Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:46, 2 December 2006

Israel Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

Famous Operations?

Shouldn't these be called infamous? Operations that severely violate international laws are infamous, not famous.--85.49.231.17 23:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Famous is neutral; infamous is subjective (negative) and therefore violates NPOV. altmany 07:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Citizenship?

Does an individual have to be an Israeli citizen to join the Mossad?

YES.

Normally yes, but there are exceptions. If one thing cannot be said of the Mossad, it's that Mossad is always a beaurocratic stickler to written procedures.

To be an official employee of Mossad, it could be assumed that one would have to be an Israeli citizen. It should be noted that the Mossad has used many non-Israeli citizens in operations on many occassions. This is a matter of public fact. Were these people official members of Mossad? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Art dealers

The page says:

to a ring of Israeli "art dealers" with military backgrounds deported shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks

Deported from where? Why? Andy Mabbett 23:16, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Several packs of former IDF (but every Israeli is or was IDF) soldiers were posing as Israeli Art Students. These 'students' were all across the USA, showing up at homes of Judges, unlisted FBI offices and other strategic targets. They would say they were selling paintings and vases and such door-to-door. They were only discovered when a Federal Judge was approached at home, turned them away, and watched as they got in their car and left... not visiting his neighbors.

But they said they were selling door-to-door... Would an Israeli ever lie?? Goodness no, they were probably Saddam's elite secret army.

Why should I believe you? Are you citing your sources? Are you even signing your comments? Sayhar 20:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

USS Liberty

What about a section Mossad's and the IDF's involvment in the attack on the USS Liberty which was pinned on Libya and used as an excuse to bomb Qadaffi? --Omar 12:19, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Israel took full responsibility for the attack on the USS Liberty, and it was never one of the reasons for bombing Libya. Impi 12:56, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not sure about Libya, but I think the bigger question is why isn't there a point here on the USS Liberty bombing at all? Clearly it was a major Israeli debacle, which almost positively means Mossad was involved. And they didn't take "full responsibility" as you claim. They took what is commonly known as partial responsibility, saying only that it was a mistake, which is actually untrue - they did it on purpose. 63.85.190.4

To begin with, I would suggest you read the article on the USS Liberty incident, which is pretty clear that there is no hard evidence whatsoever to support the claim that the attack was deliberate. Additionally, simple logic dictates that Israel's claim is reasonable when considering the extreme fog of war that results from a rapid conventional war like the 1967 war, as well as the fact that those who claim Israel did it on purpose have still not offered a proper motive, and that NSA intercepts from the incident show clearly that the Israeli pilots thought the ship and its crew were Egyptian. And Israel did indeed take full responsibility, as it is possible to take responsibility for a mistake. That sort of responsibility involves apologising, making amends where possible, and ensuring that safeguards are put in place to ensure a repeat incident won't happen.

In any case, this is irrelevant to the Mossad article. Even if it was deliberate (which I have just shown to be in serious doubt), there's no reason whatsoever that Mossad were involved. Your reasoning of: "Clearly it was a major Israeli debacle, which almost positively means Mossad was involved" is ludicrous, and unless you can come up with a serious reason for including the USS Liberty incident in this article, this issue is not worth discussing further. Impi 07:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

How can an attack by definition not be deliberate?

Easy... If I attack you and I meant to attack the guy sitting next to you, my striking you was not deliberate. It was accidental. See how easy English is? Joey 17:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Research Department

Could someone in the know explain to me (and in the article) what is meant by "Research Department is responsible for intelligence synthesis." I thought intelligence is obtained, not synthesized.

