Talk:Zionist political violence/Talk:Israeli terrorism/Archive 1

NPOV Project
'''PLEASE: edit changes you do not like an announce them here and in the history log!!! Do not revert to an older file unless it is a case of clear vandalism!!!'''

I am starting a project to make this article conform to the NPOV standards of Wikipedia. this comes at the prompting of people within this talk page and simply the fact that it really obviously need to be done. There are rampant assertions by both sides of the argument and conspicuous editorial statements. On a more contraversial not, I do plan to replace "terrorist" if and alternate term where appropriate. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, we can take out cue on to the truth of that statement from the US revolution, the Algerian Revolution, and numerous others through history. --LouieS 07:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I like where you're going with this. On my part, I've started trying to add to the article (History knows there's enough information out there), so it doesn't resemble a mashed-up representation of current events. For some reason, the "Palestinian Terrorism" page is quite well organized, and doesn't seem to suffer nearly as frequent efforts of vandalism as the "Israeli Terrorism" page does. I'd appreciate it if more people would come and visit the talk page here before making significant deletions to the Isr Ter page. My goal is to have two pages truly representative of the issue at hand. But for that to occur, one article can *NOT* be repeatedly destroyed and minimized in order to lionize the other. That's not the way Wikipedia works. Jeus 18:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Mordechai Vanunu
I changed that sentence because the clause "and they called this a kidnapping" 1. was bad english, 2, looked an attempt to cast doubt on something which was quite clearly, under any definition, a kidnapping and which had been insterted as an afterthought into the sentence as a whole. Either "they" are right (and I think "they" are) in which call it a kidnapping in the article or "they" are wrong in which case leave it out entirely.
 * Good point. Jayjg (talk) 23:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arab leadership of the countries surrounding Israel
You reverted my delete of:

"However, it should be noted that substantial evidence exists that the Arab leadership of the countries surrounding Israel convinced the Arab population of Israel at the time that when those surrounding Arab nations attacked Israel the local populace should leave temporarily, that the Jews would then be slaughtered and that they would then be allowed to return."

I just dont see how this is relevant in an article on Israeli Terrorism. Maybe in an atricle on the deficiencies of the arab leadership, but it doesn't point to any actual action by the Arabs - only alleged propaganda. Doesn't seem to objective to me - and its only purpose can be to cloud the issue discussed int he rest of the paragraph.
 * The paragraph also describes "forced exile" as part of "Israeli terrorism"; this seems to balance the claim of "forced exile". Jayjg (talk) 23:51, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Incidental killing of civillians
You reverted my delete of:

"Opponents of Israel do not recognize a distinction between the admitted deliberate killing of innocent civilians by Arab militant groups and the incidental killing of innocent civilians by Israel in pursuing military action against the militant groups."

"incidental" is not a nuetral word, especially when it is coupled with the word "deliberate" as itr is here. I think it is more to the point that many people feel that when overwhelming force is used by Israel in built up areas of the Occupied Territories which is certain to cause civilain casualties use of the word "incidental" to dismiss a 100% anticipated outcome is a more than a little disingenuous - and a way off being neutral.
 * While I could see an argument if the word there were "accidental", I'm not sure why "incidental" isn't neutral; the civilians aren't targetted, even if you think that casualties are inevitable. And the Israeli counter-argument, of course, is that targetted force (not overwhelming force) is used, and that the Palestinian militants hide in built up areas precisely to incur civilian casualities. Jayjg (talk)  23:55, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course the Palestinian counter agruement would be that you have included the word "innocent" in the phrase "deliberate killing of innocent civilians " - when these are in fact invaders. Clearly this is OTT - but incidnetal makes it sound like the killings are not intended - when clearly they are. They may not the the prime motivation but it is very clear from the outset that they will happen.


 * By suggesting that civilians are not "innocent", you make the generally discredited claim that has been proposed by groups like Hamas that a 1 year old child in Tel Aviv is not an "innocent" civilian because it is an "invader". As for "intended", if one is hoping for 0 civilian deaths (as the Israelis clearly do, if for no other reason than bad P.R.), and there are more deaths than that, then clearly the deaths are not "intended", even if you argue they could be "predicted". Jayjg (talk)  16:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * You could, of course, remove both the words "deliberate" and "incidental" and not change the primary meaning of the sentance. Guettarda 17:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree Guettarda - I would propose the much less emotive:


 * "Opponents of Israel do not recognize a distinction between the killing of civilians by Arab militant groups and the killing of civilians by Israel in pursuing military action against the militant groups."


 * What do you think?


 * The killing of civilians by Arab groups is deliberate. They walk into a disco full of kids and blow themselves up.  The other is not deliberate. Jayjg (talk)  21:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Granted, this page should not exist because the title is POV/politically motivated (the contents is another matter, but I can't agree with the name). It's unreasonable to equate the killing of Israeli civilians by Palestinian suicide bombers with the killing of Palestinians by the IDF.  I am in no position to judge the motives behind the killing of Palestinians by individuals within the IDF (so I am not in a position to determine whether these killings are "incidental" or "deliberate").  I dislike the use of the word "incidental" because it trivialises the deaths, and no death is trivial.  There is no such thing as "collateral damage" or "friendly fire".  "Incidental killing" might be appropriate for by-catch in a fishing fleet, but not for humans (not even for dolphins in a tuna net).
 * My aim was simply to point out that the removal of both words did not change the meaning of the sentance. Of course the killing of Israelis by Palestinian suicide bombers is deliberate.  I sincerely hope that the killings of Palestinian civilians by the Israeli army are terrible tragic mistakes.  But introducing the word "incidental" not only requires that we know something about the motivation of individual commanders and soldiers in the field, it also cheapens many tragic losses of life.  Try interpreting this as human beings.  Every killing is a terrible tragedy, even that of a mass murderer.  Start there, extrapolate up to the first innocent death, and retch in horror at what the "good" people (whatever side you support) are involved in.  Guettarda 22:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * "The killing of civilians by Arab groups is deliberate. They walk into a disco full of kids and blow themselves up. The other is not deliberate. Jayjg (talk) 21:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)"


 * Says you. You fire rockets from a helecopter gunship into a building full of people - that's just as deliberate.


 * Um, I don't fire rockets at anyone. I think you need to get some perspective here. Jayjg (talk)  00:10, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Guettarda - I share your concern over "incidental" - makes it all sound like an accident. While I agree that there is a moral difference I'm not sure that it is down to an atricle like to try to shade this by its use of language.


 * I'm sory - I'm from the UK - we tend to regard use of the word "one" as being a bit of an afectation, But if you prefer "when one shoots rockets...". Appologies _if_ you misunderstood.


 * Oh, I see; I view the usage as essential for clarity. Apology accepted _if_ that was your true original intent. Now what was your point? Jayjg (talk)  00:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 *  - I think we understand each other. It really wasn't my intention to target you personally. UK usage <> US usage of English unfortunately. Clearly there is a moral difference between a bunch of murderers blowing up kids to make a point and people who kill kids (even knowingly) whilst on some other purpose. BUT that doesn't really matter to the kids (of either faith) does it?


 * "Opponents of Israel do not recognize a distinction between the killing of civilians by Arab militant groups and the killing of civilians by Israel in pursuing military action against the militant groups."


 * I really do think this is neutral - no slant to either side. More importantly it doesn't have either you or I passing moral judgement on the basis of a guess as to someone's motives.


 * When a child is hit by a car, it doesn't really matter to that child either. Yet that is not the same thing as deliberately blowing him up with a bomb. Jayjg (talk)  15:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually that line might be a bit too neutral. The point of the statement is to say that, by calling it terrorism, many seek to make the suicide bombings morally equivalent with the killings by the IDF.  In an article with the title "Israeli terrorism" (surely there must be a more neutral title for this?) people feel a need to point out that there is a difference.  Both groups are acting unacceptably - killing is never acceptable - but there is a difference.  Deliberate might actually belong there - something to say that, by and large, the Palestinian suicide bombers are acting differently from either the IDF attacking militants or Palestinian militants attacking IDF checkpoints.  When Hamas attacks an IDF checkpoint in Gaza it's tragic, but it's war.  When the IDF bombs a Hamas training ground, likewise.  When the IDF assassinates a Hamas leader in a public place and kills by-standers, that's beyond tragic, it's terribly wrong.  But when a Hamas suicide bomber blows himself up at a bus stop or a disco in Israel, that's beyond despicable.  Neither the IDF killing of civilians, nor the Hamas killing of civilians are acceptable, but when the civilians are killed deliberately, it's far worse.  There is no comparison.
 * Nonetheless, the killing of Palestinian civilians is not "incidental" either. It's tragic, and it's all the more tragic because the western press ignores it...we tacitly agree that Palestinian life is worth less than Israeli life (and Israeli life is worth less than American or British life, of course).
 * I think I should leave this discussion now. I have said too much.  As the grandson of a Nazi I have less right than the average person to criticise Israel.  Guettarda 00:56, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * You make a number of good points. Jayjg (talk) 15:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"When Hamas attacks an IDF checkpoint in Gaza it's tragic, but it's war. When the IDF bombs a Hamas training ground, likewise. When the IDF assassinates a Hamas leader in a public place and kills by-standers, that's beyond tragic, it's terribly wrong. But when a Hamas suicide bomber blows himself up at a bus stop or a disco in Israel, that's beyond despicable. "

Problem here is that we are engaging in some obscene calculus of evil here - which is exactly what thet sentence invites. I wont, but I could, run a justification of the Palestinian side that would tear at your heart. Nop one is right here - none of the actions are those of reasonable people. It's part of the reason why I dislike the sentence as is - it's value laden.


