Jump to content

Talk:Zionist political violence/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

More productive

Wouldn't this be more productive if the Palestinian terrorism and Israeli terrorism entries were broken up, so that the political issue (terrorism) is distinguished from the events (killings, etc.)? E.g., Palestinians killed by Israelis and Israelis killed by Palestinians. --TheCunctator

Good idea. If I find time, I'll try to switch stuff around. If not, could someone else? -- GayCom

Moral equivalence

Here is something relevent for the Talk section, but not the content of the article itself: To make sure that all articles on terrorism work smoothly and fairly, I hold that we must be aware of the problem of moral equivalence - the phenomenon by which terrorists are made out by people to be no worse than the police who try to stop them. To give a recent example related to this entry, a number of Palestinian suicide-bomber terrorists ran by a pizza parlor and an ice-cream parlor in Jerusalem, and mass-murdered children and adults. Horrificilly, these people were labeled by some as "soldiers" or as "freedom fighters". However, when the Israeli Army tracked down where these people came from and made arrests, the Israelies were accused by the PA (Palestinian Authority) of state sponsored terrorism. Obviously, such Doublespeak is a thin mask for hatred of Israel. And such doublespeak will pop up in all the other entries on terrorism (think India/Pakistan, for example), unless we are aware of this problem. Once aware, we can make sure to write in such a way as to actually be objective, as opposed to politically correct. RK

A famous politician once said, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." I suppose that means the word terrorist is like the word cult in that it is applied differently depending on who is applying the label. I don't think it's possible to come up with an adequate definition of terrorism which is value-free. It's impossible, because each application of the term depends on the values of the person using it. I denounce Arab terrorism against Israel both because I support Israeli sovereignty and because I don't like seeing random civilians blown to bits. On the other hand, I support the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasake as well as Dresden -- which involved hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. What gives? Do I have conflicting values? Am I a hypocrite? And don't the Arabs displaced by Israel deserve a "Palestinian homeland"?
We cannot over-simplify the issue simply by picking one side (such as my preferred side, Israel) and labelling all attacks against its civilians terrorism and all its responses to these attacks "self-defense". We are not here, as Larry recently reminded me, for advocacy. I presume this obviates even Correct Advocacy, for we would be endlessly entangled in debate over what is Correct once we open that door. So how shall we untie this Gordian Knot? -- Ed Poor

Hi. I see your point, and I agree that it would be a bad idea to morph the PT article into a P-who-killed-I article, and match it up against an I-who-killed-P article. However, I would also ask you to go easy on the IT article. I'll flesh it out soon enough, and I'll stay as neutral as I can (just like the PT article is very dry). But it's not the place for long drawn out explanations about how the Palestinians are just as bad. Please, ok? -- GayCom

I must inquire how is Sabra and Shatila an example of Israeli terrorism. It was a massacre conducted by Lebanese Christians against Lebanese Muslims as a part of the Lebanese Civil War. Israel's part in the massacre is secondary (though regrettable), as Israeli soldiers killed no one. --Uriyan
The accusation is that Israelis saw it coming and did nothing to stop it. Thus, they are responsible for it. This puts the lie to moral equivalence, as it means Israel should follow a higher moral standard than the Islamic world. Being a Christian, I am entirely comfortable with following a higher standard and I judge myself accordingly. -- Ed Poor
But does it qualify as terrorism? Did Israel participate in the massacre or deliberately cause it in order to create panic in the Palestinian population? Negligient attitude and allegedly low moral standards are not equivalent to terrorism! --Uriyan
You are right, Uriyan: in order for Sabra and Shatila to be labelled as Israeli terrorism, there needs to be a direct involvement from Israeli citizens and/or the Israeli government in this 36-hour massacre. Sadly, there are few reliable sources on this issue. What seems to be above any doubt is this: according to a Commission of Inquiry led by former Supreme Justice Kahan, Israeli troops were not directly involved in the massacre. However, "Israeli military personnel had several times become aware that a massacre was in progress without taking serious steps to stop it, and even that a report of a massacre in progress was made to an Israeli cabinet minister." In fact, the IDF "assisted" in the massacre by e.g. firing "illuminating flares above the camps", even when the IDF became aware that hundreds of civilians had been killed. Though this may not have been "Israeli terrorism" (as there was no direct Israeli involvement in the killings), I think the label "Israeli-sponsored terrorism" is a fair label. (All quoted are from the Wikipedia article) Aecis

Revising titles

I've got an idea: let's revise the titles of the twin articles. Instead of X terrorism against Y, let's just call them terrorism against Y. Then, any terrorist act against side Y can be mentioned in the article, even if side X isn't responsible. We might find the preponderance of anti-Israel terrorism comes from Arabs, or that not all anti-Arab terrorism comes from Israel. --Ed Poor

That's a good idea (and more on the NPOV track, which suits me). I'm ready to move Palestinian terrorism to Terrorism against Israel, but I'd also like to hear what other people think about it. --Uriyan

Great idea Ed! This helps to prevent the perception of inherent bias. I still have issues with the word 'terrorist', but I say go ahead and implement Ed's idea. It should do for now. Perhaps Terrorist acts against Israel would be a bit better -- so long as the acticle starts off with a qualifier on the use of the word 'terrorist', stating that many in the Islamic world would not label the following acts as Terrorist. maveric149

Chalk one up for Ed! --Robert Merkel

Perhaps it would make sense to move some of the stuff from Terrorism against Arabs back here, if we came to having 2 distinct articles once again? For instance, Lord Moyne was not much of an Arab (though they were his favorites, I guess), so his assassination by Stern gang belongs more to Israeli terrorismUriyan

Disputing facts

With all the due respect, I don't think this link should be applied on this page, for several reasons:

  1. It is not about Israeli terrorism, but about general Israel-bashing
  2. It contains mostly incomplete and partial information. For instance, the green Palestinian number plates was something they asked for. Israeli Arabs have regular yellow plates, and because of that are sometimes targeted by Palestinian gunmen.
  3. Many of these statements deserve a proper discussion, in Wikipedia, not out of it. --Uriyan

The war for independence by the Israelis in 1948 is by no definition "terrorism." Calling casualties of an enemy army- terrorism in this page is antisemetic and tendentious. If one wishes to stretch the definition of terrorism to any death caused by one group of people or individuals to another, then I suggest that they reach the concrete operational stage prior to ever posting again.

USS Liberty

    • The USS Liberty incident is generally thought to have been an Israeli mistake.
The USS Liberty was a US Navy ship. It was flying a Navy ensign. It had guns on it. Since it wasn't civilian, engaging it at sea does not have anything to do with terrorism, and has no place on this page, which is about terrorism. --Uriyan

Kach

This sentence has been removed from the article about Kach. "They have also organized murders and beatings of Palestinians in the U.S."

Really? Who? -- Zoe
I too am curious about this claim. It is so vague and undocumented that it does not belong in the article. Can someone provide specific claims, and a few sources for us to check out? Also, I do not understand what this has to do with the government of Israel. I agree that it is theoretically possible for a few fanatic right-wing American Jews to carry out such a thing. But (A) there is only a vague allegation being made, and (B) this has nothing to do with the Israeli government, nor the pre-Israel proto-state in the British Mandate of Palestine. We can't simply lump all crimes done by Jewish people into the category of "Israeli terrorism". All crimes committed by Arabs considered Palestinian terrorism (No.). RK

Unless these acts were committed by agents of the government of Israel, why are they listed as "Israeli terrorism" instead of "Jewish terrorism"? --

I'd tend to agree with Zoe here about the title of the article being wrong. Since it's so "controversial" coming up with a universally-acceptable definition of "terrorist" vs. "freedom fighter", maybe we should just have "Violence against Israelis" and "Violence against Palestinians" pages, or some such?

Such pages exist (at least for Palestinians), but nobody bothers to update them. It's much less sexy than "Israeli terrorism". --Uri

Then maybe this should redirect to "Violence against Palestinians" (after moving the content of this page & its Talk there, of course)?

The page I had in mind was Palestinians killed by Israelis, but I support leaving "X terrorism" pages, because of the difference between spontaneous violence and pre-calculated killing, which is terrorism. --Uri

Actually, I was thinking of very neutral titles (such as the "violence" ones above), chucking in all the text from any non-NPOV-titled articles scattered about (they can be smoothed out later) and redirecting to the neutral-titled articles. It should make NPOV easier to maintain. I'd lose the "terrorism" pages entirely in the process (dumping their text & talk into the new articles), as we're never going to agree on which acts are "terrorism" and which are not (and you know we're not, yeah?). If the articles just give the facts then we can leave "terrorism or not?" decisions up to the readers.
Having considered the concept, I support it. In the text itself, we would then have the freedom to describe which actions exactly can be considered terrorism and by whom. --Uri
(bloody hell, did we just agree on something, Uri? Will wonders never cease?)
Yes, we did agree, and I'm glad at it. I hope it'll be a good beginning for tomorrow - I've got to log out now. --Uri

Changes

Changed this:

Qibya operation, carried out among others by Unit 101 under the command of Ariel Sharon is often classified as terrorism. It lead to the death of almost 70 civilians. Others claim it was not terrorism but a tragic incident during a period of bitter border warfare between Israel, Jordan and Egypt

to:

Qibya massacre, carried out among others by Unit 101 under the command of Ariel Sharon. It lead to the death of almost 70 civilians.

As noone (as far as I've seen) have denied that the intention of the operation was to blow up innocent civilian homes, which is terrorism. --BL

NPOV

To 64.163.38.122: If you feel that the article needs further editing in order to conform with Wikipedia's Neutral point of view, feel free to discuss it on this talk page, were different viewpoints and phrasings can be weighed. Adding (properly attributed) contrasting points of view to an article is perfectly acceptable. However, deleting an entire article and replacing it with your opinion is not . If this happens again I will temporarily block your I.P address. -- April 19:21 Sep 19, 2002 (UTC)

That IP was banned a few minutes ago, by LDC. (A few more edits like that, and it would have been by me.) --KQ

I can ignore a one-or-two article "drive by" that appears to be just a kid having a laugh; they often go away on their own. But this guy clearly re-vandalized pages after his first attempts were reverted, and showed no signs of stopping or listening to talk. I don't see any need for waiting or warning on such cases. He's free to mail me if he disagrees. --LDC

Fair enough. I didn't mean to criticize you--I was just saying I hadn't yet decided to ban.  :-) --KQ

Removing entry

I have removed the following material from this entry.

In a number of cases settlers on the West Bank have attacked Palestinian civilians. In particular, the Hebron settler Dr. Baruch Goldstein associated with the Kach murdered some 30 Palestinians while they were praying on February 26, 1994. Israeli security services have arrested since a number of individuals plotting terrorist activities. The Jewish Defense League and the Kach movement follow Rabbi Meir Kahane (subsequently assassinated) and support the killings carried out by Dr. Baruch Goldstein. These individuals and organizations are condemned by all mainstream Jewish organizations. Kach has been declared illegal by Israeli authorities. Members of the JDL have been

The reason this has been removed is that these are lone actions by people acting on their own accord, and they don't reflect in the slightest the policy of the State of Israel, or even the national unofficial consensus of the Israeli populace. The State of Israel even arrests and prosecutes people who plan acts such as these. They are lone acts by lone gunmen, and do not belong in this entry I note that similar actions are not included in the sections of Palestinian terrorism. If they were included, the Palestinian terrorism entry would have (literally) several hundred more incidents added. RK

I don't know a whole lot about the issue, but that doesn't seem right at all to me. "Israeli terrorism" is terrorist acts committed by Israelis. They could certainly be differentiated from state-sponsored terrorism, but they are terrorist acts committed by Israelis. I suppose the problem is that terrorists are generally not affiliated with any state, so requiring state-support to be included as terrorists doesn't make sense. Tokerboy 20:21 Oct 19, 2002 (UTC)
If you define every act by an Israeli as suitable for this page, do you also define every similar act by Arabs as suitable for inclusion the corresponding pages on Arab and Palestinian terrorism? Would you include the current Maryland\DC sniper under the "US terrorism" entry, because this nutbag (probably) is an American? We need specific criteria for what we include. If not, we will end up with adding 5 or 6 more Jewish people to the terrorism page, but we will also add literally hundreds of more Arab terrorists. Then people will complaint that this is a violation of NPOV, because it makes Arabs look bad. I am willing to go this way as well. I just want to avoid a situation where only Jewish individuals are added, but Arab Muslims are not. RK
I agree we need a criterion. (Though I wouldn't count the sniper as a terrorist because he has no political demands that I know of) I don't know what they should be, but I think the people you deleted are commonly considered Israeli terrorists and should be included in the appropriate article.Tokerboy 21:03 Oct 19, 2002 (UTC)
In order for the State of Israel to be involved in terrorism, it is not necessary for the government of the State of Israel to be involved. It's equally unnecessary for the Palestinian Authority to be involved in attacks by e.g. Hamas for it to qualify as Palestinian terrorism. The State of Israel is involved in terrorism anytime a representative of that state (be that a government official, a soldier or a citizen) commits an act of terrorism. Afaik, Baruch Goldstein was an Israeli citizen at the time of the slaughter, so it imho qualifies as Israeli terrorism. I agree with Tokerboy that the Washington DC area sniper was not an American terrorist, because his actions had no political goals. However, in my view the bombing in Oklahoma City (by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols) does count as American terrorism, since representatives of the United States (two citizens) were involved in the attacks, which served political goals. Aecis 16:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Revert/Merge

Trying to return to the original point: Theanthrope reckoned RK's last two major edits should be reverted, and Elian appears to be in rough agreement. While I can see their point, I think the best thing to do would be to merge the info in the current version with the info in the previous version. It'd take more effort, but it might be worth it. -Martin 09:37 Jan 7, 2003 (UTC)

I agree, that probably would be best. Theanthrope 16:56 Jan 7, 2003 (UTC)

We must be careful. Much of the "added material" was a set of politically motivated diatribes. This entry was repeatedly vandalized by people who rewrote the article to make the crimes of a handful of extremists out to be the crimes of all Jews. The article in its current NPOV form points out a number of terrorist incidents which were done by one small group of extremists, who were publicly and repeatedly condemned by the rest of the Jewish and Zionist community. However, certain people here rewrote the entry, and dishonestly claimed that these actions were actually done by "the Zionists", repeatedly and explcitly stating that every one of these actions was some sort of consensus action by the entire Jewish community. That is not historically accurate, and a violation of NPOV. RK

I agree that the actions of a few are not the will of the majority. However, the term "Palestinian Terrorists" seems to imply exactly that. The converse would be to call their Jewish counterparts "Jewish Terrorists", which I am pretty sure would be unacceptable to most people. The term "Zionist Terrorists" at least is more specific. It describes individuals and groups who use terror to fight for the creation of a Jewish homeland. (The difference is, I think, that there are Jews all over the world, whereas there are Palestinians only in Palestine.) These words are indeed loaded with meaning. I think it would be a good idea to specify in this article and the related ones on both sides of the conflict, that the actions of these few are not representative of the whole of the ethnic or religious groups to which they belong. Theanthrope 18:46 Jan 7, 2003 (UTC)


Response to the idea of Moral equivalence

as stated by RK, above.

