Talk:Betar

Is calling the FLNC a terrorist organization POV? For example, how does it differ from the FLN, which I'm sure was considered a terrorist organization previous to the independance of algeria, but subsequently became the sole political party. Perhaps, it would be better to write that the FLNC is considered by Betar to be a terrorist organization, or perhaps it would be better to remove the word entirely, or best of all someone could write an artice about the FLNC? MisterSheik 20:47, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think that an organisation tht claims the full responsibility of an terrorist attack should be considerd as a terrorist organization. Next to that, trying to harm innocent people for you case is a bad thing. Try to convince people with your ideologie and not with force and terrorattacks.

Guy

Well, the article on the FLNC refers to the group as a militant group and that it is regarded by France as a terrorist organisation. 59.167.235.53 00:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Betar and Kadima party

quote of the 10-9-2008 edit: "Many of Israel's most prominent public figures on the Right have been "graduates" of Betar, including former Prime Ministers Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, current Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, current Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, and former Defence Minister Moshe Arens. Current Kadima Member of Knesset Yoel Hasson is a former national head of Betar in Israel. This leads some Israelis to see a connection between Betar and the ruling Kadima party as overshadowing Betar's traditional relationship with Likud."

There is no base to say "This leads some Israelis to see a connection between Betar and the ruling Kadima party as overshadowing Betar's traditional relationship with Likud". I am a member of Betar's leadership in Israel and I can say that there is absolutely no one in Betar who sees Olmert, Livni or Hason as followers of Betar ideology because of their opinions regarding the Israeli role over Judea and Samaria. They think Israel should evacuate these areas and Betar absolutely doesn't. The Kadima party holds opinions that are opposite to important parts of Betar's ideology. To simplify that we can notice that Betar is a right-wing movement while Kadima is not. It is true that there are former members of Betar that are on Kadima or other non-right-wing parties but that doesn't say that the movement of Betar has changed it's ideals.

Therefore I remove the quote that I mentioned. I know for sure that there is no written evidence to verify the quote "...a connection between Betar and the ruling Kadima party...". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.107.216 (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

reference links that kind of stink

A number of the links go to the "parking" pages with the ubiquitous "sponsored listings" and other ugly stuff. Anyone know if these are actually "owned" by the right groups, and merely on hold for a bit? If not, maybe it's time to clear them out of here. Typical example: the "betaramerica.com" link. wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

References

This article is badly in need of in-line references, particularly given its length. Mtsmallwood (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat obvious bias

The article's reference to 'retribution' bombings against arab civilians, supposedly in response to 'massacres' is full of weasel words. Firstly, in every conflict every side calls their attacks retribution. I believe this word should be used with extreme caution, and certainly not in this case. The use of 'arab' in this article is also somewhat dehumanizing - it feels 'palestinian arab' or another such specific label would both be more accurate, and more clear. The use of 'bombing' when referring to attacks against Arabs, and 'massacres' when referring to attacks against Jews, is obvious POV. I realize this is an article primarily of interest to Zionists, but I don't believe such pervasive slanting belongs on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.1.210.26 (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Menachem Begin

He did not escape Europe. He was arrested by Soviet NKVD in Vilnius (Wilno), imprisoned in Soviet concentration camp in Siberia. In 1942 he was released after Sikorski-Maisky Agreement and joined Polish Army in Soviet Union formed by Wladyslaw Anders. He left SU as a soldier of Anders Army and deserted it in Palestine. So Menachem Begin was not a refugee he was deserter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.207.236.135 (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Betar members in Nazi uniform

The photograph now featured in the article depicts some young people in a military uniform (presumably Nazi) and states that these are Betar members in 1936 Berlin. Yes, I repeat: nationalistic Jewish organization members in Nazi uniform in 1936 Berlin! Is it credible? The potograph was apparently scanned from the book of Marek Chodakiewicz whose bias against Jews is well known (e.g., he tried to defend Jedwabne pogrom as an "anti-communist" uprising). I propose we replace this photograph with something more credible, for example, File:PikiWiki Israel 787 Education in Israel זאב זבוטינסקי בחברת מפקדי ביתר .jpg You see, the Betar members are in completely different uniforms, and the credibility of the photograph cannot be questioned since Vladimir Jabotinsky is one of the portrayed people. --Deinocheirus (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

1. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the military-style uniforms shown in the photo were Nazi uniforms. Betar was (and may still be) a militaristic youth movement, and its members wore military-style uniforms.
2. In any event, please replace the photo. The image you recommend is of much higher quality. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

If memory serves me correctly, Betar adopted brown-shirt, Nazi-style uniforms, being given permission by the Nazi Party authorities to do so. The adoption of Italian fascist-style blackshirted uniforms was also considered.     ←   ZScarpia   09:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

... and, again, if my memory isn't faulty, adopted the Nazi raised, straight-arm salute too.     ←   ZScarpia   09:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite of page and addressing of bias

Rewrite may be a bit too strong a word, but I just heavily revised the article in an attempt to 'unbias' it. For the vast majority of it, I did not know enough to either change or back up its assertions, so citations may still be needed, but at least all my additions are, I believe, sufficiently cited. All my research comes from Charles D. Smith's book "Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict," which, as far as I can tell, is a very well-respected work.

The book uses the word 'terrorism', and so do I, relying on the following definition endorsed by the U.S.:

"The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."

I am aware of the fact that there is no official definition of terrorism under international law, and so the term should theoretically just not be used, but I argue that this creates a moral dilemma where we will ultimately go easy on various combatants not because they are less deserving of derision but simply because their opponents are more cautious for whatever reason - it basically becomes 'working the refs', where only those who complain enough get to avoid the label. I do not use the word here as a pejorative, or even an accusation - in fact, I would be the first to propose that we should openly discuss whether the Jews' employ of terrorism, as defined above, was justified, given their overall plight. I think the problem with the word is the social construct that has synonymized it with evil in the absence of any actual logical argument that it is always evil, just like the word 'communism' in the U.S. was during the Red Scare (and socialism more or less is now). Either way, I would insist that the word should only be removed here if it is also removed from pretty much every Wikipedia article, if not all official writings worldwide somehow.

Otherwise, I believe I have simply removed weasel-words and other such rhetorical techniques without altering, and certainly without harming, the factual substance of the article. CyrusCoriogan (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Your rewrite is obviously biased. A single book should not be used when dealing with a controversial subject. Shmuel Katz's biography of Jabotinsky would be a good source from an opposing view. The charge of fascism has been made but is much disputed, as the introduction ought to note rather than simply presenting the charge as fact. Moreover, the description of fascism appears to be inaccurate, as a "revival" of fascism in 1923 would have been impossible, given the age of that particular ideology. As noted above, moreover, other far more violent groups are discussed on Wikipedia as "militant" rather than "terrorist." I would not be surprised if your insistence on the later were essentially racist in nature, but that is beside the point. If non-Jewish militant organizations are going to be described as such for the sake of neutrality, than Jewish ones should be as well. If you want to go through Wikipedia and rewrite every reference to "militant" as "terrorist" then the description would be fair. Otherwise, it should be made more neutral.--109.67.216.11 (talk) 11:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

English- vs. German-language version – which one's biased (or worse)?

Just took a look at the German-language version of this article. There, the terms "fascism" and "fascist" (or, in German, "Faschismus" and "faschistisch") don't even appear, which leads me to presume that one version must be all-caps-BIASED. I only stopped by, don't know much about the topic and don't have time to go through all the references, so my hope is that someone knowledgeable enough and ready to spend some time might read this and address some of the discrepancies. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)