Template talk:Terrorist attacks against Israelis in the 2000s

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This template is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Israel (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Terrorism (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Question[edit]

Do you think a link to this article should be added to this template? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a thin line between hate crimes and terrorism. On one hand the Israeli Police had ruled out the possibility that the shooting was a terror attack on nationalist grounds, but according to the relatively common definition "Terrorism refers to those violent acts which are intended to create fear, are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants" I think the answer would be yes. Since templates are a tool for finding related articles, and this is not a BLP article, IMHO we should include. But I don't feel very strongly about it. Marokwitz (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
There is no easy answer here. What about the Rabin assassination? wouldn't that fall under the same definition? "Terrorism refers to those violent acts which are intended to create fear, are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants". TheCuriousGnome (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree there is no easy answer. One one hand the article about the Rabin assassination is currently categorized as "Jewish terrorism", based on the source "Jewish Terrorism in Israel" by Ami Pedahzur and Arie Perliger. On the other hand I'm not sure if the purpose of the assassination was to create fear - it was the targeting of a specific leader for murder, just like the Assassination of John F. Kennedy and assassination of Anwar Sadat, both which Wikipedia currently doesn't categorize as terrorism. So for consistency I would say - the Rabin assassination should not be included. Marokwitz (talk) 07:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe the best solution in this case would be to replace the rather general and vague word "Terrorism" in templates such as this to a word which would help to define more precisely the difference between any type of murders committed against Israeli targets and the Arab/foreign militia terror attacks and individual nationalistic-based terror attacks committed against Israeli targets. Any suggestions? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Not sure what to say. I'll think about it. Marokwitz (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
No. —Ynhockey (Talk) 14:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Please help us solve this problem by sharing your opinion on finding alternatives names for the headline. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Because this is a fundamental question which we must solve through a wider discussion and wider consensus, I have moved this discussion from Marokwitz's talk page to this template talk page with the hope that more Wikipedia editors would participate in this discussion and raise possible solutions to this issue - in your opinion, should we keep the general and vague word "Terrorism" in the headline of these templates or should we change it to a word (or words) which would help define more precisely the difference between (1) any type of notable murder committed against Israeli targets and (2) any type of Arab/foreign militia terror attacks and/or individual nationalistic-motivated terror attacks (committed not only by Arabs) committed against Israeli targets. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Well are Israelis capable of committing acts of terror against each other? I would assume so. Just because other articles aren't in the template yet doesn't mean we should rule out this one. I personally believe the attack on sexual minorities should be included in the template, but it would require a greater consensus. Maybe send this over to LGBT Project and see what they have to say? WikifanBe nice 21:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear Wikifan, I believe you did not understood the real issue I have raised here – what I'm trying to say is that if we use the vague word "terror" in the headline of these templates then, sooner or later, all those templates would be full of various prominent murders committed in Israel, which might be perceived by some as terrorism, but which would not be related at all to the Israeli-Arab conflict - which would ruin the purpose of this template. Just like the Israeli saying "When there are too many trees one does not see the forest". Therefore, in my opinion, there is no escape from finding a better name which would more clearly define the scope of articles to be included. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Solution found[edit]

I've changed the headlines to "Prominent terrorist attacks against Israeli targets in the history of the Arab–Israeli conflict – the ####s" TheCuriousGnome (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Terrorist ?[edit]

I think, "terrorist" term is not fair. -- Si Gam (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

2006 cross border raid[edit]