When George Mitchell testified before congress last year to his efforts and experience with the 'Middle-East question', Representative Tom Lantos asked him this same question, as to where he would come down on the issue of "moral equivalence". Mitchell graciously ducked the question, and made clear at least his awareness of the necessity for neutrality.

The reason is simple: Only those who believe in the merits of moral relativism are interested in the questions arisen by the notion of moral equivalence. In other words, youd have to believe there was no universal sense of morality to believe in equivalence, as equivalence is a component of a relativist moral ideology. Moral relativism, ill remind people, is the notion of situational ethics, taken to apply to the standards of morality.

For Mitchell to say this to Lantos, in one way or another, would be insult the moral standards of a powerful US congressman, by calling them to be on a par with situational ethics. All defenders of hostile policies everywhere are practicers of situational ethics, and in doing so subvert the emerging ideals of moral universalism, which is the only hope of separating such tedious issues of historic attachment and religious identity.Sv

RK, there is a Palestinian diaspora, although granted it is relatively small. Nevertheless, many Palestinians do not live in Palestine, and not even in the Levant, and this is important to their self-understanding. As for situational versus universal ethics, I do not see how it is possible to resolve this complex philosophical issue, nor do I see any point in discussing it here; it is not what is at stake here. Slrubenstein

no, its not possible to resolve these things, but we are using words, usually thrown about quite lightly. It is my impression that people will use words, and new terms in place of old ones, to put a spin on the argument or its moral basis. Confusion of language and other aspects of a debate, is mostly beneficial to the status quo. In this case, Israeli justification of or supression of its own terrorist history, and the charachterising of it as distinct from that of Palestinians. This is simply laughable from a universalist perspective, which sees all parties as responsible for each of their own atrocities. So, 'moral equvalence' in a nutshell, (which i am replying to) is something that I've seen used particularly in the context of Israeli-Palestinian issues, by Israeli or American 'intellectuals,' as a ideological trap. This of course is designed to circumvent or delay any substantive moral discussion, and continues the status quo: 'populating' new illegal settlements, by advertising on american TV. Sv

Sorry, I just to not understand what you are saying. Above, when RK criticizes "moral equivalence," he is saying that the violence of terrorists is not equivalent to the violence of the police who fight terrorism. This seems reasonable to me. It certainly does not suggest that the Stern gang cannot be equated to Fatah. I only saw this one instance of RK using the word equivalence, and he was being very specific, not general.
As for the general point, at least as many people have used a universalist ethic to justify oppression as those who have used situational ethics, so this very fact doesn'thelp us decide which is more useful or right. More specifically, many people who are situational ethicists have been very critical of Israel; just because one is a moral relativist does not mean that one cannot, or has not criticized Israel. So I do not see the connection. Slrubenstein

Conspiracy?

"Many Arabs claim that there was an Israeli conspiracy, with the ______ to carry out the massacre, though there is no documented proof available."

Do you mean "the means to carry out" above? --KQ, guessing, not generally knowledgeable about these things

SLrub, it appears we may not be in disagreement. perhaps this was not the place to discuss that. My disagreement was mainly with RK use of the term, which is really just code. he asserts its a problem when people assert equivalence . the problem isnt equivalence, its killing. Sv

Extremists

I put this here meanwhile: "Most Jewish members of extremist and/or terrorist groups were kept out of the Israeli mainstream for years due to public discomfort with their actions. Some decades later two such people eventually became Israeli prime ministers, David Ben Gurion and Menachem Begin. Begin was leader of a terrorist group, Etzel. Ben Gurion, while he had clear links to the Haganah and its more militant arm the Palmach, was head of an official government agency. Furthermore, David Ben Gurion was first prime minister of Israel. He assumed the position immediately upon indepenedence in 1948. This was not "some decades later" or "eventually." Danny

The second one should be Yitzhak Shamir, who was one of the leaders of Lehi (Stern Gang) until its disbanding in 1948. - bdm

Some comments:

  • Concerning pre-state terrorism: has everyone forgotten about the Etzel terrorism of the late 30s? They killed hundreds of people at random (mostly Arabs) by setting off bombs in market places and the like. The context of this is the Arab Revolt.
  • After-1948 massacres: Qfar Kassem anyone?
  • I think this page is almost terminally sick. -bdm

If there's something missing, please add it. Theanthrope 15:28 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Irgun and Stern

The article says that all acts of pre-Israel Jewish terrorism can be attributed to either Irgun or the Stern gang. I find this highly unlikely, especially since I added another act.

Well, apart from events after Nov 1947, it is true that Irgun and Lehi were responsible for most violent acts committed by Jews. There were some exceptions in the 1937-9 time scale, but they were a small part of the total. On the other hand, there were long periods of time when the official mainstream position on Irgun and Lehi was only a front (much like the relationship many people allege to exists today between the PA and the militant groups). There were regular secret meetings and some degree of cooperation and coordination. The King David Hotel bombing is a good example of such secret cooperation that is well documented. There were also periods of genuine animosity such as the "Season".

I want to suggest that the very idea of this page is broken and writing an NPOV article on this topic is impossible. It would be better to combine it with the page on terrorism against Jews/Israelis. These acts did not occur in isolation and having a single timeline would provide a little context. Perhaps we could agree on some guidelines about how events are described so it doesn't become a competition as to who can write the most bloodthirsty descriptions? The first rule could be to never use the word "terrorism"... zero 12:52, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

As ever, I strongly agree with this position. One of these days I might even implement it. ;-) Martin 21:13, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Rights

The reason Palestinians and their supporters accuse Israel of terrorism is not, as you write, just because of Israel's assassinations of militants. It is also because they accuse Israel of deliberately targeting civilians and civilian institutions. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B'Tselem, and the Palestinians Center for Human Rights & the Environment all agree. It's also worth noting that Israel's assassinations are of questionable legality. Amnesty International has written on this topic.

This can't be right. Many Palestinian Arabs were accusing all Israeli military actions of being terrorist, long before Israel began the policy you mention. This current rationale smacks of historical anachronism. Given the order of events, it is much more likely that people making these claims are using any new events as after-the-fact arguments to support the position they had already held to begin with. RK 17:24, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Length of article

Recommend that this page be divided into two parts: one before the UN decision to partition the mandate and one after the partition decision. items related to the Haganah might be added to the after page based upon the Haganah being the precursor of the IDF. OneVoice 02:44, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Why? Length isn't an issue. -- Viajero 19:26, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Length is not the issue. I agree with you. Rather Israel did not exist prior to 1948. Terrorism prior to that time must be Jewish Terrorism. Since then its Israeli Terrorism. OneVoice 21:37, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Since people here refuse to call a massacre of dozen of Israeli civilians "terrorism" I demand to change the title of this page to "Israeli Violence" instead of "terrorism". If Wikipedia policy is not to use the term terrorism, than it shouldn't apply either here. MathKnight 21:50, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I don't think there should be any page with "terrorism" in the title except Terrorism. --Zero 00:29, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think the terrorism prior to the establishment of the state of Israel shouldn't be called jewish terrorism, but zionist terrorism. Aecis 11:58, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Protected

Protected until agreement reached. Bmills 11:22, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Still protected. Please either unprotect or add protection notification OneVoice 02:13, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Removed

Removed from page:

Bombings of synagogues in arab countries to create the impression of anti-Jewish persecution to encourage Jews to move to Israel. Some Iraqi Jews who became disabled of the bombs thrown by Israeli agents into the Mas-uda Shemtov Synagogue in Baghdad later sued the Israeli government for damages, in Israel. The government settled out of court.

This is very problematic. It is widely believed, even amongst Iraqi Jews, that Zionist agents were behind the bombings in Iraq, but this has never been proven and has certainly never been admitted. Two members of the Zionist underground were convicted in Iraq (though not on this particular bombing, I think) but the use of torture makes their confessions unsafe. I don't think that it can claimed as more than a plausible allegation. (My own feelings after reading everything I could find on this were 80% chance Zionists did it, 20% Iraqis; but this counts for nothing.) --Zero 13:21, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The information is from http://ukar.org/mclell14.html that in turn quotes the book "Israel: Politics, Myths and Identity Crises" by Akiva Orr (ISBN: 0745307671 ) where the sources seems to be articles in Haolam — Ha-zeh of 20 April and 1 June 1966. // Liftarn

I never managed to get the articles from Haolam Hazeh, but I have some detailed recountings of their contents by authors who believe the bombings were done by Zionists (Woolfson, Prophets in Babylon and Hirst, The gun and the olive branch). I also have some later articles such as one from the Iraqi Jewish radical magazine Black Panther (1972), and a pro-Iraqi account (Shibak, The lure of Zion). There is some very suggestive material such as interviews from unnamed persons who claimed to have been involved in the bombings, but there is nothing that would be called proof by an unbiased historian. There is also a book by a CIA guy (Eveland) claiming that the Iraqis showed the US embassy proof that Zionists did it, but he doesn't say what that evidence was. It is certainly true that there was a Zionist underground in Iraq armed by Israel, and it is also true that a great many Iraqi Jews believed this movement was behind the bombings. An Israeli internal inquiry in 1960 reported that "most of the witnesses questioned suggested that the bombs had been thrown by Jews" but concluded otherwise. (Of course it could have been a whitewash.) But there is no documentary proof, and no admission by a named person in a position to know; that's how I get to 80% but no further. --Zero 10:19, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Is there any way to work that into the article wouthout getting POV? // Liftarn
It belongs in an article on the Iraqi Jewish migration. I'm not sure we should add "probable"s to this page, it would open a can of worms and lead to lots of conjectural stuff on other pages. --Zero 12:39, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I guess so. Better leave it as it is. // Liftarn

From VfD

  • Israeli terrorism (see Talk:Palestinian terrorism)
    -- Added to list to make parallelism explicit. +sj+ 02:16, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)
    • So what article does this one duplicate (which was the main reason for listing P.t.)? Keep, but the name needs changing. --Zero 02:33, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Should be moved to Violence against Palestinians in parallel with V. against Israel.
      • A separate discussion of terrorism in the Middle East over time can cover terrorism by Jewish groups before Israel was founded, against Britain and other occupying forces; by Arab groups throughout the century, against Britain, France, and other occupying forces; and by groups across the subcontinent against rival groups, neighboring nations, &c. -- probably the largest category of 'terrorist' violence (but the least likely to arounse international notice). +sj+ 09:06, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)
    • Relocate Oberiko 17:11, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • The word terrorism should not be in the title. Move to another title. Optim 09:32, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • ...or in the rest of the article. Everyking 23:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • VfD isn't a place to discuss what the title should be, so I've moved this here as no one seems to be voting to delete it. Angela. 19:55, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

Actions by Israeli allies

Actually, why does this belong in the article? Jayjg 03:01, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Any reason why this material belongs here? Jayjg 04:52, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Maybe you should read the Kahan Commission report that led to Ariel Sharon's termination as Defense minister and the war crimes charges brought against Sharon. Use of proxies does not exculpate Israeli responsibility. Do you consider your continuous hasbara campaign to be in Wikipedia's best interest? Why don't you go edit some articles about issues unrelated to Israel and the Jews, for a change? Too much to ask? Alberuni 05:30, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Which specific part of the Kahan Commission report are you referring to? The part that found him indirectly responsible for not anticipating the actions of the Phalange? Are you claiming that the Kahan Commission stated that that Israel used the Phalange as a proxy? And of what relevance were the war crimes charges brought, and then dropped, by the Belgian court? Aside from the fact that the Court was in the process of charging all sorts of people with war crimes, I must note that charges and convictions are entirely different things. In any event, I'd still like you (or any other interested editor) why Phalange actions are on a page describing Israeli terrorism. Finally, I again strongly encourage you to keep your Talk: discussion strictly on the topic of the page itself, and avoid ad hominem statements or poisoning the well. Jayjg 05:43, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The Phalangists were operating under direct supervision of the IDF. They wouldnot have been able to massacre 100s of unarmed Palestinian men, women and children under the watchful eyes of the IDF if it wasn't the intention of the IDF to give them free rein. I'm sure you can offer some official justification to erase Israel's bloody culpability and paint Israel in as rosy a light as possible. It's not an ad hominem attack, just an observation of your pattern. Alberuni 05:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
So now it's not the Kahan commission you're referring to, or the Belgian court either, buy merely an "everybody knows" kind of argument. You think Israel wanted it to happen, therefore you assign it as an Israeli terrorist act. Well, speculation aside, what we actually know is that this was a Phalange act. I don't think you'd approve of assigning all Hamas terrorist acts to the Palestinian Authority on the grounds that "Hamas was operating under direct supervision of the P.A. They would not have been able to massacre 100s of unarmed Israeli men, women and children under the watchful eyes of the P.A. if it wasn't the intention of the P.A. to give them free rein." In fact, that is exactly what many observers believe, but nevertheless, each group's acts are assigned to the group itself. Jayjg 06:08, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Why are you talking to me as if I am a partisan defender of the PA or Hamas? Your partisan slip is showing. You seem to think Wikipedia is the World Court and your actions will save Israelis/Jews from being held responsible for Israel's crimes. Unlike you, I don't care if the PA is assigned responsibility for permitting Hamas activity. Isn't that the justification that the Israelis use when they destroy PA infrastructure and kill PA policemen? Remember to phrase it in NPOV. I was going from memory on the Sabra and Shatila massacre so I apologize for not providing you a page number reference within the two sources I provided. Yes, I thought it was well known that the Phalangists were armed and supervised by the IDF, the IDF was responsible for the safety of the refugees, and the IDF allowed them to be massacred by proxy. Maybe you need a long rest? Alberuni 06:23, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The issue here is that the actions listed are not those of Israel, but those of other parties, and there does not seem to be any firm justification for including them on this page. One might as well include all of these items on an "American terrorism" page under the assumption that America arms Israel, and Israel takes no action without American approval. I, in fact, do care if the PA is "credited" with Hamas terrorist acts, because that is a distortion of reality, just as this page is. I'm looking for much stronger arguments for including this material here than "I think Israel is ultimately responsible, since they used the Phalange as a proxy, so it belongs here"; this is a POV theory, not a statement of fact. Also, as I have repeated many times, please restrict your comments to discussions of the article contents, rather than ad hominem statements directed at me. Jayjg 14:31, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Oh and by the way, it is not "well known that the Phalangists were armed and supervised by the IDF", and I challenge you to find any evidence to that effect. The South Lebanon Army was armed and supervised by the IDF, not the Phalange, which was an entirely different group. Jayjg 03:59, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That's not much of a challenge. It must have been a long time since you read the Kahan Commission report. [1]

