Arutz Sheva's claim that captured soldiers were killed. Care to elaborate on that source? --Zero^talk 15:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The exact quoete says "The arabs often killed their captives and mutilated them - this is how they've done with the 35..." Cheers, Amoruso 17:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's be clear about this. Are you saying that I can track down the 1968 W.H. Allen edition of Days of Fire, ISBN 0491002319, turn to page 369, and find the words you just quoted? --Zero^talk 04:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

As I thought. --Zero^talk 06:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

As you thought what ? Yes, it's a direct quote from the book. The page number currently refers to the hebrew version. Amoruso 19:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So you admit misrepresenting the source (as you have done many times). Here is what the English edition says (p194): "Fighting to their last round of ammunition, they had been killed to a man". Nothing about being captured before being killed, and even if there was, Katz is neither an accepted source of history nor an eyewitness. --Zero^talk 12:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I never misrepresented anything. Stop the personal attacks. What I wrote is a direct quote from the book. It's in Hebrew. The page number refers to the Hebrew version. If you have the English translation with you, you should find the correct page. You're obviously not reading it. It's at the section where Katz is discussing Deir Yassen, the 4th part Chapter 17. it's a good legitimate source of course. Amoruso 18:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You gave the English edition repeatedly, misleadingly. Anyway, what you quote would be insufficient even if Katz was a reliable source (rather than a professional propagandist). The fact that the 35 were killed and some were mutilated is in the article already. It was me and not you that gave a reliable source for the mutilation part. --Zero^talk 11:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The page number referrs to the Hebrew and it says that captives were killed. This and Arutz Sheva is included. Amoruso 10:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

ISBN 0-491-00231-9 is an English language edition. --Ian Pitchford 11:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Your point ? Amoruso 13:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You aren't citing this edition and so you need a source; preferably a reliable English-langugage source given the controversial and otherwise unsupported nature of the claim. --Ian Pitchford 13:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

i'm citing the Hebrew page number, it says so in the source. The book is for reference in english, it's possible to add the hebrew too or instead, it's all allowed. Amoruso 14:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could make a scan of the Hebrew page available for other editors to assess? This has worked well in the past. --Ian Pitchford 14:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems I don't have any access to a scanner nor to the english translation at the moment, so I'll just quote it in Hebrew directly for other hebrew readers to see that this is what I quoted.

"היתה להם מטרה מעשית בלתי אמצעית בנימת החלחלה אותה נקטו בהפיצם בעולם כולו את השקר על דיר-יאסין. הערבים, שלעיתים קרובות הרגו את שבוייהם והטילו בהם מומים - כך נהגו בל"ה בהרי חברון בחודש ינואר - לא התקשו כלל ללכת בעקבותיהם; " Amoruso 15:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Katz does not actually say that the 35 were captured. If he knew that he would have highlighted it in his earlier longer section that is specifically about the 35. In any case, how the hell could Katz know something that nobody else could discover (including Haganah intelligence, etc)? This is just bluster from a propagandist and obviously inadmissible. As for Arutz Sheva: the propaganda arm of the settler movement "suggests that the intercepted conversation raises the possibility", wow whoopee doo what amazing convincing evidence that is! This nonsense has gone on for way too long. --01:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

He most certainly says that in the Hebrew paragraph quoted above. I assume you do not read Hebrew, so I'll translate the relevant section: 'The Arabs often killed their prisoners and mutilated them - that's what they did with the 35 in the Hebron mountains'.Whether or not Katz was in a position to know this is entirely irrelevant- the standard on WP is verifiability, not truth, and it is verifiable that Katz has claimed this. Isarig 04:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It can easily be read that the reference to the 35 applies to the "mutilated". Such constructive ambiguity is normal for propagandistic writing. In any case it doesn't matter in the slightest since Katz is not a reliable source. And I'll repeat: Katz has a whole passage on the 35 earlier in the book where he gives more detail and does not claim that the 35 were captured before being killed. This is sufficient to prove that Katz did not have such information, otherwise he would have focussed on it at length. --Zero^talk 08:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it can't be read that way. It can be read that in addition to killing prisoners, they ALSO mutilated them. Your persoanl agenda against Katz notwithstanding, he is a reliable source. Please stop your disruption on this page. Isarig 15:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A "whole" passage ? Wow, in contrast to this "whole" passage ? In what chapter is it ? Amoruso 12:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I quoted the key sentence to you already. Please explain why an uninhibited Arab-basher like Shmuel Katz would merely say they were killed after running out of ammunition if he could have said that they were killed in cold blood after being captured. --Zero^talk 06:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I asked you what chapter Katz discusses it, I want to see it in Hebrew. Please cite a reference for him being an "Arab-basher". Amoruso 10:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a chapter called "The Arabs Attack". As for a reference for him being an Arab-basher, one is called "Days of Fire" and another is called "Battleground". --Zero^talk 12:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the concept of a "reference". Your own personal opinion of the man or his published works does not count as one. Isarig 17:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Without getting involved in the question of whether he could have known, I have to confirm Amoruso's translation as being the only logical one; in that sentence Katz is certainly claiming that the captured of the 35 were killed and mutilated. Tewfik^Talk 15:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lamed He

I really don't see why everything has to turn into an endless argument. The fifth letter in the Hebrew alphabet is He, not "Hey". The official English name of the kibbutz that was named after the convoy is "Netiv Halamed-He" [3].--Doron 19:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The spelling "hey" is quite common, but "he" seems more official. For example, the name of the letter in Unicode (which is as close as we can get to an international standard) is "HEBREW LETTER HE". --Zero^talk 10:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)