Talk:Operation Entebbe/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Benjamin Netanyahu

Is this Netanyahu family of Benjamin Netanyahu? -- Error

I believe Yonatan was his brother. -- Vasi
Definitively was, see Yoni Netanyahu. --Palapala 22:08, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Entebbe, Uganda airport

Reverted edit to read "Entebbe, Uganda airport". That's what it was known by at the time (and a long time after). If they insist on calling it "Entebbe International Airport" today, that's a different matter... --Palapala 22:08, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Put the Cross back in the info box beside Netanyahu

Standard practice is to use a cross. Crosses are used in other articles to denote the deaths of non-Christians. - Yonah

Was Carlos the Jackal involved?

There is an inconsistency here: it says that (among others) there were two terrorists led by Carlos the Jackal, but the entry of Carlos the Jackal says he was not involved in the Entebbe highjacking. He wasn't.

It was my mistake. Won't happen again.  :)

139 or 193?

Another inconsistency: The article talks about Flight 139 first, but later mentions "Flight 193 Captain Michel Bacos". A Google search revealed no certainty about which one it was. Mariusk 18:38, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I corrected it. 139 is correct. Pouya 21:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mitsva or Mivtsa?

I know that says the title is "Mivtsa Jonatan", but I think that's a mistransliteration of the Hebrew. My thinking is the "mitsva" or "mitzvah" means "great deed". However I don't speak or read Hebrew, can we get an expert opinion here? Ellsworth 21:46, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if I'm an expert, but you're right, and I've fixed it. A google of "mitsva yonatan" confirms this. Jayjg 02:50, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mitsva (mitzva) means "commandment" in Hebrew (plural mitzvot), like the 613 mitzvot and is used almost exclusively by religious Orthodox Jews only, it only has a very secondary colloquial usage of "good deed". Mivtsa (or mivtza) is used in Israeli military terms for a campaign or operation or even a war. Thus the 1956 War was known as the Mivtsa Sinai meaning "[The] Sinai Campaign." The title is definitely "Mivtsa Jonatan" and it is NOT a "mistransliteration of the Hebrew" at all. had it right first time around with regards to Mivtsa, although for the sake of correct transliteration it should have been consistent and used Yonatan (with a "Y", which is the way the name is used in Hebrew) instead of the part-English Jonatan (which when used in English should be "Jonathan" with an "h".) I have made the correction in the article. Hope this helps you. Be well. IZAK 04:16, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, all those google hits must have been errors then. Jayjg 04:36, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's been known to happen. Thanks to all. Ellsworth 18:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Like most "truths" about Jewish questions you will get many opinions - our family is not orthodox but we use the term "mitzvah" all the time to denote a good deed........

Mivtsa means "Operation"(Military) -- (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Pre-operation planning and logistics?

The article says

"After days of collecting intelligence and careful planning, four Hercules transport aircraft flew down..."

It is unclear who was planning and from where the aircraft flew "down". Presumably the planning was by IDF (and Mossad?) and the planes flew down from Israel, but the text is very vague. I get the feeling that it assumes that the reader has some background knowledge of the events described. Molinari 00:12, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The book "the History of Battles" (Paul Press Ltd.) contains an entry for Entebbe. It describes the flight path of the Israeli planes as taking off from Sharm-el-Shekh, a town on the southern tip of the Sinai Penninsula (then in Israeli hands), flying south over the Red Sea, before swinging South-West over Ethiopia and Kenya before reaching Entebbe. Sangil 15:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that the sentence is particularly unclear or vague. Who else would be collecting intelligence but Israel's intelligence agency, and who else would be planning the operation but Israel's military. In any case, I'm removing the dubious tag as it's presence, and it's position after the word "four", unnecessarily calls into doubt that there were 4 Hercules transport aircraft (were there, perhaps, some other number?). (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Plane info/picture/fate

According the following source (, the Air France plane was an A300 Airbus registration number F-BVGG. Accordinjg to another source (, that plane s/n is 19,and it is currently in use by a Turkish airline (or freight company) MNG under registration TC-MNA. Therefore, it seems that it can't be the plane shown on the picture. Further;ore, the picture's name is Operation_thunderbolt_707.JPG which implies it shows a Boeing 707, and the previous versions of the picture pages actualy said it was a Bo[e]ing 707. Could anyone please clarify this? And if anyone has info on how Air France got that plane back, it would be welcome. Thanks. After looking at the Airbus A300 and Boeing 707 pages on Wikipedia, it is clear that the plane is definitely not an airbus A300, but may be a Boeing 707. The picture shows a four-engine jet like the Boeing 707, whereas Airbus A300 are twin-engine. I will therefore remove the picture from this page.

According to this article (about halfway down), the plane is still sitting there at Entebbe airport - why? Because France and Uganda have been unable to agree on who has to pay for disposing of it? Some other reason? Information needed. Ellsworth 19:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Operation Thunderbolt

Why is this titled "Operation Entebbe" instead of Thunderbolt (or Yonathan)? Does anyone actually call it "Operation Entebbe"? Regardless, this should be changed, and a disambiguation page set up b/c Operation Thunderbolt now leads to a video game page.

