Talk:Lehi (militant group)/Archive 3

archived
I have archived this talk page at Talk:Lehi (group)/archive1. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :)  I went ahead and did some archive formatting, moving the page to a more standard title (/Archive 1), which will help with other archive utilities that auto-sense archives and whatnot.  I also added an archivebox to this page.  And since the archive was over 300K, I hope you don't mind but I went ahead and split it into two pages, since some editors' computers have trouble with really large pages.  If my move and split messed up anyone's links to archive though, let me know and I'll go in and fix. --Elonka 20:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

what WP:WTA says
WTA has this to say about the words extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter:


 * In an article the words should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article. As alternatives, consider less value-laden words such as insurgent, paramilitary, or partisan.

Malik Shabazz cited this, Amoruso asked me to change terroristic to militant and I did so because it is wholly supported by Wikipedia policy. I see no need to talk about this further. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

name calling
In reading through this discussion I see that much of it is taken up by editors calling each other sundry names as to beliefs, backgrounds, sympathies and associations, along with editors then responding back to the name calling. This is happening so often and in such an unhelpful way that it strays beyond the bounds of Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks and moreover, talk page usage.

This talk page is meant for a discussion of sources which might be cited in the article. It is not meant for personal opinions about the topic or personal opinions about other editors.


 * Please don't share personal opinions here and moreover, comment only on sources and how they might be cited in the article.


 * Do not comment on edits made by users in other articles.


 * Do not comment on other editors in any way.

Editors who bring up their own personal opinions, or talk about edits which have been made to other articles, will be warned. Editors who call other editors names of any kind will be blocked without further warning.

Please take a step back from this discussion and think about what you are doing. Wikipedia is not a forum for any PoV on this topic. If there are disagreeing, cited PoVs, then all PoVs belong in the article and the narrative must be written to show this. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

bolding of text
Don't do this. It is distracting and disruptive. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

what I'm doing here
Lastly, a few editors may not understand what I have to do with this article. I'm here to help as an uninvolved administrator. I am not here to decide on or judge content in any way. I can also say openly that I am wholly neutral on this topic (other than to note that because of the edit warring and bickering I've seen here, I don't have much trust for the article content so far). I'm here to stop edit warring and other breaches of behaviour following Wikipedia policy. Please feel free to ask me questions. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Stern Lehi document
Okay. Let's try again, clinically, using purely sources. The gravamen of the thesis that Lehi never described itself as involved in terrorist action comes from one source, which argues that the document from German archives used to underline this is (a) unsigned, not written by Lehi, and written by a German naval attaché. This comes from a single Hebrew source, alluded to when Amoruso wrote:-

"It's unsigned and a leading scholar says it wasn't written by Lehi. It's also a sporadic mention of the word probably written by a German naval attache."

(a)The 'leading scholar' apparently is Ada Amichal Yevin, a biographer of Avraham Stern who published the book in 1986.

(b) Amichai is not a leading scholar.

(c) This book has been described by mainstream scholars on this specific question as (i) 'apologetical' 'unconvincing' and (ii) a piece of 'hagiography' (Yaacov Shavit, Jabotinsky and the Revisionist Movement, 1925-1948, Frank Cass, London 1988 p.397 n.40; Joseph Heller, The Stern Gang: Ideology, Politics and Terror, 1940-1949, Routledge, 1995 p.346 n.1). At best it is a matter of a WP:FRINGE source, since it lacks a University imprint (In Purple, The Life of Yair - Abraham Stern", Hadar Publishing House Tel Aviv), and is not by a recognized academic authority).

Therefore, its tendentious conclusions cannot be used to throw into doubt the overall consensus of mainstream scholars and specialists in this area, from David Yisrael, Lenni Brenner, Yaacov Shavit, Joseph Heller, Colin Shindler and many others who, under academic or serious public imprints agree that the document is authentically a LEHI document, was delivered to the Nazis in order to establish an agreement for a common front against the British and, boasted, as Hahazit articles often did, of terrorism as part and parcel of Lehi's ideology and practice.Nishidani (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note, it can be very helpful to readers if a WP:FRINGE assertion, even from a questionable but verifiable source, is cited in an article if this comes along with citations from reliable sources which might question, disagree with or even debunk that assertion. For starters, a reader might have heard about such a fringe assertion elsewhere, then looked up the Wikipedia article to get more information about it and the sources behind it. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've no problem with that source being cited. I have problems with those who say that this fringe source effectively dismantles the conclusions of mainstream scholarship on the specific issue of the Lehi document delivered to the Nazis. This has been asserted several times over the last few weeks (and many times over the past few years), and, in my humble judgement, is turning evidential priorities on their head. I am simply trying to establish that there is a distinction between a scholarly consensus, and a fringe minority view, and that the former has more weight than the latter.Nishidani (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ada Amichal Yevin is the leading scholar on Lehi issues. Her book is one of the most cited works in the subject. user:Zero0000 who is very much on the other side of the political map, has declared himself that this book is an WP:RS: This settles it really. Attacking this source now, a source that has been in the article for years, and accepted in consensus by all parties, is ridiculous. I quote:


 * "Now...the book by A. Amichal-Yeivin is acceptable since it has the nod from scholars like Joseph Heller and Nachman Ben-Yehuda who cite it." End of story here. It's not WP:FRINGE at all. Btw, all these people cited by user:Nishidani simply quoted the letter. Ada Amichal Yevin does too and explains its origin (non Lehi). The letter is still unsigned. It's not verifiable enough to be used to justify violation of WP:WTA, it's too fringe. There are no "Hazit articles" - there is ONE article that claims that the true terrorists are the British. This Hazit article effectively debunks the issue of terrorism, as it shows that one side's terrorist is the other's freedom fighter, which was the basis for WP:WTA to begin with. Not surprisingly, the name of the group is Lehi which is an acronym for Freedom Fighters of Israel. What do you know. I find the need to justify violations of WP:WTA with this tactic quite weak. Amoruso (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to worry if a source is fringe or not. If there is a disagreement among editors, sources can be briefly quoted directly and then neutrally described as to provenance (where they came from). In the heat of a disagreement, editors can sometimes forget that the readers can be very keen and are much more likely to be drawn into an article when all PoVs are carried. As for giving weight to these PoVs, a neutral description of the sources to be had on a topic will almost always give readers what the Wikipedia community as a whole wants to give them, which is NPoV. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. My point is that since Lehi viewed itself as Freedom Fighters and the British viewed them as Terrorists, the use of the word "militants" is appropriate of course. Amoruso (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said above, there is nothing untowards about citing two or more PoVs in an article. In other words, if the sources directly support what you said above, without a need for synthesis by you, say it (more or less like that) in the article. If the sources don't support your assertion, it won't stick anyway. Note that use of the word militant can be challenged if the sources don't directly support it. In the most extreme of disagreements, cite all the adjectives applied to the group by reliable sources, side by side. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but I have an academic background, have published a standard work on ideology in my field, and am used to arguing from sources. If I say, specifying a scholar, by page and source, that Joseph Heller, the foremost authority, says Yevin's work is hagiographical, and if I add, by source and page and note from another mainstream scholar, that her defence on this particular matter is 'unconvincing' and 'apologetic', I expect that the minimum reply is, that my interlocutor not say Heller approves of the book (he just cites it for some matters) and it has the nod from Nachman Ben-Yehuda (no page cited, and no reference to the point. I.e. does Nachman Ben-Yehuda accept Amichal's deconstruction of the mainstream view that the Nazi document is authentically Lehi?)