 * If we can't agree that walking into a disco full of kids and blowing yourself up is an act which is morally wrong on a scale not approached by a shootout between the IDF and Hamas, then I don't see where we can come to a compromise here. Jayjg (talk) 15:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * You have to understand that it is not morally wrong to Islamists to kill innocents and children. The end justifies the means. Their morals come from the pit of hell. RossNixon 11:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

rossnixon, erhm .. ookay. the numbers of dead civilians is clearly higher on the palestinian camp than it is the israeli one, 4 times higher at last count. for anyone to argue that bombing an apartment complex filled to the brim with families is somehow more incidental and humane than a palestinian blowing up a disco is mindless stupidity. there is absolutely no difference between the two. well actually, there is a difference; the israelis have fine tuned their art with wmds, literally. while the palestinians are left to scratch iron with egyptian smuggled kalashnikovs and stones, really sharp ones too. the suggestion that the palestinian operations are more barbaric and primordial is sheer inanity. killing is killing, the israeli argument that they dont look their victims in the eye while reducing them to pink mist is somehow more humanitarian is purely undergraduate. frantz fanon


 * The Fourth Geneva Convention forbids the use of any civilian as a shield. (Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3516, 75 U.N.T.S. 287, art. 28), therefore your blame is misapplied. Your concerns may come from a good heart but the terrorists count on "humanitarians" such as you, because for some reason you fail to see the difference between an arsonist and a firefighter. Let's just hope when you learn to see it, it won't be too late.
 * "Restricting the freedom of movement of entire communities is immoral. Refraining from these restrictions when there is unequivocal proof that this will lead to the murder of innocents is worse, because movement restricted can later be granted, while dead will never live again. Demolishing the homes of civilians merely because a family member has committed a crime is immoral. If, however,... potential suicide murderers... will refrain from killing out of fear that their mothers will become homeless, it would be immoral to leave the Palestinian mothers untouched in their homes while Israeli children die on their school buses. Accidentally killing noncombatants in the cross fire of battles being fought in the middle of cities is immoral, unless... refraining from fighting in the Palestinian cities inevitably means the Palestinians will use the safe havens of their cities to plan, prepare and launch ever more murderous attacks on Jewish noncombatants. These concrete examples and others like them demonstrate the moral considerations that Israelis... have been dealing with since the Palestinans proudly decided to use suicide murder as their primary weapon." ("Right to Exist: A Moral Defense of Israel's Wars", p.260)  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 08:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Honest Reporting
Just because of the name of the link - needs a description of what it is. (ie not "honest (implying impartial) reporting" but very significantly biased.
 * In your view. And your intepretation of the name of the site does not match its own.  Regardless, putting a POV description on a site is also bias. Jayjg (talk)  23:56, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Yet you feelo comfortable with - "Israeli Left-wing human rights organization: Human rights in Israel and the territories" - why is that different? Honest Reporting shoudl at leasty have inverted commas to show it's a name and not a wikipedia endorced description.


 * And you seem comfortable with "Zionist Terrorism" and "Palestine: the assault on health and other war crimes". Honest Reporting is the name of the group; does Wikipedia endorse these other descriptions? Jayjg (talk)  16:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Actuaslly I'm not. The "assault on health" article (with the buyline from the BMJ) looks to point to a broken link. The "Zionist Terrorism" link is clearly slanted by POV but could probably do with a buyline - as many of the other links have.


 * Would it be a good idea to alphabetise the list?


 * Incidentally I am surprised that your responce to my "you seem happy with" comment is couched in the form of a comment on what I am happy with.


 * I am not the admin here. You are. You presumably represent Wikipedia editorial policy. I do not. Lets focus on the article - I appologise unreservedly if my comment was taken as a personal remark - I was refering to you in your official capacity and should have made this clear.


 * I'm just an editor like any other, though I do my best to ensure that Wikipedia policy is met. Jayjg (talk) 21:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks - thought that would seem slightly disingenuous given the contexct of your earlier rebuke.
 * Not sure what you're getting at. Jayjg (talk) 00:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * So - getting abck to the labels - do you honestly feel it is apporiate for a link labeled "Honest Reporting" to point to a lobbying site without comment?
 * It's a media watchdog, not a "lobbying site". Given that other sites appear to have labels, I'm sure some sort of reasonable label could be worked out. Jayjg (talk) 00:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I have used the description of the site from their own home page. This seem reasonable to you?


 * It didn't tell you anything about the site; I've used "Pro-Israel media watchdog" instead. What do you think? Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  00:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good call - now "zionist terrorism" - do we want to change that too? I'm really not comfotable with it either.


 * Actually, on reflection, I removed the link altogether, and the next one as well. They are media watchdog sites, not specifically on the topic of this article.  If they have specific sub-pages on them dealing with the topic on this page, those subpages can be linked.  Regarding the "Zionist terrorism" link, it's a poor quality propaganda site which hasn't been updated in months.  I think you should just delete it. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  14:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NPOV - When is a terrorist?...
Contrast the start of the article on Israeli Terrorism:

"This article is about militant actions, which critics have termed terrorist, against Palestinians and others, by Jewish groups within the British Mandate of Palestine, and later, by Israelis. "

with that on Palestinian Terrorism:

"The term Palestinian terrorism is commonly used for terrorist acts committed by Palestinian citizens and Palestinian organizations against Israeli Jews, and occasionally against nationals of other countries."

Why is one "Militant Actions" only called terrorism by critics - whilst the other is "commonly used" seemingly by all and sundry for "terrorist acts"?

If we're trying to be a NPOV encyclopedia then this seem more than a little baised to me. Am I the only one who sees a difference in nuance here?


 * I suspect the difference has to do with deliberate targetting of civilians. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * But I notice that the wikipedia definition of terrorism specifically includes: "The targets of terrorist acts can be government officials, military personnel, people serving the interests of governments, or civilians".


 * So I'd very much like to change this to reflect some internal consistency. Seems to me that we're imposing a bogus POV that "terrorism only means deliberate killing civillians" here. And we should be internally consistent please.


 * The Wikipedia terrorism article specifically states "It can also more specifically mean the calculated or threatened use of violence against civilian targets exclusively." Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Since the actions at Deir Yassin and those of Irgun both fall within the ambit of both the more specific and more general definition of terrorism (being deliberately targeted against civillians) are you happy that we now change the opening sentence to the more neutral:


 * "This article is about terrorist acts against Palestinians and others, by Jewish groups within the British Mandate of Palestine, and later, by Israelis."


 * Since we have agreed that acts described in the article are clearly terrorism according to both definitions.

Hi 62.252.0.9, I reverted your edit because, looking through the history, I see this intro has been stable for quite some time, meaning it has been agreed by a number of editors (with different POVs), and it's therefore best not to change it without reaching consensus on the talk page. On the whole, Wikipedia articles try not to make direct reference to the word "terrorism", and especially not in the introduction: usually the view is attributed to someone, as in "a terrorist act according to xxx." The exception would be where there was no ambiguity e.g. the clear and deliberate targeting of civilians. I see you've mentioned the Wikipedia definition of terrorism. We're not supposed to use Wikipedia articles as sources, simply because they might change at any minute. It's best to look elsewhere for definitions of terrorism e.g. the UN. Hope this helps. SlimVirgin 21:37, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry - looks like out edits overlappede - feel free to "revert" or chip in with an opinion. My appologies here.


 * www.dictionary.com

ter·ror·ism   ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (tr-rzm) n.

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."


 * No disctinction between civillians and military targets. Clearly we are talking about terrorism here. (posted by 62.252.0.9)

Here's the definition I use, because it was worked out by two academics over many years and is used by the UN; it also distinguishes between the direct targets (message generators) and the main targets (the audience), which I see as a vital component of any act we might call "terrorist":

"Terrorism is an anxiety inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by clandestine individual, group or state actors for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby &mdash; in contrast to assassination &mdash; the direct targets are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from the target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion or propaganda is primarily sought. (Schmid & Jongman, Political Terrorism, 1988) SlimVirgin 21:54, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)"

There are 100 definitions of terrorism; I prefer narrower ones, the broader ones tend to be meaningless. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * This one's quite a good one, though, and is being increasingly used by academics and the United Nations. It rules out acts committed by governments, unless there's a clandestine aspect; and it has the importance element of publicity-seeking in it, where the actual victims are not the intended victims, but the audience is. SlimVirgin 22:01, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I was responding more to the dictionary.com version. Yours is excellent. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  22:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the point is that the terrorist could be targetting a strictly military turget and would still be titled as terrorism in the mainstream. I've always approached the definition of terrorism as Jayjg does (targetting of civilians), but I'm not entirely sure to what extent that counts as original reserach on my/our part. Intuitively, it sounds correct. El_C 22:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, as in Ireland with the IRA attacking British soldiers. To use a definition that involved only the targeting of civilians would mean those IRA acts would have to be called something else. Now, you might want to call them something else for other reasons, but that shouldn't be forced on you by a definition. The key, in my view, is the direct target/main target distinction, with victims as message generators, regardless of whether the target population is civilian or military; plus the element of clandestinism if that's a word. SlimVirgin 22:16, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * So - getting back to thye article - do any of us believe that the actions of Irgun pre 1948 do not consitiute "terrorism"?


 * As such is the weasel phrase "which critics have termed terrorist" justified in the opening to the article?


 * All of us - critics or not - would seem to agree that these actrions are terrorist. No?


 * The issue is not with the pre-1948 actions, but with the post-1948 actions. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * See the post earlier about this should not become an Arab / Israeli debating forum. Do you think we should split it into two articles?


 * Not sure what you mean about "debating forum". I think the issue is with the post 1948 actions, not the pre-1948 actions, which (from a cursory glance) are clearly terrorism. I think it would be better to rename this Zionist terrorism, and delete the post 1948 stuff. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  00:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * In the archive of this debate page there is a section "This is not a debate forum!" - makes some gfood points.


 * But to use that weasel phrase because some of the article does not comply with your "narrow" definition of terrorism whislt some parts of it clearly do I would venture to sugest is a decision you need to consider in the light of NPOV.


 * I am a bit concerned however that you seem to be controlling edits to a page on the basis of a "cursory glance" - can I ask you to read the whole page carefully please before reverting changes?


 * What exactly are you proposing, Anon? Also, do you mind signing your comment with anything identifiable (such as the letter "A") ? Jayjg makes a perfectly valid historical observation. Since the State of Israel did not exist pre-1948, it should be titled Zionist not Israeli terrorism.