I've restored this. The article 2nd line clearly says "Using rockets fired on several Israeli towns as a diversion; Hezbollah militants crossed from Lebanon into Israel" They think it's all over (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The cross-border raid was aimed at two military patrols along the border. As a diversion Hizbullah shelled IDF positions and some civilian communities along the border. It is unclear whether Hizbullah actually targeted civilian infrastructure or if this was only collateral damage. Neither Katyushas nor mortars are accurate weapons. If you can find a reliable source claiming that the Hizbullah intentionally targeted civilian settlements, please feel free to include this aspect of the operation as a terrorist operation.
Note that the Israeli government specifically dismissed the notion that the cross-border raid was a terrorist act:
"The murderous attack that took place this morning,...is not a terrorist act. It is a military act by a country, Lebanon, against the State of Israel, on its sovereign territory. The Lebanese government, of which Hezbollah is a part, is trying to undermine regional stability. Lebanon is responsible, and Lebanon will bear the results of its actions."
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/pows-or-illegal-combatants-1.216710
Hizbullah rarely attacked civilian targets in Israel, except as a retaliation for Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilian targets. This is evident from this quote from Harel & Issacharofs book on the Lebanon:
"On July 8, the last Saturday before the abduction, Major General took his wife for a drive in a civilian car along the northern road. The trip took in the red zones, where troop movement was forbidden during situations of high alert." (p. 264)
Whenever there was a risk of Hizbullah attacking across the border, IDF suspended its patrols in the border area to minimize any suitable target, while civilian traffic, including school buses, continued. That included, apparently, Udi Adam, the commander of IDF Northern Command, who took his wife for a trip along the border during the alert.
I don’t think that there should be any “terrorist” templates in Wikipedia. If this template is to be kept, however, it must contain a clear definition of terrorism that is also applicable on other actors, such as Israel, USA or Sweden. Is this a terrorist act involving the killing of an Israeli admiral? Or this killing of two families in the Gaza strip
In the mean time I will remove all attacks on Israeli targets from this template, that also included military fatalities, unless the civilian victims could not, by any reasonable standard, be discarded as collateral damage. Beginning with incidents involving a majority of military victims.
Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Let's be clear on something: Firing rockets on a civilain settlements as a diversion for an attack on military targets is text box terrorism, and a war crime. If you remove this again I will be reporting you at the appropriate board. They think it's all over (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Please see my comment on this issue in the discussion bellow. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Should we split all these templates OR should we change the title of these templates?[edit]

The user Jokkmokks-Goran brought up an important issue in his latest feedback in this discussion page and the changes he made to the template, which stem from the fact that he does not agree that all events previously included in this template should be defined as "terror attacks".

So far, the attacks which the user Jokkmokks-Goran has removed from this template and haven't been restored back to the template are:

In addition, the following attacks were removed by Jokkmokks-Goran from this template but have since been restored by myself and other users:

As far as I understand it, if I'll try to be the devil's advocate for a moment, Jokkmokks-Goran's main rationale for removing all the attacks in which Israeli soldiers were killed stems from his point of view that those soldiers were most likely trained on duty combat soldiers carrying weapons, and thus in his point of view they potentially could all have shot back at the attacker and engaged in a military combat, AND/OR that those were legitimate military battles/attacks of a military nature against a "oppressive military occupier". Nevertheless, in reality this is mostly not the case as in many of those attacks the victims were chosen randomly and include many non-combat Israeli soldiers such as female teenage military secretaries, whom in many cases did not even carry a weapon or wear a military uniform, whom were abroad a civilian bus driving within Israeli cities/main highways (blatant violation of Israeli sovereignty), and they were heading back to work from their vacation at home while with or without many other Israeli citizens present at the site of the attack (whom in most cases died in those attacks as well) – please see example 1 and example 2 to reader further about these types of attacks. In any case, in my opinion, even if all the casualties were on duty Israeli combat troops with weapons (what an anti-Israeli might consider a legitimate military target), in most of the cases listed above (we can have a discussion over the inclusion of each individual case separately) they cannot be defined as military battles/attacks but attacks committed within the state of Israel, at civilian public places, and against random Israeli targets simply because they were are Israeli.

As far as I understand it, all the attacks committed by militant organizations AND the nationally motivated attacks (usually the main intent of both those types of attacks is to kill as many random Israeli citizens just because they are Israeli citizens) are widely considered as "terror attacks" by the Israeli society and the Israeli defense establishment (other Israeli wikipedians would be able to confirm this) – including events in which Israeli soldiers were killed while patrolling the border between Lebanon and Israel as well as mass casualty attacks committed in the heart of Israel in which soldiers were present at the scene and died in their dozens with or without other civilian casualties.

In my opinion, it would be a mistake to remove all those attacks, which Jokkmokks-Goran has recently removed from the template, as I think it is important for our readers to understand the extent of the attacks (which are also broadly referred to, in most cases, as "Palestinian resistance attacks" by many anti-Israelis and pro-Islamists world wide) carried out on a regular basis by militant organizations and/or nationally motivated individuals against random Israeli targets, and especially the extent of the attacks carried out during the first half of the 2000s against Israeli targets.

