Talk:Irgun/Archive 2

Irgun used Hitler salute and wore brown shirts.
In 1982, revolutionary socialist Tony Cliff (1917-2000) wrote a very interesting article on Zionism in action (his parents emigrated there in 1902, he left in 1946 after imprisonment by the British during the war). He says "Now Israel is collaborating with the Phalangists in Lebanon, an openly fascist organisation. I’m not surprised. I remember the 1930s when Begin’s (now Israel’s prime minister) organisation, the Irgun, used the Hitler salute and wore the brown shirts".

There must be lots more about the salute and the shirts (though the claim about Phalangists is trickier) - or his testimony would be a reliable source on it's own, at least for some sections of the Irgnu movement. I don't want to interfere with an article that is generally well written, even with such an important snippet, which must be part of a much wider discussion. 86.159.186.70 (talk) 08:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say it was important snippet. I would rather oppose adding this to article. Szopen (talk) 13:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 10:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This feature needs bringing out (or putting in). The fascist element (with brown shirt uniform) is obviously very significant and all over the web. The only part I'm not seeing is any indication that Betar and Menachem Begin actually called themselves fascists.
 * "Economic Warfare" R. T. Naylor 2001: "Menachem Begin, for example, future leader of the Irgun Zvei Leumi terrorist group and, decades later, Israel's prime minister, in his native Poland joined a brown-shirt organization whose chief wrote a newspaper column that lauded fascism".
 * Hidden History of Zionism" Ralph Schoenman 1988: "Mussolini set up squadrons of the Revisionist Zionist youth movement, Betar, in black shirts in emulation of his own Fascist bands. When Menachem Begin became chief of Betar, he preferred the brown shirts of the Hitler gangs, a uniform Begin and Betar members wore to all meetings and rallies – at which they greeted each other and opened and closed meetings with the fascist salute."
 * "Zionism in the Age of the Dictators" Lenni Brenner 1983: "It was always the Betar youth group that was the central component of Diaspora Revisionism. The semi-official History of the Revisionist Movement declares that, after a discussion of whether to set up on a democratic basis, the decision was taken for a “hierarchic structure of a military type”. In its classic form the Betar chose its Rosh Betar (High Betar), always Jabotinsky, by a 75 per cent majority vote, he picked the leaders of the national units; they, in turn, selected the next lower leaders. Opposition was allowed, but after the purge of the moderates in the early 1930s the only serious internal critics were sundry “maximalists”, extremists who would complain, at various times, that Jabotinsky was not a Fascist, or was too pro-British or was insufficiently anti-Arab. When the average Betari put on his brownshirt he could be forgiven if he thought he was a member of a Fascist movement, and that Jabotinsky was his Duce". PRtalk 12:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Jewish terrorism
Concerning Irgun being categorized under Category:Jewish terrorism. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Anybody can join in this discussion.


 * They are legally desigtnated as a terrorist organization in Israel . What else? --Voldemar (talk) 06:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User:NoCal100. Rather than continuing to remove the category why aren't you discussing this at the above-linked talk page. I have asked you before to discuss this there but you have not yet done so.

I also ask again if you are aware of this?: WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have already responded at that page. To repeat: Please read Jewish terrorism - Jewish terrorism is religious terrorism by those whose motivations are rooted in their interpretations of Judaism. Irgun does not fit this. NoCal100 (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I replied at the other talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As have I, and other editors. At the moment, it seems like 3 editors are opposed to this category, with you being the only supporter. It is clear you have no consensus for this - please work to get such consensus, either here or on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration before adding it again. NoCal100 (talk)` —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC).


 * Other editors have discussed this issue at Talk:Lehi (group). There will probably have to be a CFD discussion concerning Category:Religious terrorism and its subcategories. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, it seems like 3 editors are opposed to this category, with you being the only supporter. It is clear you have no consensus for this - please work to get such consensus, either here or on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration before adding it again. Otherwise, it seems like disruptive editing NoCal100 (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Several editors have pointed out the terrorist acts of the Irgun both on this talk page, in the edit history, etc.. Also, at List of Irgun attacks during the 1930s, and at History of terrorism. And their talk pages. Several editors have pointed out the terrorist acts of a similar organization, Lehi (group), and it has been listed for awhile under Category:Jewish terrorism. Only one editor, you, has removed the category recently from Irgun. Editors are discussing this all elsewhere, but discussion is fluid and continuing. You are the only editor insistent on removing this category from Irgun. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The current dispute is whether or not these acts are religiously motivated, vs. politically motivated. In the discussion, you do not have consensus for adding it, so your repeated addition of it, without consensus and in opposition to the majority of opinion, is disruptive editing. Please get consensus for this change. Also, please respond tho the question below, in the section about 'See also" links. NoCal100 (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It's quite obvious that there is a difference between "Jewish terrorism" and "Zionist terrorism", just as there is a difference between "Muslim terrorism" and "Palestinian terrorism". The Munich Massacre would not belong in the category "Muslim terrorism", even though many of the perpetrators were undoubtedly Muslim. Please don't mix up categories. Jayjg (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite. Most editors on both sides of the divide can tell the difference.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * are you going to remove Category:Jewish terrorism, in that case? NoCal100 (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've replaced it.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Can I get you to take a look at the "See Also" links I've removed, which were subsequently restored (see below) ? NoCal100 (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have replied further at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Article needs thorough fact check
Whilst skimming the article because of the current Jewish terrorism discussion, I noticed a bit of nonsense about the Leader of the Opposition in Britain asking Winston Churchill a question in 1948. The problem is that Churchill was the Leader of the Opposition at the time. Perhaps he asked Clement Attlee, the Ptrime Minister, that question. Who knows? But given the person who added this last year was writing a huge amount of material in the article, I think people interested in the subject check everything else in case their was a similar confusion elsewhere. I've created a few fact tags to encourage a look.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Zionist terrorism
Category:Zionist terrorism. Please see:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.

Many people would like to eliminate all terrorism and terrorist categories. But we can't get rid of all terrorism categories. It has been tried many times at CFD discussions. See the above link and the preceding and following talk sections there. I would prefer that all the categories had "according to some sources" added to the category name. This would take the category name out of the narrative voice of Wikipedia. It would meet the WP:TERRORIST guideline better.

Since we have these categories we must be fair. There is Category:Zionist terrorism and Category:Palestinian terrorism.

