Talk:March 1947 martial law in Mandatory Palestine

Civilian deaths

Icewhiz, when you have time to read the article, please address the redundancy you added. I already mentioned the death of the four-year old Jewish girl. Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

And her father which you omitted. It was tucked away. Removed the redundancy.Icewhiz (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Misuse of terrorist label

Per WP:TERRORIST, it is incorrect to call anti-occupation Lehi and Irgun fighters terrorists. British sources do indeed refer to these operations as such (though likewise, non-British sources refer to the British actions as illegal) - and as long as we attribute this to the British it is fine, but use of this term in our voice for Irgun and Lehi military operations against occupying troops violates NPOV.Icewhiz (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

You may have some ground to stand on for not calling the Irgun "terrorist", however we can certainly call terrorist attacks "terrorist attacks", see eg Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing or 2017 Halamish stabbing attack. I am restoring that label for where it is applied by reliable sources. nableezy - 20:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

British sources using the label is not an indication - as many Jewish sources do not. In this case we are talking about military operations - a military organization attacking the military personnel of a different military organization.Icewhiz (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not a "British source". nableezy - 20:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Quotations of British reports and lingo within the source - and again - there are sources that do not label the Irgun's activities against the British occupation in 1947 as "terrorist". I'll note that it would be helpful if next to each such label there were a clear inline citation with a quote. Icewhiz (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

From my research of the subject, I have yet to find any sources that call the terrorist attacks a "military operation". Engaging in OR to change the meanings of these attacks does not satisfy NPOV. It actually is dangerously POV.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

English language sources, for this particular subject matter (as well as for other former colonies of the UK that do not use English as a primary language), exhibit a systemic bias in regards to adopting the UK POV.Icewhiz (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Or maybe, just maybe, you don't like what the sources have to say? A terrorist attack is a terrorist attack, and I am only applying that descriptor with the support of reliable sources. You have yet to counter with any sources of your own related to this subject.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I am actually quite aware of the sources here - and in some of the cases in the article you are using quoted British reports (or British newspapers from the time) for the label, and not the voice of a high quality source. But OK - Imperial Endgame: Britain's Dirty Wars and the End of Empire, Benjamin Grob-Fitzgibbon, pages 79-84 - we have "the British forces were at war with the Jews", "The IZL injured five soldiers and four civilians in three attacks", "The Irgun launched further attacks", "it was not only the IZL that was engaged in this insurgent campaign", "arrest only twenty five insurgents", "On March 31, LEHI bombed the Haifa oil refinery", "meanwhile the Jewish insurgent attacks continued...."...... And guess what? Not a single word use of "terror" - save one use - which describes the British POV "the high commisioner introduced the death penalty as a punishment for terrorist actions". Each and every action (in this article) is described in Grob-Fitzgibbon as an attack/bombing/etc - not as a terrorist action. I will note that a technical perspective that this (the events in 1946-7 vs. the UK) was a military campaign - an insurgency - and a military campaign that achieved its stated objective - causing the UK to retreat from the Mandate. Perhaps, one shouldn't be so keen on attempting to apply a label where plenty of sources do not support it.Icewhiz (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• I could provide even more sources calling this terrorism, but you do not seem to respect the reliability of English sources. I will note, however, the Jewish Agency in this 1947 report referred to the attacks as "murder", "crime", and "bloodshed", not a "military operation". They even believe the order will be ineffective in deterring terrorism, in reference to the 1 March attacks. I also do not know how you consider it a "military operation" to kill both Jewish and Arab civilians as the Irgun and Lehi did during martial law. But this is my last comment on the issue as it is pointless to dispute multiple reliable sources that support the current description.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I provided a proper secondary source - which covers all or most of the operations in March - and does not use terrorism/terror/terrorist. A conciliatory approach, in a primary report, by the Yishuv to the British who imposed harsh measures on civilians does not amount to much (all the more so given concurrent actions). If you build an article by searching for "terror" and "illegal" - then certainly there are sources (often lower quality ones) which echo the language of the British primary reports (and the British labelled insurgencies in all their colonies as "terrorism") - but that is not how we build NPOV articles. Icewhiz (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, there being sources that do not use "terrorism" does not negate the sources that do. Is it your position that most sources do not call thebombing of the officers club an act of terrorism? nableezy - 21:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Some of the sources you're quoting are not calling it terrorism - e.g. this one (which uses terrorist only when describing the British position). All the sources you've presented are describing the British narrative which indeed saw insurgencies in Palestine (and throughout the colonial holdings of British Empire) as terrorism - however describing the British view of the insurgencies is not NPOV. This English source does not call it terrorism, nor does this, this, this, or this. Certainly there are some sources sympathetic to British colonial rule (which are over-represented in English - see Wikipedia:Systemic bias), or that carelessly parrot British language used in British documents. However more neutral sources avoid the use of terrorist/terror - using this term only when describing the British position (as they call it such).Icewhiz (talk) 05:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a question of RS - but NPOV. Certainly we can find sources parroting the British view. One can also find sources parroting the Irgun's view - and plaster various invective phrases towards the occupying British forces, and tie various epitaphs on the Irgun's actions. However, the neutral thing to do is to avoid the narrative of either side and stick to a factual representation (as is done in many sources) - the military officer's club was bombed - which is a simple factual representation.Icewhiz (talk) 05:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