Nevertheless, despite all I have said above, I do understand that in this case the Wikipedia community might end up reaching a consensus by which the ideal solution would be to separate the different types of attacks committed against Israeli targets in different templates, OR alternatively, to change the heading or other information in the template (so that it would include all attacks carried out against Israeli targets).

At this point, after my position on this matter and the position of the user Jokkmokks-Goran have been made clear, I suggest that first of all ALL PARTICIPANTS would avoid taking part in edit-wars on this issue, and that we'll let the rest of the community participate in this discussion and indicate what they think the ideal solution to this issue should be, AND only after a clear consensus would be established on this matter we would change all these templates accordingly. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


As we reflect on this, let's consider the following: Among the casualties of the 9/11 attacks was Akamai cofounder Daniel M. Lewin . Lewin happens to also be an IDF reservist - a Captain [Res] in Sayeret Matkal. Does anyone seriously believe that because a random IDF reservist was killed aboard one of the planes, the 9/11 attacks cease to be acts of terror? that's the same kind of confused thinking that would lead one to conclude that the Maxim restaurant suicide bombing is not a terrorist attck, because an IDF reserve admiral, in his seventies at the time, also happened to be killed. They think it's all over (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Obviously you need a definition of the word "prominent" used in the title on top of the template to guide people, some combination of number killed and number/quality/worldwide reach of WP:RS. CarolMooreDC 03:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

In order for us to succeed getting a consensus-based solution for this issue, I ask that from now on anyone whom would participate in this discussion would indicate clearly what his/hers preferred solution is:

  1. Separate the different types of attacks committed against Israeli targets into two different types of templates and reword the titles – for example, (1) "Prominent attacks against Israelis, with IDF personnel victims, in the history of the Arab–Israeli conflict – the 2000s" and (2) "Prominent terrorist attacks against Israelis, not including any IDF personnel victims, in the history of the Arab–Israeli conflict – the 2000s"' (If this is your preferred solution YET you think that you might have better suggestions for the rewording of these titles, please indicate what your preferred titles are.)
  2. Not separate the templates BUT reword the title names and/or reorganize the information presented within the templates – This solution mainly involves rewording the title, and maybe changing the appearance of the words terror attacks, to a title which would be somewhat less controversial, and yet as a result of that change these templates would end up including both attacks that include IDF personnel victims and attacks not including any IDF personnel victims. (If this is your preferred solution please indicate what the ideal rewording should be).
  3. Not separate the templates and not reword the title names
  4. A complete different solution not brought up so far - if you have a different solution, which in your opinion would be ideal to solve this issue, please explain your solution in detail.

What solution, in your opinion, is the ideal one? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I support keeping one single template. If needed, we can reword it's title to remove "prominent". They think it's all over (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