"In the testimonies we have heard, different interpretations were given to the instruction that only the I.D.F. command the forces in the area. According to one interpretation, and this is the interpretation given the document by the Chief of Staff (p. 257), the meaning of the instruction is that in contacts with external elements, and especially with the Phalangists, only the I.D.F., and not another Israeli element, such as the Mossad, will command the forces in the area - but this does not mean that the Phalangist force will be under the command of the I.D.F. On the other hand, according to the interpretation given the document by the director of Military Intelligence (pp. 127, 1523), the meaning is that all forces operating in the area, including the Phalangists, will be under the authority of the I.D.F. and will act according to its instructions." See also: [2] [3] Excuse me if I don't bother to answer your "challenges" in the future. If you request information or wish to engage in sincere open-minded dialogue, I might respond. Condescension, patronizing arrogance, and narrow-minded Zionist POV pushing will go unanswered. Alberuni 14:23, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You're right, some people claim that the Phalange were supervised by the IDF. Where is the material that says they were armed by the IDF? Regarding your other statements, I am in fact here for sincere open-minded dialogue, and am looking for the same; failure to respond to such dialogue will indicate to me that you are no longer editing in good faith. And I repeat, in the future please restrict your comments to discussion of article contents, rather than ad hominem statements. Jayjg 16:30, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I reverted the removal of this section because it was made by an anonymous user and did not appear to be the result of any discussion. On a controversial subject like this, I think it is important to discuss changes before carrying them through.
Furthermore, I see nothing bad about these paragraphs. I think the burden of evidence is on the person who wants to remove them. (the burdon of evidence of factuality is on the person who submitted it, but you should at least contest the factual accuracy if you feel it is untrue). I'm not that initiated on the palestine conflict, so I'm afraid I can't add more than this. — David Remahl 12:19, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The issue is not whether or not they are factually true, but whether they are in the right article. This is an article about Israeli actions, not about Phalange/Lebanese army actions. Jayjg 16:30, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Many instances of Israeli terrorism are neglected

The amount of information on this page about israeli terrorism is slim compared to the extensive coverage on pages documenting terrorism AGAINST Israel. I hope Wikipedians will overcome their biases against documenting Israeli crimes and apply the same diligence to reporting crimes by Israel that they do to reporting crimes against Israel. Sources of information on Israeli state terrorism:

The continuous effort to edit, delete, obstruct, manipulate, minimize and whitewash Israeli crimes is a glaring example of a political bias being foisted on Wikipedia by advocates of Zionism. Alberuni 15:17, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I approve of any efforts of yours to add factual information to the article. However, I don't think your making highly political speeches and accusations on Talk: pages really adds anything; on the contrary, it makes the atmosphere very non-collaborative. Jayjg 16:35, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni old chap, let me be very blunt, Zionism and the rise of modern Israel are one of the most beautiful and blessed events to have happened in modern times. Your "documentation" misses one important point, Israel and the Jewish people want to IMPROVE things in the Middle East, look at what they accomplish in cultural and economic terms. It is a great pity that they have so many hateful enemies out to destroy them and that all you seem capable of doing is damning DEMOCRATIC and FREE Israel. The Arabs always stand to gain more out of co-operating with the Israelis rather than always fantasising how they would wipe them off the map which aint gonna happen. Who taught you to hate Israel and Zionism so much? IZAK 06:13, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your Zionist POV is biased. Racist Israel is a beautiful place for supremacist Zionist Jews (like you) the way South Africa was a beautiful place for apartheid Afrikaaners and Nazi Germany was a beautiful place for "Aryan" supremacists. It's your privileged perspective as a Zionist who benefits from the Zionist project that prevents you from seeing the other side of the coin; the prejudice, hate, bigotry, discrimination, violence and oppression that Israel and its allies perpetrate against innocent Palestinians and against other Arabs and Muslims around the world. Alberuni 14:05, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yet another example of antisemitism from Alberuni... Please, if you cannot be objective, at least spare the non-antisemites among us from your hateful, bitter views.

Criticism of Zionism, a bigoted religious nationalist ideology, is not anti-semitism, bigotry against the Jewish religion, anonymous accuser. Alberuni 18:15, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg please stop trying to delete mention of Sabra and Shatila massacres

These terrorist massacres were conducted by Israeli proxy forces against innocent civilians. Do you really believe that this kind of atrocity could be committed without Ariel Sharon's knowledge and approval? In any case, Israel was responsible for the safety of the refugee civilians in territories under their military control. Which brings up another question, Why are you so allergic to any description of the "Occupied Territories" in Wikipedia, Sabra and Shatila listed as Israeli terrorism, and having Operation Days of Penitence listed as a terrorist incident and other Israeli crimes? Why don't you just work on the Israeli version of Wikipedia where Ziopedians will be more likely to agree with your slanted, biased, and twisted Zionist POV? --Alberuni 20:04, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Regardless of your belief that allies are "proxy forces", this is a page about Israeli terrorism, not Phalange terrorism, and the page certainly doesn't additionally need another POV summary of the Sabra and Shatila events. Regarding questions about other articles, please raise them on the relevant Talk: pages. Jayjg 21:58, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Israeli atrocity deniers may benefit from reading state terrorism. "State terrorism is defined by some as violence upon a national population committed by national governments or their proxies."--Alberuni 22:05, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well, if the claim is that the Phalange were an Israel proxy in the massacre, and that therefore this is state terrorism attributable to Israel, then state it that way and provide refererences to those making that specific claim. Regardless, a POV re-write of the massacre is not needed for this article. Jayjg 22:24, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've re-written it that way, though you should still provide references for that claim. As a note, it doesn't make sense for half of the entire article to be devoted to Sabra and Shatila, a massacre committed by the Phalange, particularly when there is a perfectly good Wikipedia article that people can reference. As I said before, a POV re-write of the massacre is not needed for this article (or indeed any other article), that's what links are for. Jayjg 15:14, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The section about the Massacre, as you had it, was long enought to start a new article. The vast majority of incidents on that page had only one paragraph, and rightly so. There's a huge article on the massacre already, and that's where a huge explanation about it belongs.--Josiah 20:09, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is not a debate forum!

Why does an ENCYCLOPEDIA (which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be, in case you forgot) need an article about Violence against Israelis, an article about Palestinian terrorism, and an article about Israeli terrorism? Encyclopedia articles should not depend on other articles to balance out bias. If a person were to read the Violence against Israelis article and no other article, they would be presented with a one sided argument. Violence against Israelis, Palestinian terrorism, and Israeli terrorism should be part of the Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article. --NoPetrol 21:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


I'd like to reiterate that this is not a debate forum, it's supposed to be an eccyclopedia.... and the debate has turned in to an "Israel" v "Arab" one, like so many other forums, whereas the encyclopedia entry is concerned with Zioneist/Israeli acts against, amongst others, the British.

NPOV Project

PLEASE: edit changes you do not like an announce them here and in the history log!!! Do not revert to an older file unless it is a case of clear vandalism!!!

I am starting a project to make this article conform to the NPOV standards of Wikipedia. this comes at the prompting of people within this talk page and simply the fact that it really obviously need to be done. There are rampant assertions by both sides of the argument and conspicuous editorial statements. On a more contraversial not, I do plan to replace "terrorist" if and alternate term where appropriate. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, we can take out cue on to the truth of that statement from the US revolution, the Algerian Revolution, and numerous others through history. --LouieS 07:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I like where you're going with this. On my part, I've started trying to add to the article (History knows there's enough information out there), so it doesn't resemble a mashed-up representation of current events. For some reason, the "Palestinian Terrorism" page is quite well organized, and doesn't seem to suffer nearly as frequent efforts of vandalism as the "Israeli Terrorism" page does. I'd appreciate it if more people would come and visit the talk page here before making significant deletions to the Isr Ter page. My goal is to have two pages truly representative of the issue at hand. But for that to occur, one article can *NOT* be repeatedly destroyed and minimized in order to lionize the other. That's not the way Wikipedia works. Jeus 18:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Mordechai Vanunu

I changed that sentence because the clause "and they called this a kidnapping" 1. was bad english, 2, looked an attempt to cast doubt on something which was quite clearly, under any definition, a kidnapping and which had been insterted as an afterthought into the sentence as a whole. Either "they" are right (and I think "they" are) in which call it a kidnapping in the article or "they" are wrong in which case leave it out entirely.

Good point. Jayjg (talk) 23:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arab leadership of the countries surrounding Israel

You reverted my delete of:

"However, it should be noted that substantial evidence exists that the Arab leadership of the countries surrounding Israel convinced the Arab population of Israel at the time that when those surrounding Arab nations attacked Israel the local populace should leave temporarily, that the Jews would then be slaughtered and that they would then be allowed to return."

I just dont see how this is relevant in an article on Israeli Terrorism. Maybe in an atricle on the deficiencies of the arab leadership, but it doesn't point to any actual action by the Arabs - only alleged propaganda. Doesn't seem to objective to me - and its only purpose can be to cloud the issue discussed int he rest of the paragraph.

The paragraph also describes "forced exile" as part of "Israeli terrorism"; this seems to balance the claim of "forced exile". Jayjg (talk) 23:51, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Incidental killing of civillians

You reverted my delete of:

"Opponents of Israel do not recognize a distinction between the admitted deliberate killing of innocent civilians by Arab militant groups and the incidental killing of innocent civilians by Israel in pursuing military action against the militant groups."

"incidental" is not a nuetral word, especially when it is coupled with the word "deliberate" as itr is here. I think it is more to the point that many people feel that when overwhelming force is used by Israel in built up areas of the Occupied Territories which is certain to cause civilain casualties use of the word "incidental" to dismiss a 100% anticipated outcome is a more than a little disingenuous - and a way off being neutral.

While I could see an argument if the word there were "accidental", I'm not sure why "incidental" isn't neutral; the civilians aren't targetted, even if you think that casualties are inevitable. And the Israeli counter-argument, of course, is that targetted force (not overwhelming force) is used, and that the Palestinian militants hide in built up areas precisely to incur civilian casualities. Jayjg (talk) 23:55, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Of course the Palestinian counter agruement would be that you have included the word "innocent" in the phrase "deliberate killing of innocent civilians " - when these are in fact invaders. Clearly this is OTT - but incidnetal makes it sound like the killings are not intended - when clearly they are. They may not the the prime motivation but it is very clear from the outset that they will happen.
By suggesting that civilians are not "innocent", you make the generally discredited claim that has been proposed by groups like Hamas that a 1 year old child in Tel Aviv is not an "innocent" civilian because it is an "invader". As for "intended", if one is hoping for 0 civilian deaths (as the Israelis clearly do, if for no other reason than bad P.R.), and there are more deaths than that, then clearly the deaths are not "intended", even if you argue they could be "predicted". Jayjg (talk) 16:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You could, of course, remove both the words "deliberate" and "incidental" and not change the primary meaning of the sentance. Guettarda 17:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree Guettarda - I would propose the much less emotive:
"Opponents of Israel do not recognize a distinction between the killing of civilians by Arab militant groups and the killing of civilians by Israel in pursuing military action against the militant groups."
What do you think?
The killing of civilians by Arab groups is deliberate. They walk into a disco full of kids and blow themselves up. The other is not deliberate. Jayjg (talk) 21:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Granted, this page should not exist because the title is POV/politically motivated (the contents is another matter, but I can't agree with the name). It's unreasonable to equate the killing of Israeli civilians by Palestinian suicide bombers with the killing of Palestinians by the IDF. I am in no position to judge the motives behind the killing of Palestinians by individuals within the IDF (so I am not in a position to determine whether these killings are "incidental" or "deliberate"). I dislike the use of the word "incidental" because it trivialises the deaths, and no death is trivial. There is no such thing as "collateral damage" or "friendly fire". "Incidental killing" might be appropriate for by-catch in a fishing fleet, but not for humans (not even for dolphins in a tuna net).
My aim was simply to point out that the removal of both words did not change the meaning of the sentance. Of course the killing of Israelis by Palestinian suicide bombers is deliberate. I sincerely hope that the killings of Palestinian civilians by the Israeli army are terrible tragic mistakes. But introducing the word "incidental" not only requires that we know something about the motivation of individual commanders and soldiers in the field, it also cheapens many tragic losses of life. Try interpreting this as human beings. Every killing is a terrible tragedy, even that of a mass murderer. Start there, extrapolate up to the first innocent death, and retch in horror at what the "good" people (whatever side you support) are involved in. Guettarda 22:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"The killing of civilians by Arab groups is deliberate. They walk into a disco full of kids and blow themselves up. The other is not deliberate. Jayjg (talk) 21:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)"
Says you. You fire rockets from a helecopter gunship into a building full of people - that's just as deliberate.
Um, I don't fire rockets at anyone. I think you need to get some perspective here. Jayjg (talk) 00:10, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Guettarda - I share your concern over "incidental" - makes it all sound like an accident. While I agree that there is a moral difference I'm not sure that it is down to an atricle like to try to shade this by its use of language.