In Israel the operation is popularly known as "operation Entebbe", and officialy as "operation Yonatan". No one (except Hollywood) really calls it "Operation Thunderbolt"...Sangil 22:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, cos in the UK it's better known as Operation Thunderbolt or, even more commonly as "Raid on Entebbe". I've created a new page for the latter that redirects here. Dweller 09:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
In the US it's primarily known as "the raid on Entebbe" as well. I'm inclined to deprecate military operation names as article names unless the operation name is the NPOV most-common name, simply because they are often chosen for propaganda purposes, and because they intrinsically represent the point of view of the military operation "side". --Dhartung | Talk 22:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Definitely in NZ it would be 'the Entebbe Raid', and WP policy indeed discourages 'Operation' style names. Should it be moved? Buckshot06 20:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
As of April 2008 the article remains under the title "Operation Entebbe". I agree that it should be renamed but unsure what it should be renamed to. I think "Raid on Entebbe" is a little too colloquial because it was not really Entebbe itself, the city, that was raided. Perhaps "Raid on Entebbe International Airport" would be a good title? Or "Israeli Raid on Entebbe International Airport"? --Mathew5000 (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

With all the concern of what is the most common name, I have to ask, is it so commonly known in the UK or New Zealand? Because in all my public education in Florida (United Sates) it was never mentioned; I only learned of it in Hebrew School. And when I saw "The Last King of Scotland" in the theater, I heard numerous people around me questioning whether the hijacking was fictional or real. Several of those people were easily old enough to have been alive at the time, so it seems this maybe isn't a widely enough known event to merit a "most common" name. Smw543 (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thunderbolt or Thunderball?

I noticed that on the Operation Thunderball page there's a disambiguity thingy referring to "Operation Thunderball" that points here. Operation Thunderball? Simple error, so delete? Dweller 09:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Now fixed. --Dweller 10:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Thunderball is actually the correct term: Thunderbolt was a mis-translation of the Hebrew term (כדור הרעם, literally the ball of thunder), that was made by the international media and became stuck following the movies. I added a short explanation in the article, and fixed the Thunderball links. altmany (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Captain Bacos

Additionally, for refusing to leave the plane, Captain Bacos was reprimanded by his superiors at Air France and suspended from duty for a period.

Why was Captain Bacos reprimanded? It's probably a token punishment but it still doesn't make sense. For example, on a ship, the captain always has the highest responsibility for his crews and passengers and will be reprimanded if he leaves them behind. I thought it is the same thing with an airplane. It's not like that he forced other crews to remain behind or was unreasonably cooperative with hijackers. What's the rule here? -- Revth 06:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it could just be a reflection of the French historically favoring the Palestinian cause, to the detriment of Israel. There have been many examples of this throughout history. However, it would be interesting if there was any official documents from Air France about what their rationale was. -- Tzadik 04:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe all airlines had that policy in order back then. The rationale is to prevent the airplane from taking off again. --Geekish 17:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Was Baader Meinhof Involved?

I think the Baader-Meinhof gang was not involved in the hijacking. I wrote a paper on them in college, thinking that they were involved, and as I recall they weren't. I'm going to check on this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 17:53, 19 December 2005

The two German terrorists were members of the "Revolutionäre Zellen", the second most prominent urban guerilla group in Germany. The Red Army Faction was not involved in this incident whatsoever.

paadu jews citation

What is it in reference to in the article, and why is it only coming out now? If nobody claims it I'm deleting it. SWATJester Flag of Iceland.svg Ready Aim Fire! 19:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I just did some research. There's no such book, publishing company, or ISBN entry (at least not that I could find), and it looks like vandalism. I've reverted it. Whoever put it there can put it back if sufficient evidence can be cited that it's real. Makaristos 19:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

paragraph(s) need reworking

The fifth and sixth paragraphs in Operation_Entebbe#Israeli_raid need major fixing up. It seems like they are two parallel accounts. The first is written like a movie script. --Stoopideggs2 23:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistency over negotiation

The first paragraph of the "Israeli Raid" section reads "The government of Israel refused to negotiate with the hijackers. They instead decided to undertake a military rescue mission to free the remaining hostages..." The last part of the "Analysis" section holds that "In the week prior to the raid, Israel had tried a number of political avenues to obtain the release of the hostages. Many sources indicate that the Israeli cabinet was prepared to release Palestinian prisoners if a military solution seemed unlikely to succeed." While political avenues needn't involve direct negotiations, does anyone else find this a bit contradictory? Could these statements in the analysis section properly be included at the beginning of the raid section?

I agree! This page could use some editing. Many young people read Wikipedia articles and they should be well written. Bonnieisrael 11:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Good point. What I 'think' I remember reading "somewhere"(!) is that the Israelis refused to negotiate with the terrorists, but unsuccessfully used political pressure on the Ugandans and various Arab regimes / groups to try to avert their perceived dilemma of caving in or using force. Would be happy for someone more knowledgable to confirm / contradict Dweller 09:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Delisted GA

This article did not go through the current GA nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2b of the GA quality standards. Although references are provided, the citation of sources is essential for verifiability. Most Good Articles use inline citations. I would recommend that this be fixed, to reexamine the article against the GA quality standards, and to submit the article through the nomination process. --RelHistBuff 13:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Netanyahu's death

Am i missing something? or is there a reason that there is no information given about the only Israeli casualty? Yoni Netanyahu is identified at the beginnng of the article, but there is no explanation of how he died, who killed him. From the description given in the article neither the hijackers nor the Ugandans gave any fire until the Israelis were leaving, but at that point "[t]he Israelis returned fire without sustaining any casualties of their own...". We seem to be missing some fairly important information here. Cheers, Lindsay 11:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


