Talk:Zionist political violence

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Zionist political violence article.
Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A Descriptive Header==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions. Please note this is not a forum for discussing the topic generally.	Talk page guidelines Please respect etiquette and assume good faith. Also be nice and remain civil.

---

"Mainstream historians"

Which mainstream historians today refer to "multiple acts of political violence by Zionists, during their campaign for a Jewish National Homeland in the British Mandate of Palestine" as "Zionist terrorism"? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I am quite sure none Christophe Greffe 21:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This is why I removed the sentance pending verification. Can we comment it out? Its a very powerful claim, and it is reasonable to suggest it is actually false.--Urthogie 21:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I found it in use in a couple of reviews and some articles by a quick search through http://www.jstor.org This included both a review of Richie Ovendales book The Origins... by John Ruedy and a book review by Ovendale himself. Although not proof of extensive use (and I haven't consulted any books on the matter), it at least show that some historians use it from time to time. In the cases I found it was used in the context of violence towards the British. Stable links to some articles/reviews using the term (requires access to JSTOR): [1] [2] [3] [4] Note that some of these articles are from the 80s, as I see you emphazise today, but it does show some mainstream authors long after the British left the area have used the term, which I guess is half the point: it is not only used by hate-groups, Arabs opposed to Israel etc. I'm guessing other examples are found if an extensive search is made.

It also seems like "Jewish Terrorism" is used more often (got twice the amount of hits through JSTOR, but don't know in which context). I.e. a review of "The Stern Gang; Ideology, Politics and Terror, 1940-1949"[5] titled "Jewish Terrorism".[6]. --Cybbe

question- what are the standards for getting on to JSTOR?--Urthogie 21:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Some affiliation with a participating institution [7] [8]. Your local university/library might have access. --Cybbe 21:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Analysis of links:

• 1st one[9]:Royal Institute of International Affairs aka Chatham House. Its not a mainstream historian-- its a think tank. Although its nonpartisan and fair, its a think tank, which cant count as a historian.
• 2nd one[10]: Also by the Chatham House think tank.
• 3rd one[11]:is by John Ruedy. Although he is a mainstream historian, what is listed here is a review of A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict and The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Wars; two books which talk about the conflict, dating back to the early history of the war, in which terrorism was the appropriate term(but is no longer anymore, according to mainstream historians).
• 4th one[12]:Talks about the 1947 UN resolution, and therefore uses the appropriate phrase--terrorism-- for what zionists were doing in the period. of course, this doesn't fit in with the article's first paragraph which suggests that the term has been used in recent years.

Please correct me if you think my analysis is biased. Otherwise, I suggest we comment out the lines pending verifiable evidence.--Urthogie 22:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the term has been used in recent years"? Im not sure whether I misunderstand you or not, but all instances of "Zionist terrorism" I found referred to actions during the period of the British mandate, i.e. pre 1948, which is what Jayjg asked for. That the term has been used in recent years is not the same as saying it has been used to desribe recent events. And Richie Ovendale et al are mainstream historians no matter where their reviews are published. --Cybbe 22:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the article needs to make clear that "zionist terrorism" is only used in reference to the violence against the british, and the content of your links seems to back this up.--Urthogie 07:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, but it already does. .--Cybbe 08:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll make a quick edit to increase clarity.--Urthogie 08:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Your re-write appears to have missed the point of the entire prior discussion that Zionist terrorism is used (to apparent exclusion) in modern day writing to deprecate Israel. Thus, I have returned that language. I would also agree that removing "some mainstream historians..." section was appropriate, as so far, no one has been able to come across any such historians. Note however, that "Jewish terrorism" does have some limited usage within the Israeli and Jewish community in dealing with its own extremist elements. See, for example:

• The Threat of Jewish Terrorism in Israel - The Institute for Counter-Terrorism (August 30, 1998)
• The Threat of Terrorism by Jewish Anti-Disengagement Extremist - ADL.org (August 18, 2005)

However, this is a fine-grained area, as vehement anti-Semitic and anti-Israel groups are also prone to use of this term. —Leflyman^Talk 09:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Good edits.--Urthogie 11:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

POV issues aside, I think the current language by Leflyman is unclear and awkward.--DieWeibeRose 04:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It would help if you could be specific; how so?--Urthogie 10:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

faz is disrupting to prove a point

Faz, you are intentionally trying to avoid 3rr by reverting at the right time. If you keep doing this, you will still be blocked for WP:POINT. Please stop reverting, and actually discuss. You've refused to continue the discussion after I replied.--Urthogie 08:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

What happened to Zada and Weisgan?

Why were these incidents removed? Israeli Terrorism still redirects here, and both of these acts were identified as terrorism. I mean, if former General and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is not qualified to describe an act as terrorism, then who is? --Uncle Bungle 20:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add the information in a neutral voice.--Urthogie 20:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• No; we've already developed explicit consensus that the material is inappropriate here. See the extensive discussions above as to why this article is about historical context, not present day events. If you wish to re-hash the same arguments about terrorism v. political violence and the usage of the phrases "Zionist terrorism" and "Israeli Terrorism" (which is not what this article is about, obviously) then fully expect that the results will be contentious. —Leflyman^Talk 08:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Both Zionist terrorism and Israeli terrorism redirect here. The fact is these events took place, and Prime Minister, General Ariel Sharon himself described Zadas' actions as terrorist. Oh well, down the old memory hole. --Uncle Bungle 18:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Leflyman removed ({fact}) label

Well, where in this discussion is this "fact" well covered? I think it is a biased opinion with one POV. Faz90 19:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Removing a fact label is a no-no, and it should be considered vandalism in most cases. Faz90: don't remove the sentance, I'll work on getting a source.--Urthogie 22:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• It most certainly is not vandalism to remove a disingenuous template notice. The usage of the term "Zionist terrorism" has already been discussed ad nauseam. Not every factual statement requires a citation-- otherwise there would be a footnote after every sentence in Wikipedia. The question of "who uses the term" has been posed multiple times before-- just scroll up this page to "First sentence" and "Present-day usage continued".

