Talk:Zionist political violence/Talk:Zionist Terrorism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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)

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 sapiensTalk 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? [1]. - 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 [2] [3] 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:[4]).

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 [5], [6], [7]. 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)


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": [8]. - 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 [9] or Islam [10]. 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)

I am the author of the above passages that Guy cites, and I fail to see what it proves (aside from Zero's comment directly above, that it "held several Israeli leaders indirectly responsible.") I, myself, don't think it boils down to mere negligence/inattention, no matter what the Commission members may or may not think, or say, then or today. The historical record is far from limited to their account. El_C 10:26, 12 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)

That's your POV, and should be mentioned. It should not, however, be presented as fact. - Mustafaa 00:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From Kahan commisssion:

"In the course of the investigation, not a few contradictions came out regarding various facts about which we had heard testimony. In those cases where the contradictions referred to facts important for establishing findings and drawing subsequent conclusions, we shall decide between the variant versions in accordance with the usual criteria in judicial and quasi-judicial tribunals. Our procedures are not those of a criminal court; and therefore the criterion of criminal courts that stipulates that in order to convict someone his guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, does not apply in this case. Nevertheless, since we are aware that our findings and conclusions are liable to be of significant influence from a social and ethical standpoint, and to harm also in other ways persons involved in our deliberations, no finding of significant harm was established with regard to any one of those to whom notices were sent, unless convincing evidence on which to base such a finding was found, and we shall not be satisfied with evidence that leaves room for real doubt. We shall not pretend to find a solution to all the contradictions in testimony."[11]

Guy Montag 10:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I find that passage rather immaterial to your claims of involvement or lack thereof. And viewing the Commission as a neutral source should probably be supplanted, or at least supplumented, with the pertinent historiography. El_C 10:26, 12 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)
So, it's finally split. It seems as if it has been many months —and it has been— since I proposed that (of course, I just proposed it and did nothing – or maybe it was Jay who proposed it, I can't remember). Yes, I agree. And I am the sole author of the Kahan Commission, to boot. (though expanding it beyond what I have there currently, is really the tricky part) El_C 22:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Intro

Mustaafa, please don't just revert my edits. You have a habit of doing that to me, and I find it uncollegial. In an article about Zionist terrorism (however defined), that's what should be discussed. In placing a reference to Israeli terrorism (however defined) in the intro, you're attempting to link the two issues in a way that isn't argued for, isn't defined, and probably isn't agreed upon by many readers and editors, so it's POV and unnecessary. The other article is listed under See also, so readers will know how to find it. Also, why choose to highlight only Israeli terrorism in the intro, when there are dozens of other arguably relevant articles we could also highlight in order to make political points? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:08, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Because Israeli terrorism is a subset of Zionist terrorism. The immediate question any normal reader will ask is: why is this article about "militant actions, which detractors have categorized as "terrorist acts" by Zionist paramilitary groups within the British Mandate of Palestine and during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War", when Zionist terrorism continues considerably beyond that point? An alternative approach would be to reword the intro and have a subsection devoted to Israeli terrorism, but to write as if the title didn't include both is mystifying and inappropriate. - Mustafaa 01:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That Israeli terrorism (completely undefined) is a subset of Zionist terrorism, is your opinion. I disagree that any normal reader will ask that question. I'd say any normal reader would accept that the article is about what it says it's about in the intro. You could change the title to "Zionist terrorism 1937-1948", though I also feel the use of the word terrorism is serving only to make a political point. It would make more sense to find a completely neutral title to describe that period and the particular acts you want to focus on - but at least adding the dates would deal with the objection that the article assumes a false cut-off point. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:20, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
The cut-off point was also inappropriate; non-state Zionist terrorism continues after the establishment of Israel, as the article now notes. Your complaint that "Israeli terrorism" is undefined argues, perhaps, for renaming that article Israeli state terrorism, in accordance with its actual topic; but it still remains a subset of Zionist terrorism, since Israel is the Zionist state. Your point about finding a "completely neutral title" is interesting; I don't suppose you plan to apply it to any of Palestinian terrorism, Islamist terrorism, Terrorism against Israel in 2000 (et al...) - Mustafaa 01:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"That Israeli terrorism (completely undefined) is a subset of Zionist terrorism, is your opinion" - are you serious? Or is Israel no longer a Zionist state? - Mustafaa 01:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm the wrong one to accuse of being inconsistent when it comes to the use of the word "terrorism," as I almost never use it, and argue against it a lot. The intro now reads: "This article deals principally with the actions, described by detractors as terrorist acts, of Zionist paramilitary groups within the British Mandate of Palestine and during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War," which is better English and more concise. I deleted: "Governmental actions by Zionists are dealt with separately, under the rubric of Israeli terrorism," because it's POV, Mustaafa. Not everyone shares your view on this. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:34, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
I find this mind-boggling; it's simply not arguable that Israeli terrorism is not Zionist terrorism. But since you insist, I propose an alternate wording, which does not give the misleading impression that Zionist terrorism stopped in 1948, nor leave the reader wondering why Israeli state terrorism isn't listed. - Mustafaa 01:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You find it mind-boggling because you hold a strong POV on this issue, and that's what's causing the problem. You simply can't see that someone might legitimately disagree. I think you've violated 3RR by inserting a reference to Israel back into the intro more than three times. If you agree, perhaps you could take the opportunity to revert yourself. You could also consider making your point somewhere else in the text; it's in part that you want it upfront in the intro that makes this very in-your-face and POV. I haven't read the Israeli terrorism article yet, but I'm pretty sure it's going to contain examples that many people will argue either (a) are not acts of terrorism, or at least (b) are not acts of Zionist terrorism. In insisting that the Israeli terrorism article be mentioned in this intro as a subset, you're going to have to constantly monitor the Israeli terrorism article to make sure that everything it mentions is arguably a subset. The whole enterprise is a POV magnet, in my view. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:45, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
I certainly do not agree - not only was my edit very far from being a revert, but you will note that my new wording does not in fact mention the Israeli terrorism article, let alone link to it, making this a non sequitur. Can you give an example of something that could be classed as Israeli state terrorism but not as Zionist terrorism? I do, however, agree that "the whole enterprise is a POV magnet". - Mustafaa 01:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
PS: furthermore, I've only made 3 edits since SlimVirgin's edit, making this suggestion even odder... - Mustafaa 01:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My apologies if I have the 3RR thing wrong, as I've only glanced at the history and haven't studied the diffs, but it does seem that you've reverted many times in the last 24 hours, not just since I started editing. You're right that your new edit doesn't explicitly mention Israeli terrorism - thank you - but it does refer to it. Anyway, I don't want to be in 3RR violation myself, so I'm not going to change it, and I also don't like editing by revert. An act that might be classified by some as an act of Israeli state terrorism would be the assassination of a Hamas leader believed to have organized suicide attacks. You would perhaps calls this an act of Zionist terrorism; I would call it an attempt by a government to stop civilians being blown up by suicide bombers. The different vocabulary indicates the difference in POV, which is why I argued that it's POV to state that Israeli state terrorism (undefined) is unarguably a subset of Zionist terrorism. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:13, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
It is a subset of imperialism! El_C 03:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see that there has been an acceptable compromise, so some of the following may be superfluous: I think, as often is the case, the problem is with the definition of terrorism. One should understand that by what Mustafaa seems to (reasonably and nonPOVly) use as the definition, it really is a matter of logic and not in the least POV that Israeli (state) terrorism is a subset of Zionist terrorism, even if one held that both are the null set - so SlimVirgin's objections then sound as strange as an argument that say, "Shi-ite terrorism" should not be considered a subset of "Islamic terrorism".