 * Slim, the question is not whether an organization such as the IRA is called terrorist, but I was looking at it more situationally, as per the actual act. Should bombing of a British military outpost viz. a train station be considered terroist act? Arguably, yes, but I think myself and Jayjg, at the very least, are arguing is that it isn't the same yes. El_C 01:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * What I am proposing is that we drop the phrase "which critics have termed terrorist" from the opening sentence. I actually agree that this would be better as two atricles. "Zionist terrorism" and "Israeli military actions involving civillians" - but if we keep it as one article inclusion of that phrase (which I would guess was inserted as an attempt cast doubt on whether the article about Israeli Terrorism actually talks about terrorism) does not seem appropriate since we all seem to agree that (at least in good part) we are definitely talking about what all people (critics or no) would call terrorism.

And you still didn't sign your comment, tsk tsk tsk. Well, we have to follow what the critical scholarship as well as the mainstream has to say on this or that, whether we agree with it or not (and, this article and general topic aside, I, myself, disagree with much of what they do say -- as uncritical and poor scholarship). I'm pleased you agree with Jayjg's proposal, which I support, for splitting the article. I don't find anything particularly problematic with the titles you suggest for the two articles, though I do think there is an article/s which already discuss the post-1948 period on that front. I'm going to drop Luke a note, I think this discussion can benefit from his participation. El_C 09:10, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you get yourself a login, so we can distinguish you from all the other people using that Guildford NTL IP address? It's easy, quick, and free. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

El C asked for my comment on this, and I generally concur with what's discussed above. Elements of violence by Israel tend not to have all or any of the characteristics commonly associated with terrorism. I think the biggest shortcoming of the article is that it doesn't cover the controversy and political evolution of the term "Israeli terrorism"; if the article is not about this, this list should be at "Israeli military actions involving civillians" as suggested above. I agree that pre-1948 violence should be under "Zionist terrorism". Cool Hand Luke  07:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * So are we coming to a consensus here? Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that we are. El_C 15:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Should there not be some mention of post-statehood terrorist groups not related to the Israeli state? Such as http://cfrterrorism.org/groups/kkc.html, for example. The "pre-statehood" and "state terrorism" sections give the impression the pre-statehood terrorists morphed into the state of israel, which isn't the case. Or, if this article is splitting into "Zionist terrorism" and "Israeli military actions involving civilians" (not sure if I understand the above consensus entirely), more modern Zionist groups should be included in the former.

Furthermore, "opponents of Israel do not recognize a distinction between the admitted deliberate killing of innocent civilians by Arab militant groups and the incidental killing of innocent civilians by Israel in pursuing military action against the militant groups." is still certainly not NPOV in any way. The entire sentence drips with disdain for "opponents of Israel", whether unintentionally or not. I'm an opponent of Israel (for the most part), and I certainly recognize a distinction and I expect many if not most "opponents of Israel" recognize at least some distinction. Condemning both as evil acts in their own way is not refusing to recognize a distinction. At least insert a "some" at the start of the sentence, or better yet, scrap the sentence altogether; I don't think it's even necessary at that point. --Jamieli 13:41, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mossad Operations
I am removing the modifier "alleged" wrt to Mossad operations as Mossad openly admits (and boasts about) its capture of so-called opponents of Israel such as Vanunu. Moreover, I am removing the modifier "militant" as Vanunu is again not a militant. Also, you don't need to be an "Opponent of Israel" to consider the kidnapping of Vanunu as a kidnapping.


 * I am reverting your changes, Anon, and will continue to do so until you provide a verifiable source for the passage's claim that what is depicted as an allegation is an historical fact. El_C 08:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not difficult to check the Mordechai Vanunu article. These are not "allegations", but well-known facts. - Mustafaa 08:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not disputing nor commenting on that, I just think that such open boasting can and should be sourced. No? El_C 09:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * How's this for a start? . - Mustafaa 09:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * ""we managed to track him down, establish contact with him, and bring him to Israel in the end," a former top Mossad official who was involved in Mordechai Vanunu's capture, recalled this week... After they flew to Rome, and entered the apartment, two Mossad agents pounced on Vanunu, tied his hands, and injected him with a drug. He was then brought back to Israel by boat."


 * It's fine, for a start, I suppose, except the link does not work, and I don't know if that qualifies as boasting, which was my contention – not your abovecited passage whose contents I was already familliar with. El_C 09:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * "Boasting" isn't mentioned in the article, fortunately, so we don't need to argue the word's semantics. The Haaretz link works for me, oddly; it's from the bottom of the Vanunu article. - Mustafaa 09:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh! That's right. I mistook the comment on talk with the edit made in the article. Sorry about that. Of course, I have no intention of arguing the semantics now that I realize it was limited to talk. Yes, that works for me, too, except the link dosen't seem to work correctly at the moment. El_C 10:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) Correction: Hmm, it does works in IE for me but not FF. Strange. El_C 10:23, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * And incidentally, the same applies for most of the supposed "allegations" in this article, which reeks of POV. - Mustafaa 08:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, I have yet to read it except for one section, so I cannot comment on that either. El_C 09:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe I've fixed the worst of them now. - Mustafaa 09:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll see if I can review your changes soon (but probably it would be best if I read the article beforehand). El_C 10:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To an earlier vandal
To whoever deliberately broke all the massacre links in this article and then labelled them all "alleged" - congratulations. What a great way to make it harder for people to fact-check your whitewashing efforts. - Mustafaa 09:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * From the history it looks like it was done by an anonymous editor 4 months ago. It looks like they were trying to "NPOV" things, including descriptions, not deliberately break links.  In any event, they're probably long gone, and I doubt they'll ever read this. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  19:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To the hopeless moron removing my edits
Well done on the removal of my correction to the spelling of 'Miscellaneous'. Was this an affront to your so-called 'NPOV' policy? And the re-addition of a biased, pointless, one-sided, year-old Amnesty report which has no relation to the topic of the article? That was desperately needed for 'NPOV', right? So, are you biased or just moronic?


 * Well done for fixing the spelling of "Miscellaneous" - it appears to be the first time any of your edits have improved an article. I can only hope this marks the start of a trend. - Mustafaa 18:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm waiting to see a single valid reason for that amnesty link to be there, considering it is a) irrelevant to the article, b) out of date (by a year), c) biased, and d) far from helping the NPOV rule, actually breaches it. Have you got a reason or are you just being biased?


 * Its relevance to the article is obvious: it describes some of the principal instances of practices which are classified by others as Israeli terrorism. The idea that it's "out of date" is ridiculous; it's a record of what has happened (and, incidentally, where are you getting the 2004 date from.) Amnesty International is remarkably NPOV, but even if it weren't this would not be a reason to remove the link. - Mustafaa 20:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see it does not describe acts of terrorism except those committed by palestinians. It actually mainly focuses on building destruction which it would take a ridiculous stretch to call an act of terrorism. In fact, it is essentially a counter-terrorist activity. It also talks about the palestinian economy and the security barrier, neither of which have any relevance to 'Israeli terrorism'. So the article is essentially unrelated to the topic. It is out-of-date as it describes the situation at the time, not taking in to account anything since. It is a mere commentary on the situation, not a record as you seem to think. I'm getting the 2004 date from the fact that if you check, the article was last updated in 'May 2004'. Amnesty International is not remarkably NPOV. If you would note the recent fracas surrounding its designation of Guantanamo Bay as a 'gulag of our time', something which was decidedly POV and drew harsh criticism from the US government and later had to be qualified by Amnesty. Also, many supporters of Israel frequently criticise Amnesty for pursuing a one-sided, politically motivated, anti-Israel campaign and agenda, and Amnesty is widely criticised as being biased by many on the conservative side of politics, who deem its activities and reports to have an inherent left-liberal bias as well as Anti-US and Anti-Israel sentiment. You would acknowledge it as 'remarkably NPOV' because it agrees with you in its attitudes and biases.

Innaccurate, tangent ridden, POV Article
There are huge problems with this article. "Israeli terrorism" is ill defined and strays from the orthodox definitions of terrorism into bizzare areas. Who defines specific actions as terrorism? There needs to be sources of the people who define it as so. There also needs to be comparisons between what is acceptable by country and what these detractors see as unacceptable for Israel. Lets compare U.S. anti terrorist actions vs Israeli actions.

Some of the actions that are defined as terrorism are carried out without any problem by American forces.

For example, targetted killings of terrorists by predator drones   Yet, there is no such article as American terrorism in wikipedia even though the tactics are identical to targetted killings of Palestinian terrorists. Probably because both parties are engaged in urban warfare to root out terrorist insurgents. Yet, Israel is singled out. This needs to be pointed out and who terms Israeli actions as terrorism identified.


 * This article contains pre-Independence operations by Zionist paramilitary organizations (none of which can be termed as Israeli terrorism, as there was no Israel at the time). They need to be removed from this article, as they are already mentioned in other articles and have no relevance to the title.


 * Then there is the whole tangent about Mordechai Vanunu. How controversial acts by different Israeli governments, such as arrest of traitors on foreign soil, or actions against combatants in foreign wars, can be termed terrorism is beyond me. This is blatantly reaching beyond the name of article and should be erased. It has no relevence to the article.


 * If the arrest of a traitor is terrorism, why not the arrest of Adolph Eichmann, a law abiding citizen of Argentina?


 * This article lists the bombing of the UN compound during war as terrorism (defined as a mistake when America bombed 2 weddings in Afghanistan). Who defines this as terrorism? If they are merely incidents, why are they mentioned in this article? Who identifies it as terrorism? Sources please.


 * the assassination attempts on terror chiefs such as Mashaal and Shiek Yassin is defined as terrorism by this article(acions which are carried out every day in America's War on Terror). Who defines these actions as terrorism? Provide sources please.


 * Even the ever present footnote in history, Sabra and Shatila debacle, not even committed by Israelis, is defined as terrorism. S&S should be erased as a tangent which has nothing to do with Israel. It's primarily a Lebanese problem, a footnote in history of a war where hundreds of thousands of people died, where Lebanese militias massacred each other's supporters everyday. Not relevent.