By all means, find reliable sources for the Irgun's view and include them, but take care to distinguish what a source describes as the Irgun's view and what they describe as fact. Here, a number of sources describe as fact that these were terrorist acts. It is well-established on Wikipedia that acts can be called "terrorist" when reliable sources do so. I point you again to any number of articles on Palestinian violence against Israel and or Israelis. If your position is that we may not use sources because they are British and or from former colonies of Britain because of their association with a party to the conflict then I would welcome as evidence of good faith your beginning to remove all Israeli and or Hebrew sources from say Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing. You cannot be seriously suggesting that obvious corollary, can you? Or is it your view that if I find one source that does not label something a terrorist act that means we cannot do so in Wikipedia's voice? Cus uh that isnt the case on Wikipedia either. So, just so I am clear on the argument here. What exactly is the standard for calling an act "terrorist"? Cus Id very much see how one can make the argument that only Jewish violence has to avoid sources from an entire language associated with it (this being the English Wikipedia makes that difficult though you have to admit). nableezy - 05:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Icewhiz here, and per WP:TERRORIST removing this label. Attack Ramon (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I also agree with Icewhiz. ShimonChai (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Would either of you care to expand on that? nableezy - 05:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

In this particular military conflict (a highly sucessful insurgency, resulting in a full British retreat) - most sources do not use terrorist to describe the wide scale insurgency against (mostly) military targets. In a technical level these were not terrorist operations as they had a clear tangible military goal beyond just terrorizing - a goal that was achieved. As for sources - I did not suggest we reject British sources, I merely mentioned that some of these sources parrot the 1947 British POV, which we should avoid doing in our own voice.Icewhiz (talk) 05:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

So your position is that this view on not including what reliable sources say about an attack being a terrorist attack extends only to the Jewish violence in Palestine, and not Palestinian violence against Israel? Am I correct in that understanding? nableezy - 06:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

All of the attacks listed seemed to be against members of the British military specifically, this was obviously a coordinated attempt by a paramilitary (Irgun / Lehi) to fight the British military occupying the land at that time. It wasn't targeting civilians for the sake of inflicting terror for political gain or otherwise. This was part of the greater conflict of the Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine. This is nothing like the rockets from Gaza or lone wolf attacks against soldiers, and shouldn't be compared to it, since the people firing the rockets aren't specifically firing against Israeli military positions, they are firing against civilian areas, and don't care if civilians are killed in the process. ShimonChai (talk) 07:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC) (also sorry I mistagged this edit as "minor" that was an accident)

Is there anything besides WP:OR that justifies that position? But you are agreeing that only Jewish violence in Palestine should not be described as "terrorist attacks" regardless of what reliable sources say? And that Palestinian attacks should not benefit from that treatment? Am I accurately stating your position? nableezy - 07:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