The current compromise does include post state events, not necessarily geographically restricted to Israel, and which might include JDL/JDO actions, the assassination of Alex Odeh, the (attempted) assassinations of the West Bank mayors, etc. Another thing which is striking and afaik unique (maybe another example is anti-Czarist Russian terrorism though) and perhaps should be in the article is that not only the detractors used the word "terrorist" but supporters and members themselves at the time (as well as former members years later), (albeit maybe somewhat or sometimes ironically). E.g. Doris Katz's autobiographical The Lady was a Terrorist, or Ben Hecht's "Letter to the Terrorists of Palestine."--John Z 04:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More Baruch Goldstein

I don't understand why he is in this page. The article is about alleged Zionist terrorism, not outlawed political organizations which the Israeli goverment deemed terrorist. Baruch Goldstein acted alone, so he does not fall into the category of a paramilitary Zionist organization. Kach, a political party had little to nothing to do with his act, and the fact that they were deemed illegal has little to do with this article. Unless you have a concrete connection between a Zionist paramilitary organization and a violent/destructive act, all the information you have added on Baruch Goldstein is wholly irrelevent to this page.

Guy Montag 10:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's what I said yesterday (and in turn, Grace note changed the intro so it could be included – in a rather ungraceful manner, if I may add), but having found that Israel moved to title them as terrorist organizations because of the Goldstein incident, I find they are both noteworthy for this topic even with the intro having been changed back by you (which I have no problems with and actually am in favour of). El_C 10:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Certain members of Kach showed support after the fact, but they did not provide any logistics of weapons for him to carry out the act. This has been proven. Plus, they believe that those Muslim worshippers were planning another Hebron massacre against Jews. Conjecture on our part would be disingenuous.

Guy Montag 22:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


  • Oh, well if he had what he thought was a good reason -- what are we getting so worked up about?
  • You're probably right. The phrase "terrorism" should exclude those people who attack civilians for what they, the attackers, believe to be really, really good excuses for doing so. BrandonYusufToropov 12:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Furthermore, Kach is, or by some arguments formerly was, a militant racist organization which prompted a change of the Israeli constitution in 1985 to disallow such groups; though that alone does not grant an entry in this article; it certainly gives creedance to the claim that they supported Goldstein --LouieS 14:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Kach was a political party organized to get Meir Kahane elected. Israeli politicians were searching for any reason to get the party banned because Kach was projected to win 5 more seats at the next election cycle. Although Kach did not support Goldstein's actions, overzealous Kach members gave the Knesset an excuse to ban the party despite it's actions. That's why I think it is irrelevent to mention them.

Guy Montag 22:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


As I keep saying: it was as a result of the Goldstein incident that Israel branded Kach a terrorist group. Guy Montag's statement above that [t]he article is about alleged Zionist terrorism, not outlawed political organizations which the Israeli goverment deemed terrorist, is one which I find most preplexing viz. the article's topic. El_C 14:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It sounds as if he is saying that such allegations which are directed by the government of Israel and that of the United States towards Kach are, somehow, not worthy of inclusion. The question, then, is whose allegations are noteworthy? El_C 14:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've added the Canadian government as well. When it comes to the designation "terrorist", these would be better than most in terms of citation. Jayjg (talk) 22:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not that I do not value designations by the US government (even though in this case I feel the designation was motivated more by politics rather than any concrete terrorist actions on Kach's part, but I guess that's irrelevent), it's the fact that an organization was made illegal is irrelevent to an article about militant acts. I personally do not know if Baruch Goldstein can be added there. First, the group he belonged to at the time was wholly legal and it was a loosely affiliated political party, not a paramilitary organization. Secondly, the fact that some members of Kach supported his actions doesn't dstroy the fact that Baruch acted alone, and Kach was made illegal despite it's actions.

Guy Montag 22:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again, I'm afraid that is too rigidly legalistic of an approach, which I find flawed, due to these official designations as terrorist and the direct impetus for these (being the Goldstein incident), I think that's important. If you can demonstrate that Israel, the United States, and Canada new definitions were politically motivated, that would be a useful addition to the account we have here. El_C 23:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am studying law, so forgive me for my legalism :). Well, I can't prove political motivation, I can only extrapolate from examples of groups and demostrate what I mean. The State Department lists Kach as a group which "followed the groups’ statements in support of Dr. Baruch Goldstein’s attack in February 1994 on the al-Ibrahimi Mosque— Goldstein was affiliated with Kach—and their verbal attacks on the Israeli Government."[12] I do not feel that verbal attacks against the Israeli government qualifies as justification for banning a political organization, especially if they did not carry out any violent acts. It would be a double standard. Hell, if these reasons were used for other organizations in Israel, there would be no political life there. But it wasn't. Obviously, the Israeli government felt in the wake of public response, that it could take actions to ban it. For these reasons I think it was politically motivated. And Speaking of State Department classification, it followed Israeli classification.

Guy Montag 01:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've added the Canadian government as well. When it comes to the designation "terrorist", these would be better than most in terms of citation. Jayjg (talk) 22:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Jay (for the instructive additions, too). I was all out of reverts. :) El_C 22:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Glad to help; anything to improve the encyclopedia and enforce its policies. :-) Jayjg (talk) 23:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Guy, it had been banned as a political party 6 years before; whatever it was, it was certainly no longer a political party. Jayjg (talk) 23:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My mistake, I meant a loosely affiliated political organization. As the discussion stands now, I agree that the version that stands about Kach is more or less NPOV. I do not yet know if it belongs there, but lets continue. I am leaning toward keeping it, but it still warrents discussion.

Guy Montag 01:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Same old, same old

I'm not spending hours of my life fighting inveterate POV pushers. What a waste of time! It's risible that you pretend to "discuss" the article.

This is outrageous: "This article deals with actions, which detractors have categorized as terrorist acts by Zionist paramilitary groups within the British Mandate of Palestine, before and after Israel's establishment."

The well is poisoned from the get-go by suggesting that only "detractors" consider Zionists to have committed "terrorist" acts. I can't even begin to understand the mentality of people who think some of the things we are talking about are not terrorism -- even if committed by their own side. Then the article's scope is circumscribed by saying it will only cover "Zionist paramilitary groups"! That neatly excludes a/ the state of Israel and b/ any lone wolves who we may or may not want to write about. And what is the bollocks about the British Mandate of Palestine? We're just not interested in Zionist terror elsewhere? Grace Note 23:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, same old: it being about you not going to do this, and you not going to do that. Why don't you add information to this article then, or change the lead? You are familliar with the topic enough to do so? All you have added to this article and topic thus far has been hostility. You come into this article with an a priori anger, and we're supposed to say: yes, your grace? Ahuh. El_C 23:28, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, was there any defence of that paragraph among that spittle-flecked nonsense? Or were you just indulging yourself in a personal attack to show solidarity with your chums? I do feel hostile against this sort of trash, El C. Anyone with the least regard for NPOV ought to. Not to mention anyone with a regard for decent writing, who will be appalled by the atrocious grammar it indulges in. Grace Note 01:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Apology accepted! I'm sure everyone here agrees that my writing cannot even be remotely compared to yours, but I do aspire to reach those heights, your grace. And I look forward to your edits to the article and further insights.El_C 01:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Guy Montag agrees that you're the greatest writer living! Well done. Grace Note 04:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you shouldn't have come out of your much vaunted retirement. It would save you time dealing with editors (everyone is a pov pusher) by cooperating and assuming good faith. Now unless you have something to add, get a blog and rant there, or add something of value.