 * Unless we can stick to rigorous evidential details, and not merely answer documented arguments with vague counter-assertions, we shall simply repeat the inconclusiveness of the thread archived just today. Thank you. I want page references, precise evidence, as I have been insisting on for a month here. So far I have nothing in hand despite numerous requests. Nishidani (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I cited user:Zero0000 there. This was part of a consensus formed long time ago. Are you saying he made it up? You'd have to do more anyway than a couple of words you claim they said to make your case that it's not WP:RS. Amoruso (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Editors, please do not cite your own credentials in this kind of discussion unless you are willing to back them up on your user page with verifiable citations. Even then, you must still follow Wikipedia policies as to sourcing and original research. I've found that most experts in a field are so familiar with the sources that they can easily cite them anyway, with no need to fall back on their own authority (and some edit quite helpfully from anonymous IPs).

As for the topic at hand, assertions not supported directly by reliable sources can be challenged and removed. If there is a disagreement as to wording, briefly quote the source instead. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Gwen Gale. This is a thing he comes up with every time and it disrupts the conversation. As to the discussion, yes, I checked it out, and Jacob Shavit says Yevin's explanation was apologetic and unconvincing. Historians don't always agree with one another. He doesn't explain why it's unconvincing though and doesn't attack the content itself though. Harsher things have been said about Benny Morris, Efraim Karsh, Bernard Lewis and others. It's still WP:RS. The fact that he needs to mention it shows that it's part of the discourse and he didn't attack her credentials. The only one who did that was Nishidani. Amoruso (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Cite them all. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * They are. The article from hahazit is listed and the nazi offer is listed. Amoruso (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Nachman Ben Yehuda begins his book, page ix in Acknowledgments, "Political Assassinations by Jews: A Rhetorical Device for Justice" by thanking a bunch of people. Ada Amichal Yevin appears second. "I am grateful to Menachem Amir, Ada Amichal Yevin.... Michael Shalev... Baruch Kimmerling, David Rapoport... all provided essential help, support, constructive criticisms, and good advice which were most crucial...." I'd say she's in a good company. He cites from Yavin from page 93, 148 and 168 according to the index (page 526). She's also quoted several times according to the index on page 400 in his book "The Masada Myth: Collective Memory and Mythmaking in Israel". Seems user:Zero0000 was right. If Ben Yehuda uses it, so can wikipedia. Amoruso (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That is not what I asked for. I asked for Ben-Yehuda's specific assessment of Amichal's interpretation of the Lehi Nazi document.Okay. I give up. Let the page be the mess it was. I'm leaving wikipedia. I haven't tried to pull rank, but I am not accustomed to arguing with people who have evidently no comprehension either of academic procedures, how to write an historically informed NPOV article, or elementary rules of rational discussion. This is all kaffeeklatsch cacophony to me, especially since on my user page Amoruso admitted from the beginning what he and Shevashalosh have denied ever since: 'the thing was, like you know, that after Israel was already independent, Lehi still existed in some form, and they murdered Bernadotte. This pissed the government off and they called them terrorists obviously'Amoruso (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If my interlocutors can't be called on to be coherent, precise to the evidential point under review, and informed of the relevant scholarly literature, and deal with it with an impartial eye, then there is no point in maintaining what has become a farce of hearsay, and, on a personal side, slanders and distortions I find intolerable. Nishidani (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've warned Nishidani for the foregoing personal attack. Please stick to citing sources for the article, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Gwen Gale. I'm not sure it's enough. I'm under constant attack. He asked for Nahman Ben Yehuda citation that she's an WP:RS and I provided it. Apparently, it's not good enough. Now he accuses me of admitting and then denying something? I never denied this - I explained all the time that this was a post Israel event and I didn't want to confuse the two eras. It is Nisihdani who wanted in his words not to make it appear as if the British only called them terrorists, but yes, it was them - Israel only did it after what was left of Lehi broke its own law, after Israel's independence and after Lehi was integrated into the IDF. I guess by saying I admitted something and then denied it, he wants to further attempt to discredit me (after accusing me of calling him names I never did). Amoruso (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have a source, cite it. The removal of a cited assertion (moreover one which is quoted, if need be) is more often than not disruption. Forget about commenting on other editors on article talk pages, it's a waste of time anyway. Comment only on content (and sources), not other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to focus this argument (On Nazis portion)- In addition to what Gwen said If there is a disagreement among editors, sources can be briefly quoted directly and then neutrally described as to provenance (where they came from)

The part were the article talks about Nazis and the "supposedly" letter - immediately afterwards explains - "how is it possible that this kind of a letter have gotten to the Nazis by jews?" and this why it is enough to be put only in this specific portion of the article (caliming notabily - but not conclusions drwan). It states the scolars' conclusions of Nazi official may have written it etc.- laying the grounds for an explanasion of this odd WP:FRINGE claim.

Yet, at the same time, if you try to draw conclusions from this odd POV (the Nazis and their documents/archives - are by no means neutral regarding Jews) -this is justifying the Nazis on "sketchy" basis or any other basis.

To this extent - It would be un appropriate to use this otherwise, as NPV policy - anywhere else within the article or to the conclusion of the article, for un appropriate basis and for any basis at all.

This why Nishidani will have to argue his point on different basis, but not this Nazi basis and this is the core of the issue, not this scholar or the other guy.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please unbold your comments, thanks (see above). Gwen Gale (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Shevashalosh, much of what you say here looks like original research to me. Please cite sources, along with how you would like to describe these sources in the article, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about an exisiting specific portion of the article - cited, disscused and agreed upon (The Nazi document and the contardictory explanasion of how the nazi got such doc from Jews)- as for other uses - I pointed to an un un appropriate basis for conclusions drawn from Nazis.


 * --Shevashalosh (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for unboldin' those comments ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * welcome. --Shevashalosh (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

unlocked
I have unlocked the page. Please do not edit war (this means reverting back and forth between versions or takes, even less than thrice). Editors who edit war will be blocked for edit warring and disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Remving the Israeli Gov sentence from before the page was locked
This sentence did not appear up until lately, and the page was locked since it was reverted back after this sentence was already removed from the second paragraph of the opening statement:

along with the Israeli Government, which banned it under an anti-terrorism law passed three days after Lehi assassinated Folke Bernadotte.

There is an additional sentence that already exists in deeper portion of the article:which banned it under an anti-terrorism law passed three days after Lehi - which is also disputed (they did not declare them nor did they do so under such law as user Gilbard cited and some other matters).

But what is needed is to remove this first sentence - from before it was locked on this matter - if you wanna get to some version of this article that represents NPOV by all and then (or maybe concurrently), discuss Amoruso's compromise proposal.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

A New notice on Israeli Gov sentance
To whom it may concern,

If you have any reason as to why you have revised (and deleted) my new attached reference in support of "banned", or have any explanation as to why this illogical sentence makes any sense to you (and for this reason was removed by a mediator/review of this article), please detail it here (as should have been done initially at list in "summary" line).

--Shevashalosh (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Shevashalosh, could you please clarify for editors who may be watching this page what you mean? No need to talk about past mediation. For example, this edit of yours seems to mean you do not support the phrase carrying the word banned, yet above, you say my new attached reference in support of "banned". Gwen Gale (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * clarification:


 * If you take a look at the link you have provided to my edit - there are two sentances (concerning the Israeli Gov on that mattaer):


 * 1) one in the opening statement - that did not apear up untill latley - and in addition, after I have complained on talk page that they were "never declared terror" but "bannded" - an additional edit was done by someone (Nishidani if i'm not mistaken), that "added on" - "banned" - to the rest of the initially untrue sentance ("under terror law .." etc.) - as though this is "another prove" - rather then a contradicion. so this is what I was refering to -"under terror law.." etc - as to what was initially added latley without "banned". It was removed since it didn't make any sense (with or without the additional "add on" edit of "banned" - to the rest of the "under terror law.." etc) that Israeli Gov both "terror" them, and two line after it  Israel has honored the group by instituting the military decoration of the Lehi ribbon (see second paragraph of opening statement).