Finally, acts that in Iraq are run of the mill "US action in Fallujah to root out terrorists", become terrorism when carried out by Israel to stop rocket attacks and infiltration by terrorists. This should be qualified or removed from the article unless sources are provided which specifically identify who is calling a military operation terrorism.

There are a couple of actual actions that can be described as terrorism, but not much. The Lavon affair can probably be listed, and maybe Qibya can be listed because they arguably fall under a general range of classical terrorism. Although Qibya really has no political message that it is trying to teach Jordan.

I don't know if population transfer can strictly be defined as terrorism. In other words. It needs a rewrite. On actions that editors can argue one way or another, I leave to discussion. Guy Montag 02:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * There is no "orthodox definition" of terrorism. Whose definition do you have in mind?

I have in mind this definition: the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature.

Guy Montag 02:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For the US, see State terrorism; I'm surprised a US terrorism hasn't been written yet, but that gap is no criticism of this article. Your point about pre-1948 organizations argues for renaming this Zionist terrorism.

That makes no sense. Zionist Organizations functioned before Israel's declaration of Independence. These are actions by the Israeli state vs actions by independent Zionist organizations. You can't have it both ways, as they are not the same. You need two articles, one on alleged Zionist terrorism and one on alleged Israeli terrorism. Otherwise this article has tangents up the wazoo.

Guy Montag 02:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sabra and Shatila is certainly relevant - just ask the Kahan Commission!

The Kahan commission did not find Israel responsible. It has nothing to do with the fact that Lebanese Christian militiamen massacred Palestinians after Palestinians assasinated their leader. This is an act of revenge during a civil war which as little to do with Israel. The IDF did not order the Phalangists to kill Palestinians, hence it is irrelevent.

Guy Montag 02:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kidnappings and assassinations (and btw, Vanunu was a hero, not a traitor) are quite frequently described as terrorism (eg in regard to Vanunu:).

Anyways, detractors of Israel call that guy a hero, Israelis and most Jews call him a traitor. He was brought to justice just like Eichmann was brought to justice. You can't pick and choose these definitions. You do know that by linking to Communist websites it doesn't help the credibility of this definition at all. This is a politically charged piece of propaganda, but not a credible source.

Guy Montag 02:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who defines Qana as terrorism? A quick Google reveals, ,. The UN concluded that this bombing was unlikely to be a mistake (see that article.) - Mustafaa 01:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

These are all anti Israeli websites who provide no sources for their assumptions. You are ruining your own position by linking to communist and Islamist websites. If you can provide legitimate sources that prove a conspiracy to bomb a UN compound, you got yourself a clear case, if all you have are those propoganda websites, that's poor research, and dubiously citable.

Guy Montag 02:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Another case where targeted assassinations are defined as terrorism: Terrorism against Israel in 2001 lists the assassination of Rehavam Zeevi. - Mustafaa 01:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Assassinating a politician by a known terrorist group is the same as assassinating a civilian. What makes it a terrorist act is that the group who perpetrated it is terrorist. Assassinating terrorist masterminds like Yassin is a military operation. Yassin was in a wheelchair since age 12, when a sporting accident left him paralyzed. being wheelchair-bound never hampered Yassin's ability to orchestrate unprecedented terror - he founded Hamas in 1987 and proved perfectly capable of building the organization to its current strength from a sitting position. He was the leader of a terrorist organization.

Guy Montag 02:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Assassination of Ahmad Yassin termed "terrorism": Hamas. - Mustafaa 01:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's termed terrorism as by Hamas. Those are Hamas newsletters. Think about that.

Guy Montag 02:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Splitting/moving

 * PS: I moved the article, pending its possible splitting (as Guy has suggested), to the title that better reflects its current contents: Zionist terrorism. - Mustafaa 01:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Operation Days of Penitence (from context): Turkish PM,

Ok, this can be cited.

Guy Montag 02:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PNA. - Mustafaa 01:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This can be cited too.

Guy Montag 02:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Collateral damage":. - Mustafaa 01:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who is the Palestine Monitor affiliated with? It should also be cited.

Guy Montag 02:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Mustafaa, it's not enough just to find some website calling something terrorism; I can find any number of websites describing all sorts of things as "terrorism". For example abortion  or Islam .  Rhetoric is thrown about all the time by partisans and propagandists merely to score points; what is first needed is credible and citable sources, not just anyone saying anything. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  02:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Very nearly the only use of the word "terrorism" is for such rhetoric; the term is hopelessly subject to POV, and no universally accepted definition exists. I'm therefore not sure what you mean by "credible and citable sources", but I imagine the Turkish PM and PNA official statements qualify. - Mustafaa 02:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They are some of the few statements that are.

Guy Montag 02:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, "terrorism" has a fairly narrow and well-defined meaning, it's just that the word is often abused by propagandists who have attempted to hijack the term precisely for the purpose of obfuscation.  As for the cites provided, if that's the level of citability we're demanding, then I suppose anything that the Israeli government or Israeli PM calls "terrorist" should be added in a list of terrorist acts somewhere. I guess they'll do for now if they're cited. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  02:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The latter is already the case, from what I can see. Why else is an act like the assassination of Rehavam Zeevi termed "terrorist"? - Mustafaa 02:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know if that is a general case or an isolated item. In any event, one thing distinguishing Zeevi was that he was a democratically elected government official. You might want to consider who killed him as well. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  04:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because it is an action by a terrorist organization. I think we should take a look at the title again. Zionist terrorism cannot cover Israeli actions and Israeli actions cannot cover Zionist organization actions. The article needs to be split up. Guy Montag 02:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is an absurd argument. The Al-Qaeda bombers' trip to the strip joint in Nevada was also "an action by a terrorist organization"; that doesn't make it terrorism. As for splitting this, if you want, go ahead - though, obviously, linking between the two articles. By your proposed definition "the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature", Qibya, population transfer, and the Lavon Affair certainly qualify. Sabra and Shatila also qualifies, the only dispute being the degree of Israeli complicity. The attack on Khaled Meshaal doesn't fit that definition (nor does the kidnapping of Vanunu), but the attack on Ahmad Yasin does: at least nine other people died. Whether the Qana Massacre was deliberate is disputed (see that article), so it should go in with a proviso. - Mustafaa 02:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then I should reiterate. Violent action by a terrorist organization is what qualified it as a terrorist act. This was clearly planned out in advance with five or more members acting in unison to assasinate a political leader. Shiek Yassin was a terrorist mastermind who orchestrated attacks against civilians. He can be mentioned mainly because of the mainstream sources citing that a Turkish PM called it terrorism, but it depends on how you will word the sentence, because the guy is still a terrorist. I agree mostly with your other statements. I agree that by my definition, population transfer does qualify, as the specific instances are of civilians who were coerced into leaving their homes, but I do not agree that the S&S massacre deserves any mention whatsoever. It does not qualify as a direct Israeli action; it is incredulous to hold Israel responsible for direct actions of enraged Christian militiamen.

Guy Montag 03:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The Kahan Commission held several Israeli leaders indirectly responsible. Argue with them.  --Zero 16:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Kahan commission concluded that direct responsibility rested with the Jemayel Phalangists led by Fadi Frem. They committed the act. Israel did not commit the act. If we are talking about direct actions by states, this does not fit into it. Whatever the Kahan commission found, it did not find Israel culpable, but a couple of ministers guilty of negligence. Unless you have an article entitled "State sponsored negligence", this should have no mention in an article on alleged Israeli state terrorism.

Guy Montag 00:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Guy, you do not deny that Sabra and Shatila is a case of terrorism; you simply deny that Israel bears any responsibility.  However, the Kahan Commission - and the survivors - both hold Ariel Sharon responsible, and Israel ordered these people in to begin with. It belongs right here. - Mustafaa 22:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Kahan commission was not a court of law, and Mr. Kahan himself has stated, after hearing about the ridiculous kangaroo case against Sharon, that he regrets that his opinion was used to justify his demonization. I am tired of this nonsense being used to blame Israel as a whole when the verdict said nothing on the matter other than negligence. The Phalangists are responsible, Israel is not.

Guy Montag 00:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Noting that I havne't really read this article, I'm not certain that's correct, Mustafaa. Sabra and Shatila was a case of Israeli State Terrorism, as opposed to pre-statehood Zionist terrorism. (following Western academia's conventions, which I won't comment on). El_C 22:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry. The article only just got split, and I put this comment on the wrong talk page.  But I'm glad you agree that it belongs in the Israeli State Terrorism article. - Mustafaa 22:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we erase Israeli terrorism and merge it with the general state terrorism article? It already has an entry on Israel, as well as every other country. I don't think there is any reason Israel should be singled out.

Guy Montag 03:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I wasn't involved in the decision to move Zionist terrorism, or parts of it, to Israeli terrorism. Was there a clear consenus for this? It's an inherently POV title, and begs the question as to whether we're going to create British terrorism, French terrorism, Syrian terrorism (and so on) pages; if not, then Israel shouldn't be singled out. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:11, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * That's actually not a bad idea. Terrorism is somewhere between a judgement call and extreme POV.  If we have "Fooian Terrorism" we might as well have pages for every country against which there have been allegations of terrorism.  If we report allegations, fairly and across the board, it would be NPOV.  Guettarda 03:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree very strongly that there is no shortage of historical evidence which demonstrates State Terrorism on the part of each and every one of these countries, and many, many other ones (if that was the premise). That the Israeli State terrorism article was created before that, let say, of Sudanese State terrorism, is a good question (if that was a question), with an entirely explicable answer (if one is sought), which I will not be providing at this point. But I will point out that it accentuates and brings to the fore certain contradictions. El_C 03:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Can someone explain when this article was created and why? I'm confused because the history shows Mustaafa moving it on June 10 to Zionist terrorism, and nothing before that; yet here it is, not moved. And some of the posts on this talk page were posted to Talk:Zionist terrorism. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 05:24, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * *Raises hand* I can('t). Read the NPOV - When is a terrorist?' discussion above, esp. the last comments made. Essentially, myself, Jay, and Cool hand Luke were arguing to an Anon that Israeli Terrorism, by definition, could'nt have taken place at a time prior the founding of the State of Israel, hence the consensus for the split (for the 2 eras). El_C 06:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, El C. I remember taking part in that discussion, or the start of it, but don't recall the article being called Israeli terrorism at that time. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 06:45, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Anyways, I think that by now everyone more or less agrees that this article shouldn't exist. It should be moved to state terrorism. Do we need a vote on this or just consensus?