I'm sory - I'm from the UK - we tend to regard use of the word "one" as being a bit of an afectation, But if you prefer "when one shoots rockets...". Appologies _if_ you misunderstood.
Oh, I see; I view the usage as essential for clarity. Apology accepted _if_ that was your true original intent. Now what was your point? Jayjg (talk) 00:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
<G> - I think we understand each other. It really wasn't my intention to target you personally. UK usage <> US usage of English unfortunately. Clearly there is a moral difference between a bunch of murderers blowing up kids to make a point and people who kill kids (even knowingly) whilst on some other purpose. BUT that doesn't really matter to the kids (of either faith) does it?
"Opponents of Israel do not recognize a distinction between the killing of civilians by Arab militant groups and the killing of civilians by Israel in pursuing military action against the militant groups."
I really do think this is neutral - no slant to either side. More importantly it doesn't have either you or I passing moral judgement on the basis of a guess as to someone's motives.
When a child is hit by a car, it doesn't really matter to that child either. Yet that is not the same thing as deliberately blowing him up with a bomb. Jayjg (talk) 15:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually that line might be a bit too neutral. The point of the statement is to say that, by calling it terrorism, many seek to make the suicide bombings morally equivalent with the killings by the IDF. In an article with the title "Israeli terrorism" (surely there must be a more neutral title for this?) people feel a need to point out that there is a difference. Both groups are acting unacceptably - killing is never acceptable - but there is a difference. Deliberate might actually belong there - something to say that, by and large, the Palestinian suicide bombers are acting differently from either the IDF attacking militants or Palestinian militants attacking IDF checkpoints. When Hamas attacks an IDF checkpoint in Gaza it's tragic, but it's war. When the IDF bombs a Hamas training ground, likewise. When the IDF assassinates a Hamas leader in a public place and kills by-standers, that's beyond tragic, it's terribly wrong. But when a Hamas suicide bomber blows himself up at a bus stop or a disco in Israel, that's beyond despicable. Neither the IDF killing of civilians, nor the Hamas killing of civilians are acceptable, but when the civilians are killed deliberately, it's far worse. There is no comparison.
Nonetheless, the killing of Palestinian civilians is not "incidental" either. It's tragic, and it's all the more tragic because the western press ignores it...we tacitly agree that Palestinian life is worth less than Israeli life (and Israeli life is worth less than American or British life, of course).
I think I should leave this discussion now. I have said too much. As the grandson of a Nazi I have less right than the average person to criticise Israel. Guettarda 00:56, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You make a number of good points. Jayjg (talk) 15:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"When Hamas attacks an IDF checkpoint in Gaza it's tragic, but it's war. When the IDF bombs a Hamas training ground, likewise. When the IDF assassinates a Hamas leader in a public place and kills by-standers, that's beyond tragic, it's terribly wrong. But when a Hamas suicide bomber blows himself up at a bus stop or a disco in Israel, that's beyond despicable. "

Problem here is that we are engaging in some obscene calculus of evil here - which is exactly what thet sentence invites. I wont, but I could, run a justification of the Palestinian side that would tear at your heart. Nop one is right here - none of the actions are those of reasonable people. It's part of the reason why I dislike the sentence as is - it's value laden.

If we can't agree that walking into a disco full of kids and blowing yourself up is an act which is morally wrong on a scale not approached by a shootout between the IDF and Hamas, then I don't see where we can come to a compromise here. Jayjg (talk) 15:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You have to understand that it is not morally wrong to Islamists to kill innocents and children. The end justifies the means. Their morals come from the pit of hell. RossNixon 11:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

rossnixon, erhm .. ookay. the numbers of dead civilians is clearly higher on the palestinian camp than it is the israeli one, 4 times higher at last count. for anyone to argue that bombing an apartment complex filled to the brim with families is somehow more incidental and humane than a palestinian blowing up a disco is mindless stupidity. there is absolutely no difference between the two. well actually, there is a difference; the israelis have fine tuned their art with wmds, literally. while the palestinians are left to scratch iron with egyptian smuggled kalashnikovs and stones, really sharp ones too. the suggestion that the palestinian operations are more barbaric and primordial is sheer inanity. killing is killing, the israeli argument that they dont look their victims in the eye while reducing them to pink mist is somehow more humanitarian is purely undergraduate. frantz fanon

The Fourth Geneva Convention forbids the use of any civilian as a shield. (Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3516, 75 U.N.T.S. 287, art. 28), therefore your blame is misapplied. Your concerns may come from a good heart but the terrorists count on "humanitarians" such as you, because for some reason you fail to see the difference between an arsonist and a firefighter. Let's just hope when you learn to see it, it won't be too late.
"Restricting the freedom of movement of entire communities is immoral. Refraining from these restrictions when there is unequivocal proof that this will lead to the murder of innocents is worse, because movement restricted can later be granted, while dead will never live again. Demolishing the homes of civilians merely because a family member has committed a crime is immoral. If, however,... potential suicide murderers... will refrain from killing out of fear that their mothers will become homeless, it would be immoral to leave the Palestinian mothers untouched in their homes while Israeli children die on their school buses. Accidentally killing noncombatants in the cross fire of battles being fought in the middle of cities is immoral, unless... refraining from fighting in the Palestinian cities inevitably means the Palestinians will use the safe havens of their cities to plan, prepare and launch ever more murderous attacks on Jewish noncombatants. These concrete examples and others like them demonstrate the moral considerations that Israelis... have been dealing with since the Palestinans proudly decided to use suicide murder as their primary weapon." ("Right to Exist: A Moral Defense of Israel's Wars", p.260) ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Honest Reporting

Just because of the name of the link - needs a description of what it is. (ie not "honest (implying impartial) reporting" but very significantly biased.

In your view. And your intepretation of the name of the site does not match its own. Regardless, putting a POV description on a site is also bias. Jayjg (talk) 23:56, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yet you feelo comfortable with - "Israeli Left-wing human rights organization: Human rights in Israel and the territories" - why is that different? Honest Reporting shoudl at leasty have inverted commas to show it's a name and not a wikipedia endorced description.
And you seem comfortable with "Zionist Terrorism" and "Palestine: the assault on health and other war crimes". Honest Reporting is the name of the group; does Wikipedia endorse these other descriptions? Jayjg (talk) 16:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actuaslly I'm not. The "assault on health" article (with the buyline from the BMJ) looks to point to a broken link. The "Zionist Terrorism" link is clearly slanted by POV but could probably do with a buyline - as many of the other links have.
Would it be a good idea to alphabetise the list?
Incidentally I am surprised that your responce to my "you seem happy with" comment is couched in the form of a comment on what I am happy with.
I am not the admin here. You are. You presumably represent Wikipedia editorial policy. I do not. Lets focus on the article - I appologise unreservedly if my comment was taken as a personal remark - I was refering to you in your official capacity and should have made this clear.
I'm just an editor like any other, though I do my best to ensure that Wikipedia policy is met. Jayjg (talk) 21:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks - thought that would seem slightly disingenuous given the contexct of your earlier rebuke.
Not sure what you're getting at. Jayjg (talk) 00:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
So - getting abck to the labels - do you honestly feel it is apporiate for a link labeled "Honest Reporting" to point to a lobbying site without comment?
It's a media watchdog, not a "lobbying site". Given that other sites appear to have labels, I'm sure some sort of reasonable label could be worked out. Jayjg (talk) 00:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks - I have used the description of the site from their own home page. This seem reasonable to you?
It didn't tell you anything about the site; I've used "Pro-Israel media watchdog" instead. What do you think? Jayjg (talk) 00:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good call - now "zionist terrorism" - do we want to change that too? I'm really not comfotable with it either.

Actually, on reflection, I removed the link altogether, and the next one as well. They are media watchdog sites, not specifically on the topic of this article. If they have specific sub-pages on them dealing with the topic on this page, those subpages can be linked. Regarding the "Zionist terrorism" link, it's a poor quality propaganda site which hasn't been updated in months. I think you should just delete it. Jayjg (talk) 14:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NPOV - When is a terrorist?...

Contrast the start of the article on Israeli Terrorism:

"This article is about militant actions, which critics have termed terrorist, against Palestinians and others, by Jewish groups within the British Mandate of Palestine, and later, by Israelis. "

with that on Palestinian Terrorism:

"The term Palestinian terrorism is commonly used for terrorist acts committed by Palestinian citizens and Palestinian organizations against Israeli Jews, and occasionally against nationals of other countries."

Why is one "Militant Actions" only called terrorism by critics - whilst the other is "commonly used" seemingly by all and sundry for "terrorist acts"?

If we're trying to be a NPOV encyclopedia then this seem more than a little baised to me. Am I the only one who sees a difference in nuance here?

I suspect the difference has to do with deliberate targetting of civilians. Jayjg (talk) 23:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
But I notice that the wikipedia definition of terrorism specifically includes: "The targets of terrorist acts can be government officials, military personnel, people serving the interests of governments, or civilians".
So I'd very much like to change this to reflect some internal consistency. Seems to me that we're imposing a bogus POV that "terrorism only means deliberate killing civillians" here. And we should be internally consistent please.
The Wikipedia terrorism article specifically states "It can also more specifically mean the calculated or threatened use of violence against civilian targets exclusively." Jayjg (talk) 17:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Since the actions at Deir Yassin and those of Irgun both fall within the ambit of both the more specific and more general definition of terrorism (being deliberately targeted against civillians) are you happy that we now change the opening sentence to the more neutral:
"This article is about terrorist acts against Palestinians and others, by Jewish groups within the British Mandate of Palestine, and later, by Israelis."
Since we have agreed that acts described in the article are clearly terrorism according to both definitions.

Hi 62.252.0.9, I reverted your edit because, looking through the history, I see this intro has been stable for quite some time, meaning it has been agreed by a number of editors (with different POVs), and it's therefore best not to change it without reaching consensus on the talk page. On the whole, Wikipedia articles try not to make direct reference to the word "terrorism", and especially not in the introduction: usually the view is attributed to someone, as in "a terrorist act according to xxx." The exception would be where there was no ambiguity e.g. the clear and deliberate targeting of civilians. I see you've mentioned the Wikipedia definition of terrorism. We're not supposed to use Wikipedia articles as sources, simply because they might change at any minute. It's best to look elsewhere for definitions of terrorism e.g. the UN. Hope this helps. SlimVirgin 21:37, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry - looks like out edits overlappede - feel free to "revert" or chip in with an opinion. My appologies here.
www.dictionary.com

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm) n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

No disctinction between civillians and military targets. Clearly we are talking about terrorism here. (posted by 62.252.0.9)


Here's the definition I use, because it was worked out by two academics over many years and is used by the UN; it also distinguishes between the direct targets (message generators) and the main targets (the audience), which I see as a vital component of any act we might call "terrorist":

Terrorism is an anxiety inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by clandestine individual, group or state actors for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from the target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion or propaganda is primarily sought. (Schmid & Jongman, Political Terrorism, 1988) SlimVirgin 21:54, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

There are 100 definitions of terrorism; I prefer narrower ones, the broader ones tend to be meaningless. Jayjg (talk) 21:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This one's quite a good one, though, and is being increasingly used by academics and the United Nations. It rules out acts committed by governments, unless there's a clandestine aspect; and it has the importance element of publicity-seeking in it, where the actual victims are not the intended victims, but the audience is. SlimVirgin 22:01, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I was responding more to the dictionary.com version. Yours is excellent. Jayjg (talk) 22:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the point is that the terrorist could be targetting a strictly military turget and would still be titled as terrorism in the mainstream. I've always approached the definition of terrorism as Jayjg does (targetting of civilians), but I'm not entirely sure to what extent that counts as original reserach on my/our part. Intuitively, it sounds correct. El_C 22:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, as in Ireland with the IRA attacking British soldiers. To use a definition that involved only the targeting of civilians would mean those IRA acts would have to be called something else. Now, you might want to call them something else for other reasons, but that shouldn't be forced on you by a definition. The key, in my view, is the direct target/main target distinction, with victims as message generators, regardless of whether the target population is civilian or military; plus the element of clandestinism if that's a word. SlimVirgin 22:16, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
So - getting back to thye article - do any of us believe that the actions of Irgun pre 1948 do not consitiute "terrorism"?
As such is the weasel phrase "which critics have termed terrorist" justified in the opening to the article?
All of us - critics or not - would seem to agree that these actrions are terrorist. No?
The issue is not with the pre-1948 actions, but with the post-1948 actions. Jayjg (talk) 00:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
See the post earlier about this should not become an Arab / Israeli debating forum. Do you think we should split it into two articles?
Not sure what you mean about "debating forum". I think the issue is with the post 1948 actions, not the pre-1948 actions, which (from a cursory glance) are clearly terrorism. I think it would be better to rename this Zionist terrorism, and delete the post 1948 stuff. Jayjg (talk) 00:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In the archive of this debate page there is a section "This is not a debate forum!" - makes some gfood points.
But to use that weasel phrase because some of the article does not comply with your "narrow" definition of terrorism whislt some parts of it clearly do I would venture to sugest is a decision you need to consider in the light of NPOV.
I am a bit concerned however that you seem to be controlling edits to a page on the basis of a "cursory glance" - can I ask you to read the whole page carefully please before reverting changes?
What exactly are you proposing, Anon? Also, do you mind signing your comment with anything identifiable (such as the letter "A") ? Jayjg makes a perfectly valid historical observation. Since the State of Israel did not exist pre-1948, it should be titled Zionist not Israeli terrorism.
Slim, the question is not whether an organization such as the IRA is called terrorist, but I was looking at it more situationally, as per the actual act. Should bombing of a British military outpost viz. a train station be considered terroist act? Arguably, yes, but I think myself and Jayjg, at the very least, are arguing is that it isn't the same yes. El_C 01:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What I am proposing is that we drop the phrase "which critics have termed terrorist" from the opening sentence. I actually agree that this would be better as two atricles. "Zionist terrorism" and "Israeli military actions involving civillians" - but if we keep it as one article inclusion of that phrase (which I would guess was inserted as an attempt cast doubt on whether the article about Israeli Terrorism actually talks about terrorism) does not seem appropriate since we all seem to agree that (at least in good part) we are definitely talking about what all people (critics or no) would call terrorism.

And you still didn't sign your comment, tsk tsk tsk. Well, we have to follow what the critical scholarship as well as the mainstream has to say on this or that, whether we agree with it or not (and, this article and general topic aside, I, myself, disagree with much of what they do say -- as uncritical and poor scholarship). I'm pleased you agree with Jayjg's proposal, which I support, for splitting the article. I don't find anything particularly problematic with the titles you suggest for the two articles, though I do think there is an article/s which already discuss the post-1948 period on that front. I'm going to drop Luke a note, I think this discussion can benefit from his participation. El_C 09:10, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you get yourself a login, so we can distinguish you from all the other people using that Guildford NTL IP address? It's easy, quick, and free. Jayjg (talk) 15:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

El C asked for my comment on this, and I generally concur with what's discussed above. Elements of violence by Israel tend not to have all or any of the characteristics commonly associated with terrorism. I think the biggest shortcoming of the article is that it doesn't cover the controversy and political evolution of the term "Israeli terrorism"; if the article is not about this, this list should be at "Israeli military actions involving civillians" as suggested above. I agree that pre-1948 violence should be under "Zionist terrorism". Cool Hand Luke 07:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So are we coming to a consensus here? Jayjg (talk) 17:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that we are. El_C 15:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Should there not be some mention of post-statehood terrorist groups not related to the Israeli state? Such as http://cfrterrorism.org/groups/kkc.html , for example. The "pre-statehood" and "state terrorism" sections give the impression the pre-statehood terrorists morphed into the state of israel, which isn't the case. Or, if this article is splitting into "Zionist terrorism" and "Israeli military actions involving civilians" (not sure if I understand the above consensus entirely), more modern Zionist groups should be included in the former.