 * 2) The second sentance, refering to the same matter on the Israeli Gov, in the last line of chapter of Assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte (see the link to the my edit you provided) - that did not apear at list up untill this febuary:


 * (see febuary version here) :


 * though it apears within the context of the event in which it had accored, it was also "changed" suddenly to un true statment - and a new interpertation of it's current reference "declared Lehi a terrorist organisation" (Instead of just "banned" them - without "under terror.." etc)- which never happened even according to the current refernce.


 * This untrue satement was also reviewed and was placed as "banned" alone - without "terror" (which never happened) - but was reverted by Nishidani - at the very same edit that he reverted the first sentance (hence, he revreted both sentances at once) -which caused you to block this article.


 * In addition, I have attached a new referance suporting the mediator/review of this article (deleting the first senntance and placing "banned" alnoe without "unde terror..." etc to the second sentance)- but not only my new referance was deleted (can one delete a referance he doesn't like?), but also the revision was done with no further explanation to this illogical sentance as to how come the Israeli Gov both "terror" them - and then honored the group by instituting the military decoration of the Lehi ribbon


 * To this illogical sentance I am seeking an explanation ?


 * --Shevashalosh (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Over six paragraphs to talk about less than one sentence of article text? Very briefly please, what do you want changed? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * briefly:


 * I want to change the illogical sentance of both the  the Israeli Government, which banned it under an anti-terrorism law passed three days after Lehi assassinated Folke Bernadotte and then all of a sudden Israel has honored the group by instituting the military decoration of the Lehi ribbon, which may be worn by the organization's former members. - how come ? (re-delete it)


 * second sentance - last line of chapter Assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte: Three days later, the Government declared Lehi a terrorist organisation - again how come ? - if Israeli GOV honered them with  instituting the military decoration of the Lehi ribbon, which may be worn by the organization's former members ? (change to "banned" without "terror")


 * It was Already done by a mediator/review to this article - sinse the whole sentance was illogical - see my edit at (a new refernce supporting this attached there)


 * --Shevashalosh (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please make the edits to the article (if you like) and let's see what that stirs up. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Gwen. --Shevashalosh (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I just get some clarification as to why the following reference to the Israeli government declaring Lehi a terrorist organization has been removed from the text? Thanks. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"‘Bernadotte was killed on 17 September 1948, in a well-planned ambush by Lehi members. The State’s immediate response to the assassination was more in compliance with the ‘war model’. Soldiers from the Palmach (elite army squads) unit raided Lehi military camps, closed down Lehi offices and arrested dozens of its members. However, the next significant step was more moderate, conforming to the judicial frame that took shape under the state of emergency. Three days after the murder Bernadotte, the Government declared Lehi a terrorist organisation, thus expediting the process of the indictment of Lehi-affiliated members, including those who had not been active participants in its operations.’ Ami Pedahzur, ‘The Israeli Response to Jewish terrorism and violence. Defending Democracy’, Manchester University Press, Manchester and New York 2002 p.77"


 * see my new attached refernce, and the above doesn't make any sense if the Israel has honored the group by instituting the military decoration of the Lehi ribbon, which may be worn by the organization's former members - Both "terror" them and then "honored" them with Lehi ribbon.


 * --Shevashalosh (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * --Shevashalosh (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That's clearly Original Research, and POV. State policy doesn't have to "make sense" to Shevashalosh. That is a clear reference, so unless you have a reference that specifically disputes it, it should be included. Gwen? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Category: Jewish Terrorism
I don't understand why this category was removed.

Category:Terrorism is quite clear: "This category deals with topics relating to events, organizations, or people that have at some point in time been referred to as terrorism, terrorists, etc., including state terrorism."

This category clearly fits this definition, and should therefore be included in the sub-category Jewish terrorism. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The last edit to the article (not mine), did not include it, and by anycase, it was placed on on'es belhaf, against what people understood from the article on previous disscussions, even in it's current misleading condition - in which we are in the process of disscussing right now.


 * --Shevashalosh (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it was removed during RV's, but it's good it was removed. If you check the category listings, then there are only a few listings categorized this way. There is category:Christian terrorism and category:Islamic terrorism. This suggest that category:Jewish terrorism has to do with the religious Judaism. Further proof is that there is no CAT there called category:French terrorism or category:Japanese terrorism for example - it not per people/nation. This is clearly the Religious terrorism issue. This article is listed there - Kach and Kahane Chai - Kach and Kahane Chai have basically religious doctrines and their leaders are rabbis. Yair Stern, and Yitzhak Shamir, Yelin Mor, Israel Eldad were all secular. Some claim they were even atheist although I disagree. Most members were secular as well. Therefore, category doesn't fit... Cheers, Amoruso (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps some reference to their atheism/secularism be included, with references, in this article? Thanks. TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If your opposition is to the word "Jewish", you won't have any problems if I add Category:Terrorism in Israel ? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The whole content of the article is in dispute of neutrality and is being disscussed right now, and by any case it was added on belahf of one's decision against what people understood from the article (in previous discussions), even in it's current misleading condition - and even in the current discussions there is no consensus to adding it.


 * --Shevashalosh (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I also wonder why the two categories, Category:Jewish terrorism and Category:Defunct organizations designated as terrorist were removed from the article.


 * Shevashalosh, Amoruso, your argument that "Jewish terrorism" must be religious in nature is unconvincing. The Jewish Defense League, one of the members of the category, is secular. Also, while Kach was founded by a rabbi, it was a secular political party. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Shabazz, thank you for participating, I appreciate your comments. This wasn't my claim, - see my answer posted above yours.


 * --Shevashalosh (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm very sorry. That'll teach me not to type before I've read everything twice. Sorry. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Shabazz, someone put it on his own belhaf against what was disscused and undersood from previous disscussions, as of today - it is still not a consensus. If you like to convince people about that, make your point here and try to reach a consensus.


 * --Shevashalosh (talk) 06:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Kach was (and is) a religious movement. It advocates the creation of a state according to the halacha - Halachic state. Lehi was a pre-Israel organization. Amoruso (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Pre-Israel and Post-Israel, and more importantly pro-Israel, and working in what is now Israel. You really want me to create a Category:Terrorism in the Mandate of Palestine? How about Category:Terrorism in Jerusalem? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think organizations fit in such categories, it's more applicable to events. I didn't see any others. It also seems redundant to me. Anyway, there seem to be other debates here. Amoruso (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a new and different objection. Most obviously, the definition for Category:Terrorism, quoted above, includes organizations. More specifically, other similar categories contain both individuals and organizations. Category:Terrorism in Iraq, Category:Terrorism in Italy, and Category:Terrorism in the United States all contain organizations. If you wish to populate this specific category with other terrorist organizations, that's your prerogative. Gwen? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are different objections to this. It seems there's a discussion on the categories below. Anyway, the group ceased (almost) entirely to exist with the creation of Israel, which makes Terrorism in Israel to be faulty. Terrorism in Israel will probably fit the likes of Jewish Goldstein, Nathan Zada, the Mercaz Harav massacre, and Palestinian suicide bombings and other attacks inside Israel proper. IF the terrorism fits, then British mandate of Palestine will be more appropriate, but that also seems redundant. Amoruso (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ceased to exist /w the creation of Israel? Tell that to Bernadotte. Where is this discussion you speak of?- TheMightyQuill (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately ... their enemy was the british armed forces and officials (as article defines their British enemy), who basically gave a damm on Jews fleeing from Nazis. As well as it was not understood in past disscussion on this (and was added against peoples opinion), nor it is a consensus now (as of for me and Amoruso) and neither included in the "compremise" by Gwen, and by any case (as past disscussions proved) - a disputed POV.