Hello all, Hope this clears up some questions about the Entebbe Raid 1/ The name was "Operation Thunderball", it was changed to "Operation Yonatan" afterwards, in memory of Yonatan Netanyahu ["Yoni"]. In Ivrit [Hebrew] a military operation is MIVTSA, [not Mitzva]. Yoni was Benjamin Netanyahu's brother. 2/ Yoni was killed by a bullet in the back, fired from the control tower, as he led those rescued to the airplane 3/ Yoni was not the overall commander, nor its planner, but he was the commander of the rescue party that went into the airport building. However he would have had input into the plan. 4/ The initial order to consider a rescue was given to Deputy Head of General Staff Branch, Brig. Gen. Avigdor Ben-Gal. The planning team consisted of Co-odinator and chief planner Kuti Adam, Intelligence advisor on terrorism Major General Rehavam Zeevi, Intelligence CinC Shlomo Gazit, Air CinC Major General Benny Peled, Medical CinC Brigadier General Dan Michael, Ehud Barak the Deputy Head of IDF Intelligence Branch [Israel's most decorated soldier, later Chief of Staff, then Prime Minister], and Communications CinC Brigadier General Yisroel Zamir. Tactical planning of the entry into the airport building was assisted by legendry Paratroop Major Moshe "Muki" Betser who was second in command and the officer who led the break-in to the hostage building [1]. 5/ Overall ground commander was Brigadier General [later chief of staff] Dan Shomron, who was then chief of Paratroopers and Infantry. 6/ Supreme commander was Chief of Staff Gen Mordechai ["Motta"] Gur and his deputy Brig. Gen. Avigdor Ben-Gal. 7/ Approval for the raid came at the last hour from Defence Minister Shimon Peres, after a series of meetings and phone calls. 8/ Carlos "The Jackal" had nothing to do with the hi-jacking. 9/ The raid party was drawn from 2 units of the Paratroopers and the Sayeret Golani. Yoni was a commander of one of the Paratroop units that supplied men for the mission. The composite unit was designated "Sayeret Matkal", a designation given to any ad hoc force raised by the general staff special unit for a special mission . Sayeret means "Reconnaisance Unit", analogous with "Commandoes" or even "Special Forces" in the western military. 10. On July 1, before the raid, P.M. Yithak Rabin and his cabinet voted unanimously to negotiate with the terrorists. This was aborted by Idi Amin's friendly visit to the terrorists at the airport. 11. The "Red Army Faction" aka Bader Meinhof Gang[2] was not the same as the Revolutionary Cell that caried out the hi-jacking, but the two groups came from the same upheaval that swept Europe at the time. [].Historygypsy 04:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Point number 9 is not entirely correct. Sayeret Matkal is NOT the designation of any ad hoc force created by the General Staff to conduct special missions. It is an actual standing/permanently-staffed unit. The unit is well known in Israel, despite not officially existing ie. members of this unit cannot wear any insignia or distinctive dress that identifies them as Sayeret Matkal, and the media are expressly forbidden/encouraged not to mention them at all. Standard IDF spokeperson parlance for Sayeret Matkal missions is to identify them only as "elite paratroopers". Furthermore I have already inserted the composition of the ground force in the article, which, according to Colonel Muki Betser and the webmaster of ISAYERET.COM, is correct. WikiphyteMk1 (talk) 13:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Correct. I did not want to go against the Israeli reluctance to admit the existence of a permanent force. Sayeret Mat'kal [General Staff Recon and more popularly as "The Unit"] trainees take about 18 months to complete the course, the best are sent to a special counter terrorist force [Unit 269]. Some times "The Unit" co-operates with the Navy's Shayetet S'13 [not to be confused with "Sayeret"], probably the most daring of the lot, also the Paratroopers, Sayeret Golani and others. This is what I had in mind when I used the term "ad hoc", Historygypsy (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Usage of the loaded term "6 terrorists"?

The word "terrorists" is so loaded, that I believe it should not be used in this article, especially in its introduction. Seeing that the other participants are called, for example, "members of the Ugandan army", the so-called terrorists should therefore also be referred to as (at least) members of their respective organization(s).

Furthermore, to see so much discussion on this talk page and no mention of the mentioned, inappropriate usage of such a loaded term, is not a good thing for Wikipedia. No matter how much grievance this act may have caused, let's not, as a result, bias "history in the wiki", eh? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

People who hijack planes are terrorists. That is not loaded, it is definition. --יהושועEric 18:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, not exactly definition, or certainly not THE definition. Some people who hijack planes are hijackers; i don't think i ever read about D. B. Cooper as a terrorist. On the other hand, i think that it is fair to say that these people fell under most people's use of the word, and i don't see it as a bias here. Cheers, Lindsay 13:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
People who belong to terrorist organisations are obviously terrorists. The people who hijacked the plane are terrorists. Nothing loaded about that term, because it is fact. Wikiphyte 14:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Terrorists certainly is a loaded term: Nelson Mandela was classified as a terrorist by both the American and the British governments and the term is used by governments/groups/individuals across the world today to describe a diverse range of people that they wish to demonise.
  • No need to shout. The issue was already resolved, before you came along.

I'm willing to sacrifice both my IP, and my ability to post anonymously with this, but -- define terrorism.

is defined by the US Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives." (google: define:terrorist)

So even given you can qualify them as terrorists, can you exclude anything done by any government in the last 30 years? Terrorism IS a loaded word, simply because it CAN be used by anyone who is terrified by another opinion -- the use of force or violence (which can be verbal, check Assault) as a means over a population
Call anybody what you will, but if you check the use of the word terrorist as "accurate", consider what accurate means.
Here, have my IP: 06:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 06:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 06:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
So...your point is??? Do you want to change the term "Terrorist" for something more tame or more suited to your political leanings, such as "Freedom Fighters" or "Misguided Individuals"? This discussion page is about discussing improvements to the article, not about being revisionist or melodramatic and making political statements. WikiphyteMk1 (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

How many terrorists?