One look at the article list of political epithets shows that every one of them is uncited -- including the entry for "Zionist" which states: "Political epithet sometimes used to show contempt for Jewish nationalism (formerly nationalist aspirations). Also used by anti-Semites as a synonym or code-word for Jew."

Likewise, there is no need to "prove" that the term "Zionist terrorism" is an epithet, if it is used overwhelming as one-- as repeatedly demonstrated by the Google test (and any other search engine). I even checked the Library of Congress to find a use, and came up with exactly 9 books and one motion picture for the keywords Zionist terrorist or Zionist terrorism-- of which six were from Arabic authors denouncing Israel, one was from the Zionist Organization of America about US casualties of Palestinian terrorism, and one was titled "Hate industry" : anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist, and anti-Jewish publications in the Arab world and Iran. And I've just searched Google books and come up with no neutral usages of "Zionist terrorism" in reference to present-day events (one conspiracy wacko held that the Zionists were responsible for 9/11). In short, no one has been able to find any modern-day usage that is not intended to deprecate Israel or Jews. --Leflyman^Talk 01:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Lefly, instead of complaining, use that stuff as a source. By the way, I don't think Faz is {{fact}}'ing every statement of fact in the article-- he's just doing it to one.--Urthogie 11:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Urtho, I think you may have misunderstood: there's nothing to "cite". Identification of an epithet such as this is based on usage, not on a published source saying, "The term 'Zionist terrorism' is used as an epithet". However, I have come across numerous sources which point out that "Zionist" is a frequently used insult by anti-Israel and anti-Semitic groups. One such, just found, is this 2004 article from the East Bay Express (a Village Voice owned news tabloid), which says, "One protester hoisted a sign reading, "Israel: Born of British colonialism. Created through Zionist terrorism. Supported by Western imperialism. Sustained by Israeli militarism." Then later notes, "Amid this polarizing rhetoric, "Zionist" has become the most cutting of slurs."

Finally, it is not a complaint, but a response to your claim of "vandalism" in removing Faz90's POV-promotion; and it was a statement of frustration at his intentional and willful disregard for the extensive discussion and evidence already present on this page, prior to his showing up in late February. He has previously made the claim that pointing out such usage is "pro-Israel bias." Further, he has stated that, "And it is just Jews and Zionists. A non-Jew who is not pro-Israel(Zionist) would not find it offensive to use the term "Zionist terrorism" if there really are Israelis/Zionists that kill civilians." To which you rightly replied, "However, Jews and non-Jews alike consider the term to be an epithet in reference to modern day events." —Leflyman^Talk 15:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You can in fact cite a certain type of usage. Just supply several examples(with external links) in a note at the bottom of the page.--Urthogie 19:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't believe that Wikipedia should be in the habit of creating links to antisemitic material (and thus giving greater Google rank) just to demonstrate that such material exists. It's readily apparent to find; and it's unnecessary to supply examples of such usage to prove it is used thus. This isn't an article about the term "Zionist terrorism" and how it is used. --Leflyman^Talk 20:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion on anti-semitic websites' page ranks has nothing to do with this. I know this may surprise you, but there are people--unlike me or you-- who don't know that the term is anti-semitic, and would want sourcing. An encyclopedia is supposed to source such things. It has nothing to do with page rank or focusing the article on this. Sourcing one aspect of something does not make the whole article about that thing. I really don't see why you dont just source it-- it would make the statement of fact much stronger.--Urthogie 12:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Under "Partisan websites" inWikipedia:Reliable sources:

"...Widely acknowledged extremist political or religious websites — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources i.e. in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source."

As a compromise: since that is the only place in the article which even refers to "terrorism" and is at the heart of this dispute, I would not be opposed to removing the two sentences beginning with, "At the time, the British described such political violence..." That would likewise remove the claim of anti-Israel/Jewish usage altogether. --Leflyman^Talk 17:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

except as primary sources i.e. in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source.

This is exactly the type of use I'm suggesting-- to prove, sourced with them as primary sources, that hate groups use it this way.--Urthogie 14:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This article does not talk about current Israeli terrorism

Robin Hood 1212 13:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because Israel's actions are not Zionist terrorism? Psychomel@di_(s)cussion 22:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Because the term usually refers to pre-state terrorism. --Ian Pitchford 22:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask, where exactly is Israel's State Terrorism (alleged or otherwise) discussed on wikipedia? — JEREMY 07:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess you don't read the news! --Yas121 19:10, 27 July 2006 (GMT)

Warning: Revert Warriors

In reference to present day events outside that historical context, however, this term is used as a political epithet to deprecate Israel or Jews.

What we have here is an axiomatic statement that links the present use of "Jewish" or "Zionist terrorism" with an automatic deprecation of Jews or Israel. So according to the above, anyone who uses the term is an anti-semite. Here are two sources from Israeli newspapers that prove quite the contrary, unless they mean to "deprecate Israel":

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1130954357003 http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=619138

What I tried to do is remove the axiomatic statement with something more accurate and realistic:

In the present day, however, some supporters of Israel regard the term as a political epithet to deprecate Israel or Jews, citing the historical context of the events.