 * --Shevashalosh (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

As quoted above, "This category deals with topics relating to events, organizations, or people that have at some point in time been referred to as terrorism, terrorists, etc., including state terrorism." Few if any organizations refer to themselves as terrorist, so it's pretty impossible for everyone to be happy with this type of category, but to apply it universally is the best chance at NPOV. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Its surely impossible for everyone to be happy, especially after Gwen's version, no one is completly setisfied, but that is the version reached, and yet those categories were not included, and also some point in time been referred to as terrorism, terrorists, etc, is obviouslly not pointing to groups, organizations etc, thar are defined (in general and in article as well) as attacking armed forces (Their British armed enemy forces) -and this is why it is a disputed POV to many people - not neutral (as was reflected in previous disscussions).


 * --Shevashalosh (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I realy don't think there is anything to add to this subject. --Shevashalosh (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"It wasn't included in Gwen's version" is not a valid reason for opposing changes to the article. Gwen's edits on affected the lead. Second, the category description says nothing about attacking armed forces (and for the record, Bernadotte and I would dispute that with Lehi anyway), only that things must have been referred to as terrorism. It fits the definition of the category, and you haven't yet responded to that fact. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If I may have a word, it's true, the edit I made had only to do with implementing a clear consensus that the article lead mention the state of Israel's banning of Lehi.

As for any terrorism categories, I must disclaim, I think the word terrorism has become so over-used as to have lost most of its meaning and pith. Let consensus have its sway here. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, with Shevashalosh's dissent noted, do any other editors agree that Category:Terrorism in Jerusalem and Category:Terrorism in the Mandate of Palestine should be added? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think those categories are appropriate. The first one is especially relevant since Bernadotte is in the sub-cat Category:Terrorism deaths in Jerusalem. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear all,
 * TheMightyQuill warned me of this discussion and invited me to comment.
 * I think we should avoid to use the word "terrorist" in a category and that the only one acceptable would be category:political violence.
 * Note I still consider that we should write (given it is sourced) that the Lehi made the apology of terrorism BUT it doesn't change anything to the fact that the difference between freedom fighters, resistance and terrorism only depends on one's side or on the winner's side; reason for which I think a category (which is something without nuance) should not use any of these words.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ceedjee, You are being ridiculous on the the historical facts of Dir Yassin. But that's not my problem, this Is wiki's problem to keep readers relying on their articles. I'm not gonna touch this.


 * --Shevashalosh (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As the categories fit the subject, they should be added to avoid a double standard with respect to non-Jewish insurgents. The (admittedly important) debate on whether they should exist in the first place will take place elsewhere.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I realize that is not a democracy, but there is now a majority of interested users who support this article's inclusion in some sub-category of terrorism. Category:Terrorism in the British Mandate of Palestine has been created, as has Category:Nationalist terrorism both of which clearly apply to the article, and Lehi obviously fit the definition at Category:Terrorism . At this point, those users opposed have made few arguments aside from "I don't like it". Unless someone is able to give a more thoughtful reason why these two categories should not be added to this article (as opposed to why they are POV in general - which I agree with), I'd like Gwen's permission to add them. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * Maybe I was not clear but I am against the fact this article is categorised in any terrorism category.
 * Even if Lehi's leaders considered terrorism was justified and even if most people would consider they were practicing terrorism.
 * The reason if that for the militants, it was not terrorism, it was fight for freedom.
 * This is also good for Hamas or Hezbollah, of course.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I won't make any move on this until the CfD is done. If they're all renamed to Category:Political violence, I'm hoping no one will have a problem adding that category? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Categories cannot be renamed (unfortunately) but I think there is not problem with political violence for Lehi. Ceedjee (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"Categories cannot be renamed..." Are you sure? The fact remains that terrorism categories exist, and so should be used consistently.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

it's not correct and NPOV labeling the terror group a "militant zionist underground faction" with a wikilink to "resistance" (!). --Severino (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The lede
Shevashalosh's attempt to draft a new lede had the unfortunate effect of jumping from the 1940s to the 1980s and back to the 1940s. It also failed one of the chief purposes of the lede: to summarize the article (which doesn't mention support for the Haganah among the Yishuv).

I restored much of the old lede, which has a chronological order to it, but I tried to be responsive to the objection that the old lede abruptly shifted from Israel banning the group to giving medals to its members. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As I have said, It doesnt make any sense if - honored the group by instituting the military decoration of the Lehi ribbon, which may be worn by the organization's former members. and attached a new ref as well as the oxford ref doen't say so.


 * So if you have some explanation of how this is possible ? or how this illogical sentance makes sense to you please detail it here - and don't post thing that never happened, since I have opened numerous disscussions here before editing (and recevied no response or logical explanation) and a review of this article have agreed and removed it just before Nishadi put it back again and the article was blocked for this reason.


 * Thank you.


 * --Shevashalosh (talk) 06:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your objection. The source clearly says on page 77 that three days after the Bernadotte assassination the Israeli government declared Lehi a terrorist organization and banned it. Furthermore, this fact is stated in the section of the article on the Bernadotte assassination. So why do you keep taking it out of the lede? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 07:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * PS: I'm trying to meet you half-way by writing simply that Israel banned Lehi, not that it declared it a terrorist organization — which it did. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 07:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Stil don't make any sense according to honored Lehi Ribbon, as I have said ever since I have attached a new ref, from Zionist encyclopedia - (in addtion to new link to oxford of exisiting ref) talking about temselves and the exact correct "banned" - but no "terror" remarks by author/s and not Israeli Gov speaking, when you talk about "self defenition".


 * As to your compremise, it sounds fine to me, the only diffenence is, that "banned" already exist in the context of the event (Folke Bernadotte chapter) in which it had occured (so out of context "terror" like what had just occured would not happen) - review of the article removed it for this reason as well.


 * would this be good enough to you (Folke Bernadotte chapter)?


 * --Shevashalosh (talk) 08:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't out of context, it's vital information, and as stated earlier, it's rather standard practise to include this kind of information in the lead. Look at Hezbollah, Aryan Nations, Earth Liberation Front, etc. Being designated a terrorist organization is an important detail that deserves space in the lead. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 12:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As I have said, it is already in the article, Folke Bernadotte chapter context (as review of article agreed). Since Shabazz offered the compremise, and I appreciate both his opinions and suggestions - Let's wait for his additional remarks of his compremise.


 * --Shevashalosh (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the Quill.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin I think there is consensus (at this time) for inclusion of this in the lead. However, the wording should be carefully crafted for both flow and agreement with the cited sources. Meanwhile, following this consensus I have restored the lead (only) to the latest version by Lapsed Pacifist and removed the PoV tag. I have also cleaned up the lead, for flow and syntax. Editors who disagree with me on what I've said about consensus, or my actions, should feel free to say so here. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I added that the Palestinian Arabs were also the target of Lehi actions.
 * About the ribbon, I think this is an important information but that could surprise the reader. I don't know how but if it could be stated that at that time, Israeli right wing was at the government with former IZL (Begin) and LHI (Shamir) leaders, that could help...
 * Ceedjee (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This sounds likely to be true but please keep in mind, noting this in the article would be original research unless you can cite a reliable source which draws a clear link between the ribbon and the membership of the government at the time. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right. I am aware of this and fully agree.
 * Unfortunately, I don't have this wp:rs secondary source. This comment is only based on my personal understanding.
 * So, unless there is a consensus of all contributors, I think we should leave the lead (leed - lede - what is the spelling ?) the way it is currently.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Jewish terrorism
Concerning inclusion in Category:Jewish terrorism please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Canard
Dear all, In: The Writer's Handbook 2007 published by MACMILLAN ISBN 1-4050-4937-5 ISBN 978-1-4050-4937-5

on page 512, in a chapter on the subject of Libel, entitled "The Words Complained Of ..." is the following passage. ( Taken from the end of line 7 onwards.  )

Some errors pass into mythology. A British police officer called Morton collected damages on no less than three occasions from: W. H. Allen, Secker & Warburg, and Weidenfeld & Nicolson for the repetition of the canard that he was responsible for the shooting in cold blood of Abram Stern the head of the Stern Gang.