Ok guys, so we have 2 palestinian terrorists in the plane and 2 RZ terrorists on the plane. That makes 4 Terrorists. Than, on the ground, they were joined by another 3 terrorists, according to the article. But in the rest of the article, it is only the talk about 6 terrorists (for example: all 6 terrorist were killed). So, 4 on the plane and 3 on the ground makes 7 in my calculations. There is an error somewhere... or have I overlooked something? Maybe one terrorist left and it isn't yet written down here, or they were only joined by 2 terrorists on the ground, or one terrorist was just wounded and not killed. So what is the deal now? I'm not too much into this article, so maybe some of those guys who know better about this incident can make this clear! Thx... ColdCase 18:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

7 Terrorists.

On the plane there were 4. Wilfred Boese , travelling as a Peruvian "A. Garcia" plus a blonde female, Briggite Kuhlmann travelling as an Ecuadorian called "Ortega". Both these were of the Revolutionary Zellen. There were two Arabs, one with Bahraini and one with Kuwaiti papers. On the ground they were met by 3 Arabs. All the Arabs were of Dr Wadia Haddad's PFLP [Popular front for the Liberation of Palestine]. All died in the rescue assault. Historygypsy 04:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

All 100 something Israeli Terrorists (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


It seems that the Analysis section is OR. The section also lacks citations. Much of the material must be removed. --Agha Nader 04:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Some places it says 7 killed in the sidebar at top. Elsewhere at near end of articicle it says all eight were killed. Says 4 on board plane were joined by four others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Cross in info box

  • In the info box there is a cross next to Yoni Netanyahu's name, which I assume is to signify that he died during the event. Does this strike anyone else as slightly odd? TravellingJew 20:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It's simply one of the many symbols used in the place of multiple asterisks. Normally you would not see such a thing w/o also seeing at least *, **, and possibly ***. If it offends you, I'm sure no one would object to it being removed, as this is an article about Israel.-- 22:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Some facts.....

1) Muki Betser did not work for Mossad. He was in Sayeret Matkal, yet one of the paragraphs described him as being a Mossad operative.

2) Sayeret Matkal did not do this operation by itself. It was a commando taskforce composed of the "inner circle" or takeover unit (Sayeret Matkal), the "Outer Circle" or engagement unit (teams from Sayeret Tzanhanim and Sayeret Golani), the ground force command and control element (General Dan Shomron) and the Israeli Air Force. The ground element estimate of numbers is about 100 commandos. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikiphyte (talkcontribs) 14:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC).


I cannot anywhere see a claim that Muki Betzer was in the Mossad. In my posting "Facts", there is the only reference to Muki that I can see in this discussion, and it states explicitly who he was, it also outlines the command and planning personae in detail.

Historygypsy 15:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Historygypsy


I want to know why some people insist on inserting these trivia into the article:

A UK Government document released in 2007 contains a British diplomat's unnamed contact's claim that elements planted in the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine by the Israeli Shin Bet helped design the operation to undermine the PLO's standing in France and its rapprochement with the US. The document was written by DH Colvin of the Paris Embassy on 30 June, 1976, while the crisis was still playing out.[1]

Another released document discusses British reticence to congratulate the Israelis based on a question of the operation's legality, which would be contingent on Ugandan collusion, and the public criticism that ensued. One of the draft documents addresses the question of legality, concluding that Amin's government did make it much easier for the hijackers to operate.[1]

How are the claims of one unanmed source of one British diplomat relevant for an encyclopedia article? And what do minutiae on the inner workings of the British foreign service do in this article? Beit Or 19:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Many articles are based on unnamed sources. Must I explain to you the reasons behind a publication not naming its source? Surely preventing harassment and backlashes from Israel to the source does not make it unrealiable. Last time I checked the BBC is considered a reliable source around here.--Agha Nader 22:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The question was about relevance, not reliability or reasons for being unnamed (the source is unnamed in the original document, it's not that his identity was withheld by BBC for some reason). I have received no answer as to why an obscure report of an unknown diplomat quoting an anonymous source is relevant to this article. Beit Or 10:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Well it is good that you don't question the reliability of the source (given that the BBC is considered reliable). While you may find the report obscure, that it is subjective and in fact irrelevant. Although, a report that implicates the Israeli government in designing the operation is relevant. While there are apologists who want to whitewash the operation and make this article an Israeli propaganda piece, no undue weight will be given to their veiws.--Agha Nader 20:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I think we are giving undue weight to the claims made by this single unnamed source in the Euro-Arab Parliamentary Association. This source is the only person who ever made this claim. nadav (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
It may have been undue weight if we were to include it in the lead or write extensively about it. A section--which is placed near the end of the article--that discusses the documents and provides a rebuttal by Israel does not give undue weight to one view. Not including it would definitely be giving undue weight to the Israeli nationalists. Please read the section of the article title "The Raid" and "Hijack". Some of the material in those sections is based sole contacts. --Agha Nader 05:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter where this nonsense is located. What one minor diplomat whispered to another minor diplomat regarding Operation Entebbe is irrelevant by definition. Wikipedia is not a collection of rumors. Beit Or 08:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I think it is very unencyclopedic to add unsubstantiated anonymous rumors like that. Maybe a newspaper can afford to do that for a quick headline, but not an encyclopedia. nadav (talk) 10:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
the newspaper citation is enough to warrant the inclusion of this. it is not a violation of WP:NOR, although ironically, you're violating it with your refutation.
wikipedia has entire articles based off of one citation. streisand effect is such an article. yet you don't think there should even be a single sentence in this article? if you're so principled, why didn't you vote in the recent afd for the streisand effect? if you didn't know about it, do feel free to renominate it.
or maybe you're just a hypocrite who shits allegiances whenever it suites your agenda.
in any event, something doesn't need to be true to merit mentioning. consider 9/11. there's a paragraph on that article discussing conspiracy theories. they're all quite absurd but they deserve mentioning, none-the-less, because they are widely held and have garnered media attention. just like this. it may be true or it may not be. but the fact that it seems to be widely held and has garnered media attention means it should be mentioned 20:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Declassified British Documents