Unfortunately, I have had a bunch of revert warriors pounce on me, threatening me into submission. Anybody care to voice their opinion in a civilized manner? Ulritz 21:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing in the passage that you have such a problem with which states that anyone who uses the epithet is automatically an anti-semite, seems like you are the one using axiomatic arguments.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps there's some confusion in that the article still mentions "Zionist terrorism"-- which was its former title-- but it's not clear this particular term is the one used as an epithet. No one is denying that "Jewish terrorism" has been used by Israeli media and scholarship to describe attacks by Jewish extremists, but this does not have the same meaning as when "Zionist terrorism" is used by anti-Israeli activists/media. This has been covered above, but for those unfamiliar with the prior discussions, coming to the article to the first time, it might not be explicit. --Leflyman^Talk 02:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well then let's make the distinction. Ulritz 10:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Now that the distinction has been made, will you please cease edit warring? This issue has been discussed ad nauseum above, and the repeated re-insertion of "{{fact}}" is unhelpful, and may be construed as antagonistic.--Leflyman^Talk 23:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Amusing you find enforcement of Wikipedia:Verifiability policy "edit warring". Please provide sources which explicitly state that the term is "used" as opposed to "regarded" (by some) as an attempt to deprecate Jews. Shouldnt be that hard, so why accuse me of antagonism? Ulritz 11:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You have reverted for the fourth time 24 hours and 3 minutes after your first revert. This is 3RR gaming. Pecher ^Talk 11:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you asking for civil discourse from the people you just described as revert warriors? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Need some discussion of Haganah and Palmach

Surprised to find here no details about Haganah and Palmach operatiosn against the British, including the famous "Night of the Bridges." - Mikedelsol 09:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It is funny to see when Israelis commit terrorist acts it is called Political violance or self defence

The problem is that this is currently the redirect from israeli terrorism. As such it either needs to adress isrseli terrorism or that needs to be adressed elsewhere. It cant stand as wikipedias entry on israeli terrorism and simulatanuously claim as jayg does that thats outside the scope.

There is way more to Israeli terrorism than this...there is kidnapping, rape, assasination, car bombs, threats, state survillance, torture. It should all be mentioned and it is all state sponsored terrorism from the Israeli state. 69.196.164.190

If any evidence exists from reliable sources to support and corroborate this feel free to edit it in, making sure to maintain a neutral point of view Snellios 21:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• This article is not about "Israeli terrorism" -- it's about the use of political violence by Zionist organizations prior to the creation of Israel. If one wishes to assert some so-called "Israeli terrorism" it can be done at State sponsored terrorism, but not here. As to whether the terminology is appropriate, see Palestinian political violence. --Leflyman^Talk 22:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear All, if you are good enough to include Terrorism tag/list thingy in the Palestinian political violence article then be good enough to keep it here also. Thanks --Yas121 00:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Yas121, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not "tit for tat". What Zionists did in the 1930s and 40s may or may not have anything to do with what Palestinians did in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? are you implying "Terrorism" is simply reserved for the Palestinians?? I was simply commenting that both Zionist Political Violence and Palestinian involve "Terrorist" activities so BOTH should get this "Terrorism" tag or NONE Yas121 02:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Zionists and Palestinians are not identical, nor is everything they have done identical. Please edit this article appropriately for this article, not to make some sort of political point. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and George Galloway is a politician, and a particularly anti-Israeli one at that; he's not a historian. Please find reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, You may be trying to chamption the Zionists cause here in wikipedia and thus to you "Zionists and Palestinians are not identical" that is your POV (unless you can provide reliable sources) Well here's another...They are identical both want/ed a homeland, both think they own the land, both use/ed terror tactics to get it (have you actually read this article?). Both think their terrorists are/were "Freedom fighters"! Don't forget Irgun was a terrorist group and its leaders later became Prime minsters of israel and were hailed as "freedom fighters". still think not identical?

• As for sources here is another for you "Hope" it's reliable enough for you [13], doesn't take a genius to calculate that if out of 91 people killed there were 41 Arab, 17 Jewish, and 5 other and neither the Arabs nor the Jews formed part of the Army that it's fair to assume they were civilians!

PS. Stop edit warring you are in serious breach of WP:3RR Yas121 11:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Three reverts in two days is a "serious breach of WP:3RR"? I'm not sure whether that's the most amusing part of your comment or the fact that you tell other people to stop edit-warring even as you edit-war them, or the fact that you insist Zionists and Palestinians are identical. In any event, Wikipedia cannot be used as a source; I have no idea what militias the Arabs and Jews who were killed might have been in, nor do I care to speculate. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Since it was the Jewish "militias" who were responsible for the attck I dont' think they would "hang-around" the hotel while the bombs went off. Neither do I think many Arab militias spent much time socialising with the British Army at that hotel. Anyway point is it was a terrorist act, as were the others, whether you like it or not carried out by terrorist organizations hence the terrorism tag! oh and 2+2=4 Yas121 19:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yas121, you seem to misunderstand WP:NPOV and equate something that is not equal. Terrorism was limited only to a extremist fringe of Zionism and only for a short time and was widely rejected by the maintream. OTOH, terrorism was/is widely popular within the Palestinian society (proof per request). The Palestitians have never had their Altalena Affair. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I write this comment out of sheer desperation: want to change a terrorism title

I worry that I will simply attract more ideologues to a current debate we are having, but I am desperate. (Leftist ideologues are sometimes more damaging than right ideologues, because leftist ideologues alienate potential allies.)

I am attempting to change the current title:

Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America 

to

Political violence by the United States. 

I was inspired by this policy page, Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structures_which_can_imply_a_view which prominently mentions this page's history.

The current debate at Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America, which has gone on for a month, is found here:

Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/strawpolls#Current_title

How did you all do it? How did you "herd cats" and get a consensus to change:

Zionist terrorism 

to

Zionist political violence?  

No matter what I try, those on the left refuse to drop the word, I suspect because they figure it is pandering to the right, and I suspect those on the right want to keep the word, because they can then be more rigid about what stays in the article and what is deleted.

Any suggestion about how to herd these cats?

I noticed that the very first edit[14] to this talk page is:

Talk:Zionist terrorism moved to Talk:Zionist militancy: rv. to 'militancy', as per discussion and Vote for Deletion

Is there anyway to get the title changed without a Vote for Deletion first?

