Talk:Samir Kuntar

ISRAELI PROPAGANDA AT ITS WORST

This narrative about Samir Kuntar is highly biased in favor of Israel and offers no objectivity. It contains a long list of allegations, inflammatory rhetoric, and hyperbole and no recent information about Kuntar. It is a rehash of history. There is much more to write about Kuntar's work post-imprisonment, however, it seems that the Israeli propaganda machine will revert if there is a single positive statement included here. When attempting to insert a modicum of objectivity to the narrative, it was reverted. Is there any hope for this narrative to ever be objective or will it always be the dirty work of the Israeli propaganda machine? The fact that thousands of Palestinians admired and respected Kuntar is a FACT. He was a hero to those people who are resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. Will the Israeli propaganda machine allow those FACTS to be included in this narrative? Is there any point in adding any narrative that will not meet with the approval of the Israel propaganda machine? The fact that the United States designated Samir Kuntar as a global terrorist does not make it true. It simply means that the U.S. will fall in line with whatever Israel wants in regards to Hezbollah. Russia doesn't agree that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization and sees it as an ally in the fight against ISIS. Is this information something that the Israel propaganda machine will allow to be added to this narrative about Kuntar? I doubt it. By continuing to refer to Kuntar as a terrorist, a murderer, and other violent attributions, the truth about him and his work will never see the light of day. --Judith Haney (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Fuck you, you shitty murder apologist. He killed a 4 year old girl.

Kuntar was definitely not a good person. However anon is more than likely an apologist for the wanton killing and disregard for civilian life in Palestine and Lebanon by the IDF. Murdering children with white phosphorus or with cluster bombs is no less heinous, and the general IDF view of "they're only Arabs" is repulsive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A4E0:11EC:595A:AC6:4FFB:DD5E (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

POV

Samir Kuntar is NO political prisoner. He is a cold blooded psychopathic murderer - the 'worst of the worst' kind - a baby killer! As a non Arab/Israeli, I have no stake in taking any side. But as the adage goes: 'where there is smoke....". Even we were to consider the pro-Kuntarian POV that tries to raise doubt; there is ENOUGH evidence to show blood on his hands.

I have not been a fan of Israel's severely disproportionate, and at time paranoid and preemptive response against innocent civilians -in the name of pursuing terrorists. While Israel has the right to defend its citizens, especially against suicide bombers (which, by the way, doesn't help Palestinian legitimate struggle to end occupation); it continues to commit crimes-against-humanity by killing innocent civilians who had been on the receiving end of those disproportionate air assaults. C’mon if they can find the every last member of the Nazi regime and/or member of the Munich incident group from end of the earth, or can pull off a strike with surgical precision to destroy a nuclear facility thousand miles away without being detected; they can minimize the civilian toll.

Giving Samir Kuntar a heroes welcome (notwithstanding other political prisoners)does disservice to the legitimate struggle to the Palestinian/Lebanese cause; and severely undermines the Lebanese Presidency, Offices of the PM, Speaker; and even the moral authority of the Shite Clergy. -Ahmad A. Iqbal. (July 17th, '08)

I came here looking for something informative and balanced. You know, the sort of thing we all come to expect from Wikipedia.

This comes across as propaganda. It doesn't seem very encyclopedic at all. Steve Lowther 05:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What exactly did you expect? To hear that he is a fredom fighter or an innocent citizen that Israel kidnapped in a cross-border infltration into Lebanon? Well he is not. He murdered a family and this is described in an NPOV fashion. If you have good WP:RS sources saying otherwise, bring them. Zeq 06:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm... No actually I just expected what I said; "informative and balanced" rather than "propaganda". I think this is particularly important with an article that is crucial to a current event. I see that the article is now markedly improved.

Incidentally, I don't have any particular POV here, other than a desire to see a better standard being applied to articles related to current events. Steve Lowther 23:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe the following should be written in an article about Kuntar:{Inspired by the prisoner swap Hamas vowed, a few days later, that they would also abduct Israeli soldiers to secure the release of Palestinian prisoners. Hassan Nasrallah simultaneously told his supporters that Hezbollah would continue to kidnap Israelis until "not a single prisoner" remained inside Israeli jails.}

Maybe the part about Nasrallah is a little bit more welcomed(but it's a detail anyway) but the part about Hamas is not directly related to the Kuntar issue. that's why i chose to make a little change, if someone still insists on the paragraph i deleted you can paste it back in the article. But I think my version would be a little better.--Six 7 8 20:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Samir Kuntar is NO political prisoner. He is a cold blooded psychopathic murderer - the 'worst of the worst' kind - a baby killer! As a non Arab/Israeli, I have no stake in taking any side. But as the adage goes: 'where there is smoke....". Even we were to consider the pro-Kuntarian POV that tries to raise doubt; there is ENOUGH evidence to show blood on his hands.

I have not been a fan of Israel's severely disproportionate, and at time paranoid and preemptive response against innocent civilians -in the name of pursuing terrorists. While Israel has the right to defend its citizens, especially against suicide bombers (which, by the way, doesn't help Palestinian legitimate struggle to end occupation); it continues to commit crimes-against-humanity by killing innocent civilians who had been on the receiving end of those disproportionate air assaults. C’mon if they can find the every last member of the Nazi regime and/or member of the Munich incident group from end of the earth, or can pull off a strike with surgical precision to destroy a nuclear facility thousand miles away without being detected; they can minimize the civilian toll.

Giving Samir Kuntar a heroes welcome (notwithstanding other political prisoners)does disservice to the legitimate struggle to the Palestinian/Lebanese cause; and severely undermines the Lebanese Presidency, Offices of the PM, Speaker; and even the moral authority of the Shite Clergy. -Ahmad A. Iqbal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.155.132.249 (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Bias

I have tried to reword a few of the paragraphs to make them less emotional and biased. By focusing on the graphic descriptions of the murder of the daughter and constantly referring to her age, the article becomes too emotional. Wikipedia is supposed to report facts, not take sides in conflicts.

I have also added a paragraph stating that many people believe he is innocent of the murders and consider him a political prisoner. I personally don't believe that, but it is important to add this information to understand why Hizbollah wants him set free.

I understand that people are emotional about such an issue, and I have read what the surviving wife and mother wrote about the experience, which was undoubtedly awful. We still need to tone those aspects down in an encyclopedic article.

Oh no no we do not censor the truth just because it is hard to hear. Tkalisky (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Innocent? Ha-ha-ha! Allek "political prisoner". What was he doing in Nahariya then? Taking a tour in the town? Sipping caffé latte in Sderot ha'Gaaton? Such an idiocy has no place on Wikipedia; Wikipedia is not Al-Manar, to remind you. Islamists openly take pride in killing infidels, be it in Iraq, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Thailand or Israel. They are praised for it. They even videotape it. Everybody knows it. He is guilty, he was caught in action, and he was convicted. Israel does not have interest in jailing uninvolved people, as can clearly be seen from the case with a shepherd boy from recent Baalbek raid. Aleverde.

Those people who consider him innocent only do so out of ethnic/political/religious/racial pride. There are times when loyalty to your own people and your own family is commendable, but not when it is at the expense of an objective, higher level of justice. It's just sad to imagine how some people can apologize for this man's actions, simply because of "Hizbollah Pride". -- Camille

for camille: you are talking non sence, because Samir Kuntar was a communist, not an islamist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.224.194.149 (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I want to give a quick overview about Samir Kuntar. Samir Kuntar in 1979 broke into an apartment of the Haran family, there he took hostage the father Danny and his 4 year old daughter Einat. Meanwhile in the apartment Danny's wife, Smadar, and their other daughter, 2-year old, Yael, managed to hide in a crawl space. Kuntar took Danny and Einat to the beach where he murdered them both in cold blood. Danny was drowned and Einat was beaten to death. Meanwhile in the apartment Smadar covered little Yael's mouth in order to prevent her from crying and giving out their location, Yael accidentally suffocated to death.

Now I will give a quick overview about myself. My name is Ahmed Rassas, I am a Lebanese, I support Lebanon completely, but i dont agree with Israel's potential future release of Samir Kuntar. Even though the zionists commit crimes too, Samir Kuntar is still a murderer, he kidnapped a father and his four year old daughter, and shot the father in front of the daughter and then drowned him in the sea, and forced the 4-year old to watch the whole event. Moments later he took the 4 year old and stomped her and beat her death. Read this website: http://samirkuntar.net Israel should never release Samir Kantar. Especially this piece is something i find shocking:

"According to Smadar Haran, her last memories of Danny and Einat, that day, were when they were being led away at gun point by Kuntar. She could hear from her closet space Danny telling Einat, "Don't be scared, my baby, it will be alright" and Einat replied to him in her little voice, "Dad, where is Mommy? I want Mommy." Smadar's last memory of her 2-year-old daughter, Yael, was when her little daughter was taken to the apartment hiding space. Right before Yael had her mouth covered by her mother, she asked her mother "Where is my little pacifier." There was no time to search for the pacifier. Minutes later Smadar covered Yael's mouth to keep her from revealing the hiding space. Smadar soon felt her daughter's tiny tongue licks and lip sucking on the palm of her hand. She didn't know what to make of it at first but hours later was told by doctors and paramedics that the reason Yael was licking her palm while she covered her mouth was because she was gasping for air.