The section on libel is written by David Hooper, a respected media lawyer, a senior partner of a prominent London firm of solicitors, and a published author on the subject.

I am considering adding in a seperate section but I am unsure about the placement and its exact wording.

I am also considering altering the sentence which states "In 1942, Stern, after he was arrested, was killed by Inspector Geoffrey Morton of the CID.[14] " in the section "Evolution and tactics of the

organization" I would appreciate any help and guidance on this matter.

Sesquihypercerebral (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism Template
I think this should be added to the article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Why? It presents NPOV problems. The article currently says that Lehi was described as terrorist, and it attributes those descriptions. How does the template help the reader? — Malik Shabazz 02:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your argument seems to be against the template itself, rather than the addition of the template to this article. Lehi is a fine example of not only a terrorist group, but the success political violence can bring (case in point, the creation of Israel). CapitalElll (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There does not seem to be a case for applying this template here. We do not apply the template to organizations which are even callest terrorists by most of the world. Cases in point: Palestine Liberation Organization, Hamas. Aside from that, I am categorically opposed to navigation templates of this type, but that of course has nothing to do with the NPOV issue. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If Lehi was not a terrorist organisation, then there have been no terrorist organisations. But I am also opposed to templates like this so I am not going to insert this one here. Zerotalk 00:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent revert
I recently made this edit which was reverted with a summary calling it "a massive copyright vio" and Mike Shabazz put a huge template on my talk page. This is simply not true. I put up material that was sourced and relevant and NOT plagiarized. The reversion erased important context. Stellarkid (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I might add that the entire section Foundations and Founding contained not one reference prior to my edit, so was on the face of it WP:OR. If there were some wording that was too like the original, it would have been better to change it than to simply dump the material with a terse edit summary and then plaster a nasty template on the editor's talk page. Stellarkid (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:COPYVIO. Nearly everything you added to the article was copied verbatim from Colin Shindler's The Land Beyond Promise: Israel, Likud and the Zionist Dream.
 * If you look below the edit window, you'll see a sentence that says "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." Per policy, I deleted the offending material. — Malik Shabazz 17:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's simply not so. Stellarkid (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you really want me to go through the article and highlight every sentence you copied? — Malik Shabazz 00:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Stellarkid: While Jabotinsky had hoped that diplomacy and Britain would prevail for the Jewish cause, Stern argued that the era of Zionist diplomacy had come to an end and the time had come for armed struggle against the British.

Shindler: [Jabotinsky] put his faith in diplomacy and Britain ... Avraham Stern, a leading Irgun militant, argued that the era of Zionist diplomacy had come to an end. ... the only way forward was armed struggle against the British.

Stellarkid: In 1940, the idea of the Final Solution was still "unthinkable," and Stern believed that Hitler wanted to make Germany judenrein through emigration, as opposed to extermination.

Shindler: ... the very idea of the Final Solution was unthinkable in 1940. ... Stern believed that Hitler wanted Germany to be judenrein through emigration.

Stellarkid: In December of 1940, he initiated contact with Nazi authorities, in order to enlist their aid in establishing the Jewish state in Palestine open to Jewish refugees from Nazism. He proposed to recruit some 40,000 Jews from occupied Europe with the intention of invading Palestine to oust the British.

Shindler: Thus, in December 1940, Stern sent an emissary to meet a representative of the German Foreign Office in Beirut. ... requested the recruitment of 40,000 Jews from occupied Europe for a purposed invasion of Palestine to oust the British.

Stellarkid: The Germans did not take this proposal seriously, however, and nothing was to come of it.

Shindler: The Germans did not take the proposal seriously.


 * Stellarkid, what do you propose we do about your plagiarism? — Malik Shabazz 03:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Bad footnote reference?
It appears to me that the footnote provided in the three main goals (under section Goals and methods) given as footnote[10] - Heller, p. 112, quoted in Perliger and Weinberg, 2003, pp. 106-107 is bad. I don't see it in the Heller book on the page given, but I do see it here, Religious fundamentalism and political extremism -- By Leonard Weinberg, Ami Pedahzur pg 106. I don't like to mess around with other people's footnotes but ... Maybe the originator might want to correct or clarify? Stellarkid (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If the source is wrong and you found an alternative, by all means change it. — Malik Shabazz 03:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Text of offer to the Nazis
The text of the Lehi offer to the Nazis has only been completely published in David Yisraeli's thesis. However, there is a transcription of it (in the original German) on the web here. This web site is arguable as a "reliable source", but since I have just now compared the text there word by word against Yisraeli's thesis without finding any differences, I have added the site as a convenience link. I can send a copy of pages 315-317 of Yisraeli's thesis to anyone who asks by email. There is also, here, a transcription of the English translation that appeared in Lenni Brenner's book "The Iron Wall". Zerotalk 03:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"In Purple"
The references to Ada Amichal Yevin, "In Purple," were added by an editor who regularly lied about sources and was eventually banned after doing a lot of damage. Since I don't have access to that Hebrew book (which seems to be a Lehi apologia), I'm replacing the citations by tags until the words can written on the basis of sources provided by editors in good standing. Zerotalk 06:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

reason for nazi 'alliance'
According to the people quoted in this news report: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=INGR2wzEuZA

reason for the alliance with germany was to save the Jews from Hitler. (as opposed to defeating the British).

Should be added in the article somewhere? Unchartered (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You have the wrong page, you need Haavara Agreement. Zerotalk 09:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * And even there, this unidentified YouTube extract is apparently a copyright violation, and not a reliable source. RolandR (talk) 09:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