Travb (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

biased article

there's already an article about attacks in the 30's. either article shows both sides or it's not NPOV like the claimed palestinian political violence. Amoruso 10:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've reverted your insertion of the NPOV tag; it appears you are confusing this article with one discussing the current conflict between Israel and Palestinians. --Leflyman^Talk 15:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Zionist terrorists r shown as good guys whiile Arab "terrorists" r demonized. Is wikipedia zionpedia? Robin Hood 1212 22:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

attacks against british / arabs

there's a difference between the time of attacks against british and attacks made agaisnt Arabs for retaliations. I attempted to clarify this, or disputed/npov tags will have to be added. article is somewhat sloppy and doesn't describe background unfortunately. Amoruso 09:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read the relevant literature. Attacks on Arabs were often not "retaliatory". --Ian Pitchford 20:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually they always were. That was their purpose. To stop Arab attacks, to deter them. I suggest you read the relevant literature. Amoruso 22:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you get that from a bumper sticker? The Zionists went to Palestine to drive poor people from their lands. They managed to lie and confuse most people from realising it - but it's not working any longer.

So you're seriously proposing that was the sole purpose of immigrating - to act as a bully? Cultivating the land, eliminating malaria, providing employment for hundreds of thousands of Arab immigrants - all that was a pretext?--Leifern 19:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the zionist attacks were to "stop Arab attacks, to deter them"...I wonder where Hamas get their ideas and inspiration from? Yas121 14:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Terrorism

So what is the right article? Jewish Terrorism redirects here. --Uncle Bungle 21:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

please don't re-add this section which is POV, un-cited, and out of place. AFAIK such articles exist elsewhere - List of terrorist organisations#Jewish. Amoruso 23:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No POV there, just as cold a fact as possible. Sources in companion articles as linked. Thanks for the link, didn't know where else to put this factual and relevant information because of the redirect. --Uncle Bungle 23:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Leflyman the disambig was fully legitimate when Jewish Terrorism redirected here. Since Amoruso changed the re-direct, there is simply no reason for it. Thank you for reverting back to the last version by Amoruso. --Uncle Bungle 02:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

thank you my friend. You'd notice the redirect is now for an even better elaborate article with also a link to here. Amoruso 02:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

political epithet

I added the {{fact}} tag after the statement although the latter is used as a political epithet in reference to present day events outside that historical context.. Please remember WP:NOR and WP:RS. Also, it may be prudent to break up that statement, since it leaves the impression that the concept of Zionist Terrorism in an historical context is illegitimate. Thanks. --Uncle Bungle 04:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• I've removed your insertion. This has been well-covered previously. Please review the very long discussion at Talk:Zionist_political_violence/archive3 (as well as above). --Leflyman^Talk 05:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I re-added it. I didn't see any reliable sources in those talk pages. Further, it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. Please provide a source or leave the tag for someone who can. Thanks. --Uncle Bungle 22:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Leflyman. I read the talk page entries and it seems to me that while the point was discussed extensively, there was no consensus. As per WP:NOR If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. As per Wikipedia:Common knowledge Citing sources when your edit is challenged by another editor is Wikipedia policy. By your own admission, the point has been discussed extensively, which, it seems to me suggests that the point is still very contentious. The statement is not a mere summary, it is a statement of fact, in the opening paragraph, of an article in an Encyclopedia, and it deserves a reference. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 02:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• There most certainly is consensus. It has been discussed extensively because every so often a newly minted editor appears to once again dispute that "Zionist terrorism" is a political epithet-- when the only reason that can be seen for doing so is to push a particular POV. Do you contend that it is not a political epithet? As I've repeatedly pointed out, the only usage of the term is by anti-Zionist/anti-Semitic sources.--Leflyman^Talk 03:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, there is no need to be uncivil. The history of my edits (more than two years) is not relevant, and I am offended by the remark newly minted editor. Should you have any concerns with regard to my intentions, please discuss them on my talk page. I must apologize, I was not totally clear as to the scope of my challenge. It is a shortcoming of the template. The statement, as a whole although the latter is used as a political epithet in reference to present day events outside that historical context. needs to be cited. Perhaps a reliable source could qualify the present day events. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 04:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• "Newly minted editor" was not a reference to you. If you'd look back at the extensive discussion in the archive (under First sentence and Neutral language in introduction), as well as above you'll notice that the disputes typically come from new editors who arrive suddenly, tag that sentence and contend that "Zionist terrorism" is a legitimate term.--Leflyman^Talk 05:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Leflyman, it seems I misunderstood. It appeared to me that since I was objecting to the statement as well, you were including me in that category. I appriciate your clarification. --Uncle Bungle 07:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The book referenced covers the periods 1929-1949 in pre-statehood Israel. Though I have not read the book in its entirety, I would agree that it easily qualifies as a reference for this article in it's current context. The book, as a whole (per WP:CITE), does not exemplify the point of view: although the latter is used as a political epithet in reference to present day events outside that historical context . A book dedicated to exploring the use of "Zionist Terrorism" as an epithet following 1949 would not require a specific footnote. No such reference has been provided. WP:V makes it very clear that The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. I have indicated previously, that the contentious statement is not merely a summary of the content of the article. It is being presented as a very specific and definite idea, and it deserves a reference. If the reference text supports the statement, then please provide a page number so that others can verify. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 03:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the citation policy both of wikipedia and normal writing, we do not add a footnotes unless the passage is taken directly from the source, if the passage is a paraphrase or summary of what was in the book like this sentence is-

"At the time, the British described such political violence as "Jewish" or "Zionist terrorism"

then the reference at the bottom of the article is more than sufficient. People seem to have grown to accustomed to having websites and now actually attempt to think that without a source from the web a passage must be removed upon request. This is a rather silly concept.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not asking for a web page, I am looking for page numbers so I can verify the second part of the statement. I should be clear that I have no issue with the statement "At the time, the British described such political violence as "Jewish" or "Zionist terrorism". I have made it very clear above that a book covering a period from 1929-1949 can not be considered to qualify the use of the term as an epithet in reference to present day events, unless the author has specifically stated it. Please remain focused on the issue, as clearly and repeatedly stated. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 07:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Would something like this work?