Wikipedia will present a balanced view on Operation Entebbe. Which Wikipedia policy or guideline says that material that is based on reliable sources (such as the BBC) will be disregarded because you think it is a rumor? Have you even read the source?

"British diplomats considered the possibility that the aircraft hijacking that led to the fatal Israeli raid on Entebbe airport in Uganda may have been the work of Israeli secret agents.

The suggestion was made by D. H. Colvin, first secretary at the British Embassy in Paris, after the hijacking of an Air France aircraft by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) on June 27, 1976."[3]

The first secretary at the British Embassy in Paris is not a minor diplomat--no matter how convenient it would to your argument if he was. Refrain from edit warring and removing sourced information as this can be vandalism. The way to get a solution to this conflict is not through edit warring, rather discussion and compromise. --Agha Nader 20:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A first secretary is someone in the middle of the ladder in an embassy: a minor, non-notable personality. His private conversations and speculations have no place in an encyclopedia. Beit Or 20:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
A first secretary is a senior rank, trusted with confidential diplomatic information. The above statement Beit Or is desinformation and should have no place in an encyclopedia. Otto 21:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of how the BBC chooses to describe it, all its information is based on a single mention in COlvin's reports of a telephone call from someone in the Euro-Arab Parliamentary Association. I think it is absurd to devote as much space as we do to this one contact's claims, especially since it completely contradicts the vast majority of the extensive material that has been written about the operation. (see WP:FRINGE) nadav (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Have you read the source? Multiple "diplomats" have suggested the involvement of Israel in planning the hijacking, not just "one contact's claims". --Agha Nader 00:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I did read the source. In fact, I was the one who added the citation to it in this article. Despite the sensationalist headline, all the article actually says is that Colvin received a call from his contact with this information, which he then passed on in his report. The Times piece specifically says that "there is no indication that the theory was taken further." Why do we care what some anonymous person told Mr. Colvin? nadav (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not the least bit interested in how you feel about the report. Your opinion about the report is irrelevant (i.e. your opinion that it is sensationalist or a "rumor"). Sourced material from reliable publications is relevant. I am very interested in providing a balanced view on this subject so I would welcome material that rebuts the BBC's report. One view will not monopolize the article. The section is very capable of presenting all views (given that they are sourced).--Agha Nader 02:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
There is no monopolizing of anything here. All we have is a fringe theory that Israel aided the PFLP attack on its own interests. Nobody espouses this claim except some anonymous source who telephoned a diplomat 30 years ago. WP:UNDUE specifically addresses situations like this. nadav (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Nadav1 and Beit Or that including this information serves to lend undue weight to a minor, sensationalist issue. Larger issues are often trimmed or cut for this concern, so I simply don't see room for this unless the report becomes encyclopaedic in and of itself in the coming months. TewfikTalk 03:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Complete agreement here. Major undue weightage going on. --Makaristos 06:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Whay evidence do you have that these reports are sensationalist? Just because a report is critical of Israel does not mean it represents a fringe view. --Agha Nader 17:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Lets try to stay away from straw men et al - no one argued that this was a fringe view because it is or isn't critical of anyone. TewfikTalk 18:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Sources are used in the article that are very biased towards Israel and promote Israeli patriotism, yet they are not called "sensationalist". Diplomats such as British embassy workers are rather unbiased yet they cannnot be counted on because they are "minor". While most of the material in "Hijack" and "The raid" that is based on the accounts of survivors of the hijacking. Would not this survivors be "minor" too? Would not they be be biased?--Agha Nader 00:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
We can work on improving the other sections if you like, but that has nothing to do with the fringe theory of an anonymous source. I suggest you start a new section on this talk page to list changes you want to see in the rest of the article. nadav (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
It is rather convenient to label reports that are critical of Israel as sensationalist, while pro-Israeli sources (some based on sole accounts of survivors) are held in high esteem. There will be no double standard on this article. We will not hold the critical reports to a higher standard than the pro-Israeli sources. --Agha Nader 02:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. It may be a "fringe theory of an anonymous source" now, but it was apparently taken somewhat seriously by a high-ranking British diplomat, and the source wasn't anonymous to him. I think we should mention it briefly, in the context of the British government's response, whilst making it clear that there's no indication that the government actually took it seriously. Since it has been mentioned in the press, is sufficieiently non-fringe that the UK government considered it, and both of these are verifiable, anything less would open Wikipedia up to criticism that it was being pro-Israeli. (Anything more would be giving it undue weight, however, and it'd require careful wording.) - makomk 10:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There are articles about it in The Times and BBC News. This is notable and well-sourced. "Undue weight" means we should stress that this merely a theory that British diplomats had rather than any kind of direct evidence. —Ashley Y 05:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. This material is notable and reliably sourced. There is no reason why we cannot include this in a balanced manner into the article. I propose that it should be restored.--Agha Nader 16:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ulrich Wegener