Furthermore, "opponents of Israel do not recognize a distinction between the admitted deliberate killing of innocent civilians by Arab militant groups and the incidental killing of innocent civilians by Israel in pursuing military action against the militant groups." is still certainly not NPOV in any way. The entire sentence drips with disdain for "opponents of Israel", whether unintentionally or not. I'm an opponent of Israel (for the most part), and I certainly recognize a distinction and I expect many if not most "opponents of Israel" recognize at least some distinction. Condemning both as evil acts in their own way is not refusing to recognize a distinction. At least insert a "some" at the start of the sentence, or better yet, scrap the sentence altogether; I don't think it's even necessary at that point. --Jamieli 13:41, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mossad Operations

I am removing the modifier "alleged" wrt to Mossad operations as Mossad openly admits (and boasts about) its capture of so-called opponents of Israel such as Vanunu. Moreover, I am removing the modifier "militant" as Vanunu is again not a militant. Also, you don't need to be an "Opponent of Israel" to consider the kidnapping of Vanunu as a kidnapping.

I am reverting your changes, Anon, and will continue to do so until you provide a verifiable source for the passage's claim that what is depicted as an allegation is an historical fact. El_C 08:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's not difficult to check the Mordechai Vanunu article. These are not "allegations", but well-known facts. - Mustafaa 08:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am not disputing nor commenting on that, I just think that such open boasting can and should be sourced. No? El_C 09:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
How's this for a start? [4]. - Mustafaa 09:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
""we managed to track him down, establish contact with him, and bring him to Israel in the end," a former top Mossad official who was involved in Mordechai Vanunu's capture, recalled this week... After they flew to Rome, and entered the apartment, two Mossad agents pounced on Vanunu, tied his hands, and injected him with a drug. He was then brought back to Israel by boat."
It's fine, for a start, I suppose, except the link does not work, and I don't know if that qualifies as boasting, which was my contention – not your abovecited passage whose contents I was already familliar with. El_C 09:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Boasting" isn't mentioned in the article, fortunately, so we don't need to argue the word's semantics. The Haaretz link works for me, oddly; it's from the bottom of the Vanunu article. - Mustafaa 09:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh! That's right. I mistook the comment on talk with the edit made in the article. Sorry about that. Of course, I have no intention of arguing the semantics now that I realize it was limited to talk. Yes, that works for me, too, except the link dosen't seem to work correctly at the moment. El_C 10:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) Correction: Hmm, it does works in IE for me but not FF. Strange. El_C 10:23, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And incidentally, the same applies for most of the supposed "allegations" in this article, which reeks of POV. - Mustafaa 08:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps, I have yet to read it except for one section, so I cannot comment on that either. El_C 09:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I believe I've fixed the worst of them now. - Mustafaa 09:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'll see if I can review your changes soon (but probably it would be best if I read the article beforehand). El_C 10:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To an earlier vandal

To whoever deliberately broke all the massacre links in this article and then labelled them all "alleged" - congratulations. What a great way to make it harder for people to fact-check your whitewashing efforts. - Mustafaa 09:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From the history it looks like it was done by an anonymous editor 4 months ago. It looks like they were trying to "NPOV" things, including descriptions, not deliberately break links. In any event, they're probably long gone, and I doubt they'll ever read this. Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To the hopeless moron removing my edits

Well done on the removal of my correction to the spelling of 'Miscellaneous'. Was this an affront to your so-called 'NPOV' policy? And the re-addition of a biased, pointless, one-sided, year-old Amnesty report which has no relation to the topic of the article? That was desperately needed for 'NPOV', right? So, are you biased or just moronic?

Well done for fixing the spelling of "Miscellaneous" - it appears to be the first time any of your edits have improved an article. I can only hope this marks the start of a trend. - Mustafaa 18:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm waiting to see a single valid reason for that amnesty link to be there, considering it is a) irrelevant to the article, b) out of date (by a year), c) biased, and d) far from helping the NPOV rule, actually breaches it. Have you got a reason or are you just being biased?
Its relevance to the article is obvious: it describes some of the principal instances of practices which are classified by others as Israeli terrorism. The idea that it's "out of date" is ridiculous; it's a record of what has happened (and, incidentally, where are you getting the 2004 date from.) Amnesty International is remarkably NPOV, but even if it weren't this would not be a reason to remove the link. - Mustafaa 20:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As far as I can see it does not describe acts of terrorism except those committed by palestinians. It actually mainly focuses on building destruction which it would take a ridiculous stretch to call an act of terrorism. In fact, it is essentially a counter-terrorist activity. It also talks about the palestinian economy and the security barrier, neither of which have any relevance to 'Israeli terrorism'. So the article is essentially unrelated to the topic. It is out-of-date as it describes the situation at the time, not taking in to account anything since. It is a mere commentary on the situation, not a record as you seem to think. I'm getting the 2004 date from the fact that if you check, the article was last updated in 'May 2004'. Amnesty International is not remarkably NPOV. If you would note the recent fracas surrounding its designation of Guantanamo Bay as a 'gulag of our time', something which was decidedly POV and drew harsh criticism from the US government and later had to be qualified by Amnesty. Also, many supporters of Israel frequently criticise Amnesty for pursuing a one-sided, politically motivated, anti-Israel campaign and agenda, and Amnesty is widely criticised as being biased by many on the conservative side of politics, who deem its activities and reports to have an inherent left-liberal bias as well as Anti-US and Anti-Israel sentiment. You would acknowledge it as 'remarkably NPOV' because it agrees with you in its attitudes and biases.

Innaccurate, tangent ridden, POV Article

There are huge problems with this article. "Israeli terrorism" is ill defined and strays from the orthodox definitions of terrorism into bizzare areas. Who defines specific actions as terrorism? There needs to be sources of the people who define it as so. There also needs to be comparisons between what is acceptable by country and what these detractors see as unacceptable for Israel. Lets compare U.S. anti terrorist actions vs Israeli actions.

Some of the actions that are defined as terrorism are carried out without any problem by American forces.

For example, targetted killings of terrorists by predator drones [5] [6] Yet, there is no such article as American terrorism in wikipedia even though the tactics are identical to targetted killings of Palestinian terrorists. Probably because both parties are engaged in urban warfare to root out terrorist insurgents. Yet, Israel is singled out. This needs to be pointed out and who terms Israeli actions as terrorism identified.

  • This article contains pre-Independence operations by Zionist paramilitary organizations (none of which can be termed as Israeli terrorism, as there was no Israel at the time). They need to be removed from this article, as they are already mentioned in other articles and have no relevance to the title.
  • Then there is the whole tangent about Mordechai Vanunu. How controversial acts by different Israeli governments, such as arrest of traitors on foreign soil, or actions against combatants in foreign wars, can be termed terrorism is beyond me. This is blatantly reaching beyond the name of article and should be erased. It has no relevence to the article.
  • If the arrest of a traitor is terrorism, why not the arrest of Adolph Eichmann, a law abiding citizen of Argentina?
  • This article lists the bombing of the UN compound during war as terrorism (defined as a mistake when America bombed 2 weddings in Afghanistan). Who defines this as terrorism? If they are merely incidents, why are they mentioned in this article? Who identifies it as terrorism? Sources please.
  • the assassination attempts on terror chiefs such as Mashaal and Shiek Yassin is defined as terrorism by this article(acions which are carried out every day in America's War on Terror). Who defines these actions as terrorism? Provide sources please.
  • Even the ever present footnote in history, Sabra and Shatila debacle, not even committed by Israelis, is defined as terrorism. S&S should be erased as a tangent which has nothing to do with Israel. It's primarily a Lebanese problem, a footnote in history of a war where hundreds of thousands of people died, where Lebanese militias massacred each other's supporters everyday. Not relevent.

Finally, acts that in Iraq are run of the mill "US action in Fallujah to root out terrorists" , become terrorism when carried out by Israel to stop rocket attacks and infiltration by terrorists. This should be qualified or removed from the article unless sources are provided which specifically identify who is calling a military operation terrorism.

There are a couple of actual actions that can be described as terrorism, but not much. The Lavon affair can probably be listed, and maybe Qibya can be listed because they arguably fall under a general range of classical terrorism. Although Qibya really has no political message that it is trying to teach Jordan.

I don't know if population transfer can strictly be defined as terrorism. In other words. It needs a rewrite. On actions that editors can argue one way or another, I leave to discussion. Guy Montag 02:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no "orthodox definition" of terrorism. Whose definition do you have in mind?

I have in mind this definition: the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature.

Guy Montag 02:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For the US, see State terrorism#United States; I'm surprised a US terrorism hasn't been written yet, but that gap is no criticism of this article. Your point about pre-1948 organizations argues for renaming this Zionist terrorism.

That makes no sense. Zionist Organizations functioned before Israel's declaration of Independence. These are actions by the Israeli state vs actions by independent Zionist organizations. You can't have it both ways, as they are not the same. You need two articles, one on alleged Zionist terrorism and one on alleged Israeli terrorism. Otherwise this article has tangents up the wazoo.

Guy Montag 02:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sabra and Shatila is certainly relevant - just ask the Kahan Commission!

The Kahan commission did not find Israel responsible. It has nothing to do with the fact that Lebanese Christian militiamen massacred Palestinians after Palestinians assasinated their leader. This is an act of revenge during a civil war which as little to do with Israel. The IDF did not order the Phalangists to kill Palestinians, hence it is irrelevent.

Guy Montag 02:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Kidnappings and assassinations (and btw, Vanunu was a hero, not a traitor) are quite frequently described as terrorism (eg in regard to Vanunu:[7]).

Anyways, detractors of Israel call that guy a hero, Israelis and most Jews call him a traitor. He was brought to justice just like Eichmann was brought to justice. You can't pick and choose these definitions. You do know that by linking to Communist websites it doesn't help the credibility of this definition at all. This is a politically charged piece of propaganda, but not a credible source.

Guy Montag 02:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who defines Qana as terrorism? A quick Google reveals [8], [9], [10]. The UN concluded that this bombing was unlikely to be a mistake (see that article.) - Mustafaa 01:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

These are all anti Israeli websites who provide no sources for their assumptions. You are ruining your own position by linking to communist and Islamist websites. If you can provide legitimate sources that prove a conspiracy to bomb a UN compound, you got yourself a clear case, if all you have are those propoganda websites, that's poor research, and dubiously citable.

Guy Montag 02:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Another case where targeted assassinations are defined as terrorism: Terrorism against Israel in 2001 lists the assassination of Rehavam Zeevi. - Mustafaa 01:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Assassinating a politician by a known terrorist group is the same as assassinating a civilian. What makes it a terrorist act is that the group who perpetrated it is terrorist. Assassinating terrorist masterminds like Yassin is a military operation. Yassin was in a wheelchair since age 12, when a sporting accident left him paralyzed. being wheelchair-bound never hampered Yassin's ability to orchestrate unprecedented terror - he founded Hamas in 1987 and proved perfectly capable of building the organization to its current strength from a sitting position. He was the leader of a terrorist organization.

Guy Montag 02:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Assassination of Ahmad Yassin termed "terrorism": Hamas. - Mustafaa 01:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's termed terrorism as by Hamas. Those are Hamas newsletters. Think about that.

Guy Montag 02:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Splitting/moving

PS: I moved the article, pending its possible splitting (as Guy has suggested), to the title that better reflects its current contents: Zionist terrorism. - Mustafaa 01:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Operation Days of Penitence (from context): Turkish PM,

Ok, this can be cited.

Guy Montag 02:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PNA. - Mustafaa 01:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This can be cited too.

Guy Montag 02:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Collateral damage": [11]. - Mustafaa 01:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who is the Palestine Monitor affiliated with? It should also be cited.

Guy Montag 02:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mustafaa, it's not enough just to find some website calling something terrorism; I can find any number of websites describing all sorts of things as "terrorism". For example abortion [12] or Islam [13]. Rhetoric is thrown about all the time by partisans and propagandists merely to score points; what is first needed is credible and citable sources, not just anyone saying anything. Jayjg (talk) 02:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Very nearly the only use of the word "terrorism" is for such rhetoric; the term is hopelessly subject to POV, and no universally accepted definition exists. I'm therefore not sure what you mean by "credible and citable sources", but I imagine the Turkish PM and PNA official statements qualify. - Mustafaa 02:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They are some of the few statements that are.

Guy Montag 02:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, "terrorism" has a fairly narrow and well-defined meaning, it's just that the word is often abused by propagandists who have attempted to hijack the term precisely for the purpose of obfuscation. As for the cites provided, if that's the level of citability we're demanding, then I suppose anything that the Israeli government or Israeli PM calls "terrorist" should be added in a list of terrorist acts somewhere. I guess they'll do for now if they're cited. Jayjg (talk) 02:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The latter is already the case, from what I can see. Why else is an act like the assassination of Rehavam Zeevi termed "terrorist"? - Mustafaa 02:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if that is a general case or an isolated item. In any event, one thing distinguishing Zeevi was that he was a democratically elected government official. You might want to consider who killed him as well. Jayjg (talk) 04:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because it is an action by a terrorist organization. I think we should take a look at the title again. Zionist terrorism cannot cover Israeli actions and Israeli actions cannot cover Zionist organization actions. The article needs to be split up. Guy Montag 02:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is an absurd argument. The Al-Qaeda bombers' trip to the strip joint in Nevada was also "an action by a terrorist organization"; that doesn't make it terrorism. As for splitting this, if you want, go ahead - though, obviously, linking between the two articles. By your proposed definition "the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature", Qibya, population transfer, and the Lavon Affair certainly qualify. Sabra and Shatila also qualifies, the only dispute being the degree of Israeli complicity. The attack on Khaled Meshaal doesn't fit that definition (nor does the kidnapping of Vanunu), but the attack on Ahmad Yasin does: at least nine other people died. Whether the Qana Massacre was deliberate is disputed (see that article), so it should go in with a proviso. - Mustafaa 02:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then I should reiterate. Violent action by a terrorist organization is what qualified it as a terrorist act. This was clearly planned out in advance with five or more members acting in unison to assasinate a political leader. Shiek Yassin was a terrorist mastermind who orchestrated attacks against civilians. He can be mentioned mainly because of the mainstream sources citing that a Turkish PM called it terrorism, but it depends on how you will word the sentence, because the guy is still a terrorist. I agree mostly with your other statements. I agree that by my definition, population transfer does qualify, as the specific instances are of civilians who were coerced into leaving their homes, but I do not agree that the S&S massacre deserves any mention whatsoever. It does not qualify as a direct Israeli action; it is incredulous to hold Israel responsible for direct actions of enraged Christian militiamen.