At the time, the British described such political violence as "Jewish" or "Zionist terrorism", although J. Bowyer Bell, in his 1947 book, Terror out of Zion: Irgun Zvai Leumi, believes that the phrase is used as a political epithet in reference to present-day events outside that historical context. (?)

As you can see, I am not even sure what the sentence means. Perhaps it could be recast entirely. Just a suggestion.

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 06:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If no one disagrees, I think we could change it to read: At the time, the British described such political violence as "Jewish" or "Zionist terrorism". The latter is used as a political epithet in reference to present day events outside that historical context.. --Uncle Bungle 07:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, why use the last sentence at all? It seems self-evident that the word terrorist is an epithet. If there is a particular point to be made, then we would still need a source (because WikiP is not in the business of making points). Otherwise the sentence is not encyclopedic but is mere fluff which carries no weight or meaning. We would also need a source for the British description of the violence. (I will admit I missed the rest of the discussion: Is there really a source for these statements other than a WikiP editor or writer?)

Frankly, I do not understand what the sentence is trying to accomplish. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 07:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The underlying issue is one of trying to create moral equivalence. In much of the public debate about the Arab-Israeli conflict, people (primarily those hostile to Israel) will say that "well, if the Palestinians committed terrorist acts, the Jews/Zionists/Israelis were no better." And by repeating this often enough, it becomes part of the received wisdom, i.e., that "Jewish terrorism" is equivalent to "Palestinian terrorism." As an example, a former Norwegian prime minister, Kåre Willoch, recently wrote an article in Aftenposten where he claims to trace the origins of terrorism in the Middle East to "Jewish terrorists" in the 1920s. The fact that he can get away with such falsification comes from the fact that the epithet is accepted as a truism in the Norwegian political debate. How to cite a source for this is problematic for reasons that should be obvious. --Leifern 11:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, gentlepeople.

The only reason I am here is because I am on a self-assigned campaign to get rid of as many Citation Needed tags as possible. I am working my way through the Z section at

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Articles_with_unsourced_statements&from=Z.

I would prefer not to see this article listed there anymore.

Can we please just omit the entire paragraph as a bad deal?

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 15:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, since you put it so nicely... actually, in kind of going against my previous stance, I have no objections to that section being excised; clearly it causes a lot of consternation, what with the claims of citing and the back-and-forth reverting. But the thing we may have forgotten is that the article is no longer phrased in "terrorist" terminology, so it seems rather out of place to include a statement about "Zionist terrorism". I would however suggest that "Zionist terrorism" be likewise removed as a redirect. --Leflyman^Talk 06:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

refocus

Just to re-focus on the issue, and try to reach a resolution:

The issue is wether or not the statement although the latter is used as a political epithet in reference to present day events outside that historical context. requires a citation.

Opponents of the statement argue:

• Per WP:CITE, WP:V and WP:NOR whenever a statement is challeneged, the burden of proof lies on the supporter of the statement to back it with a reliable source
• The book referenced at the end of the article covers a period from 1929-1949, and was published in 1977. Because of this, it is not possible for the book to as a whole, is being used to exemplify a particular point of view as stated in WP:CITE#Page Numbers.
• The statement is not a mere summary of the article, and therefore requires a specific footnote.
• Although not explicitly stated, present day events is assumed to be the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Supporters of the statement argue:

• The issue has been discussed ad nauseam
• The reference text is sufficent to qualify the statement without a specific footnote per WP:CITE

Can you quote the specific text from WP:CITE that backs up your statement? I have to admit I am not an expert on deciphering some of the more arcane aspects of that policy. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 13:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:CITE#Page_numbers states the following:

When citing books and articles, provide page numbers where appropriate. Page numbers must be included in a citation that accompanies a specific quotation from, or a paraphrase or reference to, a specific passage of a book or article.

Page numbers are not required when a citation accompanies a general description of a book or article, or when a book or article, as a whole, is being used to exemplify a particular point of view.

User:Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg argued that 1) then the reference at the bottom of the article is more than sufficient and 2 (from edit summary) please see the citation policy, the paragraph isn't taken as a quote but rather as a paraphrase of what was in the book so a footnote is not called for, there is nothing that is done incorrectly here. This is in line with the second part of the Citation policy on page numbers. I argued against that, because of the scope of the book and the date it was published. Al-Silverburg chose not to respond to my argument. In the main part of this section, you'll see my argument more point by point. Thanks. --Uncle Bungle 00:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Then there should be a citation, with reference to the particular pages in the book that back up the statement. Seems pretty clear. If a cite is not forthcoming, then remove the whole graf. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 01:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Which paragraph?--Leflyman^Talk 02:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If anything is missing, please fill it in. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 22:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That said, I do not understand why there has been so much resistance to providing a source for this statement. "It should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts". Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 22:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

See my comment in the section above, as a compromise, removing the claim entirely. This one sentence has caused way too much discussion and debate, when it really isn't even needed in the article. --Leflyman^Talk 06:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The passage is integral to the article's subject, it is not taken as a direct quote but rather a summary of what was in the book that is cited at the bottom of the article, therefore a page number does not make much sense. I have not seen a single convincing argument for why a relevant and sourced passage should not be in the article, in fact the least compelling reason is that we should remove it because other people think we should.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore the idea that because the book focuses on 1929-1948 it can't relate the events to a later date is laughable.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no way although the latter is used as a political epithet in reference to present day events outside that historical context is a summary of that entire book. The subject matter of the book is violence during 1929-1949, not political epithets and not present day events, therefore a oage number makes perfect sense. --Uncle Bungle 13:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the fact that because a book focuses on 1929-1949 it can not, as a whole, be used to exemplify the contested point of view is deadly serious. --Uncle Bungle 13:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