Apparently, Ulrich Wegener was at Entebbe and used the experience as a model for the GSG 9 operation in Mogadishu the following year. This is detailed in an interview here: . I think this would be worth mentioning in the article. Rhombus 04:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about the article

Four editors agree that adding back the claims of the anonymous Euro-Arab Parliamentary Association source is undue weight. However, I'm creating this section for discussion of the problems Agha Nader sees in the rest of the article. If there are false or biased statements in the article, then we should try to address those problems instead of trying to counter-"balance" them by adding the rejected material. nadav (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You said "All we have is a fringe theory that Israel aided the PFLP attack on its own interests." - and I don't think that's quite what is alleged. As best I can tell, we have a theory that Israel infiltrated a fringe group of the PLO and trained/armed/encouraged it to carry out attacks, with the intent that the PLO and the Palestinians should get the blame. It's not even alleged (that I can see) that Israel knew of this particular hi-jack. In any case, it wouldn't appear it would have been their intention to stop it (as long as it didn't actually threaten the security of Israel, which of course Entebbe did not). Let me remind you, Israel has attacked allies and (pre-Israel) killed fellow Zionists and likely bombed Jews (Iraq), there's nothing particularily "surprising" about this claim.
Then you say: "Nobody espouses this claim except some anonymous source who telephoned a diplomat 30 years ago." - when Israeli sources loudly insist that various parties are keen to believe any kind of lies about Israel. You can't have it both ways, either people believe stories like this or they don't. Everyone agrees that people *do* believe this kind of story!
Furthermore, the sources, though saying "No evidence anyone believed it" treat the accusations as quite likely having some basis.
You have some reason to say "Not notable", eg name of original informant not known, Colvin doesn't say he believes it, we don't see further evidence. But the more I think about it, the more it seems to me that some mention (and the Times and BBC references) should be included. PalestineRemembered 11:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

BBC Broadcast

broadcast 4 July 1976. Jaakobou 10:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thunderbolt or Thunderball (revisited)

Was it known as Operation Thunderbolt or Thunderball? I reckon one of them is erroneous. Perhaps this article should clarify rather that help spread the error. --Ezeu 22:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Section needed on this story.

There have been earlier attempts to insert a rather striking post-script to this article. The story is particularly notable because it claims that the splinter movement that carried out the action sought to damage the PLO, explaining why Israeli intelligence might have both infiltrated the PFLP and encouraged it to attack planes. I've written it up as follows, probably for insertion at the end of all the other text:

British suspected Israeli involvement

In June 2007, the UK Government released a report written by D. H. Colvin, first secretary at the British Embassy in Paris, 3 days into the 7-day hijacking. An unnamed contact in the Euro-Arab Parliamentary Association had told him the hijack was the work of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine with help from the Israeli secret service, the Shin Bet. The (London) Times reported this as "may have been the work of Israeli secret agents.'[2] and the BBC as "Diplomats suspected Entebbe hijacking was an Israeli plot to discredit the PLO."[3]

Mr Colvin's confidential report claimed that the operation was designed to torpedo the Palestinian Liberation Organisation’s standing in France, and to prevent what they saw as a growing rapprochement between the PLO and the Americans.

The British did nothing with this report, but there were further indications of inter-Palestinian rivalries from the the journalist Leo Murray, interviewed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Sources had told Murray "the Entebbe hijacking had been planned by Wadia Hassad’s splinter group from the PFLP ... to prevent the development of contacts between Arafat of the PLO and the West."[2]

Israel firmly denied the contact's claim about Israeli involvement[4], with officials in the Vice premier's office calling it "foolishness" and "not worthy of comment,"[5].

The British were accused of never having "expressed support for the Entebbe raid" as they struggled to determine the fate of Doris Bloch, a British-Israeli grandmother.[2] She was presumed dead a week later and the UK, having examined Ugandan collusion with the hijackers, broke off diplomatic relations with her ex-colony the same month.[3]

  1. ^ a b Parkinson, Daniel (2007). "Israel hijack role 'was queried'". BBC. Retrieved June 1.  Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help); Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  2. ^ a b c Diplomats suspected Entebbe hijacking was an Israeli plot to discredit the PLO, The Times, Fran Yeoman, 1st June 2007. Retrieved 2007-08-16.
  3. ^ a b Israel hijack role 'was queried', BBC, Daniel Parkinson 6 June 2007. Retrieved 2007-08-16.
  4. ^ "Eitam: UK claims of Israeli collusion in 1976 hijacking 'audacious'", Israel Insider, by israelinsider staff, June 2, 2007. Retrieved 2007-08-16.
  5. ^ Israel: BBC Entebbe Story 'Ridiculous', Arutz Sheva. Retrieved 2007-08-16.