A Sad Gruesome Reality

After drowning Danny in the sea in front of little Einat, Kuntar, the brave Lebanese freedom fighter, then turned his attention towards the frightened little 4-year old. He took his rifle and then swung it across the little toddler's head, knocking her to the ground. As little Einat was knocked to the ground, she was screaming and crying hysterically "mommy daddy help me," while thrashing her little legs around in the sand. But unfortunately Einat was alone, and no one was there to save her. Kuntar then dragged the little toddler a couple of feet to the closest rock he could find, this was while she was begging him not to hurt her. Kuntar, then laid her head down on a rock, with the intention of crushing it with the butt of his rifle. Einat, instinctively covered her head with her little arms, Kuntar struggled with the little toddler until he finally managed to clear her arms out of the way so that he could aim for her head. Once her arms were out of the way, Kuntar proceeded on beating her on the head over and over with the butt of his rifle, and repeatedly stomping on her little body as hard as he could as well, until blood rushed out of her ears and mouth, and her little cries faded away as she was knocked into unconsciousness'. Then, to ensure she was dead, Kuntar continued on beating her over the head, as hard as he could, several more times until her skull was crushed and she was dead."

And lets not forget, the release of Kuntar wasn't Hizbollah's main objective behind their July 12 kidnapping operation of the two Israeli soldiers, but instead, Kuntar was their only objective. small>—Preceding unsigned comment added by AhmedRassas (talk • contribs) 03:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It’s obvious that the description of some of the events in the absence of eye witnesses must have been manufactured and I’m referring to how Kuntar allegedly killed the child. So much detail by the Maariv newpaper yet nobody was there to see! You’d think that all the Israeli TV channels were there to televise the incident live!

Forensics experts may be able to determine the object that killed the child such as a rifle butt or rock but detail such as… “Einat, instinctively covered her head with her arms, Kuntar struggled with the toddler until he finally managed to clear her arms out of the way.”, etc is impossible to determine. Regards GR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.121.142 (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There are many ways that information could have been gleaned. Remember that Kuntar is an unremorseful child killer who could've been boasting about his cruelty. Also remember that Israel has listening devices and other methods of gleaning information. What should be clear to determine, is that killing a child with the butt of a rifle, with the child fighting to stay alive... you fill in the rest.

Ahmed Rassas, G-d bless you; I knew there were still decent people in Lebanon. Itzse (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Except he never did! He was tortured into admitting to killing her with a rifle butt but never went to all that ridiculous detail. After the interrogation he always denied killing Danny Haran and his daughter Einat. All that information was just the usual Israeli sensationalism, using human suffering to sell their warped and debased ideology that has killed far more Palestinian children than anti-Zionists have killed Israeli children. The Mummy (talk) 11:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Just a note

I've just created Lebanese prisoners held by Israel, would appreciate if anybody had information on the other names involved. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The Name

The name is best written in english as SAMEER Quntar. This is the best approximation to the Arabic sound. I know that the name "Samir Kuntar" is circulating in the net, but we need to adhere to the name that closely resembles the Arabic one. --Thameen 09:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually Samiir or Samīr would be an accurate scholarly transcription of the classical Arabic pronunciation of his name, while "Sameer" would be something of a crude journalistic equivalent (based on English-specific spelling conventions only), so it's hard to say how Sameer is more "correct". If "Samir" is much more commonly found in third-party writing (in addition to the official family website), that's what should be used here... AnonMoos 12:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The Arabic version is mangled: all the letters are final. I don't have access to an Arabic keyboard -- can someone fix this? WLior (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The Lebanon Plan

this seems factually incorrect. I dont think Kuntar was ever explicitly names in UN-Siniora plan, which only mentioned "Lebanese prisoners". Hezbollah certainly interprets this to include Kuntar, but he was not named inb the agreement, as this article implies. See the wikipedia article on the Siniora Plan Jhcarter 14:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Samir Kuntar

I took the liberty of reverting your revert, per WP:WTA, which says to generally avoid words like 'terrorist' - although some states regard him as a terrorist, others do not, and although I personally think he is, it's not really Wikipedia's place to assign labels to people. Feel free to insert who sees him as a terrorist, and please be assured I'm not pro-anyone - I'm editing from Dartmouth, not Haifa or Lebanon! Thanks, HawkerTyphoon 11:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You have nearly convinced me of being Mother Teressa but what you really wanted to write was that that you are "...editing from Dartmouth, not Haifa Israel or Lebanon Iran!".

Otherwise, Samir's action are defined as terroristic actions according to even a very strict interpretation of WP term Terrorism one needs not be in Iran, Israel or Lebanon to grasp this fact.
Further more, the man is/was convicted of terrorism and is in jail for that reason, there is no dispute whatever about the issue. The only authority that has tried so far to challenge these terms or facts is [Hezbolla] which is an Iranian organization that is considered as a terror organization by all non dictatorial states on earth. On.Elpeleg (talk) 10:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I would only say in reply that all Wikipedia does is assign labels to people. Oh, and I've no problem at all with your editing from Haifa or Lebanon. On the contrary. Cheers. IronDuke 03:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

this is like a bad joke the way the page is like right now - look up the definition of the word "terrorism" - terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature;

i cannot, for the life of me, see how entering a house and killing a family is not terrorism - even if they are considered legitimate targets by some - it just means that those "some" believe that it's ok to act with terrorism against random civillians.. it doesn't mean the act itself is not a terrorist act.

Jaakobou 14:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The present compromise -- "was widely viewed as a terrorist act" with a list of specific references -- seems to be basically satisfactory to most editors of this article at this time... AnonMoos 16:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

AnonMoos, i think it's a sad joke - maybe i should go in to the articles about the Irgun and the Lehi and change them to be "falsly accused to be terrorist by the british and arabs only" ??? - maybe we should start lying like the arab media that says 9/11 and pearl harbor were zionists and US conspiracy acts so that the US can go into the oil buisness?! - there's a clear definition to the word "terrorist" and samir kuntar fits it perfectly and he even admitted to his acts with pride.. it doesn't matter if the targets are considered legitimate.. playing these "He participated in what was widely viewed as a terrorist attack" games puts us at serious risk of losing credibility when it's more than obvious that it was a terror attack... not a freedom fighting action.. it was done, i'll remind you all before israel went into lebanon - and this guy was a secular druze who never lived in what is dubbed as "occupied territories" which is a sad joke in itself since 4 arab countries attacked israel... but in any event - kuntar was a terrorist. no doubt - and if you want to call him "resistance jihad" warrior - that would still mean terrorist.

Jaakobou 01:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Jaakobou, you are correct, but the current version is sourced and I think everyone can see that he was a terrorist. It is better for wikpedia not to say "was a terrorist" but show sources that he was a terrorist. atleast as long as the category exists, it's also obvious. if the category disappears, then it should change to "is a terrorist" like you say. Amoruso 02:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The Lebanon Plan

Following Step 5, Hezbollah should not exist. So why is it mentioned in step 6? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.130.164 (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Derp herp

I pushed unfounded claims that Lebanese militant groups welcomed Samir Kuntar specifically for his actions, as opposed to welcoming Lebanese citizens that were Israeli prisoners back to Lebanon in bulk. When playing godwin's law, I also ignore who openly allowed the Sabra-Shatila massacre to happen through proxies, and who routinely caused the deaths of civilians in Lebanon through callousness/indifference to "collateral damage". Let's not forget that I have no problem with the illegal occupation and annexation parcels of land belonging to other countries; I was the one who used godwin's law in the first place after all. unsigned comment added by 66.108.109.208 (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find he carried out he did (1979) before the creation of Hizbollah (early 1980's). Also you'll find that all the Lebanese leadership gave him and the other prisoners a welcome, not only Hizbollah.

Kuntar convicted of killing four or three people?

There seems to be some confusion about whether Kuntar was convicted on four or three counts of murder. It looks like it was actually three, and that Kuntar wasn't convicted of killing the second policeman. (Other people than Kuntar took part in the operation.) It would be great if we could explain the discrepancy in accounts in this article. Nonplus (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed what you wrote about his "former cell mate". There was a trial and if he denied it, it was regarded as lies. Israel has an independent judicial system. Amoruso (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Amoruso, it may well be lies. But his statement about it is a verified fact, regardless. And it's a fact which is undeniably relevant to the article, and so must be included. Please restore my edit as it was. Nonplus (talk) 12:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the quotation marks you inserted: "never expressed remorse, but maintains a completely different version [of the events] than the 'Israeli one.'" This is a direct quote from someone. You can't change the quote because you don't agree with it.Nonplus (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm fine with it. The problem I had is that if there's a trial and a verdict, there are no more conflicting sides, and it's not the Israeli version, it's the judges' version. Amoruso (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

References

"terrorist"

Per WP:TERRORIST:

Extremism and terrorism are pejorative terms. They are words with intrinsically negative connotations that are generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and whose opinions and actions one would prefer to ignore. Use of the terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label to a group, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.

In line with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, the words "Extremist", "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". In an article the words should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article. As alternatives, consider less value-laden words such as insurgent, paramilitary, or partisan.