Guy Montag 08:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just consensus? Hmm. I, for one, certainly would want to guage on all the participants opinions rather than vote. *** Anyway, you changed LouieS' anti-militant (unwikied) into anti-terrorist (which simply redirects to Terrorism); I changed it into counter-insurgency. I trust that there are no objections. El_C 08:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nope.

Guy Montag 11:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Does anyone know how it got created in the first place, or did it just suddenly appear? The history doesn't shed much light. It'll be hard to merge the contents with State terrorism; or did you mean delete the contents, redirect the title? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 09:06, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

We could delete the contents, take what's salvagable and put it into state terrorism and place a redirect here, or just erase the whole mess and place it into state terrorism.

Guy Montag 11:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm anyone! I believe as a counter-weight to Palestinian terrorism. El_C 09:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is very little to counterweight in this article. Plus, wikipedia isn't about moral equivelency. It's not like Tamil Tiger terrorism is "counterweighted" with Nepalese terrorism. Lets wash our hands of the whole mess erase this article and merge with state terrorism.

Guy Montag 11:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The only Nepalese terrorists are the Gyanendra autocratic, despotic regime and the Royal Nepalese Army. Long live Nepalese People's War! Anyway, Tamil Tigers and the Communist Party of Nepal are not the same as Israeli/Palestinian, so bad example for counterwieghting. Since moral equivelency is not desirable as per policy and guidelines &mdash; are you proposing, then, to equivelantly merge Palestinian terrorism into Terrorism? (and remeber, this article could posssibly be expanded to reach the same length as the PT one).  El_C 11:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, they are terrorists just like the Shining Path, or the Tamil Tigers and Sri Lanka, ext. We don't have to have entries on every government 2nd rate communists call terrorist. How about the IRA and the British government? Did they have an entry on the "terrorist actions" of the British authorities? I don't think so. Palestinian terrrorism deserves an article all of it's own because it is so extensive, while the "Israeli terrorism" article is not only a cotroversial term, but there are so little clear cut cases vs Palestinian terrorism that it would be POV just to have it. Lets just move it to state terrorism where no one is singled out.

Guy Montag 21:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, the NCP and the PCP are heroes of the toiling masses, your 2nd rate observaions are false. And the word is et cetera, short form: etc. That aside, if you wish to move Israeli Terrorism to State Terrorism, that is your prerogative; I just don't find your statement that "by now everyone more or less agrees that this article shouldn't exist" to be an accurate assessment of the situation. I'm interested to hear what Mustafaa, Zero, and others have to say about the desirability of such a move. So, I open the floor for other editors' comments. El_C 23:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Heroes of the toiling masses? Man, my grandfather would rolling in his grave if he heard that anyone still believed that tripe. Anyways, from the people I heard of who contributed, the prevailing idea was confusion as to why this article existed. I wouldn't mind hearing from the other editors either, but exactly how long do we wait before we take some action?

Guy Montag 08:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Man? I could not care less about your grandfather's posthumous motions, Mister Guy Montag, nor about your unscientific, crude idea of what tripe is or isn't, from your questionable and uncritical vantage point. As for exactly how long the wait needs to be &mdash; long enough until Msutafaa voices an opinon, at the very least. Please spare me the rebuttel polemic; of course you won't, but here goes. El_C 09:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Where is all this hostility coming from? I am just making conversation here. As for my grandfather, he died in a Soviet Gulag, so if you don't want to hear people's reactions on the murderous communists, don't post on them.

Back on subject: I'll notify Mustafaa so he can post his opinion here.

Guy Montag 09:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps from the word tripe, would you not think? You were the one who chose to bring the NPC and CPoP as terrorists into this, so if you don't want people's reactions on the murderous 'capitalists,' don't initiate such comments. I'm sorry for that your grandfather suffered, but things are not so easily reduced therefrom. Back on subject: I thought he ought to know, since he seemd to have created this article. El_C 10:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, this editor thinks Zionist terrorism should be kept as a counterweight to Palestinian terrorism, and that Israeli terrorism should be merged into State terrorism, with each accusation of State terrorism properly sourced. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Since Zionist terrorism encompasses the post-independence era with respects to outlawed groups and connected individual, this means Israeli terrorism is exclusively Israeli State terrorism. As an aside, State terrorism on the part of the government of Sudan (and others: the Chinese National Petrolium Company, French oil companies) in that country's south resulted in a genocide of three million human beings. And now, we have a new genocide in the west . Unfathomable privations. Why am I telling you all this, Jay? El_C 06:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Um, because you agree with me? Because you're quite chatty tonight? Some combination? Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that was a rhetorical question! I'm aiming for subtlety here. But yes, some combination. El_C 06:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that Israeli terrorism should be merged into State terrorism, where the most prominent terrorist actor currently seems to be the United States. Syria, on the other hand, barely a mention. Libya, no mention. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  09:30, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I would actually disagree with you that Zionist terrorism should be kept either. Zionism ended in 1948 when Israel became a state, all attacks commited by the Jewish people in Israel upon Arabs are violent acts of racism (and vise versa for attacks by arabs upon jews). --LouieS 08:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What? Thats a big load of bunk.

Guy Montag 03:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with merging this article into State terrorism, while of course keeping the option of splitting it back out of that article open in the event of future expansion. Come to think of it, the US terrorism section of that article should probably be spun off into a separate article... - Mustafaa 03:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

However, I'm not fine with the removal of Sabra and Shatila, a longstanding part of this article with support from three of four people who have voiced opinions on this page. Let's restore the status quo ante. - Mustafaa 19:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Absolutley not. You have not proven that this was a direct Israeli action.

Guy Montag 23:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I have not argued that this was a "direct" Israeli action, nor has anyone else. You have not explained why its being "direct" is relevant. - Mustafaa 23:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because you don't list actions of Labanese Phalangists under something entitled Israeli terrorism. You can't hold Israel responsible for the acts of it's allies. It's just as simple as that. Everyone is responsible for their own actions.

23:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Note that the article already explains fairly well why this is generally considered an indirect Israeli action:

So why are you including it? The simple question is this. Did the IDF go into the camps and do the killing? The answer is no. So it doesn't belong. It belongs in the Labanese Civil War artice, not here.

Guy Montag 23:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The Israelis surrounded the camps and sent the Phalangists into the camps to clear out PLO fighters, and provided the Phalangists with support including flares, food, and ammunition. An Israeli investigation found a number of officials (including the Defense Minister of that time, Ariel Sharon) "indirectly responsible" for not preventing the killings. The Kahan Commission wrote: "responsibility is to be imputed to the minister of defense for not ordering appropriate measures for preventing or reducing the danger of massacre as a condition for the Phalangists' entry into the camps."
 * It doesn't go very far, though. It fails to note such points as this:
 * Lt. Avi Grabowsky was cited by the Kahan Commission as having seen (on that Friday) the murder of five women and children. He spoke to his battalion commander about it; he replied "We know, it's not to our liking, and don't interfere." (Sabra and Shatila Massacre). - Mustafaa 23:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alright, as long as it is mentioned that direct resposibility lies with the Phalangists. I can ive with it.

Guy Montag 23:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, it now explicitly says that. - Mustafaa 23:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Allies?
Why should "Israel's allies" be included in this article? I can't see why we should directly associate things done by allied groups to the people they were allied with. I know there was a connection in this case, but the very inclusion is not relevant to the actual subject of the article. Many groups are "allied" to many other groups, we do not hold all groups responsible for the actions of their allies, so why should we in this case? The whole section should be removed from the article as it is simply an attempt to put blame on to Israel for the actions, which does not exist. Curiosity 19:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Read above. Israel itself blamed Israel for the actions. The Israelis surrounded the camps and sent the Phalangists into the camps to clear out PLO fighters, and provided the Phalangists with support including flares, food, and ammunition. - Mustafaa 20:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Very interesting definition of "Israel blaming Israel" you have there. Read what you just wrote "sent the Phalangists into the camps to clear out PLO fighters". That's Israel blaming Israel for a massacre? Israel sent them in to do one thing and you hold Israel responsible when those people then do something else off their own accord? Israel actually blamed Israel for negligence, Israeli negligence is a far cry from "Israeli terrorism" - the subject of this article. No-one can hold Israel responsible for the 'actions' specifically. As was upheld by an American court when Sharon won a libel case over an article that claimed he was responsible. I still maintain it's tenuous to put an unsanctioned "terrorist" action by an Israeli ally in to this article. Curiosity 23:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

''Lt. Avi Grabowsky was cited by the Kahan Commission as having seen (on that Friday) the murder of five women and children. He spoke to his battalion commander about it; he replied "We know, it's not to our liking, and don't interfere.''

Curiosity. The current edit is as NPOV as it gets. I am content with it as it makes sure to note that the responsibility lies with the phalangists. If I am pleased with this subject, chances are, there is nothing else to discuss.

Guy Montag 01:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Isn't a phalangist a type of marsupial and the name for the Spanish facist movement? --LouieS 06:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Phalangists of Lebanon are the diluted political cousins of the Phalangist movement in Spain. More nationalistic than fascistic.

