Talk:Zionist political violence

Why isn't this named Zionist terrorism?

It redirects from "Zionist Terrorism", it's the closest thing to a main article in the "Zionist Terrorism" category but it's not actually called "Zionist Terrorism". "Political violence" can cover anything from terrorism to acts of war and revolution. This category isn't talking about the IDF or the War of Independence or other legitimate groups or conflicts. So can we just call it "Zionist Terrorism"? Sol Goldstone (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing myself, but upon reading the archived discussion, it seems this is some sort of compromise, to parallel the situation that exists on Palestinian political violence and Palestinian terrorism. HupHollandHup (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! I guess I didn't look close enough at the archive and didn't realize it was mirrored in Palestinian political violence. Only these two get the "political violence" instead of "terrorism" treatment (as far as I can tell) so there might be others where PV is more fitting label but I guess that's a problem for another time! Sol Goldstone (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it's pretty dumb. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.10.51.35 (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Why does this article only cover events up until 1948?

I think anyone can fairly say that their has been zionist political violence since 1948. Why is their no information about it in this article? The palestinian political violence article covers a much broader time period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.115.234 (talk) 07:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

delete false claim

Deleted "Colonel Archer-Cust, Chief Secretary of the British Government in Palestine, said in a lecture to the Royal Empire Society that "The hanging of the two British Sergeants did more than anything to get us out of Palestine".(ref)The United Empire Journal, November–December 1949, taken from The Revolt, by Menachem Begin(ref)" — Leaving aside the obvious fact that Begin is not a reliable source for this, Archer Cust (first and last names) was only Secretary of the Royal Empire Society, not a government official of any significance. This error in The Revolt was noted by J. Heller, The International History Review, Vol. 3, No. 4 (Oct., 1981), pp. 540-564. Zero^talk 16:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Jewish public opinion

It seems that the current content of the section, especially the last paragraph, are very loosely related to Jewish public opinion, and more relevant to what historians believe was the Zionist narrative. I believe it's not relevant to the article. If there are no objections, I'd like to significantly trim the section. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well Marokwitz introduced this in a very pov-ed way and it had to be neutralized.

What would you suggest precisely ? 81.247.173.44 (talk) 10:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

For a start, I'd completely remove the 2nd paragraph and the first sentence of the 3rd, because they are not about Jewish public opinion at all. After that it depends on the flow of the prose. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

We can analyse this from different ways.

• Is "public Jewish opinion" relevant for this article ? Is this what is stressed by historians ?
• Would not an alternative solution be to keep the content but to modify the title of the section ?
• What global ideas do you think would be important to add here ?

• To give an answer to the 1st point : as far as I know, historians globally stress the shift from a "defensive mind" to an "offensive mind" in the Yishuv opinion that occured mainly during the '36-'39 revolt. Huge pressure existed in the community to follow Irgun's policy but that didn't comply moraly with the official aims of Zionism and the claim that both Jews and Arabs could live in peace in Palestine. (Of course there are some nuances according to the each historian as for any issue on this topic but that's the main analysis.) Do you agree ?
• To give an answer to the 2nd point : we can keep this section but then we can move the material in another one. Could it be : Jewish Agency support to the resort to force ?
• To answer to 3rd point : my mind is that this article first lacks an appropriate background section.

91.180.33.92 (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason I didn't suggest modifying the title of the section was that no connection could be made between the parts I referred to and Zionist political violence. Fighting against Arabs does not necessarily mean "Zionist political violence". Neither do violations of purity of arms. It might belong in another article altogether, but I am having trouble tying the topic of the "offending" text to political violence.

For example, you are right that "Jewish Agency support to the resort to force" (or something similar) would be a better title for this text—but it doesn't make it relevant to Zionist political violence.

So in summary, some connection needs to be made between this text and the concept of political violence (as opposed to violence in general).

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. "Fighting against Arabs" would not be "policital" ?

The Jewish Agency was the political representative of "World Zionist Organisation" in Mandatory Palestine and it set up paramilitary organisations for the ressort to force (read violence) in the fights with the Arabs.

If you mean that they defended against the Arabs and did not attack them, it doesn't change anything. What is "political violence" for you ?

81.253.50.244 (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think political violence is fairly clearly defined. It has to fulfill two main criteria: it has to be for a political goal (i.e. not criminal violence), and it has to be on a limited scale (i.e. not battles involving armies or militias). An assassination of a political leader is political violence. A war is not. Some actions, such as terrorism, may or may not constitute political violence. In any case, most Haganah operations do not fall into this category. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I see your point.

Even if it is not important, you are not right with the definition and the limited scale. Paul Wilkinson (academic), Terrorism and Liberal State, U.K., McMillan Press, 1977, p. 32 classifies political violence in two scales : small and big. In the big scale you can have "nuclear war". It is well known that Hiroshima bombing had the political aim to stop the 2nd world war. That was a political action. Wars, Civils wars, Riots are on the big scale. Sabotages, political assassination, guerrilla, terrorism are on the other scale.

For small scale actions concerning Haganah, I see the "hunting seasons" events, the sabotage of bridges by Palmah before. The sagote and the bombing of the Patria. The Altalena was bombed by Palmah too but later. Palmah men assassinated Arab leaders at the beginning of the '48 Civil War. Both Haganah and Palmal troops placed bombs (eg. Semiranis).

On the bigger scale, Haganah collaborated with British during 36-39 Arab revolt. Aims were numerous. To protect civilians and settlements but also to train their own army, to prove their good will, to prevent the independence of the full Palestine. They also collaborated with Allied during Second World War to prevent the triumph of Nazism and the victory of democraties. That is a political objective. There are many other examples of political violence by Haganah...

All in all, Haganah was the armed arm of Zionism. After 1939, Zionist leaders knew they would need an army to set up a viable State able.

"Political violence" is not synonym of terrorism/resistance. It is a term used by political scientists to study, out of any consideration of legitimation or condemnation, "violence" that aims at influencing other decisions, whatever the scale of the violence.

81.253.50.244 (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not post 1948?

Surely Zionists have used political violence to achieve their aims since the founding of the State of Israel, so why does Israeli political violence redirect here and there is no mention of post-1948 incidents?--TM 18:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I would assume that Israel being a State a/o May 14, 1948 had something to do with "...why does Israeli political violence redirect here and there is no mention of post-1948 incidents?"

Right? (Paleocon444 (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC))

Why have the photographs been removed?

Looking at the edit notes, I guess some people just didn't like them - and couldn't be bothered to discuss it first- will reinstate.88.166.32.210 (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

At Palestinian political violence they made the decision not to add any pictures of dead bodies, because they were "unrepresentative". The hanging of the two sergeants is obviously "unrepresentative", it's the only time this was ever done. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)