My personal opinion is that the word “terrorist” should not be used in Wikipedia at all. If somebody wants to use a template such as “Terrorist attacks against Israelis in the 2000s” it should include a definition of terrorism that I can apply on a parallel template called “Terrorist attacks against Arabs in the 2000s”, listing Israeli or American attacks.
My personal opinion is that attacks on civilians could well be labeled as terrorist. But since no one can come up with a definition of terrorism, it is only an expression of political preferences.
I don’t agree that Palestinian suicide attacks have been completely random. We do not know what was the original target of the suicide bombers. In the beginning of the Aqsa Intifada many of the attacks targeted soldiers. This changed over time since IDF soldiers became more careful and the possibility of attacking them decreased. Still Palestinians take especial pride in successful attacks on military targets.
You are definitely wrong in claiming that Israel includes victims who “did not even carry a weapon or wear a military uniform” as military casualties. Unless they were on duty – that is uniformed and armed – they are counted as civilians. Even if they happen to be reserve soldiers “on leave”.
In 2005 a unit of IDF reservists, recently returning from service in Gaza, were queuing outside a club in Tel Aviv when a suicide bomber struck. Three reservists were killed (as well as two girlfriends), but they were all counted as civilians – correctly in my view – since they were unarmed and did not participate in the hostilities.
Eight Israeli railway workers of military age were killed when a Hizbullah missile hit the railway depot in Haifa (July 2006). All of them were counted as civilian casualties – again correctly – since they were not combatants at the time of the attack, irrespectively if they were reserve soldiers or not.
But different standards apply to Arabs. In August 2006 IDF launched a night time raid on Baalbek in Lebanon. Alarmed by the fighting, the villagers took refuge in the village leader’s home, women and children inside the house and the men outside in the garden. Several men were armed members of the Communist party but they did not fire at Israeli forces. IDF fired a Hellfire missile into the group of men killing three persons. According to Human Rights Watch the killed were legitimate targets (if armed) and "collateral casualties to a legitimate Israeli military strike" (if unarmed). [[1]]
If you apply that rule to Israel, and especially to the settlements on occupied Palestinian territory, any settlement or civilian bus or car would constitute a legitimate military target, since it is highly likely that armed personal will be present and all casualties counted as collateral damage.
No doubt the Haifa bombing attack that killed an Israeli admiral was a lucky shot. [[2]]
But this is true also for many Israeli attacks. In July 2006 the Hizbullah commander of the Bint Jbeil region Khalid Bazzi was killed in an Israeli air raid. The IDF was apparently completely unaware of their lucky strike and it was only publicized after the war by Hizbullah. Dozens of civilians were killed in similar raids on houses in the Bint Jbeil region.
The proportion of civilian casualties is generally not higher in Arab attacks on Israel than in Israeli attacks on Arab targets.
Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I am well aware of the popular Palestinian point of view of the conflict and the popular Palestinian support of terror attacks carried out against Israeli targets within Israel and abroad, against IDF personnel and against Jewish people living in the West Bank. No matter how you try to present it, you would never be able to convince me that Palestinian Jihad militia members whom shoot laser-guided anti-tank missile at school buses, commit vicious axe attacks against innocent children, or stab to death five members of a Jewish family, including two toddlers and a baby (targets which were all chosen at random due to the victims' race and religion) commit legitimate acts. I am appalled and disgusted that you are trying to imply that those children were legitimate targets whom deserved to be killed simply because they were living in the West Bank.
I'm not trying to imply anything. I have certainly not discussed the incidents you refer to. Don't put words into my mouth. Please direct your disgust to HRW (or the laws of war, if they are correct). But if you apply their logic to the West Bank I assume that any firing at groups of Jews is OK as long as some of them are armed. Which is usually the case, including armed guards on school buses. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
If the bus driver on the school bus or a teacher on the bus had a gun, as a means of protection, then all those poor children on the bus would be legitimate targets? Are you serious? Do you really think that the "righteous" Hamas militia men called the school bus to check that they had a gun on the bus before they shot a laser-guided anti-tank missile at the bus? Why do keep on looking for justification for attacking innocent civilians and children? Either way, as I already stated earlier I do not wish to further discuss with you whether the horrific attacks committed by Jihad militia and certain individuals against random Israelis are legitimate or not legitimate. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
You stated "Unless they were on duty – that is uniformed and armed – they are counted as civilians" AND you recently removed the 2001 Megiddo Junction bus bombing (which was carried out within Israel, near the city of Afula) in which a Palestinian suicide bomber exploded near the fuel tank of an Egged passenger bus, filled with both Israeli civilians and soldiers (many whom were non-combat soldiers), causing it to burst into flames, killing 13 Israeli soldiers and four civilians. Even if those poor 18 year old soldiers had weapons with them on the bus and were well trained to use them, this was no battle BUT a terror attack in the heart of Israel carried out at a civilian target (civilian passenger bus full of passengers) on which soldiers were also present. Oh and I am almost sure that 19-year-old Cpl. Liron Avitan (whom worked in the military as a garage mechanic) and 20-year-old Sgt. Violetta Hizgayev (whom worked in the military as a technician) did not carry any weapons with them as they were non-combatants (as well as many of the rest of the soldiers whom were harmed in that attack).