So why is Irgun being removed from Category:Zionist terrorism? See List of massacres committed prior to the 1948 Arab–Israeli war in Mandate Palestine. See also: History of terrorism and King David Hotel bombing. Terrorism is also mentioned in the main Irgun article here. So the WP:TERRORIST guideline has been fully met, and Irgun should be categorized under Category:Zionist terrorism. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. So it's just a matter of reverting it every time deleted? Carol Moore 19:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As discussed Category talk:Zionist terrorism I don't believe the Kind David attack counts as a terrorist attack. At the time in question the building (which was a hotel) was not being used as a hotel, but rather as the mandate's military headquarters. That makes it legitimate military target, not a terrorist attack. As such it doesn't belong in Category: Zionist terrorism or contribute to the discussion here (so long as the requirement is that we talk about terrorist attacks, not simply armed attacked). Also on the topic of massacres many of those are used for propoganda purposes only, they do not objectively meet the criteria of a massacre. The list is problematic, but relying on it to further discussion is even more problematic. It needs a neutral group to go through it. I've raised one such "massacre" in the Military History Wiki Project. What's interesting is that the source I found suggests the number killed is slightly higher than the article had... but it still isn't a massacre. Oboler (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Rightly or wrongly, the KDH bombing is remembered as the most shocking of all the terrorist attacks on the British Mandate. I'd be confident it fits all the usual standards by which terrorism is labelled, I'm not aware that civilian/military designation of the target making any difference - and I think of the Mandate administration as civilian anyway. More seriously, I don't see why this discussion is being inserted here - unless it's disruptive SOAP-BOXING calculated to interfere with improvements to articles.
 * Lastly, the idea that the category "Zionist Terrorism" not be applied to the Irgun is, on the face of it, ridiculous. Are we seriously expected to remove the prime practitioners of such terrorism, and be left saying there was none? PRtalk 13:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oboler's comments are misleading. The hotel was being used for multiple purposes: yes there was a military HQ there, but also the civilian administration and also some of the hotel's normal functions such a restaurant were still ongoing.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not a question of being fair or not.
 * I've just noticed that our article on the bombing also mentions that Irgun sent the person in charge of the Bitish team in the KDH a letter bomb after he started a new post in another continent. How does Oboler propose to explain that this was not terrorism?--Peter cohen (talk) 11:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, the Irgun sent many parcel bombs. It appears that, after the Irgun had been dissolved, while German compensation for the Holocaust was being discussed after the war, Begin even had a parcel bomb sent to Kurt Adenauer. Just before the creation of Israel, as part of its policy of "beating the dog in its own kennel", Irgunists had planned to poison the London water supply, a pretty terrorist-like act wouldn't you say (certainly, I don't think Israelis would hesitate to call any group which did the same thing to them terroristic)? To get facts straight, the Kind David Hotel was still operating as a normal hotel besides being the Mandate civil and military headquarters. Note that the Irgunists gained access to the hotel through the hotel's service area and planted the bombs in the Regence Cafe, which was open to the public. The Secretariat was the target of the bombing and the principal occupant of the wing of the hotel that was bombed. The military headquarters did occupy rooms on the top floor of the wing, but was concentrated elsewhere in the hotel. In conclusion, the Irgun deserves to be included in the terrorism category as much as other organisations that are listed. There are reliable sources which classify them as such, as did the Irgun's opponents on the Zionist left-wing.       ←   ZScarpia  08:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPoV and WP:RS doesn't mean we must be "neutral". It means we must give all the relevant point of view (in this case from historians !) in giving them their due weight in the academic field. It is not complex : who are the scholars who claim : "Irgun was practicing zionism terrorism". More, but it has nothing to deal with wikipedia policies : comparing "zionism terrorism" (a phenomenon that arose between 1920 and 1948) and "palestinian terrorism" (a phenomenon that arose after 1967) is no sense. Ceedjee (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) From the article (the latest version as I write this) (emphasis added):


 * In the West, Irgun was described as a terrorist organization by The New York Times newspaper, and by the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry. Irgun attacks prompted a formal declaration from the World Zionist Congress in 1946, which strongly condemned "the shedding of innocent blood as a means of political warfare".  ...


 * Leaders within the mainstream Jewish Agency, Haganah, Histadrut, as well as British authorities, routinely condemned Irgun operations as terrorist and branded it an illegal organization as a result of the group's attacks on civilian targets. 

From WP:TERRORIST: ''If a reliable source describes a person, group or action using one of these words, then the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation. If the term is used with a clear meaning by multiple reliable independent sources, then citations to several such sources should be provided in the sentence where it appears.''

Encyclopedia of Terrorism, by Harvey W. Kushner, 2002 book. (Google Books link). See this search for "Irgun" in the book. See this link for Amazon.com info, 2002 date of hardback, reviews.

See also this Google Scholar search for Irgun. Many books found describing them as a terrorist group. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Give us the name of the scholarS who write : "The Irgun is a terrorist group [and nothing else]."
 * Else, I report you on wp:an/i/.
 * By the way, if you was really interested by wikipedai and not politics, you would also find the wp:rs sources that say "The Irgun was a liberation movement [but not only this]."
 * Ceedjee (talk) 08:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I went back and emphasized the use of the word "terrorist" by scholars, organizations, and news media in my previous comment. Encyclopedia of Terrorism is a scholarly work. This Wikipedia article on the Irgun thoroughly describes its activities in detail, and not just its terrorist activities. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't your first line an impossible demand? Here is what one link from GoogleS: says