• It means they collect raw intelegence from many sources and then synthesise it into some thing that decisionmakers can use. Klonimus 11:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Come on now... Synthesize. Make up intelligence... You know, like the Niger yellow cake documents, all the evidence of WMDs.... remember those... WMDs? THe person defending the USS liberty attacks obviously is biased in thoughts because unbeknownst to the Israeli Pilots their conversations ( coded encrypted) were heard by US spy planes above them. During the conversation, the pilots clearly knew who they were attacking before the attack. They were also heard laughing and even once it was clear that the ship was american the attacks did not cease because the PT boats hit them with torpedos after knowing and confirming the ship was american. SO please do not tell me it was a mistake they meant to hit the ship next to it and by accident......stop it.

• Or, you know, you could cite your "facts" from a reputable source instead of spreading baseless misinformation. Sayhar 20:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Departments

Is there some reason it says that there are 8 departments, but only lists 6 of them? --Mairi 02:52, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• The other two are secret. Klonimus 11:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Mossad under its new director Meir Dagan has had an organisational shakeup. The emphasis supposedly now is on combating Terrorism. One of the departments/sub-departments, the Metsada, has been changed and is under a different name. I think this new force is larger to reflect Dagans special operations vision he has for Mossad and the way it now does business. Needless to say alot of the veteren staff of Mossad do not like the idea, citing that Mossad is first and foremost an intelligence service, and some have left apparently. To those who don't know who Meir Dagan is or his background, well, in the 1970's he was in charge of a one-of-a-kind commando force known as Sayeret Rimon, whose task it was to eliminate Palestinian Terrorists in the Occupied territories. His successes caused a decline in activity there causing the unit to disband, however in the 1980s with the intifada the IDF realised it needed units like Rimon, and so activated two units, Sayeret Duvdevan and Sayeret Shimshon. Today only Duvdevan still exists and is one of the most successful undercover Counter Terror units in the Israeli Army.

Tomcat200 23 May 2006

Logo

The logo shows the old "politically incorrect" motto referring to war. Either it should be identified as such, or a new one should be put in. (Can it be downloaded from the official site, or will Mossad agents seek out an unauthorized use of their logo?)--Sentience 04:12, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Warning anti-semite alert

People should be hammered everytime they cry out "anti-semite" the same way racist anti-Arabs declare the "Muslims" did it on every occasion there is a terrorist attack somewhere in the world. There are Zionist Jewish terrorist organizations in a similar vein as there are Arab terrorist organizations, the KKK, Marxist and anarchist thugs, etc.

• Name two. And sign your comments, please. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

http://www.ihr.org/books/ztn/ztn.shtml on the Jewish Defense League; And, well...MOSSAD, of course. (And yes I realize IHR is a fascist press. I try to read all sides of a debate even if I don't agree with a group's politics.) --Daxtox 22:56, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Citing IHR means you lose the argument by default. Klonimus 11:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Mossad carrying out terrorist attacks on a regular basis definitely makes them at the very least a terrorist-sponsoring organisation, similar to the CIA (Gladio, for instance).

• • There are Zionist Terrorists, remember they killed Yitzhak Rabin? JJ4sad6 August 17, 2005

kidnapping

in the Famous Mossad operations section, why use "kidnapping" instead of "capture" or something more NPOV? - Omegatron 18:17, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

well tell us, how you think that taking someone ( civilian or suspected terrorist, who even as suspects should have the same rights under the law )from his home ( or at least his familiar surroundings ) by suprise, without a official court order ( of the country in which you are living ) could be described as "capture"? NPOV should not mean that we blind ourselfs.

Anyone who simply follows the news knows that Mossad behaves like the Russian mafia in more ways than one.

Anyone with basic understanding of Misplaced Pages knows that comments need to be signed per WP:TPG. Haizum 08:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

unofficial motto?

I want to ask if anyone has heard about a unofficial motto of the the Israel´s Institute for Inttelligence and Special Tasks ( Mossad ) who is quoting: " By way of deception, thou shalt do war." Is it true? and if so, perhaps we should include it, alongside the official ones.

• Plug "By way of deception, thou shalt do war" into google... lots of stuff... of course you get the racist idiots, but lots of good hits.