Guy Montag 01:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As if I am POV pushing over the Israeli-Palestinian articles, GN has shown zero evidence that I have, only anectodal innuendo. I dare say that I have a reputation for objectivity on such issues, and am even considered authoritative (which I'm not: Jay and Zero are probably more familliar with the scholarship than myself). And at any rate, I have contributed ten times, a hundred times more in this encyclopedia to 20th Ct. African history than I have 20th Ct. ME history. I take exception to all of Grace Note's insinuations and accusations against myself. El_C 03:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pride and lack thereof

The article speaks for itself. Your pride in it speaks for itself too. Your idea of "objective" might well encompass defining "Zionist terrorism" so that it excludes one of its most visible perpetrators, but I do not. And I'm well aware of the kind of "scholarship" that considers Baruch Goldstein not to be a terrorist. Grace Note 04:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Pride in it? In your obviously highly confused mind, maybe. For the last time, I did not author this article, I have not edited or even looked at it until yesterday. Why do you keep affiliating myself with the contents of this article? I suspect this is a measure of your hasty and superficial research methods (or powers of observation, for that matter). This is the only appreciable edit/addition of mine to the article, you have yet to tell me what fault you found in it, nor cite any evidence whatsoever regarding my purported pride and otherwise nonesensical shortcomings which you (falsely & abusively) attribute to me. El_C 05:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As for the chums comment: I'm starting to think that GN just wants me to be hostile and unfriendly (because that is the stance he has addopted?) Who am I to collaborate collegially with Jay on, let say, Israel, or with Mustafaa on Tunisia? I must fight, fight, fight. More tension, less compromise, choosing sides just for the sakes of it, being needlessly combative, et cetera, etc. And, of course, any edits I make means that I am responsible for —and take pride in— that given article. El_C 05:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Revert and you revert everything. I'm not suggesting you fight with anyone, least of all me. I do suggest you lay off the strong liquor before editing though. Grace Note 13:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You mean in this diff that I explained was definitionally problematic in being listed that way before but that you haven't read because you reverted it from your contributions? The one I had to solve thusly (after a 2 minute search) because you were unable to take the hint (about as subtle as a sledhammer) and assume this monemunetal undertaking upon yourself? Albeit for me to presume that you undertake any of the research yourself there. Now it is the legnthiest paragraph in the article, is undisputed by either side. Thanks for all the help. El_C 07:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Critics" vs "Detractors"

The term "Critics" doesn't cut it - it is inaccurate, conferring a sense of legitimacy as well as an implied amount of neutrality to those who use the term "Zionist terrorism" to describe various events or people. The term "detractors" does not imply these and is therefore more accurate, particularly as relates to modern-day events that the POV pushers keep trying illegitimately to add to this article.Enviroknot 05:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suppose, then, that John L. Peeke's (of the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School), Jewish-Zionist terrorism and the establishment of Israel, is a detractor. El_C 06:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) *** Phew, I almost reverted back to critics; I'm sure there is/are some editor/s above who would have loved to see me undergo a graceful block over a 3RR violation for the 1st time ever, so as to even some inexplicable score. El_C 06:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Enviroknot if your opinions are going to take precidince over how much you value a clean factual and nutral article; you have no place in editing Wiki. Just because you feel that the world critics gives creedance to those who oppose militant zionism, doesn't make you right, it makes you and editorial writer. If you want to do that get a degree in journalism and get a job. --LouieS 08:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Enviroknot obviously values a clean, factual, and neutral article far more than you do. The fact remains that "zionist terrorism" is just Islamist code for "evil Jews" today - a vain attempt by Islamists and Islamic Apologists to deflect attention from the human rights abuses, racism, hatred, and terrorist mentality that is inherent in anyone who follows "true" Islam. The term has nothing to do with Irgun or Lehi, who can easily be covered in their own articles, and is only used as an excuse by Islamist nations like Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia or as a rhetorical point by racist Muslims like Edward Said. They are not "critics", and even the term "detractors" is inaccurate but at least it's not a whitewash like "critics" is. — Unsigned comment by 81.91.192.220, please sign your comments. El_C 01:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Everyone understands and is more than familiar with the word critic. Detractors is confusing and pointless. IMO --Silversmith Hewwo 09:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Critics, or the simple, "could be" - I think "could be" a reasonable way of saying it, without attaching a POV to whether they were terrorist attacks or not. --FCYTravis 09:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've created a new version of the intro, copied from Palestinian terrorism. Guy Montag, I don't quite know how you can say the acts committed by Irgun and Lehi are "alleged" - they're historical facts. --FCYTravis 10:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am saying that critics call it terrorism, what those actions were in actuality are more complex. Labelling those acts terrorism is a pov, so their pov is given. The more confusing you make it sound without stating outright that it is those who didnt like those acts who call it terrorism, the more pov you will be making this article.

Guy Montag 23:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's important to reiterate the article title in the first line of the article, as per Wikipedia style. "Detractors" is a loaded term - "critics" carries far less negative connotation. Conversely, it's important to make clear that this is a disputed topic. Hence, the "the use of this term is disputed" line. --FCYTravis 10:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I am also going to note that the previous consensus-built intro paragraph to this page said "critics" - therefore it is incumbent on those who wish to change it to create a consensus to change it again. --FCYTravis 10:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for a little sanity here Travis. Look, those of you who claim the term critic is a white wash, I challenge you to prove that there are no critics of Zionist terrorism, but ratehr only Islamic Jew-haters. When you can do that your EDITORIAL OPINION will have validity. And its not only that, but the type of language that "critic" represents falls exactly in line with other articles regarding Israel Palestine and Zionism. Look people, there is a reason you don't edit articles that you have a vested intrest in; and the reason is being clearly demonstrated right now. I don't edit articles abou socialism or atheism, because I belong to both groups, and I cannot write about them without putting my own POV into even though that is not my intention. --LouieS 16:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, as I'm not Jewish, or from anywhere in the Middle East, or someone who has any biased views on the matter, or someone who usually edits such articles, I guess that means I'm more than welcome to edit here. And it is perfectly possible to criticize Israel etc. without being a "Jew-hater". Just stick to the facts, give arguments from all sides, and don't censor something because you don't like it personally. --Silversmith Hewwo 19:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One almost feels like asking "detractors of what"? The POV pushers who insist on it know, of course, what they mean. It's code for "anyone who doesn't blindly support Israel's actions in every sphere" ("Israel etc." as Silversmith so delightfully puts it). But it's actually nonsense. So is "critics", unfortunately. Critics of what? "Zionist terrorism"? One would hope that everyone would be a critic of that. This is the problem with attempts to bias pages -- you end up with writing that is aimed at other WP editors and not at potential readers. We all know why you've put in that stuff about critics/detractors, but it doesn't actually make any sense to anyone coming to it fresh. Grace Note 13:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grace I really like your last revision and will support it. I would support the page remaning with the wording it has now. --LouieS 13:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I second this - I like how it is now and would back the wording staying as it is. 62.253.64.14 19:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Controversy section