 * "These opportunity costs exist because terrorist organizations also require resources for costly non-violent activities. For instance, Hamas has an extensive network of social welfare and health care organizations (Mishal and Sela 2000), the IRA provides vigilante police services for the Catholic population of Northern Ireland (Silke 1999), and the Irgun smuggled Jews from Europe into Palestine during the second world war (Bell 1977)."
 * If Hamas and the IRA are classified as terrorist despite their other activities, then why not Irgun?--Peter cohen (talk) 09:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding this Google-Scholar-listed article. There are many more found through Google Scholar that discuss the Irgun's terrorist activities. Search Google Scholar for Irgun. An organization does not have to do only terrorist activities to be categorized under terrorism categories at Wikipedia. I wish this were clarified at WP:TERRORIST, terrorism category definition, and terrorist category definition. Most wars and insurgencies use terrorist activities. That is if one defines terrorism as the deliberate killing of civilians. The excuse of "collateral damage" is often the scam used to justify deliberate indiscriminate killing and terrorism of civilians in insurgent-supporting areas. One person's "terrorism" is another person's "total war" and "strategic bombing" as practiced by most participants in World War 2, and the Vietnam War, in bombing and shelling cities and villages. See also Area bombardment, Carpet bombing, Civilian deaths by aerial bombing, Firebombing, Terror bombing, and Free-fire zone. I have long edited Casualties of the Iraq War. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I was very keen on getting the first OED citation of terrorism into the article on State Terrorism. Some how the term used to describe Robespierre's government was transmogrified to descibe oppositional groups when by far the biggest users of terrorism are states. The governments of Mao, Stalin and Hitler are I suspect the 1, 2 and 3 of terrorism in terms of internal death counts, but McCarthy did instigate a true American homage to Robespierre and Britain invented the concentration camp.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What is "OED"? I recently started this category: commons:Category:Second Boer War concentration camps after I saw this incredible photo: Image:LizzieVanZyl.jpg. The sister links at commons:Category:Boer wars pull up stuff on the Boer War concentration camps from other Wikimedia Projects. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OED = Oxford English Dictionary. Ronabop (talk)

Guys, I completely don't mind your WP:PR analysis of the problem. The "encyclopaedia of terrorism" is not a scholarly work. I don't care Hamas. I don't care IRA. I don't care Irgun. I don't care Jews. I don't care Palestinians. I care WP:RS and WP:NPoV. Let's start by WP:RS. I just want 1 very precise reference to start with the excerpt : That's all, easy and cristal clear. Ceedjee (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * who (we need a name) is the SCHOLAR (we need an historian at least Prof with PhD and numerous publications and recognized by his peers) who writes Irgun was a zionist terrorist organisation (we need a reference to an article or a book which is not self-published).

You're adding lots of stuff which is not required by WP:RS The link I provided was to the work of an academic specialising in terrorism who has been multiply published in peer-reviewed journals. He even has a post at the Hebrew University, for God's sake. --Peter cohen (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC) (Later: link to published version of the article . This appeared in peer-reviewed journal. Irgun is twice mentioned and placed as an example on a par with Hamas in each case.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If we are talking about whether or not this article should be added to a "Zionist terrorism" category, then it seems self-evident to me it should be. There is no question the Irgun carried out terrorist acts - some of their own leaders unashamedly embraced the term. And if the argument is that Irgun should not be put into the category because they were not solely a terrorist organization, I see no problem there either, since the category is called "Zionist terrorism" not "Zionist terrorist organizations".


 * I must confess however that I am somewhat perplexed that these "terrorism" categories even exist, since last time I checked "terrorist" was supposed to be a taboo word on the Wiki. But if we are going to have such categories, then we need to be consistent about it. One cannot put Hamas into the category of "Palestinian terrorism" and at the same time argue that the Irgun should not go into an equivalent category because they weren't just terrorists. Hamas is not "just" a terrorist organization either, neither is/was the PLO, or Hezbollah or any of a host of political organizations which employed or employ terrorism as a tactic in support of their political goals. Gatoclass (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There is related discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 15. Interested people might want to comment there as you and I have already. There are also links there to past history and discussion about terrorism and terrorist categories. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that it is perplexing that these "terrorism" categories even exist, as they seem to be circumventing WP:WTA - we can't call an organization "terrorist" in the article, so we conveniently list them in a category of "terrorism". To Ceedjee's credit, though, unlike some other editors here, he has been removing the organziations form th ecategory in a NPOV, even-handed way - he's removed Irgun form Zionism terrorism, but also removed Palestinian Liberation Front (and others) from Palestinian terrorism. NoCal100 (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * An organization can be called "terrorist" in an article, but only if attributed in the form of so-and-so says the organization is terrorist, or committed terrorist acts. Or something similar with attribution in the text, and not just in the references.


 * WP:TERRORIST is short for Words to avoid. "Terrorist" can be used in articles but "should never be used as labels in the unqualified narrative voice of the article. If a reliable source describes a person, group or action using one of these words, then the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation. If the term is used with a clear meaning by multiple reliable independent sources, then citations to several such sources should be provided in the sentence where it appears." --Timeshifter (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly so. In an article, care is taken to never state "Organization X is terrorist" in a narrative voice, but rather we are always extremely careful to couch it in terms such as "Source X says organization Y is terrorist". But the category has no such attribution or annotation, and placement of a group in a terrorist category implies that it is factually correct to label it "terrorist", rather than attributing that label to the opinion of someone or the designation by some group. That is why WP:Category says: "Categories appear without annotations, so be aware of NPOV when creating or filling categories. An article should normally possess all the referenced information necessary to demonstrate that it belongs in each of its categories. For example, avoid placing a category for a profession or award unless the article provides some verification that the placement is accurate. Use the tag if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate. If the composition of a category is likely to be controversial, a list (which can be annotated) may be more appropriate." NoCal100 (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The "article provides some verification that the placement is accurate." All terrorism categories are controversial. There have been many attempts to delete them all. None have succeeded. At Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 15 people can follow the links that describe the history of these many deletion attempts. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * the article provides verification that some people think the placement is accurate - but provides no verification at all that those people are correct. Categories such as "Organizations designated as terrorist by X" are ok, if the article shows some verification that indeed X designated the organization as terrorist. But categories such as "terrorist organization (of nationality X)" are, by definition, POV. The fact that they currently exist, in apparent circumvention of clear Wiki policy is not, in itself, reason to keep them. NoCal100 (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with NoCal. Categorizing individuals or groups as "terrorist" seems to me to be a breach of wp:terrorist. I'm not sure what the solution might be, but perhaps a change of name for some of these categories to reflect a more NPOV stance might be helpful. Gatoclass (talk) 07:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thx Gatoclass.
 * Wise and quiet.
 * But there is no reason to agree or disagree or to discuss.
 * This has been solved for long on wp -> zionist political violence
 * Ceedjee (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There are many controversial categories in Wikipedia. After years of category discussions there has been no requirement to try to duplicate article nuance in category names. It would require very long category names in many cases.
 * Clarification is sometimes provided in category introductions. See terrorist category definition and terrorism category definition. Category intro definitions were mentioned by the closing admin at the last attempt to delete all terrorism categories: Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 25.
 * "...most of the criticism against these categories was based against the unspecific definitions of the categories, or the lack of reliable sourcing to support the categorization of various people. Looking at Category:Terrorists, there seems to be a rather definitive definition there, as well as a strong reminder to cite all inclusions. A tightening of these definitions, and some dedicated work into finding sources, can clean these categories up in comparatively little time. Looking at the number of people involved in this discussion, it seems there won't be any lack of people willing to do this. To sum up, a lack of neutrality is not, in itself, a reason to delete, it is a reason to improve the article/category."
 * The full closing statement is also helpful. The closing decision was to "keep all." --Timeshifter (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Terrorism
(unindent) About Harvey W. Kushner, author of Encyclopedia of Terrorism.

