Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:25, 14 June 2005

Zionist terrorism

I am electing to have this page deleted as it is just an epithet. It should be inserted into the political epithets page. Scarabar

If you're going to troll, at least sign it, man. Grace Note 03:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Neither an epithet nor does it have to be a bad article. Major revision is in progress. (also added the inital posters signature) LouieS June 11 2005
• Delete freestylefrappe 00:08, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC).
• Delete Curiosity 17:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Any reason?Grace Note 23:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Enviroknot 00:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable topic. Terroristic acts by Zionist militants during the pre-statehood era can only be termed Zionist, as that was the driving ideology; and, extremist forms of Zionism can also be seen as the ideology of post-statehood militants, in that sense. I am, however, open to persuasion which draws from the pertinent historiography (i.e. some sort of basis). In contradistinction from the post-statehood (hence, institutional, non/less clandestine) Israeli State terrorism. It is currently heatedly disputed by both sides, but this is to be expected. El_C 02:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Inherently a non-NPOV discussion; only purpose is to create a forum for indictment of Zionism; if necessary, can be merged into Irgun or Lehi (group). Upgraded to "Strong Delete" -- as those who intend this article to "counter" some sort of bias demonstrate its POV purpose. Single example of King David Hotel is weak: the hotel was used as a military HQ, and was warned ahead of time that a bomb had been placed there. --LeFlyman 05:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV. Gamaliel 06:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • POV vote? I can't tell, it's limited to a single word. My argument is that the term is notable. See for example: John L. Peeke's (of the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School), Jewish-Zionist terrorism and the establishment of Israel (1977) El_C 06:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No reason for deletion is offered. Proposer is 101% surely a sock. --Zero 07:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep - We have an article on Islamist terrorism and an article on Palestinian terrorism. Should they be deleted as POV forums for indictment of Islamism and Palestinians? --FCYTravis 07:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The difference between these articles, and those, is that Islamist Terrorism and Palestinian Terrorism are documented facts. The Islamist vandals like BrandonYusufToropov and Zero keep trying to push nonsensical and racist accusations into this article, when the articles on particular non-supported groups which have not existed for decades (such as Irgun) cover all REAL incidents of so-called "zionist terrorism" just fine without the need for this redundant article. The sole purpose of the Keep votes here seems to be as a jumping-off point for racist attacks.
    • Comment made by Anon - IP; 38.112.194.37, amazingly enough, another of Enviroknot's protectors'. --Irishpunktom\
• Keep. --Silversmith Hewwo 09:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. BrandonYusufToropov 14:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• STRONG DELETE There can be no greater argument FOR deleting this article than that known Islamist vandals like BrandonYusufToropov and Zero are ardently trying to make sure that it exists so that they can use it as a platform to launch racist attacks against Jews. - (Anonymous vote by 81.91.192.220 - User has eight edits on Misplaced Pages, all to Arab-Israeli related articles. Addendum by FCYTravis)