I've taken the liberty of adding a Controversy section so that we can get down to brass tacks - who's debating the issue - in more precise terms than "critics" or "detractors" or whatnot. I'm not particularly versed on the arguments for or against calling it Zionist terrorism - so I've put in what seems to make sense. Please feel free to edit that area mercilessly. --FCYTravis 10:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Detractors is obviously a loaded term. If you cared about POV we wouldn't even be having this debate. Detractors implys those who call certain acts by Israel as "terrorist" are both uninformed and racist, neith of which need be true. --LouieS 13:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dialogue and lack thereof

All and sundry should be aware of this evidence that Enviroknot has been operating as sockpuppet of, among others, the foul-tempered, disruptive KaintheScion, and that arbitration has begun against same. BrandonYusufToropov 17:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

However, the use of this terminology is hotly disputed.

delete: "However, the use of this terminology is hotly disputed." - redundant - this terminology is ALWAYS disputed. One man's terrorist etc — Unsigned comments by 62.252.0.7. Please sign your comments. El_C 01:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

critics who call it terrorism

It isn't only the critics who call it terrorism. Lets stick with how we use it here and avoid judgemental language. Qualifying the use of the word like this signifies neither approval nor condemnation. — Unsigned comments by 62.252.0.7. Please sign your comments. El_C 01:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Guy Montag, I am losing patience. "Detractors" is clearly POV while "critics" is a neutral term. Of course "those who dislike the acts" are those who are calling it terrorism - just as those who support the acts of Hamas are those calling their terrorist acts "freedom fighting." The word "critics" was determined by a consensus to be a fair word three months ago and was not touched until you introduced your POV three days ago. You have not demonstrated consensus for your change and I will continue to revert it to the original wording. --FCYTravis 02:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What are you babbling about? There is no original wording. We split off the articles from Israeli terrorism. Zionist terrorism is a new article that needed an introduction and I provided the most stable one. The entire article is a pov riddled cesspool for the reason that it is now a new article. My attempt to npov it happened after it was split off, so please don't start pointing fingers. No one has demonstrated consensus for anything, so I have no idea why you believe your version is npov. When the article was split off there, El C agreed that my wording was the best, and the disagreement came over a basically synonymous term, if we should use "critic" or "detractor". Critic and detractor means the same thing. The disagreement is over which sounds more npov and specific. You instigated a flame war in an article on the edge. We were doing just fine discussing whether to change it from detractor to critic before you barged in. With you came Yuber and the usual petty editors hit and running the article. Now it is going to take at least a week to get things in order.

Guy Montag 04:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Guy, I am sorry to contradict you, but I think you must have misunderstood me. I never argued your wording was the best. I was attempting to avoid touching the lead altogether, and only changed it in relations to the contents bellow, to fit definitionally (thereby bringing charges against myself of great Zionist *and* Palestinian bias, which was rather entertaining). Now, critics is problematic, detractors is more problematic. With certain pre-statehood terrorist acts, it isn't just critics who argue this: it is the historiography. As I mentioned on this article's VfD (though no one except Zero seemed to care: ironically, he is the most qualified editor yet to vote, that I know of, at least), such authoritative sources as The Encyclopedia of Jewish History: Events and Eras of the Jewish People calls it that. As for Kach, while they have not committed any actual terrorist acts (they don't need to: what I call Israeli State terror —what you call counter-terror— does that already while, at the same time, inspiring counter-terror in Kach members, also), the American, Israeli, and Canadian govs. all title them this way. Should we call them official critics (when two of these critics are nuclear powers, and one of them, Canada, apperently being a sovereign state, or so I'm told over and over and over again, mercilessly and unremittingly) ? El_C 04:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-I- instigated a flame war? Hardly. I don't know who these "usual petty editors" are that you are referring to, but I should think you should check my edit log before accusing me of being a POV flame warrior. These are my first edits to anything resembling an article about the Arab-Israeli conflict. In fact, I ran across the issue while watching RC Patrol. I hardly think it will take a week to get things in order, and you give me no credit for my attempt to *defuse* the war. I introduced a Controversy section which should be properly used to include the debate over whether specific incidents are terrorism and the debate over the ramifications of the alleged terrorism, instead of filling Talk page after Talk page with debate. Put the ideas down in the article. Which critics say this is terrorism? Who says it's not? What makes this so hotly disputed? Why are you not adding your obvious knowledge of this issue into that section so that readers will understand the arguments on each side?--FCYTravis 05:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We were about to discuss things peacefully before the flame war. I am not accussing you of maliciously causing it, but by unilateral action, you inadvertantly have turned this into a flame war. Now we need to get back to discussion.

Guy Montag 23:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I mean, who in their right mind today is going to be confused about whether Canada is sovereign from the United Kingdom? Comeon. It.does.not.make.sense. But that is the sort of argument I was faced with, to give you an idea of my plight. El_C 05:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also agree with FCY, detractors is heavily POV. But we should expect that from Guy Montag...Yuber(talk) 04:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Go take a long walk of a short pier. Unless you have nsomething to contribute, dont waste people's time with your personal attacks.

Guy Montag 04:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No one is going to take short walks, and we are no longer going to discuss expectations. El_C 04:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Montag he has a point, by your own admission you are a violent Zionist. You should really consider you true motivations in editing this and other articles before continuing. --LouieS 09:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please read poisoning the well and personal attacks before contributing to talk.

Guy Montag 23:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grace, I think you found an acceptable introduction. I wont change it anymore.

Guy Montag 06:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If pointing out you biases is a case of ad hominem argument you are wrong. If I had said yo shot a palestinian man, you would be right, I did not say that; if i had said you where a racist, you would be right, but i did not say that; if i had said you thought Jews were a race superior to all otehrs, you would be right; but I did not say that. I simply pointed out you had vested intrests is seeing that one sides viewpoint was expressed in a favorable way. --LouieS 17:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You could have worded it that way without calling me a violent Zionist. If you had any previous history in editing with me you would have known that I am fair with all the material involved. It is my right to push my pov within wikipedia policy, just as it is your right to push yours. As long as we are both reasonable, and by editing with me you will find out that I am, we can come up with an ideal solution. Now let's get back to work.

Guy Montag 20:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Militancy vs Terrorism

I had this idea pop into my head yesterday. Terrorism is a subjective term, but we need certain criteria for wikipedia to get anywhere with these articles. Some could be simply guerrilla attacks or other forms of legitimate warfare, but others could legitimately catagorized as terrorist acts. I think that we should rename articles where the majority acts could be construed as military operations to "something militancy" and mention that some call it terrorism, and rename those where the majority of diliberate targets are civilians into "something terrorism". What does everyone think?

Guy Montag 23:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that you then have a big argument over whether the "deliberate targets" really were civilians or not. Furthermore, there are those who believe that demonstrative acts of violence (I won't give examples but we can talk about them if you like) are "terrorist" because even though they can be claimed to have a "military" or quasi military target, they are carried out in the knowledge that civilians will die. There are those, too, who argue that civilians are legitimate targets of war, because war is prosecuted against a state, and not its military. Those who believe that area bombing in the Second World War, for instance, was justified could not on principle oppose the bombing of civilians in Israel or their killing by the IDF.

The big problem is that definitions of terrorism tend to serve other ends of the definer. States like to define it as "nonstate violence"; Israelis like to define it so that it excludes what they see as acts in defence of Israel; those who support the Palestinians' aspirations tend to define it so that it includes a broader range of killing of civilians, sometimes because to some extent it serves their political agenda to equate the IDF with other combatants in the general area of Israel.