From: http://www.sagepub.com/authorDetails.nav?contribId=504379 (emphasis added):

''Harvey W. Kushner (Ph.D., New York University) is Professor and Chair of the Department of Criminal Justice at Long Island University. An internationally recognized authority on terrorism, Kushner has shared his expertise with government agencies, including the FBI, Federal Aviation Administration, Immigration and Naturalization Service, and U.S. Customs. He also worked for the U.S. Probation Department as an analyst for criminal investigations, intelligence, and terrorism. He has advised and lectured on matters of international terrorism at the Naval War College, the FBI Academy, the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit, and the United Nations in Vienna, Austria, among others. Kushner has experience with a variety of high-profile court cases involving international terrorism, including those involving the World Trade Center attacks. After the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, Kushner was asked to testify on terrorism and safety in New York City’s public spaces before the Committee of Public Safety of the Council of the City of New York. He was invited by 9/11 Commission to participate in a VIP-briefing before the release of its final report, and he appeared as a terrorism expert before the DHS’s Homeland Security Advisory Council. A variety of publications, including the New York Times, have called Kushner the “go-to-expert” for plain talk about the subject of terrorism. He can be seen regularly on CNN, the Fox News Channel, and MSNBC and in articles in the Associated Press, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. A widely published and best-selling author, Kushner’s work includes Holy War on the Home Front: The Secret Islamic Terror Network in the United States and the Encyclopedia of Terrorism, considered the gold-standard of terrorism reference works. As a member of the working press, Kushner is an associate editor for the Airport Press and writes a column about aviation security. Dr. Kushner’s career as a college administrator and professor spans more than three decades.''

And he's conservative. :) http://www.harveykushner.com --Timeshifter (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Still lot of blabla
Except MAYBE : RolandR, it seems there are only googlescholar here.
 * WHO : Walter Laqueur
 * Proof of SCHOLARSHIP :Director Wiener Library 1964- 1993. Founder and and Editor (with George Mosse) of Journal of Contemporary History.(retired from from Journal 2005)Visiting professor Johns Hopkins (1957). University of Chicago, Fellow Harvard Russian Research Center and Middle East Research Center. Visiting professor Harvard (1976/7). Two Guggenheim fellowships. Professor (History of Ideas) Brandeis University 1967-1971. Appointed member, later chairman International Research Council,CSIS Washington 1969-2001. Founder Washington Papers and Washington Quarterly Visiting professor (History) Tel Aviv University (1972-1982)University ofessor Georgetown University (1980-1991) etc
 * QUOTE : "Terrorism in Palestine, spearheaded by Irgun, had first appeared on the eve of the Second World War"
 * REFERENCE : The New Terrorism, Oxford University Press 2000, ISBN 9780195140644, p23. RolandR (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Thank you.
 * So, Lacqueur reports that Irgun practiced *terrorism*.
 * He doesn't say if he did something else. He didn't give the reasons (Zionism terrorism ???)
 * Next Step : NPoV
 * Among the famous google scholar among you, does one never hear about the Irgun as a National Liberation Movement ? Ceedjee (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you trying to suggest that if you are a national liberation movement, you can't also be a movement that engages in terrorism? I hope not, because that doesn't follow at all. Gatoclass (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Gatoclass,
 * I am not trying to suggest anything else that : 1) WP:RS - 2) WP:NPoV
 * Concerning what you think I try to suggest.
 * 1. I just underline what everybody knows : that most of these movements are both together. Just according to the point of view : the freedom figher (or liberation movement) of the one is the terrorist of the other. And it is often the winner who decides. For the same facts/actions.
 * terrorism* or *fight for freedom* is always (very often) the *political color* we want to give to some actions. All this is *political violence*
 * 2. I just say to googlescholar that if this not because they find two words together on google it means it is right to associate them on wikipedia.
 * Lacqueur was finally given. Excellent. (He talks about terrorism and not zionist terrorist, but let's be fair). Whatever step 2 is WP:NPoV. This WE, I will give quotes from (I expect) the same : Walter Lacqueur where he explains why Irgun's motivation was [not terrorism but] freedom or fight for justice and they didn't expect to terrorize [civilians or soliders].
 * When you know the topic and the context, you know that eg, Irgun killed 2 British soldiers and put grenades in the dead bodies to kill other soldiers after warning British they would proceed if they hanged some Irgun prisoners : is this terrorism ? Easy : ask the mother of the British soldier and ask the mother of the Irgun member. I personnally ask scholars. Because they were numerous such events : Deir Yassin ? King David ? Bombed throwed in markets ?
 * Ceedjee (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous. Plenty of books refer to "Zionist terrorism", and you are just making us jump through semantic hoops. Laqueur refers to Irgun as terrorist, and that should be enough. He does not need tio use the exact phrase "Zionist terrorism", since nobody could possibly doubt that their Zionism was the reason for their terrorist acts. Whether they considered themselves "freedom fighters", whether they warned people before, whether their mothers thought of them as terrorists(!) -- all of this is irrelevant. RolandR (talk) 09:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said the contrary. Never. I even wrote this clearly. But you attack me and don't assume good faith. Ceedjee (talk) 11:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why were you demanding people supply you with information in a given format? Because you wanted to mak a WP:POINT? And you're complaining about soemone not assuming good faith after you posted this ?--Peter cohen (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But, if you want the exact phrase, then how about Terrorism in Context, by Martha Crenshaw of the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University. The index to this book lists "Zionist terrorism", and the pages referred to, while not themselves using that explicit phrase, relate to the Irgun and Lehi.Terrorism in Context, Penn University Press 1995, ISBN 9780271010151, pp 524-6, 610 RolandR (talk) 09:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good googlescholar guy. Perfect. did you read the full book ? lol lol lol.
 * Now my question was : not other mind about Irgun from wp:rs sources ? Ceedjee (talk) 11:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Or what about Ends of British Imperialism, by William Roger Louis, a Professor of English            History and Culture, and of Middle Eastern Studies, at the University of Texas. Louis writes "Zionist terrorism offers a basic explanation of why the British were forced to retreat", and then discusses the King David Hotel bombing.Ends of British Imperialism: The Scramble for Empire, Suez and Decolonization : Collected Essays,  I.B.Tauris, 2006, ISBN 9781845113476 p429 RolandR (talk) 09:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Irgun practiced terrorism from his mind. Perfect. And what about wp:NPoV :-) That is my turn to reply. This WE. And from a googlescholar reasearch from an activist chased by his enemies on wikipedia. Ceedjee (talk) 11:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that is a very nasty personal attack--Peter cohen (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Berch Berberoglu, Professor and Chair of the Department of Sociology and Director of the Institute for International Studies at the University of Nevada at Reno, writes "Meanwhile, Zionist terrorism mounted. Irgun (the self-styled National Military Organization, which split from Haganah in 1935) began to bomb Palestinian civilian targets in 1938" The National Question: Nationalism, Ethnic Conflict, and Self-determination in the 20th Century, Temple University Press, 1995, ISBN 9781566393430, p21 RolandR (talk) 09:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sociology ? I'd prefer historians, specialized on the period. Do you know one ? Just one ? Without google ? Ceedjee (talk) 11:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There are scores more examples on Google Books, without even going to a library. This vexatious removal of a well-documented characterisation, and repeated personal attacks on other editors, is verging on vandalism. RolandR (talk) 09:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "without even going to the library". You have access to such a thing ? Lucky guy. Ceedjee (talk) 11:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at this and seeing "vexatious removal of a well-documented characterisation, and repeated personal attacks on other editors, is verging on vandalism" too. PRtalk 14:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