... Also, what does the hebrew on the logo translate to... the logo here in the wiki? I guess it could be translated a few ways. (like FoxNews spins)

Oh... just saw in the see also section of article, Victor is former Mossad.

Any roaring successes?

Well, I read the debacles, but out of fairness, do we have any info on their effecient & supported successes? --Duemellon 14:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Capturing Eichmann? Sayhar 20:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Operation Thunderbolt, at Entebbe? - Dmichelsohn 31 August 2006

Removal of Eichman from Argentina

In response to:

130.156.172.129 (NPOVing - Eichmann was not arrested by civil or military authorities - denied habeas corpus in Argentina)

• Argentina has no writ of habeas corpus.
• Eichman was indicted by an international court/war crimes tribunal.

As such, I removed the word "kidnapping" in reference to Eichman and changed it back to "arrest."

--jonasaurus 03:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Arrest is a legal process. The team that captured Eichmann and took him to Israel was acting illegally under both Argentine and International law. Israel in fact never claimed anything else, arguing that it had a higher moral authority. So we can't call it arrest. --Zero 10:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Lovely, someone changed kidnap to capture, and then added "war criminal". Dont you just love double standards on Misplaced Pages? How about we compromise, and say they "captured" him, but add "innocent of being a" before war criminal?It will be just as factual :rolleyes: --Bastion 09:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• It's pretty interesting. I think a good neutral term would be "apprehended". Sure, technically he was kidnapped, but kidnapping is a crime, while extrajudicially arresting a genocidal mass murderer is somewhat iffy. It's really a wash; he was kidnapped, he was apprehended, he was arrested (albeit illegally), he deserved it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Technically, it's far from clear that he was kidnapped. The US federal kidnapping statute, for example, defines kidnapping as an act done by abductors who seek some benefit for themselves, thus excluding actions carried out by government agents working for the government. It is instructive to look at the way wikipedia treats the abduction of an Egyptian suspect from Italy by CIA agents: The action is described as ' The agents are alleged to have taken a suspected Egyptian militant ', and later, "The removal of the militant wasn't unusual ". Kidnap implies illegal action carried out for personal gain. As such , it is both incorrect and POV. 'Capture' or 'aprehend' or even 'abduct' is NPOV.

• • • Capture or apprehend are POV in this case, as they have no basis in fact - kidnap however, does. "kidnapping n. the taking of a person against his/her will (or from the control of a parent or guardian) from one place to another under circumstances in which the person so taken does not have freedom of movement, will, or decision through violence, force, threat or intimidation." Israel kidnapped and executed him for revenge, are you saying that wasnt personal gain(presuming you view the state as an entity?). Kidnap is a legal term, and what Israel did meets all the criteria(being for gain isnt one of them, it's just common). You have to learn that negative doesnt automatically mean its POV(although this seems to be a massive problem with people who support israel on wiki) Israel even admitted to violating Argentina's sovereignty, and apologised to them. Hell, even the CIA called it kidnap in the days after they got wind of it(you can check on the national security archive.). --Bastion 19:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • • He was captured and apprehended. How can you seriously claim this has no basis in fact? I've provided you with at least one definition of kidnapping, under which the act would not be kidnapping. You can bluster all you want about "being for gain isnt one of them" - but it clearly *is* under US law. As you say, kidnapping is a legal term, and under the legal definition of kidnapping in the US, this act doesn't fit the definition. The dictionary definition you used, incidently, is NOT the legal definition of kidnapping, as it would include lawful arrest by the police, or the capture of a POW.

I also find interesting your concept that trying people for crimes against humanity is an act of "revenge", vs. say, justice. But even if it was for "revenge" , there is still no personal gain invloved for the Mossad aganets. Israel admitted to violating Argentina's soverignity , and this fact is mentioned in the article about the Eichmann trial, but that does not equate with kidnapping. Rather than being a problem with supporters of Israel on wiki, it seems that the problem rests with detractors of Israel, as the double standard evidenced by the CIA article I've quoted for you shows.Isarig

• US law is totally irrelevant, so we can drop it from the discussion. But I think a look at Extradition#Extradition and abduction might be useful. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

9/11

The long section on the white van on 9/11 is too much and ought to be moved somewhere else with a link. --Zero 10:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It should be dumped: if this was true, it would be all over the news. ←Humus sapiens 10:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"It should be dumped: if this was true, it would be all over the news."