However, Guy, having said that, I think that one has to accept that there is a concept of Zionist terrorism, just as there is of "Islamist terrorism". People do talk about it and consequently we should report them talking about it. We do not need to take a stance for ourselves on that. (Your relentlessly pushing the notion that "critics" or "detractors" (of something or other that you don't note) call it terrorism takes exactly the kind of stance that we should avoid -- with that version we are saying in effect that there is no terrorism but some people -- who we are implying are wrong -- think there is. Saying that there is no terrorism, when the facts of the violence we are discussing are generally not in dispute, is taking a stance on the definition of terrorism, which we ought not to do.)

By seeking a/ to have the page title changed or banned (by VfD) and b/ to very narrowly define what it can refer to, you are trying to prevent coverage of the concept. Covering the concept does not, we should be clear, mean validating it, or should not. If we were careful enough to apply the NPOV policy, it would not. Grace Note 23:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A bit rambling, but overall, good points. El_C 08:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seeing as the Palestinian terrorism article has been changed to match; this seems like much better and more balanced terminology to me. good idea all around. --LouieS 04:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

JDL is Zionist terrorism?

Can someone please explain why the acts of the JDL are considered Zionist terrorism? As far as I know the JDL is not a Zionist organization. Jayjg (talk) 15:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They are Zionist in every definition of the word. JDL graffiti has been found on settler's homes in Hebron as well.Yuber(talk) 15:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, who defines them as "Zionist", and why would graffiti ascribed to them be relevant? Or is "Zionist" being used as a synonym for "Jewish" here? Jayjg (talk) 17:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The JDL is a Zionist organization in virtually every sense of the word "Zionist". See [13] for example.--Josiah 06:26, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Also, if you contact any of the JDL's leaders via email, I'm pretty sure they'll identify themselves as Zionistic.--Josiah 06:29, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Look at [14] - in particular "It realizes that in the end ... that the true solution to the Jewish problem is the liquidation of the Exile and the return of all Jews to Eretz Yisroel -- the land of Israel." or " ... Zev Jabotinsky, his followers and his movement of which we consider ourselves a spiritual part."--4.131.100.9 17:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Part of their very first principle, ahavat Yisro'el. That convinces me; it may not be primarily Zionist, but it's clearly Zionist. - Mustafaa 18:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Ahavat Yisroel" means love of Jews, not love of the State of Israel. It's a phrase that precedes political Zionism by a couple of thousand years. And the JDL doesn't actually mention Zionism as one of its principles. Jayjg (talk) 19:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See, for example, "Bais Ahavas Yisroel - House (that promotes) love of your fellow Jews".[15], "Ahavas Yisroel Love of fellow Jews"[16], etc. Jayjg (talk) 19:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, you've misunderstood my point. The quote "the true solution to the Jewish problem is the liquidation of the Exile and the return of all Jews to Eretz Yisroel -- the land of Israel" is from their first principle. I am well aware that the name they gave it has a far more ancient history. - Mustafaa 19:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All Orthodox Jewish groups belive that the "that the true solution to the Jewish problem is the liquidation of the Exile and the return of all Jews to Eretz Yisroel -- the land of Israel"; it's a fundamental Jewish belief, inherent in a belief in the Messiah, one of the 13 Principles of Faith. That doesn't make Satmar or Neturei Karta Zionist. Jayjg (talk) 19:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In any event, we can't label these groups what they don't label themselves. American Zionist groups are quite open and proud about their Zionism, and often include the word "Zionist" in their name. From what I can tell, the only groups that say the JDL is "Zionist" are anti-Semitic groups/websites that tend to use the word "Zionist" and "Jew" interchangeably. We shouldn't be doing our own original research on this. Jayjg (talk) 19:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That last generalization is not accurate: [17]. "we can't label these groups what they don't label themselves" is special pleading; how many Islamist groups label themselves Islamist? However, your point about the ambiguity of the quote above is well taken. - Mustafaa 19:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It actually is pretty accurate. Do was say "Hamas is a terrorist group?" No, we say "Hamas is listed as a terrorist group by the European Union, Canada, the United States, and Israel etc." precisely because these labels are hotly disputed. Calling Lehi a "Zionist terrorist" group is pretty straightforward; that's how they described themselves. Calling the Irgun a Zionist terrorist group also has at least some justification, in that they also labelled themselves as Zionist, and at least the British insisted they were terrorists. And if you want to label the JDL a terrorist group you're on pretty firm ground, because a number of reasonably credible sources have done the same thing. But if you want to label them as a "Zionist terrorist" group, you're in uncharted waters; either you rely on your own original research, or you rely on flaky and unciteable sources. Jayjg (talk) 20:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't think all Orthodox Jews would express themselves exactly that way. The JDL emphasizes "immediate action" in this respect, which is practically the definition of Zionism. How could it be (spiritually) part of Jabotinsky's movement - the Revisionist Zionists - and not Zionist? In addition, there's [18] featured on the main page of the site, and the bio of Kahane, [19] describes him "exhorting Jewish students ... to make aliyah to Israel." The current chairman's bio makes a point of saying he plans to make aliyah and the mission statement [20] has "Jews comprise a religious nation ... with a destiny to live in and create within the Land of Israel a society ..." All in all, I think it clear it is that these statements should be interpreted to express immediate, not far-off desires so it is "Zionist" as an organization or at least an organization all of whose members are (strongly) Zionist. Mustafaa's cite doesn't seem flaky or unciteable, either. Thanks for reverting the Begin bio to my version, too. I think he deserves a biography that's to the point.--John Z 23:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Many Jewish organizations (and synagogues) are filled with memebrs who are strongly Zionist, but that doesn't make them Zionist organizations either. Regarding Begin, I thought your edit was good, as most of the stuff you removed was just pro-Israel apologetics anyway, it didn't belong in the article. Jayjg (talk) 15:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If some terrorist group far far away announces that they are pro-Zionist, or some Jewish gangster in NYC announces that he is a Zionist, would them be added too - no matter what mainstream Zionists say? This seems doubly hypocritical in light of incessant attempts (including by some editors of this article) to present anti-Zionism as a popular movement among Jews. Humus sapiensTalk 03:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Jay and Humus, I appreciate your concerns, and I understand that there is a real problem with the wording and categorization. I don't really care too much about the exact wording, and Zionist militancy or terrorism and militancy or any other reasonable word in place of Zionism, would be fine as far as I am concerned. One problem is that there should then be symmetry with the words chosen here and for Islamic (ist) or Palestinian terrorism. It's a good thing there is the neologism "Islamist", so it does not put bad connotations on "Islamic" and avoids the problem Humus points out, but I don't see such a word choice here (Zionic? Judaist?). I just think that since people like Kahane saw themselves as heirs of Jabotinsky, like Begin, that it is not unreasonable to have an article that surveys all this sort of militancy anywhere - separating Kach, Kahane Chai and the JDL just seems unnatural. All these movements have some "family resemblance", even if fitting them squarely under one neutrally worded definition or category might be hard.
Again, regarding the JDL, well, though I haven't seen them around in a while, I happen to be friends with some close relatives of Kahane, and of course conversation turns naturally sometimes to their (in)famous relative. I just felt that they would give me pretty strange looks if I questioned whether he was a (ultra)Zionist (and by extension his organizations, which were pretty personal vehicles afaik.)--John Z 18:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
M. Begin denounced terrorism in 1948, and I do not consider continually dragging his name into the post-1948 discussion as good faith. I also strongly object to the notion that "there should then be symmetry". See Umm Nidal for one reason (an article we don't have - not surprising as "blame the Zionists" articles proliferate here). Humus sapiensTalk 23:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how I am, if you mean me, dragging the mans name in - btw I recently edited a couple of articles for accuracy etc so that I put him in a better light IMO. I think that for all his faults, he was someone with a capacity for change, and a kind of brutal honesty and rationality that was absent in many of his successors and predecessors. I mean nothing more by "symmetry" than Wikipedia policy - one should not call the same category of acts militancy in one case and terrorism in another, it should be both X and Y terrorism or X and Y militancy, anything else not being neutral.--John Z 23:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
John, no I didn't mean specifically you. BTW, I agree with you on both points here but still insist that bringing JDL into this article effectively means misrepresenting Zionism mainstream. Humus sapiensTalk 01:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If not Zionist terror, what kind of terrorism should we call what the JDL has attempted to do. --LouieS 01:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Were they attempting to promote a Zionist cause? Jayjg (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
As I see it in California they were attempting to kill people they viewed to be a threat to Israel; I would clal that Zionism yes. --LouieS 01:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
And how do you know they saw them as a threat to Israel, vs. a threat to Jews? Don't forget, this is the Jewish Defense League, a group that has self-appointed itself the "defender" of Jews outside Israel, not Israel itself. Jayjg (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Because there is a ringing endorsement of Zionsim and its defence on their webpage http://www.jdl.org.il/zionist_declaration_of_intent.htm . I'm not makign a value statement on Zionism here, saying weather it is bad or good; im just tried of people ignoring factual evidince because they disagree with it rather than for a relavent reason. --LouieS 02:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they support Zionism. Almost all Jewish organizations do, from charities to synagogues to baseball leagues. However, that doesn't mean all their actions are in support of Zionism. I too tire of people ignoring factual evidence, specifically about the JDL's actual philosophy and activities. Again, what makes you think the JDL actions were in support of Zionism and Israel, as opposed to simply carrying out their self-appointed mandate, "defending" Jews in the diaspora? Jayjg (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
So please give me a reasonable justification for why a ringing endorsement of Zionism does not make them an organization in support of Zionism, im confused. --LouieS 02:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, they support Zionism, but they are not a Zionist organization. Zionist organizations focus their efforts of support of Israel, and encouraging Jews to emigrate to Israel. The JDL is a militant organization focussed on "defense" of Jews outside Israel; their raison d'etre is not Zionism. Thus, for example, their plot to attack a mosque was anti-Muslim, but not Zionist. Zionist and anti-Muslim are not the same thing, not even close. Jayjg (talk) 03:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