Guy Montag 00:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh right, duh, I know who we are talking about now. As far as the situation goes, Guy and Curiosity are right. While Sharon was grossly negligent, the Phalangists were NOT ordered to commit the massacre, though it was known that it was their intent to commit the massacre (hence the negligence). So no, this is not a case of Zionist terrorism, its actually more a case of Christian terrorism (I believe the phalangists are a militant christian organization). --LouieS 00:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you are an occupying army on foreign territory then you are under a very clear obligation under international law to protect the civillain population thereof. The bus bomber doesn't actually kill anyone - it is the explosives which do that - yet he is still the terrorist for deliberately putting the explosives in a place where they can kill. 62.253.64.15 29 June 2005 23:46 (UTC)

VFD debate
This article has been kept after no consensus to delete at this VFD debate. Note that this does not rule out the possibility of this being merged later, if anybody wishes to discuss it. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Such a small article and yet so much debate, just leave it as is
From the comments I have read on this discussion page, some seemingly reasonable sentences by people are really outrageous. So, if someone is wearing an IDF uniform and killing innocent people then it is not terrorism it is simply defending oneself? It is not “deliberate”. Poor soldiers, victims of 12-year-old Palestinian stone throwers and “accidental” killers of journalists. Let us go back to the roots of the issue; the state of Israel was created on the basis of terrorism. I mean stealing land from people, kicking families out of their houses and burning their homes, and ethnically cleansing the local Palestinian populating by committing massacres. Is this not terrorism? Also, the massacres at Qana, the UN camp in Lebanon and killing countless civilians, is this not terrorism? Putting random roadblocks and building a “Berlin Wall” dividing the Palestinian territories from Israel, thus separating families from each other, students from their schools and putting the economy to a standstill. While Palestinian tactics are NOT ideal and I certainly do not support their blowing up of buses with innocent people, we should not forget their reasons and all the bad media surrounding this people. It is as if poor Israel is the victim and the Palestinians are the brutal terrorists. Israel is no angel, but saying that Arabs do kill people deliberately while Israelis don’t as one very very ignorant user has said is just plain wrong and outrageous. It is a stupid statement and how could such a statement be said. Well it’s the media stupid. People are brainwashed and have only one view of the issue especially those living in North America. This is why people in Europe are more open and aware of issues while here (US) they are not. Building walls and settlements and stealing water from nearby farms, sending Christian phalangists to eliminate Palestinians and committing massacres at various camps; all this is deliberate, stop kidding yourselves. When have Palestinians used an F16 to bomb a city full of innocent people? Well, never. The Israelis have, bombing Beirut and killing hundreds, leveling buildings with children inside, hiding from the bombing. If the Lebanese civil war raging on wasn’t enough, I’m sure we didn’t need Israel involved. Just because it’s an “official army” then this makes it not terrorism. Hey, the retarded Taliban were official and had an army, how come they are terrorists then? The same rules apply. One should look at the causes of anger within the Palestinian people (such as the daily killings of innocent Palestinians that we in the US do not hear about, I have satellite and thankfully get international news, the only thing we hear about is suicide bombs targeting poor Israelis) and not simply judge them by watching extremist news channels such as Fox news or such. Israel has a right to exists but within limits and reason. Get educated people and read stuff on academic websites, read books, read articles from real journalists, not “articles” written by biased people in this encyclopedia.

Agree with the anonymous editor. Jeus 16:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Continuation: why under some circumstances Israel’s (sometimes) nasty allies should be included
You know people are so biased now-a-day’s. Judging things as they see fit, not looking at the other side of complex issues. Why should Israel’s allies be included in this article? I will use Bush’s quote “we will not differentiate the terrorists from those who harbor them”, which is the basis of American foreign policy today, to attempt my explanation. Again like I said above, if you want to judge do it fairly, the same rules apply for all parties. For example the Taliban were supporting wacko bin laden and providing safe haven from him, ok fine, according to this definition, by US (i.e. Bush) standards they are terrorists, no problem. Donating money for charities, turns out to be terrorist funding, you’re a terrorist charity, no problem. Now, during the very complex 1975-90 civil war in Lebanon (which I will not attempt to explain because Wikipedia does a pretty good job in an article about that subject), many groups committed massacres all over and everyone was involved. A fact: the Christian Phalangist militia was allied with Israel, which provided weapons and intelligence to its militiamen. The reason: an independent Maronite Christian Lebanese state was and still is for the benefit of Israel as they share the same objectives. Anyway this is not the issue; Israel (as if the Taliban in Afghanistan) was providing arms to the Christian Phalangist militia (as if Al Qaida in Afghanistan), which committed massacres and yet some of you ignorant people still cannot hold Israel responsible. If you cannot do that then why say the Taliban are terrorist, why say charities are terrorist, they are only funding are they, doing nothing wrong? Such double standards, truly unbelievable. Who in the world are you kidding? Using the West’s arguments for terrorism, if u harbor a terrorist or provide financial aide and logistical support (the Taliban in Afghanistan) then you are a terrorist, the same applies here, don’t use double standards like I repeated a number of times. I mean, common use your brains people, the Israelis didn’t accidentally drop off an army of hostile fighters in a Palestinian camp so they can chat and have some coffee together, maybe play a deck of cards, they knew very well the hostilities present between the PLO and the Phalangists, so Israel wanted the PLO fighters eliminated and used their allies in Lebanon to do the dirty work. On their way the Phalangists killed a few hundred innocent women and children. Israel provided funds and equipment for these fighters who committed massacres right under Israel’s nose. OH so naïve to think Israel is the angel and simply wanted to clear up some gunmen in the camp. They should be counted as terrorist harborers, and financers, hence, like the Taliban, terrorists. Look, Israel is not stupid, they knew perfectly well that while sending these Christians to the camps they would not only “clear PLO” fighters but commit other crimes. Israel should have done the job itself if it wanted it done so badly, but this laziness on Israel’s part only proves that their aims were different from the beginning. By employing a militia, Israel could keep the blame off itself and avoid international condemnation with the lame excuse of “we didn’t interfere.” And by the ignorant brainwashed responses I have seen here, their little plan worked. Doge120 20:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Doge120, there's a little section on the Phalangist militia in the article:

The Sabra and Shatila massacre was perpetrated during September 1982 in Beirut, Lebanon by the Phalangist Lebanese Christian militia; The death toll is disputed, and commonly cited estimates range from 400 to 3000. The Israelis surrounded the camps and sent the Phalangists into the camps to clear out PLO fighters, and provided the Phalangists with support including flares, food, and ammunition. An Israeli investigation found a number of officials (including the Defense Minister of that time, Ariel Sharon) "indirectly responsible" for not preventing the killings, while emphasizing that the "direct responsibility" lay with the Phalangist militia that had done the killing.

I moved it from the "Terrorism by Israel's allies" into the general "Attacks from 1948-1999" section. I suppose we could change it back if you want. To everyone, I'd just like to say that I'm not out to chop up the article; it just seemed a bit imbalanced, compared to the Pal Terr page. When I started editing, it had almost *nothing* about the escalated violence that's been going on since 2000 (compared to the numerous sections on suicide bombings on the Pal Ter page), and there wasn't even a picture. That didn't seem fair...to me, anyway. I also added some bits about bulldozers and IDF killings (whether accidental or intentional depends on whom you speak to) of ISM members in the region. Jeus 21:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Question
Which sections, do you all think, should be NPOV'ed the most? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure; I'm still trying to read up on the issue through the BBC. However, I'd appreciate it (a lot) if more people would use this page (the TALK page) before simply reverting huge chunks of the page back to severely archaic versions of it, which multiple people on this page agreed were in desperate need of reform. Guy Montag, right now, this means you. You're not even *trying* to use the discussion page. If you don't like something, please say *why* -- don't just go about deleting things that stray outside your POV. Jeus 23:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I tried to fix up the section on the activists/filmakers section, and it looks like it is going to get lost in all of the POV revert wars. I also dropped a note on Jayjg's page about possible title ideas I had. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I am going to stop reverting you when you stop trying to make this page into a memorial for Palestinians, stop adding ridiculous propaganda and false information that has nothing to do with this article, and discuss major revisions, of which you have done none. Take this as shock treatment.

Guy Montag 23:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * What parts do you considered in Jeus version to be a memorial? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The picture for one. Then there is a fiendish disclaimer about other acts that did not result in death or injury. The mergin of actions committed by Israel's allies within a general catagory. The merging together casualties of Palestinians cought in collateral damage and Palestinian terrorists under the catagory of Palestinian civilians, overly relying on unsourced Amnesty International reports, the use of "Occupied Territories" with abandon. Finally, what does this information have to do with terrorism? Then there is excessive use of selecting quoting from the Rachel Corrie incident without referring to the article. This too is a dubious case? How does it qualify as terrorism? Using unsourced information about bulldozing houses without adding context or background. Finally, what does an entire paragraph on treatment of Palestinians have to do with this article. The entire thing is absolute pov nonsense thant stretches the limits of this article, and it will have a totally disputed tag until it is corrected.

Guy Montag 23:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Disputed Tag
Guy, I am fairly certain I mentioned this to you in the past already: if you are going to add a totallydisputed tag, which reads: see the relevant discussion on the talk page, that means that you must explain its insertion on the talk page. Also, your edit summary which states: I am going to bring in the calvary if this shit continues is unacceptable. You must refrain from such edit summaries, as they are in violation of policy. El_C 23:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I merely reverted to the old edit after Jeus started turning this article into a funeral page for random Palestinians.