'Nuff said. Khoikhoi 09:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Terrorist? Heavens, no. He was just having a little fun on the beach. --Gilabrand (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That joke is in pretty poor taste. ← George ^[talk] 11:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right George. Beating the brains out of a little child is no joke; then getting a hero's welcome for his savagery, with Sheiks in attendence, is pretty poor taste. What does it say about mankind? One big JOKE!!! Itzse (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What's it say about humankind? Some people are bad. Making sarcastic jokes in poor taste about the subject doesn't change that, and will accomplish little here on Wikipedia beyond inciting other editors, who have a different view than yourself (such as all these anonymous editors who keep labeling him a freedom fighter), to edit war. Edit wars (and inciting edit wars) isn't constructive. ← George ^[talk] 19:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It's very sad that we need to take into account the "feelings" of those who think that bashing an innocent child’s head savagely (no different Jewish or Arab) is acceptable; and making them feel bad is considered "not constructive". Gilabrand was just showing her pain, as I myself feel that the removal of the use of "terrorist" from these type of articles has more to do with (dirty) politics then with arguing semantics. I didn't see her remarks as a joke; only as a burst of anguish which I would expect from any decent human being. Itzse (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing these terms has nothing to do with the politics, semantics, or the "feelings" of other. It has to do with people having different views of a situation, and different definitions of words, which make these issues fall into gray regions. Wikipedia policy is intended as a guideline to let us include controversial information without falling into these gray regions, or worse, defining something other people see as black to be white, or vice versa. Even if we all agreed that this was a condemnable act, that doesn't mean we agree that this person is necessarily a "terrorist." And, undoubtedly, some, whom I would greatly disagree with, would see this person as a hero - it's all definitional. For instance, what is your definition of a "terrorist"? For me, it's someone who commits an act of violence in order to incite terror in a group of people in order to achieve some political goal. Does the killing of a 4-year-old fall into this definition? It may, or it may not, depending on the situation - I don't know enough about this event to make a call on that either way. And that is why we have the policy, so that neither you or I has to make a personal judgement call based on our own definitions. But because your definition and mine differ is the very reason we have these policies in place. Does a specific person or news organization call it a terrorist act? If so, say so! If a lot of them do, say that! But don't go around injecting personal views as fact, because even our personal definitions of words, the tint of the glasses each of us views the world through, do not match up between different people. And no, the issue isn't an anti-Israeli one, an anti-Jewish one, or an anti-anything-else one - I would be equally opposed to calling people like this "freedom fighters," or calling people like Ariel Sharon "terrorists" or "butchers," but when editors insist on being non-neutral and pushing words like "terrorist," it just opens the door to other editors to insert their own non-neutral viewpoints. ← George ^[talk] 23:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope we don't disagree on what's a terrorist; but that wasn't the issue. Gilaland's burst of anquish was, and I second her emotion. Itzse (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:TERRORIST exists for a reason, and shouldn't be applied in an arbitrary fashion. The very point of WP:TERRORIST is that it applies to all people in all contexts, thus trying to filter out the eternal nationalist proxy warfare at wikipedia. If the term 'terrorist' would be used here, then how to describe the killers at Sabra and Shatila? And so forth. This is not about whitewashing, but having standards that make the project of wikipedia function as an international collaboration. --Soman (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, Soman! You are most welcome to call the killers at Sabra and Shatila "murderers", for that is what they are. If you wish to name them "terrorists", please do so. I trust that the fact that the killers were Arabs would not change your action. Aviados (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you're well aware that whom the blame has been pointed. The key part of my comment is 'and so forth', namely that it would be impossible to agree on an objective criteria to usage of the term 'terrorist', and thus it should be avoided at wikipedia. If you wish to change WP:TERRORIST, then initiate a discussion there. --Soman (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sections should be merged

I think that the "Shootout and capture", "Murder of Haran family", and "Raid from Southern Lebanon" sections should me merged. They're all very short, and significantly overlap. ← George ^[talk] 10:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. FunkMonk (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll hopefully get a chance to look into doing it when the rate of edits to the article decreases a bit. ← George ^[talk] 22:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Kuntar's denials of Israeli claims about Haran killings

User Chagai removed properly sourced material relating to Kuntar's denials of the Israeli claims against him on the basis that he was convicted in court. Aside from the fact that Israeli courts do not meet international standards when trying Palestinians and others accused of "terrorism" by the state, Chagai's objection is irrelevant. The material provides RS sourced accounts of a disputed incident and removing it is totally unjustified. I reverted these changes. --Tirpse77 (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is way biased. It is using terms like "Israeli witnesses claim" or "Kuntar allegedly" etc. Like he was an innocent man happened to be around and was jailed for 30 years for no reason. So you prefer a source somewhere around the world on the Israeli justice system? Would you put the same wording "allegedly" etc. on Jonathan Pollard convicted by the US? Sure not. This whole article is a unreliable, in the name of allegedly POV. Chagai (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sourced content should not be removed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no such a blanket rule. AlwaysOnTheMark (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If the source is reliable and the content is relevant, why should it be removed? I don't see a good reason. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

He/She just gave you a good reason. Would you also qualify such sentences if the convict would be, let's say an American, and you had a relable source saying that the convicted denies the charges? AlwaysOnTheMark (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Take Ted Bundy, for example, he admitted to having killed a lot of people. If he had denied it, the article about him would mention it, for sure. This guy denied it, so it is mentioned. Sorry that I can't come up with an example of a murderer who was convicted and denied, but I don't know much about murderers. Also, the Pollard anology is quite wrong, since Israel admitted he was a spy, and he himself pleaded guilty. FunkMonk (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at all the articles of convicted killers where the convicted denies the charges and you'll see that the articles treat them as convicted. At best, mention is made somewhere in the article of their denial. AlwaysOnTheMark (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you give me some examples? FunkMonk (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not either familiar with convicted killers, but we can start looking if we have such a category. AlwaysOnTheMark (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was sure you had examples ready since you said "take a look at all the articles", but I can wait. Until then, I don't see why the statement should be removed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I do have some articles in mind which I have read over the years and none of them mentioned what the convict says. He had a trial and was found guilty, that's all that the article cares. Articles don't second guess convictions, but where there is a denial it might be mentioned, so I don't see why this article should be any different. AlwaysOnTheMark (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, it shouldn't be different, so if a denial was made, it should be mentioned. That other articles might not mention a denial could simply be because the convicted didn't deny, or that the authors of the article are unaware that they did. That's not the case here. FunkMonk (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Start looking, this is the first I found (Michael Skakel). No mention of his denial in the lede. All articles are this way; find me an article that isn't. AlwaysOnTheMark (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the article saying that he himself denied the charges... just a mention of a letter by a relative of his? ← George ^[talk] 20:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly the point, that you don't see anything in the article saying that he himself denies the charges, so why should this article be different? Later in the article you can have a mention of a denial just like this one. AlwaysOnTheMark (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess I don't follow. That article only states that the person's cousin denied the charges. If Michael Skakel himself had pled not guilty, that of course should have been written in the article, as well has his version of events. However, the shortcomings of another article don't mean much in this context. ← George ^[talk] 20:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It is incorrect to argue that just because someone is convicted of a crime that their properly sourced denial should be excluded from the article. Even well-established legal systems, like the US and the UK make gross miscarriages of justice, especially during periods of conflict or nationalist fervor, convicting (and in the US executing) innocent people. When the cases are political -- such as currently in Guantanamo, or the trials of IRA suspects in the UK during the 1970s -- then the justice system becomes even more politicized and unreliable. Israel's trials of Arab and Palestinian militants have often been highly flawed. Amnesty International, and other highly respected organizations have frequently and consistently complained that Israel's trials of its enemies do not meet international standards of fairness. Certainly, Kuntar was not tried by a jury of his peers, but by Israeli Jews in a state of war and nationalist fervor which viewed all forms of violence against the state as being illegitimate. My point is that the fact that he was "convicted" by an Israeli court really tells us little. Kuntar could be innocent like the Birmingham Six or like Sacco and Vanzetti. Another case of a conviction that is now widely believed to be unsafe is that of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi who was convicted of the Lockerbie bombing. Incidentally, the lede on his WP article states: "He has always maintained his innocence and, following the rejection of his first appeal in 2002, was granted leave in 2007 for a second appeal against conviction." The point is we can never know and especially in political cases like this one properly sourced information from all sides should be included, not just the powerful side that wants to be left alone to write the history. --Tirpse77 (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Included, yes; but not in the lede. Wikipedia doesn't distinguish between countries. It has one rule which applies to all. Not having confidence in a particular country is no excuse to have one wikipedia rule for the whole world and another one for Israel. If this is the rule, then this is the rule, all feelings aside. Otherwise Wikipedia calls it Point of view, which it prohibits. AlwaysOnTheMark (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Hmmm, it is made very clear throughout the article you linked to that the convicted didn't admit murdering anyone, so I'm not sure what your objection here is, before it seemed that you disliked that it was mentioned anywhere in the article that Kantar denied having committed the murders, but now it's about the lead? FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

His denial can be mentioned somewhere in the article but doesn't belong in the lead. If you support murderers who cross the border to bash babies' heads as politically legitimate, and find all kinds of ridiculous arguments to whitewash a killer's guilt on the grounds that he was tried in an Israeli court, perhaps you should take up law and defend this poor mistreated man who has clearly eaten well in jail (see his fat belly), taken fine advantage of all the rights prisoners are entitled to in the prisons of the Zionist enemy, and declares he will soon be back in "Palestine" to kill more people. With your lawyering skills, he may get off scot free next time--Gilabrand (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC).