And for the record, police officers are generally treated as civilians, and yall have certainly gained an appreciation for the use of "occupation". nableezy - 07:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The first claim that the attacks were against the British military were from this article. Both the pages about the Irgun and Lehi classify them as paramilitaries. My claim that it wasn't targeting civilians is based on this article which cites Levenberg 1993, p. 83. Which expressly states that they were targeting military personal. This is the citation for my claim that they don't target military positions, but civilian ones. Do you also happen to what citations about lone wolf attacks against civilians now? Also, no you aren't accurately stating my position. My position is that context matters here when talking about what is and isn't a terrorist attack, and that a paramilitary attacking a specific military position during an insurgency isn't a terrorist attack. Also, stop trying to bring up the Arabs. They have nothing to due to the topic at hand, we are talking about if the Jewish insurgencies specifically are to be considered terrorist attacks. The Morning Bulletin which is used to cite that it was a terrorist attack is a tabloid in Australia. Which may be fine for referencing the attack but their language specifically, I think fails to meet WP:TERRORIST. I will concede if there is a citation like the UN, Associated Press, etc. But the criteria for "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term." I don't think is met by a tabloid citation alone.ShimonChai (talk) 07:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

We are obliged to be neutral, for Chrissake, whatever out POV. I, and I' m far from alone, have no problem in calling a spade a spade when it comes to Palestinian terrorism, like blowing up people with bombs, or shooting unarmed people, civilians or otherwise. No one in her right mind would object, except for editors who persist in editing here in terms of 'but Israel is an exception to the rule applied to everyone else' logic. Most long term editors are familiar with J. Bowyer Bell's classic inside account,Terror Out of Zion: The Fight for Israeli Independence, 1996, where he never lets his sympathy get in the way of objectively saying what something is. When Jewish terrorists introduced into the Middle East the 'tactics' of putting bombs into buses, or throwing them into market crowds (List of Irgun operations) in 1938, they were deliberately choosing terrorism, and it was successful. Those acts were branded terroristic not only by the Breitish authorities, but by the major Jewish leaders and institutions, and this usage is repeated in numerous modern historical accounts, The attrition of terror wore down the British. That doesn't mean that, since a large part of the modern Israeli governing elite descends from people who militated as terrorists, and then went on to distinguished public careers, we have to whitewash the past. Idem with the Palestinians, Hamas. They adopted terror tactics, but in their case, didn't manage to wear Israel down, since terrorism only works generally against states that don't mirror strategies of indiscriminate killing. Nishidani (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The OR is that It wasn't targeting civilians for the sake of inflicting terror for political gain or otherwise means that it isnt terrorism. The books presented in this section. But it does have to do with the topic at hand, if Wikipedia has a policy that allows for Palestinian attacks to be called terror attacks because reliable sources say they are then that policy likewise applies here. You cannot have it both ways. nableezy - 08:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I was using the dictionary definition, which in all fairness I shouldn't have since WP:NOTADICTIONARY. I will check the books though, also, the policy is based on WP:TERRORIST which to my understanding is judged on a case by case basis. If legitimately neutral sources say that something was done by a terrorist or was a terrorist attack, it is considered to be regardless of what I, or any other editor specifically thinks. I need to go read those sources, I just noticed that the ISBNs at the bottom of the page, under where the normal citations are (I couldn't find them earlier since usually whenever I see books cited the ISBN is cited as a citation and not a Source. (Not mentioning it as a critique it's just why I didn't check those earlier) ShimonChai (talk) 08:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

That is bad faith argufying, Icewhiz. You know that we have numerous cats, covering scores of articles which rightly brand Palestinian 'military' acts as terrorism, entitled:

• Template:Counter-terrorism in Israel
• Template:Terrorism deaths in Israel
• Template:Terrorist incidents in Israel
• Template:Israeli casualties in the First Intifada
• Template:Palestinian terrorism
• Template:Israeli terrorism victims

Secondly, the Irgun and Lehi were called terrorist organizations not only by the British, but by Jewish organizations, beginning with David Ben-Gurion, by his supporters, the Jewish Agency the Haganah, and Histadrut (see here, as you cannot but know). Henry Laurens (Henry Laurens, La Question de Palestine, vol.2 Fayard 2002 p.576-7) quotes at great length Ben-Gurion's denunciation of the Irgun/Lehi terrorist attacks as terrorism. If you believed what you assert above:-

British sources using the label is not an indication (counterfactual-since many US historical sources called them thus)- as many Jewish sources do not (counter-factual since contemporary Jewish sources called them that). In this case we are talking about military operations - a military organization attacking the military personnel of a different military organization.

it would mean operatively on Wikipedia that you would embark on a huge cleansing review of the hundreds of articles where Palestinian military organization members killed Jews/Israelis, beginning with the Munich Massacre. If you do so, one can believe you. Since you don't . . . Nishidani (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

ahem, categories. nableezy - 08:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)