None of that makes any sense, your trying to say that because a book focuses on a certain time period, it cannot have anything to do with a later time period. If that is the best argument you can come up with you might want to move on with your life.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Please allow me to clarify. You have argued that the statement is a summary of the text and does not require specific quote. WP:CITE, as previously indicated, requires that as a whole, is being used to exemplify a particular point of view. If the text were an exploration of political epithets, or even of "present day events", then I would agree with your argument. The book, however, is a history text, published thirty years ago. The primary purpose of the text is to describe the events of 1929-1949. If the author has made a reference to "present day events", as you have correctly indicated is possible, then it should be backed with a reference. Remember, the book is about policital violence, not about usage of the term "Zionist Terrorism". In fact, the phrase "epithet" does not occur anywhere in the first 206 pages of the text [15]. Neither does pejorative. The book was published in 1977. Have you read the text? If so, perhaps you could quote a passage here where the author has made such a connection. Until then, I must contend that a history book, on its own, can not verify the contented statement without a specific citation. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 00:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

redirects

I changed Jewish terrorist and jewish extremist terrorism to redirect to Religious terrorism. That article links back here anyway.

Israeli terrorism should probably redirect to List_of_acts_labelled_as_state_terrorism_sorted_by_state considering the narrow scope of this article. If no one objects within a few days, I'll make the change. Thanks. --Uncle Bungle 01:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It should redirect to State sponsored terrorism with an entry for Israel 202.6.129.214

I changed the redirect to List_of_acts_labelled_as_state_terrorism_sorted_by_state which already has some content with regards to Israel. --Uncle Bungle 02:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Terror out of Zion

Well, regarding J. Bowyer Bell (1977). Terror out of Zion: Irgun Zvai Leumi, LEHI, and the Palestine underground, 1929-1949. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 0-312-79205-0 —

I've just reserved the book at the main public library in my city (via the Internet), and it should be at my local branch by next Thursday, so I will look through it and see if it actually supports the following sentence: At the time, the British described such political violence as "Jewish" or "Zionist terrorism", although the latter is used as a political epithet in reference to present day events outside that historical context.

I suggest that others who are interested do the same thing. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 04:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Epithet

I have restored my version (reverted by Moshe without explanation) as I cannot see any reason to separate the fact that the actions were regarded as terrorism other than to try and make out that this was somehow wrong or unjust and thereby apply a personal commentary to the article. Arniep 12:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Virtual Library

Hi Humus,

The Jewish Virtual Library is a self published source. It has been described as a "partisan source". [16]. The author of the article, Yehuda Lapidot, was a member of Irgun, hardly impartial. I replaced your source with a fact tag with the hopes that you can find another. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 01:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

First, I did not insert that link initially, I merely formatted it. Second, the Hunting Season is not an opinion or a fiction, it was a prolonged campaign. Third, the JVL is a publisher and not the author. In this case we quote Y. Lapidot, a participant and an eyewitness (perhaps we should say it), so I don't comprehend the removal of the quoted source. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, I didn't realize you just re-formatted it. I don't disagree with the hunting season, I just would prefer a different source. The Jewish Virtual Library, copied the article directly from Lapidots own "The Irgun Site" [17]. It doesn't get more self-published than that. --Uncle Bungle 02:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

A testimony from a participant is important. The source itself does not need to be NPOV (especially about their own past), but our coverage should be. BTW, I am sure we can find additional sources about the Hunting Season and we need an article on that campaign. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree whole heartedly that an article on the Hunting Season is needed. I tried to find some more info but was unsuccessful. With regards to Lapidots account, my only concern is that it's on a website without any peer review. --Uncle Bungle 02:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The JVL is not a self published source. Isarig 03:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