So your saying you just disagree with the facts. In that case i'm sure you won't mind if militant zionist organizations like the JDL are included in this article will you. --LouieS 05:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

LouieS, JDL is not a Zionist organization. By claiming to support Zionism, they tried to appeal to Jewish masses. Humus sapiensTalk 07:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
LouieS, please do not invent strawman arguments for me. What "facts" do I disagree with? Reading your responses, it appears to me that you haven't even read what I've written. Jayjg (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"Zionist terrorism" vs. "Jewish Underground"

Zionist terrorism is in the end a pejorative. The correct term is the Jewish Underground.

Guy Montag 04:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... does that mean, by extension, that "Islamist terrorism" is, in the end, a pejorative -- and because emotion-laden pejoratives are (as you seem to be arguing) by definition POV, we should find another term for that phenomenon, as well? Please advise. BrandonYusufToropov 02:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No it does not. It means that Jewish underground is the historic term. If you want to defend Palestinian terrorism against women and children, do it in another article.

Guy Montag 04:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Now I'm really confused. Under this reasoning...
  • We shouldn't use "Zionist terrorism" because it's a pejorative, and the correct term is the Jewish Underground.
  • When asked whether the word "pejorative" applies to the phrase "Islamist terrorism," though, your answer is "No, because Jewish underground is "the historic term."
  • But Islamist movements predate the founding of Israel, and so non-pejorative names for them would seem to be just as "historic." I'm still not sure why my claiming that the term "Islamist terrorist" should be replaced by another (non-pejorative) phrase is different from your claiming that the term "Zionist terrorist" should be replaced by another (non-pejorative) phrase.

Guy, the "Jewish Underground" is a far broader topic than Zionist terrorism, and, unlike Zionist terrorism, stops in 1947. If you want to write an article on them, then by all means do so, but be aware that it is not an alternate title for this one. - Mustafaa 19:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you want to defend Palestinian terrorism against women and children, do it in another article. That comment was out of line, Guy. I insist that you keep it civil; I don't wish to see this talk page deteriorate again. El_C 21:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Attacks on military targets

It's silly to say that these do not count unless you are going to discount: - the blowing up of the US marine baracks in the lebanon. - IRA attacks on the British army in N Ireland. - the attack on the pentagon on 9/11 - attacks by the PLO etc on IDF bases by child suicide bombers in Gaza all military targets - all clearly terrorism. Or is anyone really proposing otherwise? 62.253.64.15 20:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The least controversial defintion of terrorism involves attacks on civilians. Many would argue that attacks on military don't count. And each of those examples (Lebanon, IRA, 9/11, PLO) involve plenty of attacks on civilians. Jayjg (talk) 20:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
With respect - yes you are right they do but only IF you consider them as a whole campaign (which is what we are doing for zionist terrorism in the article). But separately they are clearly attacks on strictly military targets. That's really my point - you have to judge the actions by its context - and the attacks in British soldiers by the early zionists are clearly as much a part of a terrorist campaign as the pentagon attack on 9/11 was part of a larger event. The attack at Warren Point was clearly a terrorist attack - despite only British Soldiers being killed etc. 62.253.64.15 20:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
They may be part of a larger campaign, but that doesn't make each incident a terrorist attack. Even the plane that almost hit the Pentagon was filled with civilians. Why not just stick to the unambiguously terrorist incidents? Jayjg (talk) 21:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have just reverted back to the original text including these attacks (which had remained stable for some time now) PLEASE do not revert back without agreeing the change in the talk page first. 62.253.64.15 21:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't revert? I haven't edited this article in months, except once to add back Kach and Kahane Chai, with additional references, when they were deleted. Jayjg (talk) 22:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think a more appropriate term for the attacks on the USS Cole, US barracks in lebannon, IRA attacks of the brittish army would be gurrila or insurgent attacks. Their purpose was clearly not to harm civilians (which as Jayjg said, is the more agreeable definition as to what is and is not terrorism). It seems like the people who are the victims of such gurrila attacks are the first one to call it terrorism as a means of generating symapthy. Millitary actions from the hit and run tactics of the US revolution to the attack upon Peral Harbor have been characterized as cowardly acts and more or less as terrorism; yet clearly we do not view tham as such from a contemporary standpoint. --LouieS 22:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that the ordinary dictionary definition of words is the one we should use for preference:
ter·ror·ism P Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
"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." - from www.dictionary.com
What defines "civillian"? Is the killing of IDF reservists (ie 90%+ - well a big lot of them anyhow - of the isreali male population) "Civillians"?
Frankly I think that to discount the attacks on the US marine barracks and Warren Point as not being terrorism is stretching common usage past the point or credability in order to exclude specific examples. 62.253.64.15 22:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jayg - "dont revert" was not aimed at you spoecifically. It was a reference to LouieS rolling back what he thought were modifications when in fact I was rolling back to the original state. "(cur) (last) 21:25, 16 Jun 2005 LouieS (reverted unagreed to changes)" I just put a general notice on this section of the talk page. 62.253.64.15 07:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And Humus Sapiens writes ...