There is an interview with Israel Eldad on youtube that says the same thing. The idea was to throw the British out as quickly as possible in order to remove the restrictions on immigration as fast as possible in order to save the jews of europe. Eldad explains the debate between Stern, Jabotinsky, Begin, and Raziel that they had at the final meeting of the Irgun central command in Poland http://youtube.com/watch?v=EgAvGE21Mds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.2.37.85 (talk) 09:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Deir Yassin Myth
Deir Yassin was a myth perpetrated by the arabs to entice their hatred for Israel and Jews. http://www.hirhome.com/israel/milstein-deir-yassin.htm  —Preceding  unsigned comment added by 69.86.233.94 (talk) 07:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Milstein's theories, which are not widely accepted, are mentioned at Deir Yassin massacre. They don't justify deleting sections of this article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 08:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Myth or not - writing that the fact that Lehi's Jewish political rivals denounced the results of the battle there "lends credence" to the allegation of massacre is not exactly an academic argument... Ben Gurion had a very good reason to tarnish the reputation of the Lehi and IZL in the political struggle between his political party and theirs. I therefore submit that you should change the wording - state the fact that Ben Gurion etc denounced the alleged massacre, delete the "lends credence". Whether there was an actual massacre as claimed by the Arabs or only a battle in which civilians were killed accidently as claimed by the Lehi and IZL, or something in between, will never be known. All of the participants in those events, Jews and Arabs, those directly involved and those indirectly involved (which adds also the British authorities occupying the region) had incentives to lie in order to further their political goals, and that remains true today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.81.212 (talk) 08:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just on correct usage. one does not 'entice'(hatred for Israel, or any other hatred). You mean 'incite', a verb with a very particular history in I/P political discourse.
 * (a) 'Milstein argues that there was no organised, largescale massacre in Deir Yassin.'
 * (b)'Milstein admits (History IV pp.382-88) that whole families were gunned down in the course of the fighting.'Benny Morris, The Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, Cambridge University Press, 2004 p.294 n.564.
 * (c) Read Morris's account of the facts and the controversy (pp.237ff.). His view, that a massacre took place, draws on Irgun, Palmach, Haganah and Lehi reports.Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * reconcile the two positions, and then reread what you wrote.Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Mail bombs to Truman?
For the record: Several sources state that Ira Smith's book ''"Dear Mr. President ..." The story of fifty years in the White House mail room'' (1949) claimed that letter bombs from Lehi addressed to Truman were received in 1947, and even that Lehi had claimed responsibility for them. Since Smith was in charge of the White House mail room, that would be an impeccable source. However, Smith's book does not actually make this claim. He describes the letter bombs received by Eden and other British politicians, then says "The same kind of terrorist letters had been found in the White House mail, and as a result the staff had been handling all letters with great care..." (p. 230). He doesn't actually state that the letters to Truman were from Lehi, only that they were the "same kind of terrorist letters". Zerotalk 08:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Good pimpernelling. Sorry, I restored the material in a revert (leaving the page open while shopping) before seeing this. I think this source should be added to the text.Nishidani (talk) 09:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Deir Yassin massacre section
The Deir Yassin massacre section of the article is very poorly written, makes contested claims as if they are facts, gets facts wrong (actually it was the Irgun that claimed 250 Arabs were killed), and so on. Given its extensive coverage in other articles, I propose to reduce this to a few sentences. Zerotalk 07:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The entire introduction?
Seems like something taking out of a Arafat press release. Their is obviously POV going on here. I think we need to re-edit the main intro or source the claims of lehi trying to make an alliance with the Nazi's? otherwise it tarnishes this page. Palestinewillbefree (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is extensively sourced in the article. It isn't disputed, either, though the motivation is disputed. Zerotalk 07:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed you are correct. Shortened, per below. Amoruso (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Nazi Offer
Removed some controversial wording from lead regarding this issue. While there is no doubt that an offer was made for an alliance with Nazi Germany, in order to let Jews escape to the Land of Israel from Europe, the specific wording "on a totalitarian basis" may have been invented by sources other than Lehi for different interests, and alleges, with undue weight, that Lehi said so. There is no dispute that Lehi never wrote the letter and there is no other corroboration that this was Lehi's intent other than the attributed letter. Therefore, not the place for in the lead. It is mentioned in the appropriate subsection though. Amoruso (talk) 05:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sources say otherwise, and leads summarize the article.Nishidani (talk) 09:39, 29

July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sources question how the letter came to be. You have to bring more sources besides one mention in an alleged letter to make extraordinary claims. Amoruso (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "a 'new totalitarian Hebrew republic'."
 * This shouldn't have been removed, but simply added to the text on their totalitarian values further down in the lead. As to the rest, your or my personal beliefs about Lehi and the letter are irrelevant. Ample sources state that they sought out contacts with Nazi Germany and that is all that matters.'The memorandum arising from their connversation is an entirely authentic document, on which the stamp of the 'IZL in Israel' is clearly embossed.' Joseph Heller,The Stern Gang: Ideology, Politics, and Terror, 1940-1949,p.85Nishidani (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Amoruso, Please tell us where we can verify that your indef topic ban for multiple offences has been lifted. Zerotalk 12:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand 1R, but under some readings, he broke it this morning.Nishidani (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Terrorist
Why does it call them a militant group rather than terrorist. They definitely fall under the definition of a terrorist group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmwikiacc (talk • contribs) 19:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:LABEL, the rest of this Talk page, and its archives. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I restored terrorist without noting Malik's point. From memory, admittedly fragile, 'terrorist' could be retained in this case because both the British Mandatory Authority and the new government presided by Ben-Gurion defined them thus, and therefore since they were labelled by others and their own side as 'terrorist', it was more or less an objective bipartisan definition of the group. Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lehi (group). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203141435/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/48C06A0C497863F1852560C2005BEB32 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/48C06A0C497863F1852560C2005BEB32

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

List of Lehi operations
Incomplete, but published: List of Lehi operations. I made this because List of Irgun operations already existed, as well as many lists of Irgun attacks on the internet, but not for Lehi. Ethanbas (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lehi (group). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080507081227/http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/45fc0c6e511ec0c5802564d400560ca0%21OpenDocument%26Highlight%3D0%2Cterrorists%2Cbernadotte to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/45fc0c6e511ec0c5802564d400560ca0%21OpenDocument%26Highlight%3D0%2Cterrorists%2Cbernadotte

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Ernst Blevin Plot
I could not find any mention of this in the article, it seems like a fairly significant plot on their part.

https://gloucestershirepsc.wordpress.com/2010/08/ (BBC source) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.108.46 (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That's because his name was Ernest Bevin. It's mentioned under Operations in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:487A:C700:225:64FF:FEE1:9751 (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

"Terrorist group"
The article already specified who considered Lehi a terrorist group, same standard applied to Hamas and other militant organizations. This edition is arbitrary and POV.--Sonntagsbraten (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * considered Lehi a terrorist group,' i.e., 'terrorist' is a subjective term. Well, in common and political usage, it certainly often is, meaning a non-state actor which behaves like a state actor which has no problems resorting to terror. A 'militant' is how we describe neutrally people whom, in one POV, are terrorists, but in another are simply people who take up arms to fight for the dignity of their people and an autonomous state. I don't like that term myself, but that's how this place works. But when you have, as in this case, numerous legal documents and otherwise level-headed historical works which call them terrorists, one goes with that. Note 22 cites a source which has them defining themselves as terrorists. If they self-defined as terrorists, they had no disagreement with the British on how to describe what they were.Nishidani (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fully agreed.
 * NPoV doesn't mean we have to use neutral words. It means we have to use give the right weight to each point of view.
 * Eg :Haganah was considered terrorist by some but we talk about this as the Yishuv army because this is current point of view widely accepted. On the contraty, all historians refer to Lehi as a terrorist organisation nowaydays.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:WTA. We don't use this term in Wikipedia's voice to describe the PLO, the PFLP or any of the other dozen Palestinian terrorist organizations, and we sure as hell aren't going to use it here. Dixy flyer (talk) 04:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read the discussion above. Lehi described themselves as terrorists (see note 22), which makes them much different from the Palestinian groups you mention. So we "sure as hell" don't have to do the same thing here as we do elsewhere, because the situations are not entirely analogous. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's already specified in the article why Lehi considered terrorism to be "necessary" at the time... so why suddenly you have the need to change a neutral term (militant) in the lead? It's simply POV. After all, if I quote a Hamas leader admitting they deliberately attacked civilian population in Israel... are you willing to replace the word "militant" for "terrorist" as an objective term? What about behaving like a terrorist group but not admitting it?--Sonntagsbraten (talk) 05:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How can it be POV when they acknowledge they were terrorists themselves, and it is agreed upon by other parties at the time (such as the British authorities) as well as historians who cover the topic? Dlv999 (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Lehi was not a "paramilitary organization" it was a terrorist organisation. Nor is "terrorist" a pejorative term, it is a description based on an organisations modus operandi. A paramilitary organisation conducts military operations, a terrorist organisation carries out terrorist attacks. Sometimes there is an overlap - as with Haganah. But Lehi were simply a terrorist organisation, a fact of which they were proud. It is unfortunate that certain political factions are censoring Wikipedia and preventing the truth being recorded.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Sergeant Martin
I suspect the following section of the article may be the result of some confusion:

"Yitzhak Shamir, one of the three leaders of Lehi after Avraham Stern's assassination, argued for the legitimacy of Lehi's actions:

There are those who say that to kill [Clifford] Martin [a British intelligence corps sergeant] is terrorism, but to attack an army camp is guerrilla warfare and to bomb civilians is professional warfare. But I think it is the same from the moral point of view. Is it better to drop an atomic bomb on a city than to kill a handful of persons? I don’t think so. But nobody says that President Truman was a terrorist. All the men we went for individually – Wilkin, Martin, MacMichael and others – were personally interested in succeeding in the fight against us."