Are you talking to me? Who is "supporting murderers"? Is it "supporting murderers" to add information that indicates that the person might not be a murderer? I don't see the logic, I'm afraid. But maybe he's guilty by default? Anyway, it is relevant for the lead in this article to mention he denied the allegations, since the lead is already very detailed, in contrast to the article about the other convicted murderer which was linked to for comparison. If he actually did commit the murders, what would he lose from admitting it now? And where did he say he wanted to "kill more people"? Sources, please. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course he might not be guilty. He probably just decided one day to go fishing with some friens, armed with guns and explosives, and those nasty toddlers got in the way... אליבאבא (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Why does this talk page attract a lot of inane sarcasm? FunkMonk (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Kuntar's denials should be in the article, but the big problem is the wording concerning the events themselves. For example, the "allegedly" and the "Israeli witnesses claim". I don't think that such wording is used in describing the actions of other convicted killers. 88.134.230.157 (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you are all wrong. Samir Kuntar DID ADMIT to murdering the girl and her father, when he was arrested. http://www.israelpolitik.org/2008/07/14/samir-kuntars-legal-file/

He only changed his story at the trial, when he claimed he did not even know what happened to the girl, no doubt on the advice of an astute lawyer to get his sentence reduced. I find it a little odd that you have locked editing on this page, yet conveniently "left out" this "little detail", while leaving in the article Kuntar's denials alone. Yes, I think a conspiracy theory in this case is just a tad difficult seeing as there are photographs of Kuntar rifle butt bearing residue of brain matter, and considering witnesses saw Danny Haran being drowned in the water by Kuntar. Sometimes, they really are just guilty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what the discussion is about. Times a reliable and neutral source don't use the words "alledgly, claim and etc...".Any changes should be made according to reliable sources.--Shrike (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the terms "allegedly" and "claim", as I didn't feel either was neutral enough. I left in the part about eyewitnesses, as some sources discuss people actually seeing the events.[1] ← George ^[talk] 22:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks George. I think it reads fine now. I think we can also safely ignore the hysterical comments above as they offer no constructive input into improving the article. They only underline my point that "convictions" made in an atmosphere of hysterical and emotional nationalism are inherently unsafe. --Tirpse77 (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me repeat myself. The claim that Kuntar "consisently denied" murdering the toddler and her father is false. He confessed to bludgeoning Einat Haran upon his arrest. He only changed his story during the trial itself. If you only include the latter, while omitting the former, you are not telling the truth. You are telling a half-truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the blog you initially posted wasn't a sufficiently reliable source. I've located a translation, hosted by the MFA, with more details of the trial, and included some more information from that in the article, including his initial confession. George ^[talk] 22:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It is evident that the Israeli members want this to be a one sided article in favor of Israeli claims, like all other articles of their interest on Wikipedia. As for the Israeli members who claims the following, "He confessed to bludgeoning Einat Haran upon his arrest." You do understand that he had five bullets in his body upon arrest right? He himself says he was barely conscious upon arrest and that he lost consciousness shortly after. He then describes how he was tortured to sign a confession paper, which he did not sign. I have tried adding his testimonies, but the Israeli members keep removing them. Noaccess2k (talk) 10:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I am Norwegian and also want this article to tell the truth about the horrors of your club, who tries its best to represent the story of this cold, blood babies murder as a hero. According to history it is a matter of fact the the Israeli forces did have accidents during raids on terrorists, eg. the terror bus in North Telaviv in the early 80s. Israel NEVER denied such accidents. Now, why would anyone insist on giving equal weight for this terrorist? What was he doing with a 4 years old baby on that beach that night? What was he intending to do with her? Take her to a picnic?

You do understand that your club and your hero Samir belongs to the Alibaba and the 40 loonies stories in not to reality. However, I do agree that the murderer's statement of denying his initial confession should be placed in the article, lies have no feet, let the murderer be happy with his lies, I am sure that Allah will punish him and your club when time arrives.

Now, next, go edit the 911 article, I heard that very "reliable" sources in your club also claim that Israel did it, how exactly Israel did it is an enigma to the non Alibaba members, has Israel developed a new method of mass hypnotizing Arabs and make them fly airplanes? Sure go write that... On.Elpeleg (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"According to Israeli experts"

The opinions expressed in this article are highly POV, and shouldn't be used in the lead: [2]

Some unnamed "Israeli experts" are cited as saying that most Lebanese view the exchange negatively, whereas the only one who is named also has this to says: "Zisser said the response in Lebanon was completely different from one that would have been seen in Israel due to cultural differences. Israel wouldn't use the return of soldiers for political gain, and the celebration in Israel would have been about "the return of the individual," and not victory, he said. "This is something you can only find in primitive societies," said Zisser." That's worthless as a credible source. FunkMonk (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking to use this, but it's only really useful (reliable) as a source when discussing bloggers' (negative) views of the release. I'm open to your version of this wording; I'm not sure that I have a strong preference either way. ← George ^[talk] 12:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, one thing before I go to sleep (it's almsot 6 AM here!). You may want to redo this whole "some people liked it, some people didn't" with regards to Lebanon to just say something like "several thousand people attended a celebration in Kuntar's honor in downtown Beirut," or something to that effect. Factual, easy to verify, and doesn't get into the question of emotions. ← George ^[talk] 12:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

We should certainly have something in the lead on the Arab pov on Kuntar, but the passage on the opinion of the 'majority of Lebanese' doesn't hold. The referenced article itself doesn't contain any info at all, just an Israeli commentator with a pc stating that Kuntar is only supported by Hizbollah. This is one of thousands of similar articles flooding the internet, trying to portray a wedge between Hizbollah and the Lebanese in the general. The position is false. Lebanon is politically divided, but if you try to find a Lebanese (in person, but just a blog commentary) who will be opposed to the prisoner exchange itself, good luck. What some, perhaps many, Lebanese will be opposed to is the way Hizbollah is using the event for political mileage, but no political group is opposed to exchange as such, as i understand it.

Something that is missing is info on the longrunning campaign for Kuntar's relase, in Lebanon, Palestine and internationally. --Soman (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

an article in Daily Star; [3], on Progressive Socialist Party celebrations. --Soman (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting piece at the website of the Aounist Free Patriotic Movement; [4]. Note the passage "2" in the end, describing different positions by different political forces. --Soman (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The whole article about Samir Kuntar is according to the claims of "Israeli experts". Noaccess2k (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Who was Kuntar convicted of killing?

The article lists three people in the lead - a police officer, Danny and Einat. However, it also says he was convicted of killing four people, and received four life sentences, but many sources say five people, and five life sentences... ← George ^[talk] 01:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Those three I am sure of. Perhaps also a second police officer in the final gunbattle? But as for five, I've never heard that in the Israeli media, so you can scrap that number in any case. It was either three or four - I think four. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm confused. I was thinking there might have been two police officers as well - one initially during the beach landing, then one as they were attempting to leave the beach as well. My best guess for a fifth would be the 2-year-old, but I can't believe that a court would convict him of murder in a case where the victim's mother accidentally suffocated her while hiding, but I'm unfamiliar with Israeli courts or law. The big problem is that many sources say it was five people, and he received 100 year for each murder, and 47 years for injuries he inflicted, totaling 547 years. ← George ^[talk] 10:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

In his testimony he mentions that he, together with him companions shot an Israeli officer. He also mentions that his companion Ali had thrown a grenade at a man who shot his other companion Majed in the face. So that's 2! He then mentions that Israeli soldiers fired many bullets at him, ali, Danny and Einat, without worrying about hitting the two. After the fire fight Samir was barely conscious with 5 bullets in his body and Ali, Danny and Einat were fatally wounded by Israeli bullets. So that makes 4 Israeli dead. Noaccess2k (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

New Guardian article with Kuntar's testimony

The Guardian has published a translation of the article that appeared in Ma'ariv: 'The girl screamed. I don't remember anything else,' The Guardian, 19 July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirpse77 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Kuntar's testimony

I have tried to add his testimony, but the Israeli members keep removing it. They seem to only want the story from the Israeli Foreign Ministry to be on the article.

"We set out on the rubber dinghy at 10pm on April 21 1979. The sea was stormy and it was cold. The journey to Nahariya took about four hours, because we traveled slowly to avoid making noise."

Upon landing on the beach in Nahariya, Qantar and his comrades followed instructions issued in Beirut - which included finding a police officer and killing him. They knocked on the door of a private house and called out in Arabic via the intercom, frightening the inhabitants into calling the police. They killed officer Eliyahu Shachar in a hail of bullets. Qantar boasts that he alone shot 30 bullets.

They continued to a nearby apartment building - planning, said Qantar, to abduct two or three people and take them back to Lebanon. "We walked up some stairs and I kicked open the door of an apartment," he recounted. "I told Majed [one of his co-attackers] to take the right, while I took the left. Majed opened the bedroom door and someone inside shot him twice in the forehead. He managed to say, 'They shot me,' before he fell.

"I doubled back, entered the bedroom and saw the man who shot Majed. He was an older guy, with a long nose. I pulled the trigger on my pistol that was equipped with a silencer, but nothing happened. I tried again, but still nothing. I tried using my Kalashnikov, but it was jammed. That guy was lucky.