<back dent Categories is not that specific on needing a specific WP:RS. It says: ''When assigning an article into categories, try to be thorough in a "horizontal" sense. The topic may be associated with a geographic area, a historical period, an academic subfield, a certain type of thing (like a food or an ornament), and/or a special interest topic (like Roman Empire or LGBT). You might need to poke around the category hierarchy a bit to find the right place. Try searching for articles similar to the article you are categorizing to get ideas or to find the most appropriate place.'' There may be a debate on which of several categories is best, using various WP:RS. But saying it can't be in a category unless exact terminology is used is a misinterpretation of policy, IM(notvery)HO. Carol Moore 15:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There have been linked provided where RS use the term 'zionist terrorists' or equivalent...certainly RS call them terrorists. It isn't a question of whether the terrorist category should be there, it is a question of whether it should be plain terrorist or zionist terrorist. Which is more accurate? -- Narson ~  Talk  • 10:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ceedjee has been very disparaging above about research carried out using Google, as if that were less valid than other research. So I decided to scour my bookshelves for references that might resolve this dispute. Many of my books do, indeed, refer to the Irgun as "terrorist". Several of these might be characterised (in some cases rightly) as partisan; bur some surely could not. For instance, journalist and historian Amos Elon, in The Israelis: Founders and Sons, Bantam Books 1972, writes "The emblem of the Arab terrorist organization of el Fatah...is almost a direct copy of the old emblem of the Jewish terrorist organization, Irgun Zvai Leumi, which fought the British before 1948" (p286). He writes later "The few younger mandarins were undoubtedly involved in one or another dangerous underground operation prior to the establishment of the state. Some were members of the terrorist Irgun Zvai Leumi ..." (p400). If this is considered too lightweight, what about The Course of Modern Jewish History, by the academic historian, specialising in Jewish and Middle Eastern history, Howard Morley Sachar (Delta Books, 1958). Sachar writes "Begin's intransigence provoked more than extremist political demands from the distraught and embittered Yishuv. It provided a physical response as well. For one thing, it leant a measure of respectability to those desperate elements who expressed their protest against the White Paper in the form of terrorist activity. The Irgun Zvai Leumi was one such terrorist group" (p466). Another mainstream historian to address this was Cecil Roth, who taught Jewish history at, inter alia, Bar Ilan University. In A Short History of the Jewish People (East and West Library, 1959), Roth writes "Extremist groups -- the National Military Organization (Itgun Zvai Leumi) and the more radical Fighters for the Freedom of Israel (Lohamei Herut Israel, sometimes known after their founder as the Stern Group) were strengthened by these happenings and embarked on a systematic terrorist campaign (not restricted to Palestine)..." (p446).
 * Since these books are on my shelf, and not on Google books, I can't provide a url to confirm these quotes, But they should all be easily available; and, if necessary, I could provide page scans. Surely this should end the matter -- very many reliable sources describe the Irgun as a terrorist group. RolandR (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, ceedjee also wrote this article -> Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine War. Before it was just a list.
 * The purpose of wikipedia is to write an encyclopaedia and to provide information, not to tag a side of the protagonists, past or present, of the I-P conflict.
 * Irgun is pictured both as a terrorist organisation and a national liberation movement by scholars. It doesn't enter, so simply, in the zionist terrorism category. Even more that this tag doesn't mean anything.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 07:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ceedjee block
Ceedjee has been blocked for one week for harassment and outing someone. See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry wrote:


 * I have blocked for one week for outing RolandR. This is not something which should ever be allowed, especially on such a contentious subject where the threat of violence in real life is ever present.

The block notice at User talk:Ceedjee states that Ceedjee has "been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for attempting to harass other users." --Timeshifter (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I fear that this issue is going to start up again in a week. There were suggestions to go to RFC or Mediation. Any views?--Peter cohen (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm shocked to see Ceedjee behave like this, I've always thought of him as being scholarly (even as I've often disagreed with him). His nomination of RolandR as "Not a Google-Scholar" was apt and helpful - we need more scholars like RR. PRtalk 12:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Simple, neutral, logic vs a huge argument
I just read plenty on this talk page. I am neutral. I couldn't give a hoot either way.

Fresh and simple:

I just looked up the definition of terrorism from US law, to the Hague, and many others.

I just read case after case of Irgun's acts.

Neutrally speaking: Many acts fit the definition perfectly. Many acts fit partially.