Guy Montag 03:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Kahan Commission held several Israeli leaders indirectly responsible. Argue with them. --Zero 16:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Kahan commission concluded that direct responsibility rested with the Jemayel Phalangists led by Fadi Frem. They committed the act. Israel did not commit the act. If we are talking about direct actions by states, this does not fit into it. Whatever the Kahan commission found, it did not find Israel culpable, but a couple of ministers guilty of negligence. Unless you have an article entitled "State sponsored negligence", this should have no mention in an article on alleged Israeli state terrorism.

Guy Montag 00:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Guy, you do not deny that Sabra and Shatila is a case of terrorism; you simply deny that Israel bears any responsibility. However, the Kahan Commission - and the survivors - both hold Ariel Sharon responsible, and Israel ordered these people in to begin with. It belongs right here. - Mustafaa 22:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Kahan commission was not a court of law, and Mr. Kahan himself has stated, after hearing about the ridiculous kangaroo case against Sharon, that he regrets that his opinion was used to justify his demonization. I am tired of this nonsense being used to blame Israel as a whole when the verdict said nothing on the matter other than negligence. The Phalangists are responsible, Israel is not.

Guy Montag 00:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Noting that I havne't really read this article, I'm not certain that's correct, Mustafaa. Sabra and Shatila was a case of Israeli State Terrorism, as opposed to pre-statehood Zionist terrorism. (following Western academia's conventions, which I won't comment on). El_C 22:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ah, sorry. The article only just got split, and I put this comment on the wrong talk page. But I'm glad you agree that it belongs in the Israeli State Terrorism article. - Mustafaa 22:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we erase Israeli terrorism and merge it with the general state terrorism article? It already has an entry on Israel, as well as every other country. I don't think there is any reason Israel should be singled out.

Guy Montag 03:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the decision to move Zionist terrorism, or parts of it, to Israeli terrorism. Was there a clear consenus for this? It's an inherently POV title, and begs the question as to whether we're going to create British terrorism, French terrorism, Syrian terrorism (and so on) pages; if not, then Israel shouldn't be singled out. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:11, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
That's actually not a bad idea. Terrorism is somewhere between a judgement call and extreme POV. If we have "Fooian Terrorism" we might as well have pages for every country against which there have been allegations of terrorism. If we report allegations, fairly and across the board, it would be NPOV. Guettarda 03:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree very strongly that there is no shortage of historical evidence which demonstrates State Terrorism on the part of each and every one of these countries, and many, many other ones (if that was the premise). That the Israeli State terrorism article was created before that, let say, of Sudanese State terrorism, is a good question (if that was a question), with an entirely explicable answer (if one is sought), which I will not be providing at this point. But I will point out that it accentuates and brings to the fore certain contradictions. El_C 03:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can someone explain when this article was created and why? I'm confused because the history shows Mustaafa moving it on June 10 to Zionist terrorism, and nothing before that; yet here it is, not moved. And some of the posts on this talk page were posted to Talk:Zionist terrorism. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:24, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
*Raises hand* I can('t). Read the NPOV - When is a terrorist?' discussion above, esp. the last comments made. Essentially, myself, Jay, and Cool hand Luke were arguing to an Anon that Israeli Terrorism, by definition, could'nt have taken place at a time prior the founding of the State of Israel, hence the consensus for the split (for the 2 eras). El_C 06:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, El C. I remember taking part in that discussion, or the start of it, but don't recall the article being called Israeli terrorism at that time. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:45, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Anyways, I think that by now everyone more or less agrees that this article shouldn't exist. It should be moved to state terrorism. Do we need a vote on this or just consensus?

Guy Montag 08:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just consensus? Hmm. I, for one, certainly would want to guage on all the participants opinions rather than vote. *** Anyway, you changed LouieS' anti-militant (unwikied) into anti-terrorist (which simply redirects to Terrorism); I changed it into counter-insurgency. I trust that there are no objections. El_C 08:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nope.

Guy Montag 11:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know how it got created in the first place, or did it just suddenly appear? The history doesn't shed much light. It'll be hard to merge the contents with State terrorism; or did you mean delete the contents, redirect the title? SlimVirgin (talk) 09:06, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

We could delete the contents, take what's salvagable and put it into state terrorism and place a redirect here, or just erase the whole mess and place it into state terrorism.

Guy Montag 11:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm anyone! I believe as a counter-weight to Palestinian terrorism. El_C 09:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is very little to counterweight in this article. Plus, wikipedia isn't about moral equivelency. It's not like Tamil Tiger terrorism is "counterweighted" with Nepalese terrorism. Lets wash our hands of the whole mess erase this article and merge with state terrorism.

Guy Montag 11:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only Nepalese terrorists are the Gyanendra autocratic, despotic regime and the Royal Nepalese Army. Long live Nepalese People's War! Anyway, Tamil Tigers and the Communist Party of Nepal are not the same as Israeli/Palestinian, so bad example for counterwieghting. Since moral equivelency is not desirable as per policy and guidelines — are you proposing, then, to equivelantly merge Palestinian terrorism into Terrorism? (and remeber, this article could posssibly be expanded to reach the same length as the PT one). El_C 11:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, they are terrorists just like the Shining Path, or the Tamil Tigers and Sri Lanka, ext. We don't have to have entries on every government 2nd rate communists call terrorist. How about the IRA and the British government? Did they have an entry on the "terrorist actions" of the British authorities? I don't think so. Palestinian terrrorism deserves an article all of it's own because it is so extensive, while the "Israeli terrorism" article is not only a cotroversial term, but there are so little clear cut cases vs Palestinian terrorism that it would be POV just to have it. Lets just move it to state terrorism where no one is singled out.

Guy Montag 21:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, the NCP and the PCP are heroes of the toiling masses, your 2nd rate observaions are false. And the word is et cetera, short form: etc. That aside, if you wish to move Israeli Terrorism to State Terrorism, that is your prerogative; I just don't find your statement that "by now everyone more or less agrees that this article shouldn't exist" to be an accurate assessment of the situation. I'm interested to hear what Mustafaa, Zero, and others have to say about the desirability of such a move. So, I open the floor for other editors' comments. El_C 23:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Heroes of the toiling masses? Man, my grandfather would rolling in his grave if he heard that anyone still believed that tripe. Anyways, from the people I heard of who contributed, the prevailing idea was confusion as to why this article existed. I wouldn't mind hearing from the other editors either, but exactly how long do we wait before we take some action?

Guy Montag 08:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Man? I could not care less about your grandfather's posthumous motions, Mister Guy Montag, nor about your unscientific, crude idea of what tripe is or isn't, from your questionable and uncritical vantage point. As for exactly how long the wait needs to be — long enough until Msutafaa voices an opinon, at the very least. Please spare me the rebuttel polemic; of course you won't, but here goes. El_C 09:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Where is all this hostility coming from? I am just making conversation here. As for my grandfather, he died in a Soviet Gulag, so if you don't want to hear people's reactions on the murderous communists, don't post on them.

Back on subject: I'll notify Mustafaa so he can post his opinion here.

Guy Montag 09:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps from the word tripe, would you not think? You were the one who chose to bring the NPC and CPoP as terrorists into this, so if you don't want people's reactions on the murderous 'capitalists,' don't initiate such comments. I'm sorry for that your grandfather suffered, but things are not so easily reduced therefrom. Back on subject: I thought he ought to know, since he seemd to have created this article. El_C 10:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, this editor thinks Zionist terrorism should be kept as a counterweight to Palestinian terrorism, and that Israeli terrorism should be merged into State terrorism, with each accusation of State terrorism properly sourced. Jayjg (talk) 06:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Since Zionist terrorism encompasses the post-independence era with respects to outlawed groups and connected individual, this means Israeli terrorism is exclusively Israeli State terrorism. As an aside, State terrorism on the part of the government of Sudan (and others: the Chinese National Petrolium Company, French oil companies) in that country's south resulted in a genocide of three million human beings. And now, we have a new genocide in the west [14]. Unfathomable privations. Why am I telling you all this, Jay? El_C 06:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Um, because you agree with me? Because you're quite chatty tonight? Some combination? Jayjg (talk) 06:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, that was a rhetorical question! I'm aiming for subtlety here. But yes, some combination. El_C 06:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree that Israeli terrorism should be merged into State terrorism, where the most prominent terrorist actor currently seems to be the United States. Syria, on the other hand, barely a mention. Libya, no mention. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:30, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
I would actually disagree with you that Zionist terrorism should be kept either. Zionism ended in 1948 when Israel became a state, all attacks commited by the Jewish people in Israel upon Arabs are violent acts of racism (and vise versa for attacks by arabs upon jews). --LouieS 08:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What? Thats a big load of bunk.

Guy Montag 03:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I'm fine with merging this article into State terrorism, while of course keeping the option of splitting it back out of that article open in the event of future expansion. Come to think of it, the US terrorism section of that article should probably be spun off into a separate article... - Mustafaa 03:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

However, I'm not fine with the removal of Sabra and Shatila, a longstanding part of this article with support from three of four people who have voiced opinions on this page. Let's restore the status quo ante. - Mustafaa 19:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Absolutley not. You have not proven that this was a direct Israeli action.

Guy Montag 23:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have not argued that this was a "direct" Israeli action, nor has anyone else. You have not explained why its being "direct" is relevant. - Mustafaa 23:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because you don't list actions of Labanese Phalangists under something entitled Israeli terrorism. You can't hold Israel responsible for the acts of it's allies. It's just as simple as that. Everyone is responsible for their own actions.

23:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note that the article already explains fairly well why this is generally considered an indirect Israeli action:

So why are you including it? The simple question is this. Did the IDF go into the camps and do the killing? The answer is no. So it doesn't belong. It belongs in the Labanese Civil War artice, not here.

Guy Montag 23:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Israelis surrounded the camps and sent the Phalangists into the camps to clear out PLO fighters, and provided the Phalangists with support including flares, food, and ammunition. An Israeli investigation found a number of officials (including the Defense Minister of that time, Ariel Sharon) "indirectly responsible" for not preventing the killings. The Kahan Commission wrote: "responsibility is to be imputed to the minister of defense for not ordering appropriate measures for preventing or reducing the danger of massacre as a condition for the Phalangists' entry into the camps."
It doesn't go very far, though. It fails to note such points as this:
Lt. Avi Grabowsky was cited by the Kahan Commission as having seen (on that Friday) the murder of five women and children. He spoke to his battalion commander about it; he replied "We know, it's not to our liking, and don't interfere." (Sabra and Shatila Massacre). - Mustafaa 23:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alright, as long as it is mentioned that direct resposibility lies with the Phalangists. I can ive with it.

Guy Montag 23:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, it now explicitly says that. - Mustafaa 23:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Allies?

Why should "Israel's allies" be included in this article? I can't see why we should directly associate things done by allied groups to the people they were allied with. I know there was a connection in this case, but the very inclusion is not relevant to the actual subject of the article. Many groups are "allied" to many other groups, we do not hold all groups responsible for the actions of their allies, so why should we in this case? The whole section should be removed from the article as it is simply an attempt to put blame on to Israel for the actions, which does not exist. Curiosity 19:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Read above. Israel itself blamed Israel for the actions. The Israelis surrounded the camps and sent the Phalangists into the camps to clear out PLO fighters, and provided the Phalangists with support including flares, food, and ammunition. - Mustafaa 20:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Very interesting definition of "Israel blaming Israel" you have there. Read what you just wrote "sent the Phalangists into the camps to clear out PLO fighters". That's Israel blaming Israel for a massacre? Israel sent them in to do one thing and you hold Israel responsible when those people then do something else off their own accord? Israel actually blamed Israel for negligence, Israeli negligence is a far cry from "Israeli terrorism" - the subject of this article. No-one can hold Israel responsible for the 'actions' specifically. As was upheld by an American court when Sharon won a libel case over an article that claimed he was responsible. I still maintain it's tenuous to put an unsanctioned "terrorist" action by an Israeli ally in to this article. Curiosity 23:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lt. Avi Grabowsky was cited by the Kahan Commission as having seen (on that Friday) the murder of five women and children. He spoke to his battalion commander about it; he replied "We know, it's not to our liking, and don't interfere.

Curiosity. The current edit is as NPOV as it gets. I am content with it as it makes sure to note that the responsibility lies with the phalangists. If I am pleased with this subject, chances are, there is nothing else to discuss.

Guy Montag 01:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Isn't a phalangist a type of marsupial and the name for the Spanish facist movement? --LouieS 06:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Phalangists of Lebanon are the diluted political cousins of the Phalangist movement in Spain. More nationalistic than fascistic.