At the JVL: Who is the editor in chief? Who reviews content? Who copied the article in question directly from Lapidots own website, as stated above. Compare [18] vs [19]. Feelings on the overall content aside, in this instance, the article was copied directly from "The Irgun Site" and has not undergone any verifiable independent peer review. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 04:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are interested, you can e-Mail them and ask. I don't know who made the editorial decision regarding this particular article anymore than I know which BBC editor is responsible for editing a certain news or radio broadcast. The JVL has an executive director (who is not the author of the article), a board of directors, and two dozen or so advisers on its advisory board, none of whom, again, are the authors of this piece. It is a nonprofit 501(c)(3), nonpartisan organization. In short, it is not a self published source by any stretch of the imagination. With regards to the particular piece, you don't know it was copied from the Etzel site. For all you know, it was the other way around. Or, more plausibly, both sites chose to feature the same article, by an important source - hardly an uncommon phenomena on the internet. Please refrain from removing well sourced material in the future. Isarig 04:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Scroll down to the bottom of the JVL copy, and it says "Source, The Irgun Site, which, when you follow the link, delcares "Written by: Prof. Yehuda Lapidot". Thats a poster child for self published. --Uncle Bungle 05:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you might be confused about this issue. First of all JVL is itself a notable website, second of all, just because Yehuda Lapidot wrote that particular article does not mean that JVL qualifies as a "self published source".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The AICE puts up a website they call the Jewish Virtual Library. The AICE populates the website it owns with articles. Some of these articles are taken from other sites, like this one. When you put up a website and fill it with articles, some written in house and some from other sources, how is that not self-published? --Uncle Bungle 00:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Self published means an individual writes something, then creates his own web site and publishes it there, or takes his article to a printing press and self-publishes a hard copy. When there is a 3rd party involved, an that 3rd party has an execuitve director and an advisory board, which selects which material they publish, that is not self-publication. I hope I made that clear enough. Isarig 00:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Isarig, thank you. In some instances though I don't think thats true. For example, when there is a 3d party involved, and that third party is a non profit 501(c)(3) organization, and it has a board of directors, and it selects which material they publish, then it doesn't qualify as a source for Wikipedia. Ok, I know that is a streach, but I hope you see my point. I won't argue against the JVL further. With regards to the article in question, I'll leave it since it was "re-published", but I really think something better could be found. They repubished the article verbatim from a source which is without a doubt self published, and gave no indication as to who reviewed it. When I read a BBC story for example, I know who the contributor is, can easily find out who their managing editor is, and am confident that they have a reputation as a long running and reliable source. As Humus Sapiens accurately stated, there should be an article on the hunting season. If some better sources can be found, then hopefully one will be written. Cheers. --Uncle Bungle 01:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The Jewish Virtual Library was established in 1993 as a nonprofit 501(c)(3), nonpartisan organization. It has a public Board of Directors. The authors of its articles are known, as is its executive director, Mitchell Bard. I'm not sure what you're objecting to. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean I can hold Mitchell Bard personally responsible for every article publised at the JVL? Even if this were the case, is there any way of knowing that he (or whatever author is credited) has at least some expertise in the situation with regards to any article "published" there. The above article has an author of unknown qualifications, and the peer review process of the JVL is also unknown. --Uncle Bungle 05:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If you mean from a legal perspective, although IANAL, I believe the answer is yes. We don't know the peer review process, but that is irrelevant, since many reliable sources have NO peer review, just editorial oversight. I refer you again to the example above, of the BBC (or any other news website) which is a reliable source, despite the fact that we don't know who authored every article, nor the editorial process involved. You earleir wrote that you "won't argue against the JVL further" - that was a wise decision. I don't know what cuased you to change your mind, but I suggest you reconsider- you are wasting your time and ours. Isarig 18:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Such hostility, Isarig, is upsetting to me. The BBC is a long standing news organization with a wide audiance, articles and news segments are clearly attributed to an author. When an error is made, it is very easy for the BBC (or another news organization) to offer a correction, and it is in their best interest to do so, as their credibility is at stake. The BBC and the JVL can not be compared on the same field, period. The JVL is a registered non-profit, yes, but does that make them experts in any field. The fact is, the website is like any other: it exists, and if errors are found, in what forum are the detractors able to express themselves, and what guarentees are there that the JVL will make necessary corrections? --Uncle Bungle 19:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What hostility are you talking about? I posted a civil, detailed repsonse to your post, answered your questions, with examples that illustrate the point. I did not say the BBC is the same as JVL, but they are the same in the one aspect you were previously complaining about: the lack of peer-review, and the lack of individual authorship. Th eBBc has no peer-review, jsut like teh JVL, and contrary to your claims, most, if not all, BBC articles do not have an individual author named. See for exmaple, selecting at random from today: this, this and this.I see that you have now backtracked from the claim that it is the lack "peer review" that makes JVL objectionable, and are instead focusing on th eallged lack of address to which requests for error corrections can be sent. But that is patently flase - as was pointed out to you, The JVL is an organization with a named board , a known address , and even an e-mail address for you to mail complaints directly to the executive editor. What guarentees are there that the JVL will make necessary corrections? Excatly the same kind that exist for the BBC, which is that if you comaplin about an error, they may correct it, or they may not. Isarig 22:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There are some references to "Hunting Season" in

The History of Israel (The Greenwood Histories of the Modern Nations) by Arnold Blumberg (Hardcover - Aug 30, 1998)

Liberal Nationalism for Israel: Towards an Israeli National Identity by Joseph Agassi (Hardcover - Nov 1999)

Some more can be found using Google Books Arniep 01:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

WP article about Zionist political violence - but we can't blame the Zionists?

There is ample evidence that much Zionist political violence was supported and instigated by mainstream Zionist organisations, even though they publically condemned it eg the sinking of the Patria in 1940 (252 dead, mostly refugees) was carried out by Haganah. And Israel has continued this practise, glorifying the terrorism such as the 1944 killing of Lord Moyne, re-burying the executed killers on Mount Herzl in 1975. It is difficult to understand the motives of editors who remove such well-referenced evidence, and it would be nice if we could get on with writing an encyclopaedia without this kind of obstruction. PalestineRemembered 19:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it would be nice. Yas121 13:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Explaining reversions (May 2007)

I'm sorry but automatic edit sumnmaries and ones limited to "POV" are not sufficient grounds to undo edits, and I certainly expect more from experienced users. So, let's start at the beginning: explainig the reversions using full sentences. Thanks. El_C 10:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. For example, I see deletions of references to the Jewish underground of the early 1980s and to various Kachist organizations, but I can't find any argument here for those deletions. I'm not saying that text is particularly good, but deleting it rather than improving it requires an argument. --Zero^talk 13:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Academic sources only refer to the pre-1949 groups as terrorism; the insertions were original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Except that the article is about Zionist political violence, rather than Zionist terrorism.ابو علي (Abu Ali) 16:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Which sources state those followers of the Kach faith committed "Zionist political violence"? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, it's not properly sourced. Most of it is completely unsourced, and PalestinedRemembered is claiming that the rest of it comes from the "Evening Star of Auckland, July 2, 1975". Of course, PalestineRemembered has never read the Evening Star of Auckland, which is why he doesn't know the article name or page number; rather, he has copied his views and references from the Holocaust Denial Institute for Historical Review: [20] It's a violation of WP:CITE#Say_where_you_got_it; frankly, I think copying from Holocaust Deniers while pretending to do your own research is a blocking offense. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence whatever that PalestineRemembered got his information from IHT. I believe he got it from Bitter Harvest like he says on his talk page. Clearly he should have given his direct source as the rules dictate, but that is the only offense he committed in this instance. The information, by the way, is completely true, well known, and very easy to source. The killers of Moyne were indeed returned to Israel and buried at Mount Herzl with state honours. Commemorative stamps were issued too. I'll add this information to Lord Moyne with good sources; other people can argue over whether it belongs here too. --Zero^talk 01:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Jay; it might be better to note post-1949 groups elsewhere. For ex., the Hebrew wiki starts its Jewish terrorism in Israel article in 1949. Obviously, anything IHR-related should be nuked from orbit. My point about stale, poorly-explained reversions stands, however. El_C 19:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The title of this page does not give a time limit. A clean solution would be to add "before 1949" or something like that, as well as creating a new page. On a slightly different topic, it should be sufficient that a group conducts political violence in the name of Zionism. Otherwise all conceivable cases can be ruled out by means of arguments that they aren't really Zionist. Nobody would get away with trying that in the case of Palestinian violence, and nobody should here either. By the way, El_C, is the Hebrew article you mention of good quality? Would starting here with a translation be a good idea? --Zero^talk 01:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This article certainly talks about "terrorism"; as I recall, the reason post 1949 events weren't included in the article was because there were no reliable sources referring to those events as "Zionist terrorism". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I havne't read it closely, but it seems to be of an okay quality (most of the subsections deal with individual terrorists). The problem with using the term Zionist to describe them is that most Israeli Jews are zionists, so it tends to lose its meaning when applied as such. El_C 21:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