In fact there were two people named Sergeant Martin, both British and both killed in Palestine. Clifford Martin was one of two captured National Service conscripts taken hostage by Irgun and later hanged. I believe Shamir was referring not to him, but to Palestine Police Sergeant T.G. Martin, who had arrested Shamir, as a result of which Shamir was deported to Eritrea while his colleagues in Lehi shot and killed Sergeant Martin.

It makes more sense to see Shamir's statement as referring to the police sergeant. Shamir refers to the people "we went for", but Lehi did not go for the army sergeant, who was a victim of Irgun. In addition, Shamir says that Martin was "personally interested" in fighting Lehi. This did not apply to the army sergeant, who was 20 years old and non-political, whereas Shamir said of the police sergeant that he was "emotionally involved in the fight against us."TonyHetherington (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm quite sure you are correct. The fact that Clifford Martin was not killed by Lehi, together with Shamir's personal interest in the man who identified him, leaves no doubt.  "T.G. Martin" was killed on Sep 9, 1946. Also, this quote comes from the source on the same page T.G. Martin's killing is mentioned.Zerotalk 01:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Police sergeants are non political, as are professional soldiers and conscripts. This is the British army and police being discussed, not political armed forces, such as Communist or Zionist.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lehi (group). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090407042937/http://www.focus.pl/historia/artykuly/zobacz/publikacje/jak-polacy-stworzyli-izrael/ to http://www.focus.pl/historia/artykuly/zobacz/publikacje/jak-polacy-stworzyli-izrael/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Lords of Chaos (group) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 September 2018
The name, Yaakov Levstein, is misspelled 2x in the "Operations in Europe" section of this article. Levstein is the correct spelling. 206.212.16.77 (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks. Zerotalk 14:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

undue tag
The attempted alliance with Nazi Germany is one of the most notable things this group did and one of the things most written about by historians of the Lehi. The fact that it failed is undeniable, but it wasn't for lack of trying and they didn't succeed with much else either. Rather than trying to minimise the affair, the section should be expanded with the analysis of specialist historians. Zerotalk 12:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Certainly should be in the article, however so should the views of those who justify Lehi. Regardless - this whole affair was a single meeting which went.... Absolutely no where. (+ a second attempt to meet - which didn't actually take place). Serious scholarship on Lehi certainly includes this historical curiosity, however the extent of the discussion of this single meeting is limited in contrast to Lehi's other activities during its 8-9 year existence. Icewhiz (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree, this section definitely needs expansion as it is one of the most notable actions this group took.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Removal of well sourced information under pretext of "summary"
Here under pretext of Summarize a well sourced information about Lehi connection to fascism and racism.This is especially strange since a good RS scholarly source(The Origins of Israel, 1882–1948: A Documentary History Eran Kaplan, ‎Derek J. Penslar) was removed in favor of generic sentence without any source at all.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This was moved to the appropriate "Relationship with fascism and socialism" in the previous edit,, but was then removed by mistake, now corrected - .Icewhiz (talk) 04:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Ideology in lede
As clearly evident in the text, and more importantly, sourced cited in Lehi (militant group) - there is a significant range of opinion regarding Leh's ideology (or lack thereof beyond being a mix of disparate people/groups who mainly agreed upon being fist and foremost anti-British) - we can't not choose one particular view over others. Icewhiz (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Aslo shared fascination with racism, Nietzsche, and fighting "degeneracy"; for examples see writings by Israel Eldad. Eldad is named as chief ideologist of Lehi after 1942 I believe.-MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * When sources disagree, and they do here, we don't choose one set of sources - we reflect them all. Different individuals in Lehi held different views - some see this as a coherent synthesis of a new type of fascist-communist ideology. Others see this as a disparate set of positions - unified by strong anti-British sentiment.Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

euphemistic description
Lehi was not simply a militant group, it was a terror organization. Terrorism is defined as following: "Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror among masses of people; or fear to achieve a religious or political aim." see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

Lehi carried out various terror attacks, including: "April 1948 The Deir Yassin massacre carried out by the Irgun and Lehi, killed between 107 and 120 Palestinian villagers, the estimate generally accepted by scholars." see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_political_violence

Wikipedia should be neutral. It should not push an agenda, just because some authors here are strict Zionists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.225.228.122 (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I suspect you've only read the title of the article, The article itself, and its introduction, don't shy away from the "terrorism" label, saying: "...the group admitted to having used terrorist attacks", was "jointly responsible for the massacre in Deir Yassin", "assassinated Lord Moyne" and "the assassination of Folke Bernadotte" etc. - Snori (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I will further note - regardless of the merits for and against the terrorism claim (assassination being distinct from terrorism) - that the Lehi also fielded field units - which (also) engaged in regular military battles. Icewhiz (talk) 07:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * But why is it mentioned it the title? This distracts on purpose. Lehi was without a doubt a terrorist organization. Examples of their terror attacks: "November 6, 1944 Lehi assassinated British minister Lord Moyne in Cairo, Egypt", "1946 Letter bombs sent to British officials, including foreign minister Ernst Bevin, by Lehi.", "1947 Letter bombs sent to the Truman White House by Lehi.", "April 1948 The Deir Yassin massacre carried out by the Irgun and Lehi, killed between 107 and 120 Palestinian villagers, the estimate generally accepted by scholars.", "September 17, 1948 Lehi assassination of the United Nations mediator Folke Bernadotte, whom Lehi accused of a pro-Arab stance during the cease-fire negotiations.", see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_political_violence#Selected_Irgun,_Haganah_and_Lehi_attacks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.225.226.214 (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Polish Support
It is not clear why Polish Army trained Lehi members. What was the reason? Olegwiki (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * They wanted to get rid of the Jews too. They trained them in hopes that they would be successful and all the Jews would leave Poland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.77.78.17 (talk) 06:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No, they did not train Lehi, but Irgun, since Lehi split from Irgun only in 1940. There were no Polish plans to get rid of Jews, so, it is a good idea to actually study Polish history, instead of making up unsupportable conjectures.  I cannot give a definite answer, beyond noticing ideological, and often personal affinities between some factions within the Polish authorities (and, especially, Polish military) and Jewish freedom fighters.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pernambuco1 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually, there is more of an explanation of the Polish attitude in the wiki entry on Menachem Begin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pernambuco1 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Terrorists
Ten years from most of the original edits and this group has not been classified as a terrorist organization? I mean, it's obvious that they were. The very definition of terrorism fits this organization.

"Terrorism -> the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Terrorism has been practiced by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious groups, by revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badarticles (talk • contribs) 05:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

LOL
"assassination being distinct from terrorism"

That is probably the most asinine thing I have ever read. Israeli related pages are the only ones I have witnessed on this site where reputable, contemporary, articles are discarded in favor of opinion of Wikipedia users that were unlikely to be alive during the time. Lehi was described by a majority of mainstream press of the time as terrorists. Now we're using after the fact, original research as sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badarticles (talk • contribs) 05:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Blue Lock
What utter nonsense. Lehi is only important to a small segment of Israeli society and but a sliver of humanity in general. The fact that this article contains such a lock should warn editors and readers of the corruption and general unreliability of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badarticles (talk • contribs) 05:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Political Party infobox?
Why does Lehi, which was a paramilitary organisation and not a political party, use the political party infobox instead of the military unit infobox? If you look at the Irgun and Haganah, Israel's other two pre-state paramilitary organisations, they both use the military unit infobox, while Lehi uses the political party one.