Guy Montag 23:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

My concern is limited to policy as pertaining to the tag's requierments, and edit summaries free of expletives. El_C 23:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Still Guy, what parts do you consider to be "a funeral" for the Palestinians. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Zscout, there's some questionable stuff being added. Sabra and Shatila can't count as terrorism unless the word has no fixed definition whatsoever. And did the Lavon Affair lead to the deaths of Palestinian civilians? Also, the photograph is POV. Would you mind stopping your edit for the time being, and discussing on talk? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:40, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Fine. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Personally I am all for using the ordinary dictionary definition of words - however (see above) you seem to argue against this earlier. 62.253.64.14 23:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Please just tell me, so I don't have to read through the whole page. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:45, July 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry - I wasn't trying to be awkward see the section above on "NPOV - When is a terrorist?" where we reject the definition from dictionary.com in favour of a much restricted one proposed by yourself. I think that Sabra and Shatila probably could fall under that definition from dictionary.com "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." 62.253.64.14 23:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I could remove the picture, and/or Sabra+Shatila. However, I wasn't the one who added that: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_terrorism&oldid=18138816 It seems to have been part of the article for at least a few days. We could remove it, though, if it really doesn't fit in with the page. Jeus 23:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Speaking about the photo, it was placed on WP:IFD. The user, User:Humus sapiens, stated the photo is unencyclopedic and it has no source. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Guy is right, Zscout. You're adding material that has no hope of surviving. Rachel Corrie was not an act of terrorism and you've anyway written that she was shot. Not everything bad that happens in the world can be called terrorism. I'm going to revert you, which I hate to do as you're working hard on it, so please stop the editing and discuss. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:55, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * If you feel the need to tap me on the shoulder, telling me to stop, and revert my work, fine by me. I mainly expanded that one section, since I wanted to get rid of the bullets. Plus, you can see my comment at User_talk:Jayjg for new titles. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The photo is perfectly neutral when compared to photos on the Palestinian terrorism page.Heraclius 23:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I have to say I agree - it's a pretty blatent piece of POV that goes on at a Wikipedia wide level. Guess there are just tham many more English speaking computer literate Israel supporters out ther than Palestinians - and many of them see even the slightest hint of "non support" for Israel as POV while not objecting at all to whatever is said in the Palsetine articles. 62.253.64.14 00:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Buss_Suicide_Bombing_West_Jerusalem3.jpg That's straight from the Palestinian terrorism page. Oh, and here's the other one: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c4/Explosive-belt01.jpg I'd say *either* of these could qualify as more POV than the photo in question. Jeus 00:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The first photo is a copyvio from the AP, the second photo is showing a device possibly used by the people who do the attacking. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The second photo's copyright status is also not clear. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Guy, you're still on a rampage. This isn't helping. Look -- at least four different people are here talking about this right now. Once again -- reverting fifteen versions back at a time is NOT going to make the article any more NPOV. Please stop. Jeus 00:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Joey, you're a new editor and you were earlier asking me for advice about how to edit. What you're witnessing now is an example of exactly how not to edit, and I'm not referring to Guy. We're here to write encyclopedic articles, not to fight the Arab-Israeli conflict with this article as hostage. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:07, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Please don't revert again. Bring the edits to this page and let's talk before inserting them. Some are probably fine, but others are definitely not, and all the reverting means nothing's being calmly evaluated. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:11, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Guy seems to be doing just as much reverting. I don't really see how you can pick sides here (which you are doing).Heraclius 00:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Reverting it to a version where there was consensus on the wording that existed is better than the gargantuan tripe you added. Some of the stuff is not even on the subject of discussion, and changing the article and introduction to weasel in and specifically reflect Palestinian pov is not going to fly, ever.

Guy Montag 00:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm opposing the editors who are adding nonsense. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:11, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

All right -- which sections should we work to fix? Jeus 00:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Bring the substantive edits one by one to the talk page. You choose which one you want to start with, and we'll try to find compromises. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:17, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Here's one of the sections:

An assessment of Terrorism since September 2000

 * The image is POV, and can't stay. It's not clear that this could be defined as terrorism, and even if it could be, this is not a photograph that illustrates an act of terrorism, so it falls on both counts. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:32, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree about the photo Slim, it should go. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

More than 2,870 Palestinian civilians have been killed by the Israeli Defence Force since (IDF) since September 27, 2000. Targets of attack include predominantly Palestinian settlements and refugee camps within the West Bank and Gaza strip, neighborhoods, school zones, and generalized locations of suspected Palestinian militants.


 * How are you defining terrorism? Are all acts of violence by the IDF being called terrorism? If so, we should probably rename the article. If not, then where are the limits of your terrorist subcategory? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:32, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Amnesty International concluded in its October 2000 report that: “The Israeli security services were almost invariably well-defended, located at a distance from demonstrators in good cover, in blockhouses, behind wire or well-protected by riot shields.” The pretext for the use of lethal force, Amnesty found, was simply a fabrication.


 * Did Amnesty use the word pretext? If so, we need a quote and a citation. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:32, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

“Certainly, stones—or even petrol bombs—cannot be said to have endangered the lives of Israeli security services in any of the instances examined by Amnesty International.”


 * What does this mean? How is this sentence related to Israeli terrorism? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:32, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Here's the equivalent of it on PalTer:

In summary, I think that if we're going to have a "current terror due to palestine" section in one article, complete with a rather impassioned photo of a bomb belt, then we should probably have a "current terror due to israel" section in the corresponding article. Leaving out an entire section and having something like what I c/p'd above within the PalTer article seems a bit one-sided, I think. Jeus


 * Joey, you're disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Forget what's in any other article. If there are POV things there, they can be sorted out next. Concentrate on this one, and do your best to write about it as if you don't care. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:34, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I don't mean to distract for a personal agenda. It's just that I started trying to add to the article, because it didn't seem to have anything "current", (even when compared to itself), and it seems as if every time I (or others) try to add something to the article (which isn't going to be flattering to the IDF, since the page is solely about Israeli Terrorism), whatever I add is quickly removed, and denoted as vandalism. Isn't it a kind of reverse vandalism for one side to oppose altering the page for any reason except to reduce its size and lessen its argument? Jeus 00:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * No side should refuse to let the page be edited, but you can't expect people to stand by while highly POV material is being added. You'd be as well renaming the page "Wikipedia Hates the IDF," because then at least you'd have a title that reflected the contents.


 * As you're a new editor, it might help you to read our editing policies: Neutral point of view, No original research, and a guideline Cite sources. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:53, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

When did this article become actions against Palestinians and non Palestinians? You are changing the article to reflect a ridiculous agenda.

Guy Montag 01:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

First of all, to Guy: Look at the previous edits. Zsomething was the one who started changing the introduction. Go to the "history" page, and compare the current title to the way it was when *I* originall edited it -- right before you started mass-deleting my versions. I didn't change the title; someone else did after you tried to wipe out what I'd written.

To SlimVirgin: I'm not trying to wage war against the IDF; I didn't want to keep using "Israel" as a vector for whom was executing the attacks in question, since Israel at large (by which I mean the majority of its citizens) aren't firing weapons at Palestinians. Perhaps my intentions didn't come through well. However, I expressely wrote it with IDF, instead of "Israel", or "Israelis", in order to signify a distinction. Sort of like saying The IDF launched attacks against Palestinian militants, vs. saying The IDF launched attacks against Palestinians. Specificity to avoid generalities. Jeus 02:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

And Guy, furthermore: For what it's worth, I just changed what you pointed out, from 'Pal + non-Pal' to simply 'Pal'. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm not going to consider what you have to say. Jeus 02:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

This article is about neither.

Guy Montag 02:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Stick your goodwill where it matter and revert yourself from that festering pile of shit you call an article to what I wrote.

Guy Montag 07:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Page lock
I briefly protected this page because you're all on the verge of being blocked for 3RR. Guy has already been reported for it. Please respond to the points Joey has raised - or Joey, say what you think about my responses. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:48, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I only reverted 3 times.

Guy Montag 01:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Great, now Jeus is using deceptive summary edits in an attempt to block the fact that he just reverted to his version but kept the totally disputed tag. I am gonna go ahead and report him. Thats more than 4 reverts in a day.

Guy Montag 01:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Willy-Nilly Revisions
It would be nice if people would stop trying to turn a page entitled 'Israeli Terrorism' into a page justifying Israeli military actions against Palestinians. If that's the kind of page you want to see, just go make one already. But this -- this whole, "I'll make sure as little badness gets posted about Israel as possible, so help me" nonsense has got to stop. This is NOT a pro-Israeli article. Why is this so hard to accept?

Stop trying to fill this page up with stuff that is not terrorism or turn it into another Israel bashing article - this is not the place for your propaganda

Would either of you mind ID'ing yourselves? I'm guessing from the 'history', that you're the two warring IP addresses. Perhaps this article *should* be protected. Jeus 03:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Then, if it is protected, what version would it be placed to? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I note with interest that Zionist Terrorism has been protected. And seems to be frozen at a non consensus Pro Israeli viewpoint. I am starting to get very concerned at site wide pro Israeli Bias on wikipedia. We're told "treat each article separately" but then the pages just some how "seem" to end up pro Israel. 62.253.64.14 07:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Problems with edits by User:Jeus
The biggest problem is, where to start.
 * 1) First, s/he insists "Attacks which did not result in death or injury are not included." and in the same edit adds
 * 2) * 1948 exiles
 * 3) * "men and boys may become permanently crippled from bullet wounds suffered during the last five months of stone-throwing protests"
 * 4) * "restrictions on Palestinian movements"
 * 5) * "international community often views these as punishments of the masses because of the actions of a few. This perception of unjust persecution provides a continuing rationale for hostility toward Israel" -- see, if Israelis allow the terrorists walk freely into their cities, the "international community" would have loved it.
 * 6) * "2,870 Palestinian civilians" -- all of them are civilians? and all are victims of Israeli terrorism? Proof please.
 * 7) * "Arab publications and others have compared Zionism to German Nazism", Many Arabs, and others, including noted activist and linguist Noam Chomsky, believe Israel practises a form of "apartheid" against the Palestinian people, as bad as, or worse than, that practised by South Africa, and that Zionism is a form of "colonialism" and has been carried out through extensive "ethnic cleansing". -- lovely but sorry WP is not a soapbox.
 * 8) * Pro-Israel advocates reply..., Palestinians hold... -- irrelevant here. Please don't turn this article into another Arab-Israeli conflict or Israeli-Palestinian conflict
 * 9) The propaganda picture is unencyclopedic and uses cuddly huggable children to stir emotions against those bloodthirsty Jews... please.
 * Though the picture can be removed from the article, its vote on IFD seems to be keeping and retagging the image in question. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Terrorism, accidents, actions of renegades or allies - all mixed together under the title "Israeli terrorism" -- it seems someone tries to "balance" the actions of HAMAS & Co.   &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 06:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

For the "2,870", here's a Pro-Israeli source: www.ict.org.il. I can't link directly because it uses frames, but if you go there, stats from Sep2000 to 2004 show 2770 Pal civ casualties. If your own side is willing to admit such a high toll, why do you insist on staying in denial? Jeus 18:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * We already talked about the difference between "murder" and "killing". I'm glad you agreed to distinguish the two. Similarly, there is a big difference between "civ casualties" and victims of terrorism. When a police squad fights a street gang (or firefighters fight arson), some civilians may die by accident in the effort to spare more innocent lives. That is a tragedy but not terrorism. OTOH, when a suicide bomber intentionally detonates his device in a crowded bus, that clearly is terrorism. This article (as any on this sensitive subject) must clearly distinguish between the two, instead of trying to blur the line.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 23:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