They were a terrorist organization. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed Carol Moore 14:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Major changes without discussion
Please see the article history. Malcolm Schosha is making major changes, and is edit warring. All without discussion on the talk page. I don't see any comments from Malcolm Schosha anywhere on the current talk page here. I asked him to do so in my edit summary when undoing his major changes. Both RolandR and I have undone Malcolm Schosha's edit.

I asked Malcolm Schosha on his talk page if he is aware of Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The change made the material conform to the source, as I explained in my edit notes. Just what do you want to discuss about making the material conform to the source? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe you should self-revert, and talk first. 2 people have undone your edits. Are you aware of WP:1RR?


 * See the second "October 2008" talk section on your talk page (there are 2 talk sections with that heading). That looks like some block history in the area covered by WP:ARBPIA. Edit warring at Anti-Zionism.


 * See also your block log: . It lists the block for edit warring at Anti-Zionism. You were also blocked from June 6, 2008 to July 25, 2008 for Sock puppetry.


 * I think it is up to you to show good faith and address RolandR's concerns first. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have explained my edit. If you think I have done something that is wrong, feel free to take it to an administrator. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You removed a lot more from Irgun in your edit than what you indicated in your comments or edit summaries. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I removed what was contrary to the source. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Here are the Irgun diffs of your reversions:


 * In the block log for one of your old user names, user:Kwork, there were some other blocks. One of them is for 3RR. See . --Timeshifter (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeh, I have been blocked plenty of times. So what? I take pride in not being an ass kisser. Do you have a problem with that?


 * Aside from your shock over my having a block record, that what was wrong with the edits that you think needs to be changed? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Most of us would take issue with someone that takes pride in being a disruptive editor, one who gloats about being blocked, yes. The problem wit the edit is that it is a major shift in bias and POV from the previously neutral wording, and that is entirely unacceptable. Tarc (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I am still waiting for someone to show why my edit, which did nothing but make changes so that content would accurately reflect the source, has been reverted. You said discuss, but when I explained the changes, you ignored that and decided to discuss me instead of the article; and in doing that you are violating WP:civil and WP:assume good faith. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that Irgun was "initially created to retaliate against Arab terrorism"? That would be a start. I think the statement about "forcing the British out of Palestine" is arguably legitimate contextualizing and might stay. But I don't think you should be removing the statement about the Revisionists' overall aims and philosophy. Gatoclass (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As I explained above, the change I made did nothing but make the content of the article coincide with the source that was already cited, but inaccurately . It is now accurate, and meets WP:verifiability and WP:reliable source. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me correct that: if my change had been left in place, it would now be an accurate. Because my change was reverted, the distorted version is back in the article. What is there now distorts the source, which can be easily seen by reading the link to the source.  Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * So someone check if User:Malcolm Schosha is correct and where information is important someone should come up with another ref. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I made an edit to correct some material that distorts the source cited. The lead says this: Initially, a central part of their efforts included attacks against Palestinian Arabs,[2] but it increasingly shifted to attacks against the British. The source is to a book by Joseph Telushkin, who actually wrote in the book cited: The Irgun, a militant group -- originally founded by followers of Ze'ev Jabotinsky to retaliate against Arab terrorism, and which later to forcing the British out of Palistine... What is now in the article rather distorts the meaning of the writer, and perhaps Tarc and Timeshifter can explain their reasons for not wanting the mistake corrected. Leaving out Joseph Telushkin's statement that the Irgun was founded to "retaliate against Arab terrorism", makes the material now in the article seem POV. It is not necessary to like the Irgun to represent the sources correctly. There is enough negative to say about the Irgun without piling on crap....not to mention violating WP:verify. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Both versions cover the same factual ground; the group initially formed to fight against Palestinian militants, and later turned their attention to British forces. What differs is the neutral wording of what has been in the article, and the rather obvious POV slant of what you are trying to assert.  Telushkin's work is cited here for the simple, factual statements of the group's early history; that he went on to classify the Palestinians as "Arab terrorists" and to ignore the Irgun's own methods of terrorism employed in "forcing the British out of Palestine", i.e. personal opinion, is not terribly relevant. Tarc (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So we need to rephrase things not delete them. I can quite believe (in fact I'm sure) that there was terrorism from both Jewish and Arab Palestinians and also state terrorism from the British. Sources that are even handed in their choice of language strike me as more reliable than partisan ones that use different language for different sides and Wikipedia itself needs to be even handed.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This looks like the same laughable sourcing problem there was at Anti-Zionism. Nobody would seriously quote defenders of a man sentenced to 15 years in 1920 for weapons and military training. In 1923 this man Jabotinisky was saying "Zionism is a colonizing adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force. It is important to build, it is important to speak Hebrew, but, unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot". PRtalk 14:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Tarc, Peter cohen, and PalestineRemembered, please refer to WP:verifiability, which says: The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article. Distorting a quote is not the way to get what you consider balance. If you want to balance what Telushkin actually said, you should do that be adding material citing a second source, not by distorting the first source to suite your preferences. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is beginning to sound like a broken record. What Telushkin is cited for is the purpose of Irgun's creation, not for his opinion on what he felt their opponents should be labeled as.  There is no distortion, no WP:V transgression here. Tarc (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

edit clash with Tarc below) I've tried another wording. This was a change to PR's favoured version . Malcolm has chosen to revert to his prefered version. What do other editors think of my attempt to go for more neutral language?--Peter cohen (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah I see Tarc has retained my wording.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Bravo! Peter cohen gets a gold star on todays assignment! (Do teachers in England put gold stars on well gone assignments in England?)

Not only that, the only remaining source in the paragraph checks out as accurate! Amazing how, after editing with you guys for a few days, something so basic as correct sourcing becomes something to get excited about. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That doesn't even make any sense. You have been edit warring for days trying to jam in descriptors of "Arab terrorists" and other such gibberish.  Now that it is out, you profess this delirious joy?  Or is this some sort of only-humorous-to-you display of sarcasm?  Try putting a civil tongue back in your mouth sometime, and other editors may take you more seriously in the future. Tarc (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Tarc wrote: You have been edit warring for days trying to jam in descriptors of "Arab terrorists" and other such gibberish.