"I yelled downstairs, 'Someone get up here.' Ali came up the stairs. I told him, 'Toss a grenade in there, I've gotta fix my weapon.' The explosion made everything go black. The guy in the bedroom disappeared. I was pretty sure he was dead, but I fired a few more shots just to make sure. Then we went downstairs. The stairwell was dark, but there was light under the door of one of the apartments. We broke in. That was the Haran family's apartment.

"Dan Haran was standing there, looking at us. The little girl was with him. When we arrived, he was sitting on the bed, as if he were waiting for someone. But as soon as we entered the bedroom, he stood up. He started talking to me in English. I didn't understand much; just a few words. He was trying to explain that I should not hurt him. I told my comrade in Arabic, 'Don't shoot.'

"I tried to calm him with gestures. I said to him, 'Come.' He started speaking to me in a mixture of Hebrew and English. He held his daughter tightly. The girl did not make a sound. She was wearing pajamas. I tried to tell him to leave her there, but he did not understand. I tried telling him 'come.' But he did not want to come with me. I understood he was trying to give the police time to arrive. He was afraid.

"My comrade, Muhammad Ali, did not understand why we were waiting. I tried explaining to Haran again, using Arabic and hand gestures. He understood, but he was completely unwilling to come with me. I tried to separate him from the little girl. Then I heard shots outside. It was 2.45am. I said, 'He is delaying us.'

"I grabbed him in a hurry, with the girl in his arms. I said, 'Yalla, imshi ['Let's go, move it']. We left the building surrounding Haran, who was holding his daughter in his arms, and went to the beach. Haran kept halting and talking, trying to delay us. But we had to get to the boat. They were waiting for us in Lebanon.

"As we approached the rubber dinghy, we heard a lot of voices. Then shots were fired in our direction. We approached the boat from the rocks, and Ali took Danny on board. That's when they started to shoot at us really hard. I returned fire, but it wasn't enough. Ali and Danny got off the boat. I ordered everyone to take a position on the rocks and return fire. Danny was behind us. His daughter was near him. Haran waved at the soldiers and called out to them in Hebrew.

"They continued to fire heavily. I ducked down to put a fresh magazine into my rifle. Haran waved again, while they were still firing, and he was wounded.

"The little girl screamed. That was the first time we heard her. That's it. I don't remember anything else.

"The battle continued until around 5.30am. Ahmed was wounded in the forehead. Ali was killed. I took five bullets and lost a lot of blood. I was not focused.

"What happened to the girl? During the interrogation they told me, 'You must admit that you wounded the girl with your rifle.' I told them, 'Write whatever you want.' I did not see anything and I did not hear anything. It was total chaos there. I was focused on the goal. I don't mind admitting to things that I did. I don't want to admit to things that I did not do."

Noaccess2k (talk) 09:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There is also a part where he describes how he was treated in prison and the prisons he was sent to in the part 30 years:

In describing the torment, Kintar once wrote that if he was to describe what he was subject to, "it would be beyond people's apprehension." He said: I was crucified on a wall without clothes, then the soldiers began to punch me. I remained under the sun many days standing, my hands were cuffed and, my head was covered by black bad smelling bags. Samir added: But the most severe thing was when they began to excise the bullets without anesthesia, at a time they forced me not get out my pain... They kept me held in a closed dark cell.

Kintar was transferred to more than one "Israeli" prison .The first was Atleet in 1980, three years later Samir was moved to Bir Al-Sabaa central prison, a year later, he was transferred again to Kfariouna Komoud prison , afterwards he was held at the Nafha prison in the Nakab (Nagev) Desert. In 1989 Kintar was taken to the Askalan (Ashkelon) and then back to Nafha in in 1987.

Noaccess2k (talk) 09:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is extremely one-sided

Wow, I can't believe how one sided this story was in favour of Israel. Samir Kuntar has never admitted to killing either the child or her father, yet we find only one third person quote from a criminal nontheless. The Israeli story of what happened that day was a story that was initially published by the Israeli foreign ministery. I have now added Samir's story to all the events. I hope the "Israeli wiki team" respects this and respects freedom of information for once.noaccess2k 12:39, 24 July 2008

I don't think we need to split the article into the two sides of the story for information that the two sides agree on. The details of the boat used and the trip to Israel are things that I think should be merged for instance. The differing accounts of the events should only be differentiated when the accounts actually disagree. ← George ^[talk] 10:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

As I expected, Israeli members have started vandalizing the page again. noaccess2k 13:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please be a bit more polite? Who says that these vandals are Israelis? I am a resident of the Zionist state (may it be cancelled and nullified soon by the hands of heaven) and I have never done any such things. Please do not say such things. They might just as well be Americans. From my experience, most right-wing pro-Zionists on Wikipedia are Americans, and not Israelis. (On a sidenote, I might note, the way in which you wrote this sounds similar to Hamas spokesmen talking about Israel: "as we expected, the Israeli terrorists have violated the ceasefire again.") --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm an American myself. I think I'm quite able to distinguish an American from an Israelite, thank you. Your people are not only causing trouble in real life, but are also causing trouble on the Internet (surprise, surprise). I use to own a business in Tel Aviv Yafo, but left after seeing how sick and demented the people are over there. The greed and oppression caused on minorities is unbelievable. Many companies are leaving already. I advice all Americans to go and see for themselves. Maybe then we will finally leave the land to perish by its own hands. I'm telling you, your country is artificially being kept alive by our money. If we stopped paying for only one day, your little land would seize to exist.

As for the Israelites involved in vandalizing this page, here you go: User:Nudve,User:Gilabrand, User:Tkalisky, User:Yisrael77, including yourself. Not to mention that the whole Israelite wiki team is active on this article as mentioned at the top of this page. noaccess2k 14:47, 24 July 2008

noaccess2k, knock off the incivil commentary or you'll be blocked from editing. We don't want to hear about your plight in Tel Aviv; we're here to discuss only the article, not the editors who may have written the article. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If you would really be an American who had actually owned a business in Tel Aviv, then you would not write "Israelites" (which is the English biblical name for the Jewish people) but "Israelis". And you wouldn't refer to "Tel Aviv Yaffo" but just "Tel Aviv". So I'm afraid you're wrong. Please quit the insults: I have barely ever edited the article, and I like Zionism about as much as Nasrallah and Ahmedinejad like it. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 09:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Being an American, born or emigrated, doesn't do anything to lift one's status above anyone else's, and the insults aren't welcome here regardless. ← George ^[talk] 10:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever makes you happy Cha. I'm not the one who started the whole 'American' thing. Next time be sure about who you're talking to before making such ridiculous claims. Noaccess2k (talk) 10:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Names of the other prisoners released in exchange for the Israeli soldiers

Does anyone anywhere have any idea of the names and alleged or proven crimes of the other (presumably Lebanese) individuals who were released with Kuntar in exchange for the return of the bodies of Regev and Goldwasser, the Israeli soldiers who were captured and held by Hizbullah for 2 years? Isn't it strange how some facts are just not publicized and are mysteriously kept away from public knowledge and therefore future history? User talk:Colin_Marks —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've seen those names published in English-language Israeli news sites. Maybe Ynetnews.com, or Haaretz.com, or Israelnn.com. Use the Search function there and you'll find it. Nothing was hidden from the public. Please don't come up with conspiracy theories.... PLEASE. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 11:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that there almost certainly wasn't a conspiracy here, does anyone know the reason given for why Kuntar's court documents were sealed for 30 years? Is this customary in Israel? I'm almost certain this wouldn't be legal in the U.S., at least not in a civilian court, so I was just curious what reason, if any, was given publicly. ← George ^[talk] 11:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The reasons (at least the official ones) are mentioned in the source. -- Nudve (talk) 11:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• There really hasn't been edit-warring on this page, surprisingly, so I'm not sure what you're referring to, Colin. FunkMonk (talk) 12:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

How Samir was tortured in Israeli prisons

Samir Kuntar describes the physical torture he underwent during his interrogation. “On the second day of my interrogation, they started to talk about the girl. They asked how she was killed, who shot her.’ Only later did they start telling me that she had died from the blow of a rifle butt. I stuck with my story, but they insisted I had killed her. They took me outside and shackled me. Here, I still have the scars on my wrists. For five days they kept me shackled to an iron bar, with my arms up. I was in a standing position, so when I got tired or fainted all the pressure was on my wrists. Every so often, a soldier would beat me with a rubber hose. They practiced karate on my body. I was blindfolded and they would not allow me to sit or lie down. After they had finished beating me, they immediately returned me to the interrogation room.

My interrogator, Abu Zaken, kept insisting that I would write out a full confession. I hated him; he was a monster. He asked me where I had trained, for how long, and so on. But I did not tell. The little bit I did tell was just old wives’ tales. During those five days, I just wanted to die. I couldn’t take it anymore – the beatings, the humiliations, the curses. And the megaphones they put on my ears, with the noise of sirens at full volume. That made me faint.

I was kept in a tiny, windowless cell that was painted red. Bread, water and carrots were passed through a slit in the door three times a day. Sometimes a little cheese. I was kept in shackles and there was not enough room to lie down. Every few weeks a soldier would empty the slops bucket. After a while, the interrogations were less frequent.”