And as far as your "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" bit, you might want to go clear that very section out of the Arab-Israeli conflict article, because that's where I got that from. If it's a soapbox here, it should be a soapbox there. Jeus 18:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Wrong: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. That article discusses various aspects of the conflict, as it should. Now take a look at the title of this article.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 22:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The "propaganda picture", as you've put it, is currently being voted on for deletion. If it stays, there's no reason not to put it back in. As others have stated above, it's no more inflammatory than any pictures on the Isr Ter page depicting bomb belts and exploding busses. Jeus 18:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The images of the bomb and the exploded bus provide factual evidence: cause and effect of intentional detonation. OTOH, your image does not provide facts but instead calls for strong emotional response. Could you explain what encyclopedic value the pic of "looking at the face" brings to the topic. Moreover, is there any proof that the child's death was not a tragic accident?  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 22:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Concerning your last point: The IDF tends to define any actions taken against Israel by non-Israelis (Arabs in particular) to be acts of terrorism. I don't *need* to try and balance this. I'm just trying to write an article that resembles an article instead of a stub. Jeus 18:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Have you chosen WP for a platform for Arab answer to the IDF? Is seems so.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 22:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry I have to say this, but you all need to take a step back and stop editing this page, because you (all of you) are incompitent in doing so due to your biases. None of you will ever be able to produce a NPOV article of Israel-Palestine relationships because you veiw information you don't like, factual though it may be, as "propoganda" or "lies". Neither side of this debate can accept that the truth is somewhere in the middle, which is why neither side should be editing this page, leave it to people without any real opinion, and least of all those of you who have a point of veiw and an agenda etched into your souls. --LouieS 01:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely ridiculous “Guy”
I mean from the comments of Guy or whoever that guy; you can’t get any more Zionist than this. You are a vandal. How would you like it Mr. Zion, to be kicked out of your house then have your family butchered in front of you; this is how your state arose. IS this not an act of terrorism? Here we have someone at least attempting to correct the article, make it at least bigger and better and is met by a hostile crowd who is not letting him do his work properly but is constantly being attacked by ignorant people (i.e. Guy) who only know one side of the story and is an extremist right wing Zionist. I mean you are obviously not going to like this article. Stop your little attack on people who have a goal to spread the truth about the Palestinian issue (or at least attempting and stop insulting them). How was your state build, you wanna know how?? It was built by terrorists. NO, unlike a normal nation, America for example, by immigration, human rights…your state was built by taking land from people and then brutally massacring them. It’s people like you we don’t need here editing this page because it’s people like you who convey the wrong message about issues. SO not very act of violence is terrorism? Then how come when the Palestinians do something it’s suddenly terrorism. Man go back editing the page on Zionism or something make it 100 pages long I don’t care but don’t disrupt other people and insult them for something they are trying to do here. Talk to them in a normal way like another user has done, compromise, you extremist. And Jeus good job at trying to edit, keep going at it and don’t listen to extremists; comromise just as long as you have reliable sources and Amnesty is surely one them to cite. This article was so much better when it was longer, it had so many sections and explained well, we should have many sections such a killing of activists and journalists section by the IDF. I mean israeli terrorism can't be summurized in just a few sections, you could write 500 pages about it. Write the stuff, and cite, then let people make up their own mind. But thanks to the efforts of the self-described right-wing, Guy, people will not find out the truth about some events and remain in the dark. This is very very biased, you better make the article longer and clearer not concise and to the point that's not the point of an encyclopedia. Tallk about the murdering of children, the rape of women in jenin, the burning of homes, the killing of journalists and activists, where is all that, stop this zionism on this page and let us work on it peacfully and find credible sources. Jeus has done a lot of hard work and deserves the credit while Guy is not doing anything but absent-mindngly attacking him for anything he wrights against Israel. That's the point of the article for once. Not evrything for Israel, it already is, in the media...let other views have a say in this. Your efforts in not allowing people to write and expand the article are only a proof that you do not want to know the truth to get out and are afraid to find about it and just keep denying it. Doge120 15:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I would ike to see some proof of journalists being intentionally targeted, or women being raped. You bring a valid point that Guy has too many biases (by his own admission being in support of violent forms of Zionism) to be editing this article, but you yourself are spouting off unfounded garbage moreso than Guy does. --LouieS 01:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Factual Dispute
Someone please point out a factual dispute on this page, and site disagreeing facts from an unbiased source; or the tag is going away.


 * Why is this article almost entirely duplicated in State terrorism? OTOH, curiously, all efforts to add [Palestinian state]] in all possible articles and lists, there is no State terrorism.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 07:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Guy Montag put it there, I believe in an earlier attempt to simply have that page re-direct here (part of a VfD). However, it should be removed now, as it has now become a fork. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  16:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Evidence for the "garbage" I said
Get your own conslusions, but you don't just fire at a crowd and kill dozens if your a democratic state. The tag should go and article expanded like before. "I have been to several regions of the world and have seen destruction of various kinds, but the scenes in the Jenin camp were different, terrible and tragic. We retrieved charred corpses and others that were rotting, and they all belonged to civilians, including women, children and elderly persons. Some bodies were buried under the rubble of houses destroyed by the army. It was a real massacre and the scenes were terrible." - Chivvas Moore, an American Red Cross volunteer http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=6725 http://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node.php?id=432 http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/DBBDD979-5ECC-4159-B5B2-829320C06920.htm  check this one out Guy ull like it http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/child_41304.html Let the pictures and the text talk (what are you gonna tell me now, they were taken on the moon, well the IDF turned Jenin into a moon crater) http://this.is/jenin/index2.html http://www.jenininquiry.org/photo.htm http://www.palestinemonitor.org/gallery/special_focus_jenin.htm http://www.jeninjenin.org/ http://www.palestinemonitor.org/Feature/camp_that_became_a_slaughterhous.htm http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-268533,00.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,685595,00.html http://www.jeninjenin.org/evidence.htm http://www.palestinemonitor.org/Feature/once_upon_a_time_in_jenin.htm http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51a/041.html http://www.palestinemonitor.org/Feature/un__reveals_monumental_destruction.htm http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51a/040.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,825315,00.html

ok that's NOT enough and i am not satisfied, but if you want more, please tell me and i will surely find more information about countless other massacres (thus acts of terrorism israel commited) there should be no dispute, israel, like palestine, has commited acts of terror and that's it. Whoever's not happy with that could stop complaining like Guy and go to sleep. --Doge120 02:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * If you stop this diarrhea of propaganda and check the facts (that even PNA accepted), you'll see that in heavy fighting and boobytraps of the Battle of Jenin 2002, the casualies were: 32 Palestinian militants, 22 Palestinian civilians and 23 Israeli infantrymen.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 07:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

What's up with all the bad words, diarreah, garbage, that's how mature people deal with each other, this is how an alleged encyclopedia is supposed to work, from retards who insult, to extremists who keep editing everything, good job people, I applaud all your maturity, whatever, just keep the article, and expand it like Jeus was trying to do and which he has done a pretty good job at. But thanks to all the retarded attempts of some people, this may not happen. --Doge120 16:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag
The article contains a whole section (probably the largest) on the actions of Christian Lebanese groups; this clearly does not belong in a page about "Israeli terrorism". That is why the tag belongs; it was objected to long ago, and still has not been fixed. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Collateral Damage
It's just bad english as it stands!

How about "some of the deaths resulting from .... were claimed by Israel as collateral damage follwoing from the main objective."

or similar? Anything to turn it into the language I love. 62.253.64.14 22:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Assassinations
Do people really think that Assassination is better than "extra-Judicial killing" or was this just a knee jerk revert by Guy Montag?

Personally I think it's much less judgemental with assassination having some quite perjorative connotations. 62.253.64.15 09:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Reverts
Contributions to this page seem to be coming nearly-exclusively from 62.253.64.15, Guy Montag, Eliezer, and Jeus. When this many people are reverting each others' edits, within minutes of each other, all day and all night, it starts to look like there are POVs which conflict. Should we request comments? Ojw 22:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I would support this move 62.253.64.14 09:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Article must comform to a higher standard
This aricle needs to be cleaned up(organization, categories, especially that intro). This article needs a Clean-Up notice. Voice of All(MTG) 22:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Article is just propaganda
There are several probelms with this nonsense:

1. It is boloney. For example, the expulsion from Ramle was in immediate response to the breaking of the city's Sulh or reconciliation treaty by the local Muslim population. I have personally interviewed Arab witnesses to the events. They all correspond: The Arabs signed a peace treaty at the hope of a Greek Orthodox prelate and attacke the next day, the moment the Israelis' backs were turned. The Israelis had no choice. The Christian Arabs didn't shoot, so they weren't expelled and are still there.

2. Terrorists are not "Freedom Fighters" -- Terrorism has a dictionary definition. It is random attacks on a civilian population and an attack on military targets during wartime.

3. The propaganda nature of the story is evident by its name. When do Israelis deliberately attack civilians riding in buses? And the shooting of kids? After the al-Dura fiasco, does only a fanatic will try to defend that charge.

4. "Bulldozers as Weapons" -- Yeah, clearing a border zone to stop arms smugglers is "terrorism". Notice, no mention of arms smuggling?

5. User Doge120 still claims that the "Jenin Massacre" happened, even after the producer of the propaganda film "Jenin, Jenin" admitted that it was all a fake.

6. Sabra and Shatila was the work of the Syrians, the Phalangist commander, Elie Hobeika was their agent -- they killed him (with a car bomb, natch) when he started talking, after serving them loyally in the Lebanese cabinet for 20 years. At the time, Kahan Commission didn't know about Hobeika's treachery.

If you want Arab propaganda, start a propaganda site. Wiki's reputation is at stake here. Just cancel the entry.

True, and the fact that Israel is the only country that has its own terrorism article makes it look very biased.