To keep it in line and equal with the other organisations, and because it makes more sense for Lehi to use the military unit infobox and not the political party one. I think we should switch to the military unit infobox. I made a military unit infobox for the Lehi which I think we should switch to:

Gibzit (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Good catch. I can't think of any good reasons why the political party infobox was used or why it should continue to be used. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 01:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Many paramilitary/terrorist groups have an ideology associated with them, see eg the Official Irish Republican Army Faulty (talk) 05:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Other members of Lehi
Benjamin L. Narinsky (aka Ben Narin), born 1914 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, died July 5, 2006. An American merchant marine who joined the group in 1940 and obtained smuggled weapons and supplies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TGHarvard22 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Inspired by Irish War of Independence?
It is widely known that Yitzhak Shamir adopted "Michael" as his nom de guerre after the IRA leader Michael Collins, so could it be said that the structure and methods of Lehi were directly inspired by the Irish War of Independence? Culloty82 (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 December 2021
Change "on the basis of an anti-colonialist alliance with other indigenous inhabitants of the Middle East" to "on the basis of an anti-colonialist alliance with other Middle Eastern states" The change should be made in two places. An alliance is made between states and not between peoples. Commentary of the Zionist Propaganda Currently Found in this Page Calling Jews indigenous to Palestine is an effort of Zionist propagandists to normalize and legitimize the genocide that the Zionist state perpetrates against Palestinians. I am half Ukrainian Jewish and half Jewish N. African Berber. The history and textual sources are incontrovertible. Judaism was a massively proselytizing religion in the Greco-Roman period. There was no Roman Exile. It's a fairy tale. Greco-Roman Judeans never left Palestine en masse. Palestinians descend from Greco-Roman Judeans. Modern Jews do not. Rabbinic Judaism is a Mesopotamian religion vastly different from Biblical Judaism. Our Jewish scripture is the Babylonian (Mesopotamian) Talmud. The Hebrew Bible is merely the backstory just as the Old Testament is in Christianity. It is arguable: 1) that Rabbinic Judaism has only superficial connection to Palestine and 2) that Zionism is a disease, which developed as modernizing Jews lost the ability to participate in Rabbinic Jewish intellectual culture. I can cite sources, but they are irrelevant to the two changes that I recommend. ThorsProvoni (talk) 11:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Explicitly inaccurate
The group referred to its members as terrorists[12]

Their is nothing in the source which says that, and worse groups like ISIS are called a militant group despite explicitly saying they carried out terrorist attacks, so I think its clear the only purpose of this being here is bias (unsigned by IP)


 * On page 445: "Contrary to what they subsequently claimed, at the time Zionist paramilitaries such the Stern Gang described themselves as ‘terrorists’." In fact they used the word "terror" about themselves repeatedly, as they wanted the British to consider them completely ruthless (which they were). Many sources can be given. They even published articles explaining why terror was justified File:LehiTerror 1.jpg File:LehiTerror 2.jpg. The heading טירור on the first page is literally "Terror". Zerotalk 02:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * it's a shame that you're lying. And it is not surprising. From a quick look, it looks like all your posts are biased and deceptive. Maybe you don't speak Hebrew. If you actually read the section, they don't say "We are Terrorists". They say "Terror" as a headline to discuss the matter, the accusation. And then explain what it means, and they explicitly say they're not terrorists in the meaning that the British are trying to say. They are basically saying "if by terror, you mean we are fighting for our freedom etc, then yes it's terror". It's the equivalence of saying they're freedom fighters, not terrorists. It's in their name. It's their whole raison d'etre. All references to the group being "Terrorist" as a face-statement should be removed by wikpedia's own policies. Ridiculous. The only neutral way to write it is that "British claimed they were terrorist." And then if it is important, which is not, you can say they gave a different interpretation to what terror meant in one or two articles they wrote, although it's completely insignificant.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:9F04:FCC0:11ED:2839:91B2:6DB1 (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a shame that you don't know what you are talking about. From a translation made by a professional translator: "Neither Jewish morality nor Jewish tradition can negate the use of terror as a means of battle. ... We are quite far from moral hesitations on the national battlefield. We see before us the command of the Torah, the most moral teaching in the world: 'Obliterateuntil destruction.' [connecting two Biblical passages about the need to eliminate the Amalekites] We are particularly far from this sort of hesitation in regard to an enemy whose moral perversion is admitted by all. ... But primarily terror is part of our political battle under present conditions and its role is large and great..." And so on. Zerotalk 05:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Ah so you're basically admitting that you're lying and that you do not know Hebrew. Maybe stay away from articles on issues like this then. I don't know what professional translation you are talking about but it's not a translation of the source you brought under the headline "Terror" which you lied about and didn't even realize they were not saying TERROR as a policy but a way to explain the false accusation. So let's translate it if for real now, shall we.

" ....Terror....

First we shall narrow the term to what we mean because a lot of things can be called terror and it is not easy to find the borders of the term. It won't be hard for example to defend the way of terror if we will say that terror is NOT to put fear into the enemy or the traitor by threat and assassination. According to a broader correct definition, terror is any way of enforcing/oppressing sanctions. If I don't let a person work and earn his bread then it is terror even though I do not judge him or expel him or assassinate him.

If we will explore further the definitions of society we would find it is astonishingly so much more than it initially seems. Usually people say terror is everything illegal. But, finally, what is legal. Is there any doubt that so many of the laws especially the political ones are just terror in disguise, oppression? If one has the power (army, police) it can legislate any law to its liking and just call any one who violates the laws as a terrorist or anarchist. This is a very easy practice to do. We will easily find that the law itself is based on terror! "

Wow. So your OWN source contradicts what you tried to say.

Let's sum up:

1. Lehi here say that what they do is not terror but rather what the British government is doing is terror. This is the classic thing that every group say. "We are freedom fighters. The government is the real terrorist" (state terrorism and so on.). Lehi makes the case that it is easy to label anyone who violates the law of the oppressor as terrorist. They literally say that. Incredibly, this is the source that those who defended the biased language brought and it immediately refutes the notion that Lehi saw themselves as terrorist. They categorically rejected that and called themselves Freedom Fighters.

2. Someone biased decided to lie about a source and maybe find one scholar that hates Lehi and distorted something about it.

3. It is against wikipedia policy to say the group is terrorist or to write it from an objective POV like that in the introduction when it is a loaded political term. No one cares enough so the lie is perpetuated.

4. Neutral point of view and Reliable sources and undue weight basically sum it up. Saying that the group refered to itself as terrorist is a LIE. They refered to the BRITISH as terrorists hundreds of times. Yitzhak Shamir explained it in multiple interviews too. If someone claims that they did call themselves terrorists (let alone on a regular basis) you can put it in the article somewhere as "Mr. X in his book claimed that..." But it's not a neutral point of view and it is not a fact to put in an intro.

5. Someone please fix it. It's absurd. Thank you.


 * Wow, terrorist and proud - I guess it was a 20th-century thing. Very hard to imagine that particular PR spin these days. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Except it is not true. They always said the same thing all groups say. That they are freedom fighters and the government is the terrorist one. See above. This whole thing was a lie.

How come Lehi is classified as a terrorist group but Hamas isn't?
Is there a reason for these double standards? 2A00:A040:197:1220:9095:D57C:54E5:D02F (talk) 12:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Don't cross-post. See Talk:King David Hotel bombing, where you asked more or less the same question and have been answered. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. In that page I was referring to an attack, and was answered that some attacks are considered terroristic. Here I'm curious on how Lehi is considered a "terrorist organization" while Hamas isn't. 2A00:A040:197:1220:188D:75F8:E18A:C385 (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It remains unclear what you are referring to when you say this. Both pages make references to terrorism. Be specific. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * See the section "Explicitly inaccurate" higher on this page. Zerotalk 01:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)