PalestineRemembered 10:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Serious undue weight being given to this topic. See previous discussions on this talk page. --Makaristos 15:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Please cite the part of WP:UNDUE that says this material cannot be included. Just because material is about reports that are critical of Israel does not mean it is a fringe theory. --Agha Nader 17:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Previous discussion only underlines the notability of this claim, which comes from the British Government and was reported by at least two top level Reliable Sources. Neutral Point of View "says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". There is most certainly another "significant viewpoint" in this case, and 321 words (plus 59 words of Israeli denial) is a small fraction of the 2600 words already in the article. PalestineRemembered 18:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that the only person who actually believed the theory is that one anonymous person in the Euro-Arab Parliamentary Association who telephoned Colvin one day, and of course no evidence was ever provided. Undue weight means that it's wrong to dedicate an entire section to this barely notable, fringest-of-fringe conspiracy theory. It is not deserving of more than one or two short sentences, if that. nadav (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Here are the relevant parts of WP:UNDUE: "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all," and "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Please provide evidence that anyone besides this single, unnamed source actually shared the view that Israel had a direct role in the kidnapping of its citizens. nadav (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Well put. Thank you. --Makaristos 13:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The view that Israel played some significant part in this hijack, almost wanting it to happen, is clearly attributed to the British Government by the two top Reliable Sources quoted. Excellent Verifiability, whether or not you accept it as "truth". There would appear to be nothing to seriously dispute that this was a "major viewpoint", making it a slam-dunk. Major Viewpoint = Inclusion in the article. PalestineRemembered 16:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a blatant falsehood. The view that Israel played a part in hijacking and killing its own citizens is attributed to "An unnamed contact in the Euro-Arab Parliamentary Association". The very sources you cite describe the British gov't position on this as ""foolishness" and "not worthy of comment". If you persist in misquoting and misattributing views like this, you will soon find yourself, yet again, in front of ArbComm. Isarig 18:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from threatening editors, because threats can be construed as incivility. Please assume good faith.
Furthermore, you are incorrect and are, indeed, "misquoting" yourself! It was only the Israeli publication ( that said "officials in the Vice premier's office calling it "foolishness" and "not worthy of comment.""
I will assume good faith and assume this was an unintentional misquote.
This material will be included in the article since it is irrefutably reliably sourced. It will be presented in a neutral manner. Cheers!--Agha Nader 22:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I am no threatening anyone - I am giving PR some friendly advice and alerting him to the natuarl consequences of his actions. PR made a false claim - that The view that Israel played some significant part in this hijack, almost wanting it to happen, is clearly attributed to the British Government - none of the sources he references make this claim , and one of them explicitly and directly refutes it. This does not belong in the article, as it is an extreme fringe opinion, attributed to an anonymous source. If you add it to the article, expect to have it reverted per WP:UNDUE. Isarig 22:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me - two very good Reliable sources, British government thought Israel was deeply involved, belongs in the article. PalestineRemembered 22:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Liar. None of the sources sya this. If you add it again expect to have it removed, per WP:UNDUE, and don't be surprised to find yourself, yet again, at ArbComm, as this kind of disruption must be stopped.Isarig 22:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The accusation sounds unbelievable to me but sounds like it is properly documented. Does one source make the claim then refutes it? If so, this could be a way that it is presented (assuming that this is how the source presents it). Jerseycam 01:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the fact that the unnamed person from Euro-Arab Parliamentary Association told this stuff to Colvin is well-documented. But it does not mean that this anonymous person should get any weight in an article that should focus on mainstream opinion, as WP:UNDUE demands. The minute we get any evidence that a notable minority of current experts believe this theory, then we can mention it in the article. nadav (talk) 03:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
the newspaper citation is enough to warrant the inclusion of this. it is not a violation of WP:NOR, although ironically, you're violating it with your refutation.
wikipedia has entire articles based off of one citation. streisand effect is such an article. yet you don't think there should even be a single sentence in this article? if you're so principled, why didn't you vote in the recent afd for the streisand effect? if you didn't know about it, do feel free to renominate it.
or maybe you're just a hypocrite who shifts allegiances whenever it suites your agenda.
in any event, something doesn't need to be true to merit mentioning. consider 9/11. there's a paragraph on that article discussing conspiracy theories. they're all quite absurd but they deserve mentioning, none-the-less, because they are widely held and have garnered media attention. just like this. it may be true or it may not be. but the fact that it seems to be widely held and has garnered media attention means it should be mentioned —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:37, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
The first part of your argument makes the logical errors of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Out of curiosity, I reviewed streisand effect, and I agree that it should be deleted as neologism. Anyway, I never once referred to WP:NOR, but rather to WP:UNDUE, which is completely different. Concerning the 9-11 conspiracy theories, the very fact that wide swaths of the population believes in them is what warrants (small) mention in the main article. Expanded treatment is given in a subarticle so as not to bias the main article, as policy calls for. Additionally, I think my opinion on this is sincere and consistent. nadav (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
if you think the streisand effect article should be deleted, then i agree that you're position is consistent and sincere.
that said, i find WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE at odds with one another. people ask for citations because articles violate WP:NOR, but when citations are provided that don't violate WP:NOR, they still violate WP:UNDUE? isn't that like setting someone up to fail? of course, wikipedia does that a lot. i've seen afd's where the consensus was to merge into another article and then that other article gets deleted. if the people who had voted to merge would have known that their vote would have meant the deletion of all data, they wouldn't have voted to merge - they would have voted to keep. likewise, if people knew that confirming to WP:NOR would still violate WP:UNDUE, would they still have supported WP:NOR as a policy?
as for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - i think it's silly. i don't think the streisand effect article should be deleted, but i also don't think rules should be selectively applied. why do some articles get to violate policies that others don't? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an answer, per WP:JUSTAPOLICY. 05:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Are not you aware that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS refers to article for deletion debates? Wikipedia policies, as you must know, are created based on a variety of things including precedence. It is not a 'logical error' to include this material into the article based on precedence. Moreover, this material is well sourced by the BBC and many other mainstream sources. WP:UNDUE refers to fringe theories that are not notable enough to warrant inclusion, but that is not the case here.--Agha Nader 04:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The solution to this is completely obvious. It should be mentioned (since it is notable and reliably sourced), but not given much weight (per WP:UNDUE). —Ashley Y 01:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What phrasing do you suggest exactly, and where do you think it should be placed in the article? nadav (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I just placed in the bottom of the page. Where do you think it should be place? Since it seemed that after laborious debate we finally came to a conclusion, I added the material. How do you feel about the phrasing? --Agha Nader 04:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Suspected Israeli involvement in hijack