Terrorism was repeatedly denounced by mainstream Zionists, a fact that article fails to mention.

Welcome to my world, dude. :) BrandonYusufToropov 12:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yet early terrorists were elects to the Israeli parliament - we shoudl mention that too! 62.253.64.14 23:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Folks, please stop removing the phrase Terrorism was repeatedly condemned and denounced by mainstream Zionists. - Unless someone can provide an evidence that Jews (or anyone else for that matter) have some kind of ironclad insurance against violence in their ranks. Here, from the man who himself eradicated it in 1948 Altalena Affair: "The increasing terrorist activities of the dissident organizations, Etzel and Lehi, and the beginning of a revolt by the entire Hagana, led to searches for arms in settlements and cities." (by the British) (Source: David Ben-Gurion Israel. A Personal History p.56 of a 860-page book, 1971). Jews are not angels, so let's stop denying common-knowledge facts that took place 60 years ago and move on. Humus sapiensTalk 06:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Humus. you are POVing the article with unfounded conjecture. The Altalena affair has nothing to do with terrorism. It has to do with Ben Gurion firing on fellow Jewish fighters in the War of Israeli Independence. I would suggest you remove this line. It does not belong in the article, and connecting the Altalena affair with stopping terrorism is not only incredibly offensive to me and those who fought in the war, but also highly innacurate.

Guy Montag 18:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

VFD debate

Due to a lack of consensus at VFD, this article has been kept. An archive of the debate is kept at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Zionist terrorism (WARNING! One of the longest VFD debates in Wikipedia's history!) Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By what possible logic can another VfD be appropriate...

... a single day after the last marathon VfD concluded? (See above.) BrandonYusufToropov 16:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Naming names

I tend to agree with Humus. If people are named, it should be in the main article, in "Pre-statehood Zionist militancy". Perhaps people who moved to the "left", like Nathan Yellin-Mor (or even Uri Avnery) could be mentioned too.--209.165.15.31 30 June 2005 16:40 (UTC)


Controversy

The whole point about "controversies" is they represent a conflict between two (or more) points of view. To deny that there is a countervailing arguement to "many people consider this to not be terrorism" seems to be a denial of the meaning of the word "controversy" to me. 62.253.64.15 1 July 2005 23:48 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean here. Jayjg (talk) 3 July 2005 02:40 (UTC)

Incidentally what does the abbreviation cp. mean? 62.253.64.15 1 July 2005 23:53 (UTC)

Copyedit. Jayjg (talk) 3 July 2005 02:40 (UTC)

Poisoning the well?

Please stop poisoning the well you cant use the word "only" to make 50% of the organisations listed sound like they are marginalised. 62.253.64.15 4 July 2005 22:05 (UTC)

There are four groups listed for Zionist terrorism in the article, and plenty more elsewhere. The article should not be needlessly self-referential, nor so specific as to require constant updating. Also, you don't appear to be using "poisoning the well" correctly. Jayjg (talk) 4 July 2005 22:08 (UTC)
You don't appear to use the phrase "original research" properly either. It's generally impossible to prove a negative like that, but easy to prove me wrong; find me another instance of a group described as "Zionist terrorist" which actually self-described itself as "terrorist". It should be easy enough, there are at least eight groups I can think of that have been described that way. Jayjg (talk) 4 July 2005 22:17 (UTC)
Well - No. It's down to you to prove your own point. Please read the article on logical fallacy and shifting the burden of proof. In any event you should be avoiding original research as per official wikipedia policy. 62.253.64.15 5 July 2005 19:16 (UTC)

Factual Dispute?

Is there really still an exsisting factual dispute? If tehre indeed is please give evidince to support yo claim, or the factualy accuracy tag will be removed shortly (nutrality will remain). --LouieS 00:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Given the on-going battle about whether the JDL actions count as Zionist terrorism, it would seem that a factual accuracy dispute still exists. Jayjg (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Thats a nutrality issue, JDL being a terrorist organization is a matter of opinio moreso than fact. --LouieS 01:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

JDL Zionism dispute

I propose a simple solution to ending this debate quickly and swiftly. I'll contact Bill Maniaci, head of the JDL in Nevada for an answer via email. Is this acceptable for everyone?--Josiah 00:30, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

And I'll ask Russian mafia folks if they wouldn't mind to affiliate their organization with Zionism (failing that, Sandinism or Greenpeace). Seriously, see the section about JDL above. Humus sapiensTalk 00:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea to me, Yoshiah. Ultimately - as with religions - self-identification has to be a primary determining factor. - Mustafaa 00:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


Terrorism

Why on earth do people keep removing the link to Terrorism? What possible justification can there be for not including it? 62.253.64.15 09:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Attempt to minimize casualties?

I removed the statement about the efforts of these terrorist organizations to minimize casualties and to only attack militatry targets. The statement simply does not make sense and is contradicted by subsequent information. All terrorist organizations want to receive attention by attacks on important targets or a great number of casualties, and to achieve this, many soft targets are attacked. The attack on the hotel and the murder of the UN mediator and members of the embassy are an example of this. TSO1D 02:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

No, some terrorist organizations use terrorism a means of seeking publicity, and not for the purpose of infliciting casualities. Klonimus 20:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I removed the four sentences following the the explanations that Irgun or Lehi contacted the British administrators to warn them about the bombing. Although the information is correct, one has to take into consideration the brevity of the article. Adding a paragraph to explain the inadequate British repsonce to the warning is not needed. The two senteces about the fact that the number of casualties was attempted to be lowered and the specific example should be preserved, but I would urge you not to add a lenghtier description.TSO1D 15:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not following your statement, "one has to take into consideration the brevity of the article", as adding this material expands the article. The NPOV explanation is indeed required, since other editors have removed related information claiming that it was "factually incorrect". Further, this should be epxanded even more and is highly relevant to the topic. However, until I have time to do so, I am going to compromise by moving the content to a footnote. I can't find any relevant policy that supports removing this content from the article. --Viriditas | Talk 23:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the article should be expanded, by elaborating on the leaders and activities of the terrorists. However, when the entire article is so brief, adding a paragraph half its size that relates to the response of the British to one particular event it excessive. After all, there is a King David Hotel Bombing Page that contains all of this information. TSO1D 13:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

King David bombing

The details of the King David bombing and associated controversies belong on the page devoted to that subject. What was posted here is not correct. The British used to deny that a warning had been given, but that hasn't been true for a couple of decades. During the 1970s the secret British police report on the bombing was leaked, finally proving beyond dispute that a warning had been given. The report described how the telephone message was received by the hotel operator, passed from hand to hand, then reached the officer in charge only shortly before the bomb exploded. So the existence of the warning can be stated as fact; what remains disputed is whether the warning was given early enough for any reasonable reaction to have been made. There is no evidence for the "summarily dismissed the warning" claim, that is just a story spread by the Irgun after the bombing. See Bethel, The Palestinian Triangle, for most of this. Btw, using Bibi as a source for anything is a joke. --Zero 05:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the cogent analysis. --Viriditas | Talk 06:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Sounds to me like the brits making excuses for why they were too incompetant to evacuate the hotel right away. The Irgun intended to warn the british, so that the casualties would be minimized. 91 dead is certainly higher than anything the Irgun intended. Klonimus 01:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Lehi