Tarc, is it your view that my defending WP:Verify is a violation of WP rules? If so, take that accusation to the Administrators Noticeboard, and I will have some fun arguing an easy one with you. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure the Admins willl be really looking forward to that ;-) --Peter cohen (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The "c" is nowhere near the "k" either. Interestingly enough, that was how our ol buddy  used to refer to me as well.  The WP:V defense never had a leg to stand on. Tarc (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Finding a new citation
I have axed the previous one completely, and left a "citation needed" on the text. Perhaps work can proceed from here on finding a more agreeable and more neutral source for the Irgun's shift in targets and strategy. Tarc (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Is anyone looking for such a source? I still think that the old one substantiates what we have written. It's just that someone wants to include the editorial as well as the factual element of the source. And I repeat from AN/I we already have the quote in the sane paragraph which mentions retaliation. --Peter cohen (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as certain someones don't try to revert it back to POV-ish "...retaliate against Arab terrorism", sure. Tarc (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Irish Republican Army inspiration
Over at J Bowyer Bell it states that 'While researching the Middle East, he discovered that the Irgun drew inspiration from the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and the Irish War of Independence, and began to study the IRA.' Does anybody know any more about this? 86.42.71.111 (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Typo?
I am wondering if the Hebrew rendering of "Etzel" contains a typoe here: "In present-day Israel, Irgun is commonly referred to as Etzel (אצ"ל), an acronym of the Hebrew initials." It looks as if the Hebrew letter for "y" was replaced with a superscripted comma? PinkWorld (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Pink


 * No, this is perfectly correct. אצ"ל is the initials of ארגון צבאי לאומי, National Military Organisation. The inverted commas before the final letter (remember that Hebrew is written from right to left) indicate that this is an abbreviation. RolandR (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

ridiculous POV pushing
this is ridiculous and should be sorted out by someone: -->


 * "Some of the better-known attacks by Irgun were the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on 22 July 1946 and the Deir Yassin massacre (accomplished together with the Stern Gang) on 9 April 1948. In the West, Irgun was described as a terrorist organization by The New York Times newspaper,[2][3] The Times (of London),[4][5] the British Broadcasting Corporation,[6] the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry,[7] and prominent world and Jewish figures, such as Winston Churchill,[8] Tom Segev,[9] Hannah Arendt, Albert Einstein, and many others.[10] Irgun attacks prompted a formal declaration from the World Zionist Congress in 1946, which strongly condemned "the shedding of innocent blood as a means of political warfare""


 * - there's no reason to quote so many people considered for some reason by the editor to be "prominent figures". Very ridicilous. Compare to PLO or even Hamas. If the group was designated by X that's ok but quoting numerous newspapers or Op-ed's of individuals makes no sense. One newspaper is ok, two maybe, not 10 individuals with more lesser importance. Stupid. You can have one two sources, not a dozens, and not so much space in the lead. Somebody take care of this mess. Prominent "world figure" Churcill who the irgun was fighting with LOL, and Leftie Historian Tom Segev. Guess what - let's add "Hamas is called a terrorist organization by prominent world figure Shimon Peres and by prominent islamic figures like Wafa Sultan. 216.165.3.65 (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry?
Yesterday, an anonymous user at IP 216.165.3.65 made a series of highly POV edits, justified by ad hominem attacks (above). I reverted these. Today, an anonymous user at IP 216.165.95.70 reverted my edit as "vandalism", with the edit summary "rationale was convincing". Both of these IPs are registered to New York University. So it would seem that this editor was convinced by his/her own rationale. What a surptise! RolandR (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * user:RolandR - try using the discussion page for topic discussing and not for in personam attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.70 (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous sentence in lede
I note the following rather ridiculous sentence in the lede: "In the West, Irgun was described as a terrorist organization by The New York Times newspaper,[2][3] The Times (of London),[4][5] the British Broadcasting Corporation,[6] the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry,[7] and prominent world and Jewish figures, such as Winston Churchill,[8] Tom Segev,[9] Hannah Arendt, Albert Einstein,[10] and many others." To begin with, what do the first three words "In the West" add or mean? Are we contrasting these views with a separate set of views "in the East"? Also, why do we have a mind-numbingly detailed laundry list of media sources and individuals that have used the term "terrorist" to describe them? If they had been designated as a "terrorist" group by a number of countries, that would be significant, and you might want to list them - but the fact that various media or individuals used the term (typically 60 years ago or more) to describe them is not particularly so. I'd like to propose a more encyclopedic lede sentence that actually summarizes this concept: "Irgun was described as a terrorist organization by the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry,[7] several media sources,[2][3][4][5][6], and a number of prominent world and Jewish figures.[8][9][10]" The detail of exactly which newspaper or intellectual opined this way is left for the footnotes and body of the article, as it should be. I'm hoping people will be able to step back and view this from an encyclopedic, rather than political, perspective. Jayjg (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I support this. And to emphasize how unecyclopedic this looks, one only need to look at the names of the "prominent world and Jewish figures". We have Churchill, a known Jew(?) who was quite obviously the direct enemy of this group, so he fits right in of course together with 4 more British sources (surprise). We have Tom Segev, a new historian, very relevant and very prominent of course, we have a famous physicist and chemist, and Hannah Arendt. What a comingled group, coherent and exciting to the reader.  These last 2 didn't call Irgun a terrorist, they signed their name to a letter which was against Begin's visit to the U.S long after Irgun no longer existed. That letter stated that the irgun was terrorist, but it's not a direct quote.  All pretty irrelevant for an encyclopedia. I'm sure this will appear in the lead of Britannica. I don't if this is called cherry picking, undue weight or simply mass political spew in what's supposed to be a factual description, interesting and relevant to the non suspecting reader, but it's something. I haven't seen any other article depicting the quotes of a dozen newspaper articles, politicans, scientists, journalists, historians and political theorists. And boy do they exist about Hizballah, IRA or ETA. Do they appear in their lead? Answer: No. "IRA: The organisation is classified as a proscribed terrorist group in the United Kingdom and as an illegal organisation in the Republic of Ireland." That's it. ETA has designations, and Hizballah is particularly good. While it has only designations, it also has this "It is regarded as a legitimate resistance movement throughout much of the Arab and Muslim world".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.3.65 (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I also support Jay's revision. Much more encyclopedic than a list of diverse individual's opinions.... I especially like the "Churchill is Jewish" part. I suspect he is rolling in his grave right now, pass the cigars.  Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please give examples of newspapers and governments that did not describe them as terrorists- it will be hard.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * See this edit n 1947 "the British army in Mandate Palestine banned the use of the term terrorist to refer to the Irgun zvai Leumi ... because it implied that British forced had reason to be terrified". --PBS (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What the original source ("Cordon and search: With 6th Airborne Division in Palestine" by R. D Wilson, page 13) actually says (in refernce to Irgun and Lehi) is: "The members of these two dissident organizations were universally termed 'terrorists' until the word was banned by the Army...".  So we can see that they were indeed regarded as terrorists even though the word was banned for political purposes.  Zerotalk 23:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And of course the word terrorist was always used by everyone else as a precise legal, or military, term and never with pejorative connotations for political purposes :-o -- PBS (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I also support this revision. Moreover the following sentence seems me not correct too:
 * The Israeli government had designated Irgun as a terrorist organization according to the "Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance" No 33 of 5708-1948 - 23 Sep 1948 (claimed to be adopted for the specific purpose of dissolving Irgun and Lehi)[13] and disbanded it in 1948.