Guy Montag 00:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh right, duh, I know who we are talking about now. As far as the situation goes, Guy and Curiosity are right. While Sharon was grossly negligent, the Phalangists were NOT ordered to commit the massacre, though it was known that it was their intent to commit the massacre (hence the negligence). So no, this is not a case of Zionist terrorism, its actually more a case of Christian terrorism (I believe the phalangists are a militant christian organization). --LouieS 00:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you are an occupying army on foreign territory then you are under a very clear obligation under international law to protect the civillain population thereof. The bus bomber doesn't actually kill anyone - it is the explosives which do that - yet he is still the terrorist for deliberately putting the explosives in a place where they can kill. 62.253.64.15 29 June 2005 23:46 (UTC)

VFD debate

This article has been kept after no consensus to delete at this VFD debate. Note that this does not rule out the possibility of this being merged later, if anybody wishes to discuss it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Such a small article and yet so much debate, just leave it as is

From the comments I have read on this discussion page, some seemingly reasonable sentences by people are really outrageous. So, if someone is wearing an IDF uniform and killing innocent people then it is not terrorism it is simply defending oneself? It is not “deliberate”. Poor soldiers, victims of 12-year-old Palestinian stone throwers and “accidental” killers of journalists. Let us go back to the roots of the issue; the state of Israel was created on the basis of terrorism. I mean stealing land from people, kicking families out of their houses and burning their homes, and ethnically cleansing the local Palestinian populating by committing massacres. Is this not terrorism? Also, the massacres at Qana, the UN camp in Lebanon and killing countless civilians, is this not terrorism? Putting random roadblocks and building a “Berlin Wall” dividing the Palestinian territories from Israel, thus separating families from each other, students from their schools and putting the economy to a standstill. While Palestinian tactics are NOT ideal and I certainly do not support their blowing up of buses with innocent people, we should not forget their reasons and all the bad media surrounding this people. It is as if poor Israel is the victim and the Palestinians are the brutal terrorists. Israel is no angel, but saying that Arabs do kill people deliberately while Israelis don’t as one very very ignorant user has said is just plain wrong and outrageous. It is a stupid statement and how could such a statement be said. Well it’s the media stupid. People are brainwashed and have only one view of the issue especially those living in North America. This is why people in Europe are more open and aware of issues while here (US) they are not. Building walls and settlements and stealing water from nearby farms, sending Christian phalangists to eliminate Palestinians and committing massacres at various camps; all this is deliberate, stop kidding yourselves. When have Palestinians used an F16 to bomb a city full of innocent people? Well, never. The Israelis have, bombing Beirut and killing hundreds, leveling buildings with children inside, hiding from the bombing. If the Lebanese civil war raging on wasn’t enough, I’m sure we didn’t need Israel involved. Just because it’s an “official army” then this makes it not terrorism. Hey, the retarded Taliban were official and had an army, how come they are terrorists then? The same rules apply. One should look at the causes of anger within the Palestinian people (such as the daily killings of innocent Palestinians that we in the US do not hear about, I have satellite and thankfully get international news, the only thing we hear about is suicide bombs targeting poor Israelis) and not simply judge them by watching extremist news channels such as Fox news or such. Israel has a right to exists but within limits and reason. Get educated people and read stuff on academic websites, read books, read articles from real journalists, not “articles” written by biased people in this encyclopedia.

Agree with the anonymous editor. Jeus 16:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Continuation: why under some circumstances Israel’s (sometimes) nasty allies should be included

You know people are so biased now-a-day’s. Judging things as they see fit, not looking at the other side of complex issues. Why should Israel’s allies be included in this article? I will use Bush’s quote “we will not differentiate the terrorists from those who harbor them”, which is the basis of American foreign policy today, to attempt my explanation. Again like I said above, if you want to judge do it fairly, the same rules apply for all parties. For example the Taliban were supporting wacko bin laden and providing safe haven from him, ok fine, according to this definition, by US (i.e. Bush) standards they are terrorists, no problem. Donating money for charities, turns out to be terrorist funding, you’re a terrorist charity, no problem. Now, during the very complex 1975-90 civil war in Lebanon (which I will not attempt to explain because Wikipedia does a pretty good job in an article about that subject), many groups committed massacres all over and everyone was involved. A fact: the Christian Phalangist militia was allied with Israel, which provided weapons and intelligence to its militiamen. The reason: an independent Maronite Christian Lebanese state was and still is for the benefit of Israel as they share the same objectives. Anyway this is not the issue; Israel (as if the Taliban in Afghanistan) was providing arms to the Christian Phalangist militia (as if Al Qaida in Afghanistan), which committed massacres and yet some of you ignorant people still cannot hold Israel responsible. If you cannot do that then why say the Taliban are terrorist, why say charities are terrorist, they are only funding are they, doing nothing wrong? Such double standards, truly unbelievable. Who in the world are you kidding? Using the West’s arguments for terrorism, if u harbor a terrorist or provide financial aide and logistical support (the Taliban in Afghanistan) then you are a terrorist, the same applies here, don’t use double standards like I repeated a number of times. I mean, common use your brains people, the Israelis didn’t accidentally drop off an army of hostile fighters in a Palestinian camp so they can chat and have some coffee together, maybe play a deck of cards, they knew very well the hostilities present between the PLO and the Phalangists, so Israel wanted the PLO fighters eliminated and used their allies in Lebanon to do the dirty work. On their way the Phalangists killed a few hundred innocent women and children. Israel provided funds and equipment for these fighters who committed massacres right under Israel’s nose. OH so naïve to think Israel is the angel and simply wanted to clear up some gunmen in the camp. They should be counted as terrorist harborers, and financers, hence, like the Taliban, terrorists. Look, Israel is not stupid, they knew perfectly well that while sending these Christians to the camps they would not only “clear PLO” fighters but commit other crimes. Israel should have done the job itself if it wanted it done so badly, but this laziness on Israel’s part only proves that their aims were different from the beginning. By employing a militia, Israel could keep the blame off itself and avoid international condemnation with the lame excuse of “we didn’t interfere.” And by the ignorant brainwashed responses I have seen here, their little plan worked. Doge120 20:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Doge120, there's a little section on the Phalangist militia in the article:

The Sabra and Shatila massacre was perpetrated during September 1982 in Beirut, Lebanon by the Phalangist Lebanese Christian militia; The death toll is disputed, and commonly cited estimates range from 400 to 3000. The Israelis surrounded the camps and sent the Phalangists into the camps to clear out PLO fighters, and provided the Phalangists with support including flares, food, and ammunition. An Israeli investigation found a number of officials (including the Defense Minister of that time, Ariel Sharon) "indirectly responsible" for not preventing the killings, while emphasizing that the "direct responsibility" lay with the Phalangist militia that had done the killing.

I moved it from the "Terrorism by Israel's allies" into the general "Attacks from 1948-1999" section. I suppose we could change it back if you want. To everyone, I'd just like to say that I'm not out to chop up the article; it just seemed a bit imbalanced, compared to the Pal Terr page. When I started editing, it had almost *nothing* about the escalated violence that's been going on since 2000 (compared to the numerous sections on suicide bombings on the Pal Ter page), and there wasn't even a picture. That didn't seem fair...to me, anyway. I also added some bits about bulldozers and IDF killings (whether accidental or intentional depends on whom you speak to) of ISM members in the region. Jeus 21:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Question

Which sections, do you all think, should be NPOV'ed the most? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure; I'm still trying to read up on the issue through the BBC. However, I'd appreciate it (a lot) if more people would use this page (the TALK page) before simply reverting huge chunks of the page back to severely archaic versions of it, which multiple people on this page agreed were in desperate need of reform. Guy Montag, right now, this means you. You're not even *trying* to use the discussion page. If you don't like something, please say *why* -- don't just go about deleting things that stray outside your POV. Jeus 23:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I tried to fix up the section on the activists/filmakers section, and it looks like it is going to get lost in all of the POV revert wars. I also dropped a note on Jayjg's page about possible title ideas I had. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I am going to stop reverting you when you stop trying to make this page into a memorial for Palestinians, stop adding ridiculous propaganda and false information that has nothing to do with this article, and discuss major revisions, of which you have done none. Take this as shock treatment.

Guy Montag 23:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

What parts do you considered in Jeus version to be a memorial? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


The picture for one. Then there is a fiendish disclaimer about other acts that did not result in death or injury. The mergin of actions committed by Israel's allies within a general catagory. The merging together casualties of Palestinians cought in collateral damage and Palestinian terrorists under the catagory of Palestinian civilians, overly relying on unsourced Amnesty International reports, the use of "Occupied Territories" with abandon. Finally, what does this information have to do with terrorism? Then there is excessive use of selecting quoting from the Rachel Corrie incident without referring to the article. This too is a dubious case? How does it qualify as terrorism? Using unsourced information about bulldozing houses without adding context or background. Finally, what does an entire paragraph on treatment of Palestinians have to do with this article. The entire thing is absolute pov nonsense thant stretches the limits of this article, and it will have a totally disputed tag until it is corrected.

Guy Montag 23:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Disputed Tag

Guy, I am fairly certain I mentioned this to you in the past already: if you are going to add a totallydisputed tag, which reads: see the relevant discussion on the talk page, that means that you must explain its insertion on the talk page. Also, your edit summary which states: I am going to bring in the calvary if this shit continues is unacceptable. You must refrain from such edit summaries, as they are in violation of policy. El_C 23:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I merely reverted to the old edit after Jeus started turning this article into a funeral page for random Palestinians.

Guy Montag 23:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

My concern is limited to policy as pertaining to the tag's requierments, and edit summaries free of expletives. El_C 23:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Still Guy, what parts do you consider to be "a funeral" for the Palestinians. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Zscout, there's some questionable stuff being added. Sabra and Shatila can't count as terrorism unless the word has no fixed definition whatsoever. And did the Lavon Affair lead to the deaths of Palestinian civilians? Also, the photograph is POV. Would you mind stopping your edit for the time being, and discussing on talk? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:40, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Fine. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Personally I am all for using the ordinary dictionary definition of words - however (see above) you seem to argue against this earlier. 62.253.64.14 23:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Please just tell me, so I don't have to read through the whole page. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:45, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry - I wasn't trying to be awkward see the section above on "NPOV - When is a terrorist?" where we reject the definition from dictionary.com in favour of a much restricted one proposed by yourself. I think that Sabra and Shatila probably could fall under that definition from dictionary.com "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." 62.253.64.14 23:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I could remove the picture, and/or Sabra+Shatila. However, I wasn't the one who added that: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_terrorism&oldid=18138816 It seems to have been part of the article for at least a few days. We could remove it, though, if it really doesn't fit in with the page. Jeus 23:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Speaking about the photo, it was placed on WP:IFD. The user, User:Humus sapiens, stated the photo is unencyclopedic and it has no source. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Guy is right, Zscout. You're adding material that has no hope of surviving. Rachel Corrie was not an act of terrorism and you've anyway written that she was shot. Not everything bad that happens in the world can be called terrorism. I'm going to revert you, which I hate to do as you're working hard on it, so please stop the editing and discuss. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:55, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
If you feel the need to tap me on the shoulder, telling me to stop, and revert my work, fine by me. I mainly expanded that one section, since I wanted to get rid of the bullets. Plus, you can see my comment at User_talk:Jayjg#Israeli_terrorism_article for new titles. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
The photo is perfectly neutral when compared to photos on the Palestinian terrorism page.Heraclius 23:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I have to say I agree - it's a pretty blatent piece of POV that goes on at a Wikipedia wide level. Guess there are just tham many more English speaking computer literate Israel supporters out ther than Palestinians - and many of them see even the slightest hint of "non support" for Israel as POV while not objecting at all to whatever is said in the Palsetine articles. 62.253.64.14 00:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Buss_Suicide_Bombing_West_Jerusalem3.jpg That's straight from the Palestinian terrorism page. Oh, and here's the other one: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c4/Explosive-belt01.jpg I'd say *either* of these could qualify as more POV than the photo in question. Jeus 00:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The first photo is a copyvio from the AP, the second photo is showing a device possibly used by the people who do the attacking. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
The second photo's copyright status is also not clear. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Guy, you're still on a rampage. This isn't helping. Look -- at least four different people are here talking about this right now. Once again -- reverting fifteen versions back at a time is NOT going to make the article any more NPOV. Please stop. Jeus 00:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Joey, you're a new editor and you were earlier asking me for advice about how to edit. What you're witnessing now is an example of exactly how not to edit, and I'm not referring to Guy. We're here to write encyclopedic articles, not to fight the Arab-Israeli conflict with this article as hostage. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:07, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Please don't revert again. Bring the edits to this page and let's talk before inserting them. Some are probably fine, but others are definitely not, and all the reverting means nothing's being calmly evaluated. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:11, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Guy seems to be doing just as much reverting. I don't really see how you can pick sides here (which you are doing).Heraclius 00:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Reverting it to a version where there was consensus on the wording that existed is better than the gargantuan tripe you added. Some of the stuff is not even on the subject of discussion, and changing the article and introduction to weasel in and specifically reflect Palestinian pov is not going to fly, ever.

Guy Montag 00:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm opposing the editors who are adding nonsense. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:11, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

All right -- which sections should we work to fix? Jeus 00:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Bring the substantive edits one by one to the talk page. You choose which one you want to start with, and we'll try to find compromises. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:17, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Here's one of the sections:

An assessment of Terrorism since September 2000

  • The image is POV, and can't stay. It's not clear that this could be defined as terrorism, and even if it could be, this is not a photograph that illustrates an act of terrorism, so it falls on both counts. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:32, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

More than 2,870 Palestinian civilians have been killed by the Israeli Defence Force since (IDF) since September 27, 2000. Targets of attack include predominantly Palestinian settlements and refugee camps within the West Bank and Gaza strip, neighborhoods, school zones, and generalized locations of suspected Palestinian militants.

  • How are you defining terrorism? Are all acts of violence by the IDF being called terrorism? If so, we should probably rename the article. If not, then where are the limits of your terrorist subcategory? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:32, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Amnesty International concluded in its October 2000 report that: “The Israeli security services were almost invariably well-defended, located at a distance from demonstrators in good cover, in blockhouses, behind wire or well-protected by riot shields.” The pretext for the use of lethal force, Amnesty found, was simply a fabrication.

  • Did Amnesty use the word pretext? If so, we need a quote and a citation. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:32, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

“Certainly, stones—or even petrol bombs—cannot be said to have endangered the lives of Israeli security services in any of the instances examined by Amnesty International.”

  • What does this mean? How is this sentence related to Israeli terrorism? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:32, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Here's the equivalent of it on PalTer:


In summary, I think that if we're going to have a "current terror due to palestine" section in one article, complete with a rather impassioned photo of a bomb belt, then we should probably have a "current terror due to israel" section in the corresponding article. Leaving out an entire section and having something like what I c/p'd above within the PalTer article seems a bit one-sided, I think. Jeus

Joey, you're disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Forget what's in any other article. If there are POV things there, they can be sorted out next. Concentrate on this one, and do your best to write about it as if you don't care. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:34, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I don't mean to distract for a personal agenda. It's just that I started trying to add to the article, because it didn't seem to have anything "current", (even when compared to itself), and it seems as if every time I (or others) try to add something to the article (which isn't going to be flattering to the IDF, since the page is solely about Israeli Terrorism), whatever I add is quickly removed, and denoted as vandalism. Isn't it a kind of reverse vandalism for one side to oppose altering the page for any reason except to reduce its size and lessen its argument? Jeus 00:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

No side should refuse to let the page be edited, but you can't expect people to stand by while highly POV material is being added. You'd be as well renaming the page "Wikipedia Hates the IDF," because then at least you'd have a title that reflected the contents.
As you're a new editor, it might help you to read our editing policies: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and a guideline Wikipedia:Cite sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:53, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

When did this article become actions against Palestinians and non Palestinians? You are changing the article to reflect a ridiculous agenda.

Guy Montag 01:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


First of all, to Guy: Look at the previous edits. Zsomething was the one who started changing the introduction. Go to the "history" page, and compare the current title to the way it was when *I* originall edited it -- right before you started mass-deleting my versions. I didn't change the title; someone else did after you tried to wipe out what I'd written.