For information: the charges Jayjg made against PalestineRemembered led to a messy argument and a block and an Arbitration Committee case. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#PalestineRemembered. --Zero^talk 01:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have posted a sufficient proof that PalestineRemembered did not get his material from IHR on his talk page: here. --Zero^talk 10:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Added material

Per discussion elsewhere I have added the following based on three relatively solid sources:

Although J Bowyer Bell writes:

"In June 1975, the Egyptian government released the bodies of Eliadu Hakim and Eliahu Bet-Zouri, thirty years after the assassination of Lord Moyne, in return for twenty Arabs jailed in Israel as fedayeen or intelligence agents. In Jerusalem the two were given a heroes' burial in the Mount Herzl military cemetry, the resting place of Israeli premiers and presidents."(also corroborated by other accounts )

It seems well established. --Abnn 02:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, your source didn't refer to them as "the terrorist assassins". Go figure. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

True. The book is called 'Terror out of Zion', however. *grin* Hornplease 03:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend dropping this unnecessary tangential conversation, since I don't think it serves a purpose. --Abnn 03:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Consider it dropped. Hornplease 03:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this really OR?

The following was removed based on a user arguing that it is OR, but it seems to be fully sourced and Kahanism is a political and zionist movement, although very right wing and fundamentalist, which has restored to violence. Thus I don't see the OR aspects of it.

Other Militant groups

The following groups were all started or branched off from those started by Meir Kahane:

• Jewish Defense League: A "right-wing militant group" [21] according to the FBI. Although several members have been charged or convicted with offenses related to the handling of explosives, the group is not thought to have any current connection to violent attacks. [22]
• Kach and Kahane Chai: (defunct) Israel and United States. Eden Natan-Zada was involved with Kahanism before killing 3 people in Shefa-'Amr, an act described by then prime minister Ariel Sharon as "a reprehensible act by a bloodthirsty Jewish terrorist".
• Gush Emunim Underground: (1979-1984) Formed by prominent members of Gush Emunim. [23]
• Jewish Defense Organization: a Jewish Militant rival offshoot of the Jewish Defense League, which was founded by Kahane.

--Abnn 06:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that designated this as "Zionist political violence"? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I support Abnn here. I'll open a RFC to solicit fresh input. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 06:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The material is already in the Religious terrorism article; indeed, it was copied directly from that article. You're well aware of this issue; see, for example, this edit from 3 months ago. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The case of the Gush Emunim Underground seems to belong here. They were definitely Zionist first and religious second. Of course the subject deserves better treatment than it currently has. The books of Ehud Sprinzak would be a good start. --Zero^talk 13:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If Gush Emunim is nationalist and not religious, then by all means source and include it. Kach is a violent cult, and there is an article for that allready. --Uncle Bungle 14:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing that Gush Emunim is not religious. It is both religious and Zionist. Kach certainly are a violent organization, both religious and zionist. The fact that it has its own article does not mean that it should be censored here. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 19:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop reinserting the same irrelevant content. Jewish Defense League, etc. don't belong here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Those groups are all well known and violent, and I would think implicitly non-religious as well, because political violence contravenes the religious teachings. They should all be included in the article. --Marvin Diode 21:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That Gush Emunim is part of Religious Zionism, and thus is Zionist, is really obvious. There are countless remarks to this effect all over the web. I think it's also fairly obvious that Kahane's movements are Zionist, though I can't find a reference. Except that he wrote a book titled "Listen, Vanessa, I Am a Zionist"...--Doron 21:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

These groups should be included because they are Zionist groups that engaged in political violence. I don't see where the opposition to their inclusion has even been adequately articulated. It seems like a no-brainer really. Tiamut 08:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Kahane groups motivations were religious; there's a difference. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Same old, same old.

PalestineRemembered has inserted into the very beginning of the article the claim that "Irgun and Lehi, militant Zionist organizations, "inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community" based on this link. To begin with, the provenance listed for the letter is dubious; read the bottom of the page. Second, I'm not sure why someone would consider "Jews for Justice for Palestinians" to be a reliable source; it's obviously a highly partisan site, and it's unclear exactly who runs it or how it is structured. Its address appears to be a P.O. box, and e-mail accounts associated with it are all free Yahoo accounts. Finally, PalestineRemembered should know by now that even if the source were reliable and accurate, it's just one claim, which should be attributed to its sources. There's no reason why this specific opinion, supposedly from 1948, should lead the article as fact. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)