Five months later, Kuntar was transferred to a prison for political prisoners. His cellmate was Kozo Okomoto, the Japanese Red Army militant who perpetrated the Lod Airport Massacre in 1972. [5]

Noaccess2k (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose, there is no use reminding you that these kinds of physical torture ("they practiced karate on my body") leave signs? Where are these signs? Deinocheirus (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we know that he doesn't have signs? And do we know that he should have signs? Cool with the obscure dinosaur user name, bu the way. FunkMonk (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" - if we can verify that he claimed to have been tortured, then it should be included. Otherwise, it shouldn't. Whether or not he was actually tortured is immaterial without reliable sources. ← George ^[talk] 22:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed that the description of Haran girl murder was deleted from the article. It was verifiable, wasn't it? Then why should we exclude ONE verifiable testimony and include ANOTHER one, by a convicted criminal? Deinocheirus (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one thing this is the article on the convicted criminal, not the article on the little girl who was killed. For another, it was written poorly and in a dramatic fashion, as to elicit sympathy (which, for the record, should be inherent any time a little girl is killed). This is an encyclopedia, and the overly-dramatic prose isn't encyclopedic. ← George ^[talk] 08:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

As for the dramatic fashion, I think this description fits Kuntar's memoirs as well. So, they'd rather remain where they are now, at the discussion page, and that't not because of some Zionist conspiracy but rather because they are simply not encyclopedic. Deinocheirus (talk) 12:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't advocate including his memoirs wholesale, as they can be neatly and easily cleaned up and made encyclopedic. After being cleaned up, however, they absolutely belong in the article. After reviewing the source, the description is less about his years in prison, and more about his initial interrogation. There should probably be a new section added for that. ← George ^[talk] 18:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not mean to sound ironic, but if you intend to add all the claims by Samir and take them seriously, you would also need to add claims such as Israel hypnotized the terrorists of 911 and made them flying those airplanes into buildings. There is something called common sense and it can not hurt anyone here to start using it. PS, Yes, its fully documented that the very same people whom considers Samir as hero also claim that Israel is behind the 911 "political action"....On.Elpeleg (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

A minority view and an extreme minority view are two very different things, and I'm not even sure that Kuntar's claims of innocence would constitute a minority view in the world at large. As this is the biography of a living person, and not the article on the event itself, their views and statements should be given some prominence. ← George ^[talk] 04:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are not sure, you better not edit here. You are kindly asked to stop messing with this article, and yes it is a warning, I intend to deliver a complaint if you do continue. This is because you seem to have difficulties to stay objective and already did some "mistakes" because you were "not sure". Thank you for your understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by On.Elpeleg (talk • contribs) 20:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Samir is a terrorist and it should stand clearly in the article

911 attack was a terror attack by: "terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners". And so was the attack by Samir Kuntar. Enough with this double moral, this murderer made it clear by his actions of kidnapping citizens. Smashing the skull of a baby with his gun. What else you need as proofs? That many people in Lebanon and the rest of the Arabic world considers 911 as a heroic act is a good enough reason to write (like it was written here): "Kuntar the 911 "activists" are considered as... the most brutal terrorists, responsible for killing... in the USA... while in the Arabic world they are widely regarded as national heros....."? Enough with the double moral and falling for cheap editing tricks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.88.128.175 (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Al-Qaeda admitted they killed civilians, Kuntar denies he killed civilians. That's a big difference. FunkMonk (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether he denies it or not doesn't really matter. He's been convicted.--Yolgnu (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That's mentioned in the article, of course. But wrong convictions do occur, mind you, and it's odd that his testimony was kept secret until now. FunkMonk (talk) 01:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

FunkMonk, so you suggest that he kidnapped a 4 years old girl just to take her on a boat tour in Lebanon... and on the way she fall down on his gun? And probably the bullets that hit her father in front of the 4 years old eyes also just went out by accident? You do understand that American blood is has the same color, or maybe you don't. Actually Samir, never meant any harm, he was not a terrorist but a tourist? More creativity? Would you stop this double moral and digging into nonsense. Samir Kuntar is a cold blood terrorist murderer, one day when you grow up and have a baby, try thinking what this animal did to this baby, maybe it will make you waking up. I could not care less if he is considered as a hero in some primitive civilizations or whether smashing skulls is considered as a great honor on the mountain funerals in Nepal. One needs to look into the context, Samir admits that he came to Israel for kidnapping citizens himself and not for taking small girls for picnics on the beach.On.Elpeleg (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Since when was murder the only possible outcome of a kidnapping? FunkMonk (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you seem to be able to write in English maybe you can also try reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Front the group led by this baby murderer is considered as a terror organization, this is one more reason for why he is a terrorist. Unless of course you mean that he was their tourists guide. Now, "kidnapping citizens (including a 4 years toddler, before smashing her head against a stone)" on behalf of a terror organization (see link above), and you still mean he is not a terrorist? Hello?

Where exactly did I deny he was a terrorist? Could you try to calm down? FunkMonk (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly what is discussed here, while someone else seems to remove the "terrorist" term without discussing it here. Sorry for suggesting that it was you.On.Elpeleg (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not the article on the Palestine Liberation Front designates the group as a terrorist organization is irrelevant. I haven't reviewed that article, and I have no idea if it is presently in violation of Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia has specific policies dealing with biographies of living people, which have a higher bar for inclusion than most other articles. It also has a specific policy regarding use of the term "terrorist", which requires pointed attribution to define who calls who a "terrorist". You've pointed to the article on Osama bin Laden as an example, but you'll notice that that article does not call him a terrorist. It lists people and groups of people who call him a terrorist, and is supported by nearly a dozen sources. Furthermore, your constant revert-first, comment-later approach is considered edit warring, and violates the three-revert rule, as I warned you on your talk page. Let the discussion reach a consensus, then we can all agree on what wording to use. ← George ^[talk] 00:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest to add the same designation as for Bin Laden also for our Mr. Samir Kuntar, (thus designated as terror organization/terrorist in the USA, Canada, UK etc..etc..) let us all not forget that the real reason for why there is an article here about him at the first place, is not his "good doing" or is quite not interesting autiobiography, BUT the one event which made him becoming such a "big star", the event in which he was found guilty of smashing a 4 years old girl skull with his riffle, after shooting and killing her father infront of her. Yes, Samir was found guilty of a horrible terror action of its worse kind done by a terror group led by him and was found guilty for killing this small girl and her father all by his own. This group is designated as a terror group by the USA, Canada, UK Europe, and it should stand clearly in this article. Now back to you George, I ask you once again to play fair, and not to let any subjective issues blind you, I understand that your Lebanese roots mean alot for you, I am from Norway, and trust me on that, I have no problem whatever to come with criticks concerning Norway. Please play fair and follow the WP rules, policy and normal practice in the case of Samir Kuntar too, and if you can not, kindly do not edit this article. Thank you.On.Elpeleg (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

it should state he is a terrorist . this guy is miserably wierd --KAWASAKI (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Brain tissue

The article states that: "The pathologist's report also showed that Einat's brain tissue was found on Kuntar's rifle."

How exactly was this determined? Genetic fingerprinting wasn't possible until 1984. FunkMonk (talk) 04:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Best guess would be that Einat was the only one who suffered a head wound that could result in the loss of brain tissue, so the pathologist extrapolated that it must be hers. You make an interesting point, but unless you have a reliable source that questions how the pathologist came to his conclusions, we would be delving into the realm of original research to go there. ← George ^[talk] 04:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I wasn't proposing to remove anything from the article, though I find it suspicious that they could determine that it was specifically hers, not to mention what kind of tissue it was (after the Bruce Ivins episode, I've become a bit more open to conspiracy theories). It's just that the files appear to have been released, so if they are online somewhere, they could maybe answer the question and perhaps be used as sources. FunkMonk (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It must have been Kuntar's brain (although many would doubt there was much of it to begin with).--Gilabrand (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

FunkMonk,. Why throwing doubts on things you have no clue about, DNA analysis was in use in 1980s too, same for blood and tissues forensic analysis, they were in use much earlier then that and at least since 1930. Now, are you still going to turn this baby murderer into your OJ Simpson? Do you still think he came to Israel with a boat in the middle of the night with 4 terrorists from PLF just for the sake of taking this 4 years old baby girl to a picnic on the beach? How far are you willing to go in compromising on your own dignity and human values? Samir is nothing but a baby murderer, wake up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by On.Elpeleg (talk • contribs) 19:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on genetic fingerprinting states (with source) that it wasn't possible until 1984, so I suggest you go and change that particular article before accusing me of all sorts of ridiculous stuff. Take a deep breath. FunkMonk (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you pretending to be "ridiculous stuff"? Or are you really? DNA forensic analysis was possible in 1984 so were tissue and blood analysis (since 1930!) let me repeat 1 9 3 0. So Sherlock stop twisting facts. There was NO problem whatever in 1984 to identify the tissue. Go take a hike and twist facts on articles elsewhere. I am sure there are plenty of other articles on other baby/kids murderers you can find on WP, go help them! On.Elpeleg (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You're completely missing the point. Kuntar was convicted in 1980, years before DNA identification was possible. Keep it civil. FunkMonk (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The discovery that made it possible to use DNA as a forensic tool was made in 1980, while the first time it was used (officially) was in 1985 in UK. So what? Did anyone (except you) suggest that it was claimed that DNA finger printing was used? It was stated and explained clearly and patiently too to you that forensic blood and tissue analysis was in use since 1930, but you insist on discussing DNA as a forensic tool. You create a story and you argue for it while ignoring the simple fact and issue, that there was NO problem whatever to determine the tissue in 1980. —Preceding unsigned comment added by On.Elpeleg (talk • contribs) 19:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If you had read the earlier comments, you would had noticed that I proposed that the released file could be used as a source, so we could establish how they determined that the girl's brain tissue was on the gun. I'm getting tired of tasteless jokes and groundless accusations, so please cut that stuff down. FunkMonk (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and what else? You want to have a sample of the tissue of this little girl brain sent to you too? Highly qualified experts by international standards and moral values (which seemingly are far beyond your grasp) have determined in the forensic analysis that her brain tissue was found on his gun, you have a problem with that?