(RfC tag and invitation to community to get involved been removed by originator). PalestineRemembered 15:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
On the opening of British government papers after 30 years, two media sources report suspicions of Israeli involvement in the hi-jack that led to Operation Entebbe. Do these reports merit inclusion in article? 20:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
where's the section and the related notes and evidence? JaakobouChalk Talk 07:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
It's the section that was removed from the article [4], and that was copied into the immediately preceding talkpage thread by PalestineRemembered. nadav (talk) 08:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is obviously an Issue of National Security for The United States of America. Disinformation is allowed, and expected, for Our Safety. Therefore any documents you may think you have are suspect, and do not meet the bar for reliable sources on wikipedia. Aschoeff 10:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Your post is totally irrelevant. It is almost like you haven't read the BBC report or the suggested material for inclusion. Your post has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. It is completely incoherent. What in the world are you talking about when you say "This is obviously an Issue of National Security for The United States of America"? This has nothing to do with the USA! The reports were released by a British diplomat. Please read before you post.--Agha Nader 12:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism in discussion page

User Aschoeff should refrain from removing discussions from the talk page. Please see this edit [5]. It is rather peculiar since he is removing his own post as well--it is almost as though he did not like that he was wrong. He had stated "This is obviously an Issue of National Security for The United States of America. Disinformation is allowed, and expected, for Our Safety. Therefore any documents you may think you have are suspect, and do not meet the bar for reliable sources on wikipedia." Removing discussions from the talk page will not be permitted and will be recognized as vandalism. --Agha Nader 16:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right. In face, you may be right about a LOT of things. Let's begin again, I just may be on your side, unless sides change. Aschoeff 03:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It's good that you realize the material should be included. --Agha Nader 16:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I was a bit tipsy when I wrote that. I think it's schlock and you should stop sullying wikipedia with these inappropriate and completely unreliable conspiracy theories. Now, though, I am curious to see if you say yet again that what I wrote is vandalism. I do not approve of your selective editing of my comments. I do not touch yours, do not touch mine. Aschoeff 22:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying you were drunk while editing, so I should hold you responsible for your comments? Mayhap Wikipedia is not the right place for you if you do not want to be responsible for what you say. I have not added "unreliable conspiracy theories" to the article. Again, please read before you post!--Agha Nader 02:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I shall never again speak with you, because you are disingenuous. I do not trust your intentions. I believe you are Evil. Goodbye and leave me ALONE. Aschoeff 02:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attack, as they are in violation of WP:NPA. In addition, please be civil--you have violated WP:CIV. Do not repeat this poor behavior again.--Agha Nader 05:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

sugar seed

What is a "sugar plantation"? Sugar cane, I guess?... -- NIC1138 19:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What route?

  • What was the air route of the Israeli raid? Was it only over sea and Kenya, or did they shortcut across Ethiopia, or what? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I was wondering the same thing. The article did specify they were not in contact with any ground control, so my bet is, since Africa is poorly covered by ATC radar, they probably just cut through remote eastern Sudan. However I'm not sure what kind of access Israeli planes had from Israel into the Red Sea, since that would graze Egypt and Saudi Arabia. -Rolypolyman (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
      • In one of the film reconstructions I heard said in one of the raiding planes: "We're over Nairobi heading towards Lake Victoria.", and later "We're flying over Lake Victoria.", but I do not know how near that is to reality. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Question about the APC's being M-113s

In William Stevenson's book, "90 Minutes At Entebbe" (Copy right July 1976, ISBN 0-553-10482-9)he talks about 'halftracks' being loaded and paratroopers sleeping under 'halftracks' during the flight to and back. Is it possible to post a link or list the reference that identies the APCs as M-113s.

edited, updated 04/02/2008 I have been doing some research into this question. While I do not yet have a primary source yet, I have had some feed back that points the APC question in the direction of the BTR-40 APC. BTR-40s would make more sense for a couple of reasons. Based on two different articles I have ran acrossed which claim that two aircraft carried two APCs each into Entebbe and home. Two combat loaded M-113s would over load a C-130 under normal take off weight limits trying for normal flight range. Two BTR-40s weight less that single M-113. Two BTR-40s would not over load a C-130 going for an extended range mission. Per a Jane's 1976 AFV ID book, Uganda was a user of BTR-40s while they did not have the M-113. A M-113 would be louder than a BTR-40 as it moved acrossed the airfield and would have stood out in the darkness as something that was not normal to the defending forces. BTR-40s, like the Mercedes, would confuze the defenders allowing the attackers to get closer to their targets. Consider the fact that the APCs would be driving around an airport, there was no need for the heavier M-113 with it's better cross country ability. A lighter 4x4 wheeled vehicle like the BTR-40 would be much better.

The reason I bring this item up is this article almost looks like the APCs WERE M-113s. I am trying to nail down the facts of this issue so that others can no longer use this article as a source to support they claim that M-113s were used by the IDF at Entebbe.

Suggestion: In "The Blocking/Reinforcement or 'Engagemen' Element" section, last sentence of the first paragraft which says "This element was also equiped with light armoured vehicles such as the M-113 and BTR-type armoured personnel carriers....."

If there is no direct primary source to support the statement "M-113", change the sentence to read:

This element was also equiped with light armoured personnel carriers and were responsible for:


Sgtscoutsout (talk) 10:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)