To SlimVirgin: I'm not trying to wage war against the IDF; I didn't want to keep using "Israel" as a vector for whom was executing the attacks in question, since Israel at large (by which I mean the majority of its citizens) aren't firing weapons at Palestinians. Perhaps my intentions didn't come through well. However, I expressely wrote it with IDF, instead of "Israel", or "Israelis", in order to signify a distinction. Sort of like saying The IDF launched attacks against Palestinian militants, vs. saying The IDF launched attacks against Palestinians. Specificity to avoid generalities. Jeus 02:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


And Guy, furthermore: For what it's worth, I just changed what you pointed out, from 'Pal + non-Pal' to simply 'Pal'. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm not going to consider what you have to say. Jeus 02:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

This article is about neither.

Guy Montag 02:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Stick your goodwill where it matter and revert yourself from that festering pile of shit you call an article to what I wrote.

Guy Montag 07:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Page lock

I briefly protected this page because you're all on the verge of being blocked for 3RR. Guy has already been reported for it. Please respond to the points Joey has raised - or Joey, say what you think about my responses. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:48, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I only reverted 3 times.

Guy Montag 01:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Great, now Jeus is using deceptive summary edits in an attempt to block the fact that he just reverted to his version but kept the totally disputed tag. I am gonna go ahead and report him. Thats more than 4 reverts in a day.

Guy Montag 01:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


Willy-Nilly Revisions

It would be nice if people would stop trying to turn a page entitled 'Israeli Terrorism' into a page justifying Israeli military actions against Palestinians. If that's the kind of page you want to see, just go make one already. But this -- this whole, "I'll make sure as little badness gets posted about Israel as possible, so help me" nonsense has got to stop. This is NOT a pro-Israeli article. Why is this so hard to accept?

Stop trying to fill this page up with stuff that is not terrorism or turn it into another Israel bashing article - this is not the place for your propaganda

Would either of you mind ID'ing yourselves? I'm guessing from the 'history', that you're the two warring IP addresses. Perhaps this article *should* be protected. Jeus 03:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Then, if it is protected, what version would it be placed to? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I note with interest that Zionist Terrorism has been protected. And seems to be frozen at a non consensus Pro Israeli viewpoint. I am starting to get very concerned at site wide pro Israeli Bias on wikipedia. We're told "treat each article separately" but then the pages just some how "seem" to end up pro Israel. 62.253.64.14 07:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Problems with edits by User:Jeus

The biggest problem is, where to start.

  1. First, s/he insists "Attacks which did not result in death or injury are not included." and in the same edit adds
    • 1948 exiles
    • "men and boys may become permanently crippled from bullet wounds suffered during the last five months of stone-throwing protests"
    • "restrictions on Palestinian movements"
    • "international community often views these as punishments of the masses because of the actions of a few. This perception of unjust persecution provides a continuing rationale for hostility toward Israel" -- see, if Israelis allow the terrorists walk freely into their cities, the "international community" would have loved it.
    • "2,870 Palestinian civilians" -- all of them are civilians? and all are victims of Israeli terrorism? Proof please.
    • "Arab publications and others have compared Zionism to German Nazism", Many Arabs, and others, including noted activist and linguist Noam Chomsky, believe Israel practises a form of "apartheid" against the Palestinian people, as bad as, or worse than, that practised by South Africa, and that Zionism is a form of "colonialism" and has been carried out through extensive "ethnic cleansing". -- lovely but sorry WP is not a soapbox.
    • Pro-Israel advocates reply..., Palestinians hold... -- irrelevant here. Please don't turn this article into another Arab-Israeli conflict or Israeli-Palestinian conflict
  2. The propaganda picture is unencyclopedic and uses cuddly huggable children to stir emotions against those bloodthirsty Jews... please.
    Though the picture can be removed from the article, its vote on IFD seems to be keeping and retagging the image in question. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. Terrorism, accidents, actions of renegades or allies - all mixed together under the title "Israeli terrorism" -- it seems someone tries to "balance" the actions of HAMAS & Co. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


For the "2,870", here's a Pro-Israeli source: www.ict.org.il. I can't link directly because it uses frames, but if you go there, stats from Sep2000 to 2004 show 2770 Pal civ casualties. If your own side is willing to admit such a high toll, why do you insist on staying in denial? Jeus 18:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

We already talked about the difference between "murder" and "killing". I'm glad you agreed to distinguish the two. Similarly, there is a big difference between "civ casualties" and victims of terrorism. When a police squad fights a street gang (or firefighters fight arson), some civilians may die by accident in the effort to spare more innocent lives. That is a tragedy but not terrorism. OTOH, when a suicide bomber intentionally detonates his device in a crowded bus, that clearly is terrorism. This article (as any on this sensitive subject) must clearly distinguish between the two, instead of trying to blur the line. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 23:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

And as far as your "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" bit, you might want to go clear that very section out of the Arab-Israeli conflict article, because that's where I got that from. If it's a soapbox here, it should be a soapbox there. Jeus 18:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Wrong: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. That article discusses various aspects of the conflict, as it should. Now take a look at the title of this article. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 22:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The "propaganda picture", as you've put it, is currently being voted on for deletion. If it stays, there's no reason not to put it back in. As others have stated above, it's no more inflammatory than any pictures on the Isr Ter page depicting bomb belts and exploding busses. Jeus 18:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The images of the bomb and the exploded bus provide factual evidence: cause and effect of intentional detonation. OTOH, your image does not provide facts but instead calls for strong emotional response. Could you explain what encyclopedic value the pic of "looking at the face" brings to the topic. Moreover, is there any proof that the child's death was not a tragic accident? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 22:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Concerning your last point: The IDF tends to define any actions taken against Israel by non-Israelis (Arabs in particular) to be acts of terrorism. I don't *need* to try and balance this. I'm just trying to write an article that resembles an article instead of a stub. Jeus 18:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Have you chosen WP for a platform for Arab answer to the IDF? Is seems so. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 22:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry I have to say this, but you all need to take a step back and stop editing this page, because you (all of you) are incompitent in doing so due to your biases. None of you will ever be able to produce a NPOV article of Israel-Palestine relationships because you veiw information you don't like, factual though it may be, as "propoganda" or "lies". Neither side of this debate can accept that the truth is somewhere in the middle, which is why neither side should be editing this page, leave it to people without any real opinion, and least of all those of you who have a point of veiw and an agenda etched into your souls. --LouieS 01:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely ridiculous “Guy”

I mean from the comments of Guy or whoever that guy; you can’t get any more Zionist than this. You are a vandal. How would you like it Mr. Zion, to be kicked out of your house then have your family butchered in front of you; this is how your state arose. IS this not an act of terrorism? Here we have someone at least attempting to correct the article, make it at least bigger and better and is met by a hostile crowd who is not letting him do his work properly but is constantly being attacked by ignorant people (i.e. Guy) who only know one side of the story and is an extremist right wing Zionist. I mean you are obviously not going to like this article. Stop your little attack on people who have a goal to spread the truth about the Palestinian issue (or at least attempting and stop insulting them). How was your state build, you wanna know how?? It was built by terrorists. NO, unlike a normal nation, America for example, by immigration, human rights…your state was built by taking land from people and then brutally massacring them. It’s people like you we don’t need here editing this page because it’s people like you who convey the wrong message about issues. SO not very act of violence is terrorism? Then how come when the Palestinians do something it’s suddenly terrorism. Man go back editing the page on Zionism or something make it 100 pages long I don’t care but don’t disrupt other people and insult them for something they are trying to do here. Talk to them in a normal way like another user has done, compromise, you extremist. And Jeus good job at trying to edit, keep going at it and don’t listen to extremists; comromise just as long as you have reliable sources and Amnesty is surely one them to cite. This article was so much better when it was longer, it had so many sections and explained well, we should have many sections such a killing of activists and journalists section by the IDF. I mean israeli terrorism can't be summurized in just a few sections, you could write 500 pages about it. Write the stuff, and cite, then let people make up their own mind. But thanks to the efforts of the self-described right-wing, Guy, people will not find out the truth about some events and remain in the dark. This is very very biased, you better make the article longer and clearer not concise and to the point that's not the point of an encyclopedia. Tallk about the murdering of children, the rape of women in jenin, the burning of homes, the killing of journalists and activists, where is all that, stop this zionism on this page and let us work on it peacfully and find credible sources. Jeus has done a lot of hard work and deserves the credit while Guy is not doing anything but absent-mindngly attacking him for anything he wrights against Israel. That's the point of the article for once. Not evrything for Israel, it already is, in the media...let other views have a say in this. Your efforts in not allowing people to write and expand the article are only a proof that you do not want to know the truth to get out and are afraid to find about it and just keep denying it. Doge120 15:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I would ike to see some proof of journalists being intentionally targeted, or women being raped. You bring a valid point that Guy has too many biases (by his own admission being in support of violent forms of Zionism) to be editing this article, but you yourself are spouting off unfounded garbage moreso than Guy does. --LouieS 01:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Factual Dispute

Someone please point out a factual dispute on this page, and site disagreeing facts from an unbiased source; or the tag is going away.

Why is this article almost entirely duplicated in State terrorism#Israel? OTOH, curiously, all efforts to add [Palestinian state]] in all possible articles and lists, there is no State terrorism#Falastin. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Guy Montag put it there, I believe in an earlier attempt to simply have that page re-direct here (part of a VfD). However, it should be removed now, as it has now become a fork. Jayjg (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Evidence for the "garbage" I said

Get your own conslusions, but you don't just fire at a crowd and kill dozens if your a democratic state. The tag should go and article expanded like before. "I have been to several regions of the world and have seen destruction of various kinds, but the scenes in the Jenin camp were different, terrible and tragic. We retrieved charred corpses and others that were rotting, and they all belonged to civilians, including women, children and elderly persons. Some bodies were buried under the rubble of houses destroyed by the army. It was a real massacre and the scenes were terrible." - Chivvas Moore, an American Red Cross volunteer http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=6725 http://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node.php?id=432 http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/DBBDD979-5ECC-4159-B5B2-829320C06920.htm check this one out Guy ull like it http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/child_41304.html Let the pictures and the text talk (what are you gonna tell me now, they were taken on the moon, well the IDF turned Jenin into a moon crater) http://this.is/jenin/index2.html http://www.jenininquiry.org/photo.htm http://www.palestinemonitor.org/gallery/special_focus_jenin.htm http://www.jeninjenin.org/ http://www.palestinemonitor.org/Feature/camp_that_became_a_slaughterhous.htm http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-268533,00.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,685595,00.html http://www.jeninjenin.org/evidence.htm http://www.palestinemonitor.org/Feature/once_upon_a_time_in_jenin.htm http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51a/041.html http://www.palestinemonitor.org/Feature/un__reveals_monumental_destruction.htm http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51a/040.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,825315,00.html

ok that's NOT enough and i am not satisfied, but if you want more, please tell me and i will surely find more information about countless other massacres (thus acts of terrorism israel commited) there should be no dispute, israel, like palestine, has commited acts of terror and that's it. Whoever's not happy with that could stop complaining like Guy and go to sleep. --Doge120 02:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

If you stop this diarrhea of propaganda and check the facts (that even PNA accepted), you'll see that in heavy fighting and boobytraps of the Battle of Jenin 2002, the casualies were: 32 Palestinian militants, 22 Palestinian civilians and 23 Israeli infantrymen. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

What's up with all the bad words, diarreah, garbage, that's how mature people deal with each other, this is how an alleged encyclopedia is supposed to work, from retards who insult, to extremists who keep editing everything, good job people, I applaud all your maturity, whatever, just keep the article, and expand it like Jeus was trying to do and which he has done a pretty good job at. But thanks to all the retarded attempts of some people, this may not happen. --Doge120 16:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The article contains a whole section (probably the largest) on the actions of Christian Lebanese groups; this clearly does not belong in a page about "Israeli terrorism". That is why the tag belongs; it was objected to long ago, and still has not been fixed. Jayjg (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Collateral Damage

It's just bad english as it stands!

How about "some of the deaths resulting from .... were claimed by Israel as collateral damage follwoing from the main objective."

or similar? Anything to turn it into the language I love. 62.253.64.14 22:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


Assassinations

Do people really think that Assassination is better than "extra-Judicial killing" or was this just a knee jerk revert by Guy Montag?

Personally I think it's much less judgemental with assassination having some quite perjorative connotations. 62.253.64.15 09:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Reverts

Contributions to this page seem to be coming nearly-exclusively from 62.253.64.15, Guy Montag, Eliezer, and Jeus. When this many people are reverting each others' edits, within minutes of each other, all day and all night, it starts to look like there are POVs which conflict. Should we request comments? Ojw 22:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I would support this move 62.253.64.14 09:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Article must comform to a higher standard

This aricle needs to be cleaned up(organization, categories, especially that intro). This article needs a Clean-Up notice. Voice of All(MTG) 22:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Article is just propaganda

There are several probelms with this nonsense:

1. It is boloney. For example, the expulsion from Ramle was in immediate response to the breaking of the city's Sulh or reconciliation treaty by the local Muslim population. I have personally interviewed Arab witnesses to the events. They all correspond: The Arabs signed a peace treaty at the hope of a Greek Orthodox prelate and attacke the next day, the moment the Israelis' backs were turned. The Israelis had no choice. The Christian Arabs didn't shoot, so they weren't expelled and are still there.

2. Terrorists are not "Freedom Fighters" -- Terrorism has a dictionary definition. It is random attacks on a civilian population and an attack on military targets during wartime.

3. The propaganda nature of the story is evident by its name. When do Israelis deliberately attack civilians riding in buses? And the shooting of kids? After the al-Dura fiasco, does only a fanatic will try to defend that charge.

4. "Bulldozers as Weapons" -- Yeah, clearing a border zone to stop arms smugglers is "terrorism". Notice, no mention of arms smuggling?

5. User Doge120 still claims that the "Jenin Massacre" happened, even after the producer of the propaganda film "Jenin, Jenin" admitted that it was all a fake.

6. Sabra and Shatila was the work of the Syrians, the Phalangist commander, Elie Hobeika was their agent -- they killed him (with a car bomb, natch) when he started talking, after serving them loyally in the Lebanese cabinet for 20 years. At the time, Kahan Commission didn't know about Hobeika's treachery.

If you want Arab propaganda, start a propaganda site. Wiki's reputation is at stake here. Just cancel the entry.

True, and the fact that Israel is the only country that has its own terrorism article makes it look very biased.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zionist_political_violence/Archive_1&oldid=1137344710"