Someone asked for evidence that Lehi described themselves as terrorist. One example is in the essay that is quoted in the section "Quotation" on the Lehi page. That essay uses the word "terror" transliterated into Hebrew and attempts to justify its use. The title of the essay is just "Terror". Another example is Stern's letter to Germany, which describes the group's "Terroraktionen" and "terroristischen Taetigkeit". There are other examples but those should suffice. It suited Lehi's purpose to portray themselves as fanatical and ruthless. Which they were. --Zero 00:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Citation means not merely claiming a quote exists, but clearly explaining where, when and by whom it was made, so that it can be fact-checked for accuracy. The "Quotation" page you refer to does not fulfill the need for accuracy. Doing further research reveals that the supposed quotes were actually taken from a single essay written by Yithak Shamir, who, while he was a member of LEHI, was not its leader. For further explanation see: Reprint of selections from Shamir's essay
Likewise, neither does the claim of "Stern's letter to Germany" -- I find no reference to such a letter written by Avraham Stern, himself. There is a claim that "In 1940 and 1941, Lehi proposed intervening in the Second World War on the side of Nazi Germany to attain their help in expelling Britain from Mandate Palestine..." but there's no mention of the authorship. The image of the supposed letter posted in the article is actually just a coversheet, written by the German Naval attache-- not Stern-- and makes no reference to the contents. German Cover Letter
Further, a section of a book reprinted on a German Marxist web site claims that Irgun Zvai Leumi be-Yisrael- but did not mention Stern, himself-- made the overture to Germany: Fundamental Features of the Proposal of the National Military Organization in Palestine (Irgun Zvai Leumi)
As is the case in dealing with historical scholarship, it's critically important to get as close to the original sources, and not rely on the repetition of material that may be floating around. In this case, it seems that the matter of further study, rather than approaching this with such an absolutist perspective. --LeFlyman 04:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, you can go to a proper source of information such as the book of Heller cited on the Lehi page and find the answers to all your questions. Briefly: the essay was published in the Lehi newspaper and does not have an author stated (normal for that newspaper). I have a photocopy of the original; it is also quoted by Heller. Shamir is most unlikely to have been the author, but in any case this was the official mouthpiece of Lehi not a place for presenting multiple opinions. So it is a definite example of Lehi calling itself terrorist regardless of which individual write it. The approach to the Nazis was led by Stern when he was the undisputed leader. This is very well known and you can check this in Shamir's autobiography, in the book of Heller, in the account of Yellin-Mor published in Brenner's "51 Documents", and in lots of other places. You can find Brenner's sources for this claim here. Your confusion regarding the name "NMO" is due to the fact that Stern's organization at that time was called "Irgun Zvai Leumi be-Yisrael (National Military Organization in Israel)" -- it was Stern's way of saying "we are the true Irgun". --Zero 12:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • My fault for editing late at night, while half-asleep-- I realized my error and had intended to put the full name, but in skimming what I'd written, I missed putting in the full name "Irgun Zvai Leumi be-Yisrael". Thanks for the additional note. I had actually found the section in Lenni Brenner's book, The Iron Wall, after I posted the comment. That book appears to be the well-spring of various articles such as this one. I would suggest that Brenner imposes selective (and prejudicial) reading of the obvious hindsight analysis that the Stern Gang attempted to play on the various regime's anti-Semitism to convince them to relocate the Jewish population to Mandate Palestine. He quotes Shamir (via another source) as saying, "...Stern had good memories of his work in Poland before the war. He had got many Jews to Palestine by exploiting the anti-Semitism of Polish officials. He thought it might work in Italy. At least he felt he had to try." And likewise quotes a later statement by Shamir that, "There was a plan to turn to Italy for help and to make contact with Germany on the assumption that these could bring about a massive Jewish immigration..."
However, Brenner pointedly disbelieves that Shamir was opposed to this plan -- which Brenner twice calls a "lie" with rather shaky evidence-- and makes particularly non-historian-like statements like "Shamir today pretends he was not fully involved in the Stern Gang’s pro-Nazi orientation, but we are fully entitled to conclude that his contemporary attitude towards collusion with the Colonels likewise reflects his thinking then, concerning collaboration with the Nazis."
Such biased writing throws into question the veracity of Brenner's aim itself. As is clear from his further material in that chapter, Brenner isn't writing as a historian; he's laying out an indictment against Shamir (as then Israeli PM), Stern and modern Zionism-- which he contends is Revisionist Zionist, akin to fascism. In short, his work is an Anti-Zionist screed, with such closing statements as "We are, however, witnessing the initial stages of the terminal illness of Zionism..." and "One thing is, however, absolutely certain: the struggle against Zionism will go on, and inevitably it will succeed..." That's why Brenner's work appears on a German Marxist web site-- it's propaganda and selective history, just as Das Kapital. Written twenty years ago, the predictions in "The Iron Wall" have not yet come to pass. Brenner is a Marxist relic and fringe scholar -- not that there's anything wrong with that. But using it as a sole source is disingenuous and fails the NPOV. --LeFlyman 18:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Brenner is an activist and his work has to be treated carefully like with all activists. However, nothing I have written relies on Brenner as a source. --Zero 03:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


Now that the article's called militancy, shouldn't it include military organization and warfare against the armies of sovereign governments? Obviously violence against civilians was militant, but wasn't organizing an army and fighting the Egyptian army militant? Wasn't the 6 day war militant, and subsequent land grab militant? Wasn't developting a nuclear program?

Attack of Thursday August 4

A lot of information has been added but without source. The source that I originally added is woefully out of date. Further, the last revision claims that this AWOL soldier is a member of Katch, but the incident is not mentioned in the Katch article. Also, there have been numerous reports of this mans name, have any been confirmed? --Uncle Bungle 22:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

If you want to keep up with Israeli news, I recommend you adopt Haaretz as a regular source. It has a high record of accuracy by newspaper standards. See [21] for example, both your questions are answered. Incidentally, Haaretz articles disappear from the free part of the web site after a while (a week or a month) so they aren't suitable for putting into the article. --Zero 02:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, Zero. --Uncle Bungle 19:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Use Jerusalem Post instead, thier links stay good, Klonimus 06:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Motivation of Zionist Attacks

To those who keep changing the sentence about Irghun's terrorist activities by including the part about the attacks' being a reprisal against similar Arab attacks, please stop. Information about Arab attacks is already available on other pages (such as Palestinian terrorism), and if it will be also included here, at least let it be in another sentence, although I would not encourage this. Nevertheless, the way the modifications is being made removes the part about many of the Arab victims' being civilians, and instead complements the sentence with a justification for the attacks. No other article on terrorism has such an appologetic form included so predominantly in the article. I urge you to refrain from making such changes in the future. TSO1D 02:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism, not militancy

The article should not be moved to zionist militancy. When we the discussion over the proper term took place no consensus was reached to make such a great change. In any case, I believe that it is ridiculous to use the term militancy instead of terrorism. The page about palestinian terrorism is called terrorism. This page fits the description of terrorism perfectly. There is absolutely no reason to change the word to militancy. The destruction of a civilian hotel and murder of politicians is by all means terrorism. TSO1D 13:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)