 * Here is this No.33 one: Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance No 33 of 5708-1948, 23 Sep 1948


 * This is quoute from ref #13: «"Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance" No 33 of 5708-1948- 23 Sep 1948 was passed ... for the specific purpose to dissolve the mentioned [Irgun & LEHI] organisations in Jerusalem and to eliminate their existance as independent paramilitary organisations.»


 * And this one is quote from Yehuda Lapidot:
 * On Sunday, September 19, two days after the assassination of Bernadette, the Cabinet held a lengthy discussion on the deed and on relations with the Irgun and Lehi. Yitzhak Greenboim tried to moderate the discussion and repeated his proposal that Irgun fighters be permitted to join the IDF and to take an oath of allegiance which would apply only to Jerusalem. He explained that as long as the fate of Jerusalem was in the balance, the presence of Irgun fighters in the city was acceptable. He said that if it were decided to transfer the IDF from Jerusalem and if Israeli law did not apply to the city, then the Irgun would be free to act there as it chose.


 * The Prime Minister rejected the idea of granting any kind of privilege to the 'dissidents' in the event of a change in the status of Jerusalem and made two proposals of his own: the first - 'to inform the Irgun in Jerusalem that all state laws regarding the army, enlistment and weapons apply to the citizens of Jerusalem and those presently there as they do to the residents of any other place in the country and that they must obey those laws without further negotiations.' The second - 'to empower the army to maintain these laws within the territory of Jerusalem and, when required, the army will be authorized to use the necessary force; the Irgun in Jerusalem were warned of this. Ben-Gurion, Zisling and Sharett will determine the arrangements for implementing this decision.'2


 * The two decisions were passed by a majority and a special ministerial committee hastened to implement them. On Ben-Gurion's instructions, the following ultimatum was handed to the Irgun in Jerusalem: ...


 * This ultimatum was strange since it had been known for several months that the Irgun was ready to disband and to join the IDF. Already in August, one month before the assassination of Bernadotte, Isser Harel had told the Prime Minister of the Irgun's willingness to capitulate.3 Since then negotiations had been underway with Yitzhak Greenboim and an agreement had been arrived at whereby Irgun members would enlist in the ranks of the IDF.


 * The Irgun leaders in Jerusalem were firmly resolved to avoid fraternal strife, and the following day they informed Moshe Dayan of their consent to disband the organisation:


 * «In reply to the ultimatum submitted to us yesterday, we hereby inform you that, taking into consideration the threat of use of force, and our desire to avoid shedding Jewish blood which would result from the implementation of this threat - we accept the ultimatum. 
 * The Irgun Zvai Leumi will disband in accordance with the demands of the provisional government in a manner and fashion to be determined between us and the command of the IDF brigade in Jerusalem.»
 * The Irgun Zvai Leumi will disband in accordance with the demands of the provisional government in a manner and fashion to be determined between us and the command of the IDF brigade in Jerusalem.»


 * So I do not see any sign that Provision Government named Irgun as terrorist organisation.


 * Just in October M.Begin returned to the Herut Movement's foundation based on Irgun what was announced yet in June, before Altalena's shooting. In January 1949 Herut received 11.5% at first Knesset's elections.
 * - Igorp_lj (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. The enforced disbandment of Irgun just as the anti-terrorism ordinance was passed was clearly part of the same process, but I cannot find any clear official statement by the government at that time calling Irgun "terrorists".  Lehi yes, but not Irgun. The source given for the sentence we don't like is unreliable, it says both Lehi and Irgun were involved in the assasination of Bernadotte, which is not true. On the other hand, pre-independence there were lots of such statements from the proto-government (such as in connection to the King David Hotel bombing and the Deir Yassin massacre.  Here is something from 1947:
 * WARNING TO TERRORISTS
 * At an urgent meeting in Jerusalem yesterday, the Vaad Leumi Executive issued a strongly-worded warning to the terrorists that "the Yishuv will not permit them to destroy the new world we are about to build." The Executive stressed that, against its will, the Yishuv had been plunged by the terrorists into a whirlpool of blood which threatened political suicide at a time when the community was deeply concerned with its safety and security and the transition to independence. The statement continued: "In the face of abominable spilling of innocent blood in our streets, which cannot be condoned because of the repressions of an outgoing Government, the Yishuv will rouse itself to a renewed and intensified struggle against its destroyers, to save its honour, existence and future." (Palestine Post, Nov 17, 1947)Zerotalk 01:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the wording in the criticism section to clarify that the Israeli government declared Lehi and Irgun as terrorist groups as the previous wording, that they dissolved the group, conflicts with a number of sections in the article and was beyond the government's ability. 1. Why would Lehi and Irgun integrate into the IDF if they had already been dissolved? 2. How could the government dissolve non-government groups? 3. The Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance only allows the government to declare groups terrorists, which might cause their dissolution but cannot mandate it. Dissolution was the government's intent but they outlawed the groups but to claim they dissolved the groups is to twist the words of the source and makes it appear as though Irgun and Lehi were legitimate government organizations. The actual declaration of the groups as terrorists was supposedly written up in "Orders for Wiping Out Terrorism Published," Haaretz, September 21, 1948, p. 1 according to "Jewish terrorism in Israel" By Ami Pedahzur, Arie Perliger, but I can't find a copy of their source. Sol Goldstone (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)