What's with the extreme uppityness? FunkMonk (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What is enough evident to state an objective description of what that man did? You know, there are some people out there who claim that no astronaut ever landed on the moon and it was all an Hollywood show. I guess... they can even make their claim notable enough for WP if they have not done so yet. There is always a possibility for doubts, but one seriously should consider some limits of common sense and good taste. The Israeli pathological experts and so is the Israeli legal system are recognized world wide and thereby their verdicts are valid. What Samir thinks/thought/say or what the masses in Lebanon think is not very relevant here. On.Elpeleg (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I highly suggest reading the article on Wikipedia etiquette - especially the parts concerning personal bias and working towards a neutral point of view. ← George ^[talk] 05:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

very good article in did, I would suggest to those of us here who read it, even to read it once again.On.Elpeleg (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

One person one event and WP policy.

It is stated clearly here: WP:ONEEVENT that in situations when a person becomes notable due to one event, one should cover the event and not create an autobiography for the person instead ("Cover the event, not the person"). I assume that this exactly the issue here. Sami Kuntar became notable due to the event of that night when he kidnapped a small girl and her father and killed them both. I mean that we should remove the relevant portions from the article here to an "event article", which would focus on describing the event that made Samir Kuntar famous.One could later create a redirect link from here to the event page. Just some thoughts. On.Elpeleg (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that he is notable due to more than one event. The first event he's notable for is the killing in 1979, which doesn't have an article. The second event he's notable for is the prisoner swap between Hezbollah and Israel in 2008, which does have an article. One could make the case that he was notable for the 2006 war as well, as his release was Hezbollah's stated goal for capturing the two Israeli soldiers, and there are several articles covering that war, including one on the initial incident that ignited the war. The bigger problem is that we don't have an article for the first of these events. I'm going to start such an article at Nasser Operation. ← George ^[talk] 05:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he was also involved in some incident in Jordan in 1978, where he was captured and served a year in prison. ← George ^[talk] 06:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly not a one event case, as there has a long running campaign for his release. He is considered a national hero in Lebanon today, and is thus one of the most notable public figures in that country. --Soman (talk) 06:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

George, you are most welcome to use my suggestions such as starting a new page concerning the event. But was it realy essential to request blocking me while starting that new page. Please play the ball and not the player. According to your talk page, you were kindly asked to use the discussion page here before adding more edits here.On.Elpeleg (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Soman, that he is considered as martyr in Lebanon is not very relvant. Those "martyrs" who did the 911 terror action are also considered as national heros in some other primitive civilzations, and this is just as relevant for the article here or for the cause. It is a matter of fact that original event in which he was found guilty, smashing a 4 years old girl with a riffle which made him famous, again it was the event and not his quite boring autobiography (30 years in jail must be quite boring).

Stating that Lebanese viewpoint is irrelevant and the labelling of 'primitive civilizations' is shear racist trolling. Nelson Mandela spent almost three decades in prison, and it would be quite difficult to state that his prison years would have been non-notable. Kuntar's role in Lebanese politics is very different from the general viewpoint of the 9/11 hijackers in the Muslim world. --Soman (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comparing Samir Kuntar to Nelson Mandela only shows that you have a good sense of humor. The rest of the generalizing claims you make here are all yours (I guess that this was not intended as a joke). Unlike Mandela, your hero was a leader of a world wide designated terror organization. Go do homework and then try trolling again with your twisted facts. Has anyone else mentioned race here, except you? Go tell us another joke.On.Elpeleg (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

O the irony. See [6]. As per racism, it was you who used the wording 'primitive civilizations'. --Soman (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I can not see anyone else relating this word to his own "race" except yourself.. On.Elpeleg (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Better source needed for eyewitnesses of girl killing

The claim "Next, eyewitnesses said he smashed the head of 4 year-old Einat on beach rocks and crushed her skull with the butt of his rifle.[6]" is sourced to an article in Time Magazine. However, nowhere in that article is it said that there exist eyewitnesses to the killing of the small girl.

Therefore, we need a better source to confirm that the crushing of her skull was indeed witnessed by someone.--Abenyosef (talk) 03:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I moved the source to the next sentence, which it supports. I think there exists a source for this statement... I seem to remember reading one, but don't recall where, so I've added a {{fact}} tag for now. If it's not sourced relatively quickly it should be removed until it can be source, per WP:BLP. ← George ^[talk] 04:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I must assume a good faith here.Did you really didn't see it in Time article?Read the end of the first paragraph again!--Shrike (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I assume that someone on the WP Lebanon team is a bit "unsure", but has no problems to damage this article again and again, can someone deliver a complaint about this George to the admins level, and before this article will turn into a Donald Duck story? Thanks!On.Elpeleg (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the first paragraph in the Time article:

Twenty seven years ago, Smadar Haran suffocated her two-year-old daughter. She was trying to quiet the whimpering child as the two of them hid in the family's attic while PLO terrorists searched for them in their apartment in the coastal Israeli town of Nahariya. The terrorists didn't find them but took Smadar's husband and their four-year-old daughter hostage. When the cell, retreating as security forces pursued them, found the rubber boat they'd arrived in disabled by gunfire, one of the members shot Smadar's husband Danny in the back and drowned him in the sea to ensure he was dead. Next, he smashed little Einat's head on beach rocks and crushed her skull with the butt of his rifle.

As can be seen, there's no mention of eyewitnesses. Claiming that something happened is not the same as claiming that someone saw it.

Keep in mind that I'm not questioning the existence of eyewitnesses. But we can't source it to an article that does not mention eyewitnesses.--Abenyosef (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Now a second source has been added that does mention the eyewitnesses. Good job.--Abenyosef (talk) 06:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• An apology and thanks to Soman

Soman, Thanks for the help and sorry for all the misunderstanding (will strike them above).On.Elpeleg (talk) 11:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Problematic phrasing

The following phrase strikes me as out of place in an encyclopedia article:

In Israel, Kuntar is considered the perpetrator of one of the most brutal terrorist attacks in the country's history,[6] while in Lebanon he is widely regarded as a national hero.[7]

There are several problems with it:

1) The propaganda-style wording, which sets it apart from the neutral language usually found in encyclopedias.

2) The first link given ([6]) is to an opinion piece and is only proof that The Jerusalem Post (not Israel as a whole, as suggested by the phrase) considers Kuntar's attack as "one of the most brutal," etc.

3) The phrase would give the impression that the Lebanese celebrate the killing of the father and daughter, and makes no mention of the fact that in Lebanon it is vehemently denied that Kuntar killed them.

4) The phrase adds nothing new and repeats what is already stated elsewhere in the paragraph.

I therefore suggest that it be deleted, which I'll do if no one opposes.--Abenyosef (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I oppose. It is a sourced statement that adds important social/anthropological insight. Deleting it is a reflection of your own POV.--Gilabrand (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The opinion of a single newspaper is not social/anthropological insight. The wording is problematic precisely because it misleads the reader into thinking that the words of the Jerusalem Post reflect the thinking of the whole Israeli society. Also, may I call your attention again to the non-encyclopedic language used. Loaded words, like "brutal," have no place in an encyclopedia.

Please keep in mind that I have no POV. Just look at my postings above and notice how I pointed to a poorly sourced statement, then congratulated the editors when another, better source was added.

While we see how we can improve this, I'll add a source to put the Lebanese attitude in its right perspectiv.--Abenyosef (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(2) 'According to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Kuntar had initially admitted to bludgeoning Einat to death after being captured.'