• Delete There is a major difference between the Palestinian Terrorist article (which is not about the Palestinian Authority) and this article. If someone wants to write a historical article about events 60 years ago, they can -- start with the Irgun article. Until such time, this is pure POV. Mikeage 17:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Please disregard the votes by anonymous IPs of KaintheScion/Enviroknot.Yuber 18:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Please disregard the Islamist rantings by vandal Yuber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.138.211.80 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • This anon has made a smallish number of edits, all targetting Yuber (including removing his comment from and RfA evidence page), and claiming to be protecting Enviroknott. An IP check might be in order. I've blocked him temporarily, but I imagine he'll be back. A number of IP addresses have been used in the saem way, a couple to vandalise my user page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or serious rewrite. This has the same problems I noted re Suicide Bombing, which is it mixes up terrorism and guerilla warfare. To quote the renowned Misplaced Pages, One definition means a violent action targetting civilians exclusively. Another definition is the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of creating fear in order to achieve a political, economic, religious, or ideological goal. Blowing up military installations does not come under the first definition, and would stretch the second definition out of shape until it applied to all military activity. Gzuckier 18:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep The King David Hotel bombing is indisputably an act of terrorism committed by Zionists. Some of the other accusations don't quite qualify. If this article stays make sure it's not a propaganda piece against Israel and the IDF. --Cypherx 18:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is not the place for a lengthy discussion, but since your post relates diretly to to my point, I rebut the "indisputably an act of terrorism". The King David Hotel was not a hotel in the sense that it housed a bunch of tourists and honeymooners. "Ninety-two persons lost their lives in that stealthy attack, 45 were injured, among whom there were many high officials, junior officers and office personnel, both men and women. The King David Hotel was used as an office housing the Secretariat of the Palestine Government and British Army Headquarters." says Misplaced Pages, quoting the British House of Commons. Blowing up your adversary's HQ and army HQ is not the same as blowing up a hotel. Certainly in aerial warfare, for instance, the effort to drop a bomb on your adversary's HQ is made, despite the loss of life to innocent secretaries, janitors, and the visiting children of employees. If that is not described as terrorism, i.e. attacking civilians as your major target, then blowing up the HQ by planting bombs is not either. Blowing up a Motel Six is terrorism. Blowing up government and military HQ is guerilla warfare, even if the building has Hotel in its name. Gzuckier 19:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry for continuing the discussion here (what's a better page we can talk on?) but I think the King David Bombing crossed the line. While the bombing had a military objective (making it a form guerilla warfare), the disregard for civilian life (a majority of the dead were civilians, including 15 jews) also qualifies this bombing as terrorism. I think it's similar to the bombings of police recruiting facilities currently seen in Iraq. Those also have military objectives, but are widely considered acts of terrorism. --Cypherx 20:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. It's important that in addition to each article being balanced the overall editorial tone of Misplaced Pages is also seen to be unbiased. The article itself plays word games with the definition of "terrorism" - to delete it because of a feeling of bais by one side or the other just panders to a one sided (anti Palestinian) viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.0.7 (talk • contribs)

What the heck? Why's my username on this? It's not my vote. --Cypherx 21:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is user 62.252.0.7's vote, I changed the post to reflect that. --Cypherx 21:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this title, and rename the contents, or merge them with another article. The word "terrorism" is not defined, and there's no universally agreed definition, so it's a term that should be avoided, especially in titles; and where it's used in a title, it must be defined at the beginning of the article, using a definition accepted by academics and by the UN (there are several definitions in use by the UN). The article also needs to say what's meant by Zionist terrorism, and to describe whether and why an act of violence (carried out after May 14, 1948) intended to protect the existence of the state of Israel is considered (a) an act of self-defense by Israelis, (b) an act of aggression by Israelis, (c) either of these by Zionists, (d) an act of terrorism by Israelis, or (e) an act of terrorism by Zionists, unless the words Israeli and Zionist are being used synonomously here, in which case that needs to be stated upfront. Acts before May 14, 1948 are more easily described as Zionist violence, but then the article would have to cut off at that point to avoid the muddle, and many editors may feel that's a false cut-off point, as (largely) the same people continued to fight after that date as were fighting before it. The whole subject matter is muddled because of editors' strong opinions on both sides. We need encyclopedic titles, and clean, unbiased writing, using mainstream, reputable sources. If we can't achieve that, we should delete. SlimVirgin 21:05, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - No valid reason to delete. Recommend Cleanup though --Irishpunktom\ 23:28, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--Revas 00:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Britain: Inteligence elements warned of Zionist terrorism

Following the attack on the King David Hotel, the British were afraid of a wave of terror to be operated by Jews in London: a recently exposed document now reveals that the police was issued an order to follow every Jew arriving from the Middle East.

British inteligence services followed in the 40s after all Jews arriving from Israel due to their fear of "international Zionist terrorism." From documents exposed from the MI5 Royal Inteligence Archive, it was discovered that this concern increased following following the famous terrorist attack that Etzel members committed in 1946 against British officers in the King David hotel in Jerusalem. (Walla/Ruetres) *** The Encyclopedia of Jewish History: Events and Eras of the Jewish People mentions that the Etzel's "terror versus terror" policy, "enabled extremist groups in the organization to commit terrorist acts and robberies on their own accord" (p. 158). It also states that the Lehi "committed many terrorist acts, directed towards the British" (p. 159) El_C 00:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)