I have been there too. As a matter of fact I have even used that bus many times while it drove on the same route ans passed the site where the attack was commited AND I know as a fact that a lot of the non-combatant soldiers on that bus line in that area, and especially the female soldiers (whom most have peaceful military jobs such as gardeners, secretaries, cooks, hairdressers, clerks, kiosk employees, etc...) do not have weapons with them. Don't ask me why, that is just the way it is and any Israeli Wikipedian could confirm this. You wouldn't know that because your familiarity with the Israeli society and the Israeli army is minimal. In any case, if you still insist that all these poor victims were trained and armed military troops than I am sure many of the Israeli wikipedians here could verify that you are wrong on your assertion. Either way, as I already stated earlier I do not wish to further discuss with you whether the horrific attacks committed by Jihad militia and certain individuals against random Israelis are legitimate or not legitimate. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I notice that you skillfully avoid discussing my point, prefering instead to disagree with me on a point which I am not actually making. And then getting all worked up in the process. My point is that HRW declared a missile strike, during the Baalbek raid 2006, on a group of civilian Lebanese legitimate, because the group contained armed men. The men never fired on the Israelis and it is unclear whether the Israelis actually noticed the armed men in the group. More likely they fired at anything that moved. At the same time they fired a missile at an entire Kurdish-Syrian family of migrant agricultural workers, killing most of them, including their children. Since this group apparently was totally unarmed HRW did not condone this act. Jokkmokks-Goran We cannot have one standard for Israelis and one standard for Arabns.(talk) 18:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I doubt very much that international law makes any difference between soldiers in what the IDF considers combat units and others. If you are in uniform and armed you are a legitimate target. The IDF itself certainly makes no such distinctions when fighting its enemies. And I would be surprised if you made such a demand on Israel. The last time I visited Israel all Israeli soldiers in uniform where ordered to keep their arms at all times even when on leave. That probably included both soldiers refered to above. I don't think this has changed since then. Was this a terrorist act according to you?Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
As I already stated earlier I do not wish to further discuss with you whether the horrific attacks committed by Jihad militia and certain individuals against random Israelis are legitimate or not legitimate. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Jokkmokks-Goran, please answer the following questions briefly without going into further unnecessary political arguments, as we would not be able to accomplish anything by having arguments on whether the attacks committed by Jihad militia are legitimate or not legitimate - instead we would be more likely to reach a resolution on this matter if we focus the discussion only on the actual choices at hand – as in, state what option we prefer and see what are the most popular choices of the rest of the participants in this discussion. OK, so my questions are – (1) Do you think these templates should be split - one template covering only attacks carried out against Israeli civilian targets and one template covering only attacks carried out against Israeli military targets? (2) If so, in which template should attacks such as the 2001 Megiddo Junction bus bombing be included? Military or Civilian target? (3) If we remove the word "terror" what word do you think should replace it? (5) What do you think should be the exact names of these two templates (that is, if we were to split the current one into two templates)? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 06:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Remove the word "terrorist" completely from Wikipedia (apart from references such as the US considering Hizbullah a tterorist organization). It has no meaningful definition that does not simultaneausly include a lot of Israeli and American actions. It is a purely political term, meaning that you do not like the party inj question. "War crimes" has a clear definition but it is imposible in practice for Wikipedia editors to determine which attacks are war crimes.
I suggest more neutral terms such as “Violent attacks against Israelis in the 2000s”.Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
And let me add, also I would like to have similar template called (something like) "Violent Israeli Attacks in the 2000s" irrespectively of whether they could be described as war crimes or as acts of legitimate self defence. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
OK. Now that your have made your case, and everyone understand your point quite clearly, I suggest we wait and see what the rest of the Wikipedians suggest we should do before we'll consider all the possible options raised in this discussion. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Let me also point out that using the label "terrorist" is apparently against Wikipedia policy WP:TERRORIST.Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
In principle I wouldn't mind separate lists for legitimate "Resistance operations" (kosher attacks on Israeli military targets), and "War Crimes" committed by Arab organizations or countries. And a similar two templates on Israeli acts. In practice this is impossible. If Wikipedia can't agree on whether this poor child actually died or who killed him, in spite of Israel claiming resposible for his death, then I have no hope on this point. There is also I believe a similar template listing Israewli civilians killed that for some strange reason also includes IDF casualties.Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

hezbollah again[edit]

An attack on military targets is not terrorism. The target article does not once, except for using this template, call it terrorism. You'll have to justify the inclusion of that attack. I'm removing it because it is clearly outside of the scope of the template. nableezy - 17:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

But this attack also began with rockets fired against Israeli towns, so it was not strictly 'An attack on military targets'. They think it's all over (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
And it preceded aerial assaults on Lebanese towns. Were the Israeli actions in the 06 Lebanon War "terrorism"? nableezy - 19:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)