He bludgeoned her to death after he had been captured? Come now, gentlemen.Nishidani (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

He admitted the murder after he's been captured, not that he murdered her after he's been captured, genius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.160.196 (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Terrorist/militant

Personally, I think he, like several dozen, if not hundreds of figures in the area, should be called 'terrorists'. I reverted Iron Duke because, as a longtime observer and editor of pages such as those of Asher Weisgan, Ami Popper, Eden Natan-Zada, Baruch Goldstein, Meir Kahane etc., not to speak of the past terrorist organizations like Stern, and Irgun, the word is consistently edited out on the grounds that one must use 'militant' for WP:NPOV (one country's terrorist is another country's freedom fighter, as the cliché goes). I don't agree with this, but since I can't find it on the pages dealing with Israeli terrorists, I don't think it proper on pages dealing with Palestinian or Arab terrorists. I myself, in compliance with this parity idea, have reverted 'terrorist' back to 'physician' on the Baruch Goldstein page in the past, despite my personal beliefs. It is a matter of coherence, not the truth.Nishidani (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your even-handedness, but I see no policy forbidding the use of this word, where appropriate. IronDuke 15:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but 'where appropriate', in practice, works out as, 'in my POV'. I agree that Kuntar was a terrorist, but until I see a willingness to call a spade a spade all over comparable figures on the other side, I stick to coherence. There are huge difficulties thrown at anyone who uses this word for Israelis who have committed similar atrocities. I don't like this, but there seems to be some consensus that either all such pages wear 'terrorist' or they wear 'militant'. Look at Captain R. at Iman Darweesh Al Hams for an example of a man who behaved identically to Samir Kuntar. He was promoted. No hint of him being a terrorist, or even a militant. Nishidani (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I sympathize, but consider what your argument boils down to: "Other articles are crappy and wrong, therefore I must make this article crappy and wrong as well, for consistency." I urge you to fight for what you believe is right for WP on other articles you believe are deficient. Don't hurt this one to prove a WP:POINT. IronDuke 15:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm sick and tired of having to make the same argument, from the start, for the nth time, on every page, depending on the whims and caprice of whomever I encounter editing there. I wish principles to be coherent throughout I/P articles, and not subject to random circumstance or intimations of appropriateness. To do otherwise is not rational. Indeed, in a collegial spirit, I would suggest that if you want 'terrorist' in here, you go to all pages where a terrorist has done these savage things, irrespective of their national identity, and edit in 'terrorist', for example on the Asher Weisgan, Ami Popper, Eden Natan-Zada, Baruch Goldstein and Meir Kahane. Do that, and I will not only support the word here, but lobby for its extension throughout all articles, whether they deal with Israeli or Palestinian atrocities. If I support 'terrorist' here, I am obliged to put that word elsewhere, in similar contexts, but the same applies to any other editor. We can do this collegially, by going and fixing those four articles immediately, if you like?, and if you have any examples of Palestinian militants who are, appropriately, 'terrorists' and not 'militants' we could handle them as well. Nishidani (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, speaking of making an argument for the nth time... I can't tell you how many times people have invited me to go to article x and make edit y: I'm not obliged to do so, all I'm obliged to do is edit the articles I come across (in my own random, haphazard fashion) according to WP policy and common sense, to the best of my ability. I understand you are frustrated with double standards, but they are everywhere on WP. The answer isn't to revert this article to a version you yourself disagree with, in order to prove a point. Can you see why that's not a good idea? IronDuke 18:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that Nishidani primary argument for not using the term "terrorist" here is WP:NPOV. The fact that's not applied consistently is secondary. Wodge (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

From my understanding of WP:NPOV and WP:EXTREMIST, we shouldn't use the term terrorist here. I'm not even sure the word militant is necessary. Shouldn't it just be "Lebanese Druze and a former member of the Palestine Liberation Front"? Wodge (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

'Militant' is fine, for the moment, though it is not used frequently of non-Arabs in the I/P area. As I say, coherence or leave 'militant' as the default mode.Nishidani (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite interesting new information

See Kobi Ben-Simhon , 'Israel could have made peace with Hamas under Yassin', Haaretz, 17/04/2009. I don't have time to put it in the article. In short, a very senior police officer and psychologist says he is convinced that Kuntar did not kill the Harans. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 07:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

An important article, Zvi Sela deserves a wiki bio, and this gives much detail. He is now an author with three published works to his credit. The information here (opinion) bears not only on Kuntar, but also on Ahmed Yassin. I've reformatted the link, and dropped a ref to this on Yassin's page. Thanks for the tipoff.Nishidani (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Banned from the UK

He has been banned from entering the UK see this BBC article --> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/8033319.stm -- 19:55, 5 May 2009 Hypnosadist

"Wheelchair-bound"

"Wheelchair-bound" is considered derogatory usage and should not be reintroduced into the article. Please see List of disability-related terms with negative connotations before reverting this change again. --Rahaeli (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

MEMRI sources

How exactly is MEMRI a reliable source? Pretty much all his statements in this article are sourced to them FunkMonk (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

To the editor who keeps reinserting the MEMRI links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEMRI#Claims_of_translation_inaccuracy FunkMonk (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• • There is no doubt that MEMRI is a partisan source but its translations are regarded as being accurate (albeit selective). Furthermore, the criticisms in the link above come from Norman Finkelstein, who is himself a fierce critic of Israel and anyone who supports it, and the newsource of his comments is itself (Infocus news) extremely bias (as judged by the language it uses and its editorial slant); another criticism comes from a blog. These are hardly convincing arguments. If you have any specific evidence that the quotes references here are inaccurate or misconstrued, feel free to present it.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

The most damning accusation (mistranslation which completely skews the meaning of a sentence) is reported by the Guardian and CNN, so I don't see your point. MEMRI is unreliable. FunkMonk (talk) 04:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• • • There have been a handful of allegations from questionable sources. The Guardian reference is not to a news article but to a blog operated by one of its writers. CNN did not make these allegations, one of its contributors did, and only on a rather bias website. Furthermore, even if we accept that the handful of mistranslations MEMRI is accused of are viable, that does not automatically mean that every MEMRI translation is inaccurate. In any case, the mistranslations of which MEMRI is accused of do not even relate to this article.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

No, it does not mean that every MEMRi translation is inaccurate, it means that MEMRI is an unreliable source and should not be used as sole source of controversial material. FunkMonk (talk) 05:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

By any reasonable standard -- and especially Wikipedia's comparative citation quality standards -- MEMRi has accurate translations and does not misrepresent media sources. Feeling shame or discomfort when English-speaking audiences get translated Middle Eastern media coverage without sugar coating...doesn't make it an "unreliable source." As long as it is cited as MEMRi - people can go and investigae and judge for themselves. There is no evidence MEMRi is or was purposefully misrepresenting anything. Clearlight418 (talk)

A handful of accusations from blogs and activists is hardly justification for declaring MEMRI "unreliable." If you have any evidence that the citations in this article are inaccurate, please provide it. Otherwise, citing MEMRI as the source of the translations (as has been done for each quote) is sufficient.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

The author of the "blog" post makes the same accusations in actual articles, like this[7], so it is more a matter of referring to the correct article formats. Bottomline is, MEMRI is partisan and has been accused of skewing translations in Israel's favour by several sources. Let's see what other editors have to say, as this should not turn into an edit war. FunkMonk (talk) 05:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

As I have already stated, a clear indication before each quote that MEMRI is the source is sufficient.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

MERMi is as reliable of a source as anything else that appears as a Wikipedia citations.

Frankly, Juan Cole came off distinctly second-best in most of his accusations of Memri translation inaccuracies, and I really don't see why anti-Memri blog postings are now considered authoritative sources. I support including the references to the translations in this article. AnonMoos (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• This is an old discussion, but I'd agree to removing large-scale MEMRI quotes. I'm not sure what purpose they serve. There are detailed interviews of Kuntar done by Israeli journalists, such as this one, that are probably better to use if necessary.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit request: grammar

The sentence in the first section should read: After his release from prison as part of the 2008 Israel–Hezbollah prisoner exchange, he received Syria's highest medal, was honored by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and was designated a Specially Designated Global Terrorist by the US government. It is currently missing the “was”s. Nukeychess (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Done. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Large scale revert

@Galamore, can you explain why you made such a large scale revert if your only objection was the use of Samidoun? You removed multiple instances of New York Times, etc. Massive reverts to remove one single source you don't like is very WP:DISRUPTIVE.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nableezy: and @OdNahlawi:, please also join this discussion.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Samidoun is a fine source for relaying what Kuntar said, and the Netherlands isnt the arbiter on what is an acceptable source. nableezy - 20:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

No, Samidoun is not a fine source, the fact it is described as a terrorist group says something about its reliability. I am really suprised you are even making this argument. Galamore (talk) 07:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It isn’t described as a terrorist source. It’s a registered charity in Canada. That Israel and two of its allies thinks supporting the rights of Palestinian prisoners is an act of terror is not a relevant factor here. This is not a production of the Israeli foreign ministry, I don’t care what the Israeli government says. nableezy - 13:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

"Israel and two of its allies", who should we trust when it comes to sources, Iran (as you mention here), or Germany and the Netherlands, two prominent liberal democracies? You were among those who voted to deprecate orgs such as the ADL on Wikipedia, but now, a group labeled as a terrorist organization by two major European countries—probably to be followed by more, as the Dutch decision is recent—is okay? The bias towards terrorist sources (in this case, one identified with PFLP, who were involved in plane hijacking and suicide bombings) is honestly quite concerning. ABHammad (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

We don’t trust any nations view of some source is the obvious answer to that question. This isn’t a project that take the interests of Israel or Iran or anybody else into consideration. And please don’t distort what Samidoun is, Germany banned it for expressing support for the attack by Hamas. It’s just Israel that claims some connection to the PFLP. Israel also claims defence for children’s international is a terrorist organization. That isn’t a concern for Wikipedia. nableezy - 19:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nableezy: That's wrong. Samidoun is also proscribed a terrorist group in the United States [8] and Canada [9]. According to the US Secretary of Treasury, Samidoun is "a sham charity that serves as an international fundraiser for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)", so nope, it's not "just Israel that claims some connection to the PFLP." OdNahlawi (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

That happened today. nableezy - 16:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)