Not necessarily. It's in the news, and the incident is a fact that should be mentioned in this article, as it relates to Mossad, and is a significant event, possibly failed operation. As it hasn't been proven that they were Mossad (but proven that they were Israelis) it has been placed in the Conspiracy theories section. Serouj 10:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What "fact"? A traumatized lady saw in binoculars what she thought was a smile? Being Israeli is not a crime. ←Humus sapiens 10:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Remove the garbage. --Haizum 12:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Humus sapiens > What "fact"?

The incident is the fact.Serouj 20:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Humus sapiens > "A traumatized lady saw in binoculars..."

I don't see any mention of a "traumatized" lady. That's an assumption that you're making. Serouj 20:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Humus sapiens > "...what she thought was a smile?"

The pictures were developed, and sure enough, they were smiling with the World Trade Centers burning in the background. Serouj 20:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Humus sapiens > "Being Israeli is not a crime."

No one said it is. But these individuals who were taking photographs with the World Trade Centers burning in the background were Israelis. Cheers. Serouj 20:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Haizum > "Remove the garbage."

You're entitled to your point of view, but this is a valid news item, and not "garbage." I don't see why we should try to cover up this incident, and make it seem like it never happened. Serouj 20:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What never happened? ←Humus sapiens 21:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"It" in my previous sentence refers to the "incident," which did happen (and is documented), but you seem to be intent on making it seem like it never happened, by removing it from this article. Serouj 22:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What "incident"? What did happen? What "is documented"? ←Humus sapiens

What happened is that five young Israelis (at least 2 of which were working for the Mossad) were arrested by New Jersey state police, after a woman found them filming the World Trade Centers burning and taking photos of themselves smiling with the World Trade Centers burning. "The arresting officers said they saw a lot that aroused their suspicion about the men. One of the passengers had $4,700 in cash hidden in his sock. Another was carrying two foreign passports. A box cutter was found in the van." The men worked for Urban Moving Systems, and "the FBI believed Urban Moving may have been providing cover for an Israeli intelligence operation." And its owner vanished during the investigation: "The owner had also cleared out of his New Jersey home, put it up for sale and returned with his family to Israel." Also, the five were in the U.S. illegally: "The five Israelis were held at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, ostensibly for overstaying their tourist visas and working in the United States illegally." It's been reported that at least two of the men were Israeli intelligence (i.e. Mossad): "Eventually, The Forward, a respected Jewish newspaper in New York, reported the FBI concluded that two of the men were Israeli intelligence operatives." While it's unclear if these agents were working for or against the U.S. and if they had advanced knowledge of 9/11, at least some of them were working for the Mossad. Thanks and regards. Serouj 23:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

...And they were kept in detention for 2 1/2 months before being sent back to Israel. Serouj 23:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

When others were filming the disaster, there was no problem. When others were detained by the police, it was "injustice", "anti-Arabism" and "Islamophobia". But here, it is a proof of some kind of conspiracy. Sensation: a boxcutter found in Urban Moving van! ←Humus sapiens 00:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion and interpretation, but they were working for Mossad, and the FBI says so according to the article. Serouj 02:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not implying that the Mossad knew about 9/11 before hand or had any part in organizing 9/11 (although they are possibilities - "conspiracy theories"). What we do know is that at least two of these young Israelis were working for the Mossad. I initially had this information under "Failed Operations" but User:Isarig suggested we place it under conspiracy theories. Now that we're revisiting this, I don't think a conspiracy theory is implied here; it's simply a fact that two Mossad operatives were arrested and held for 2 1/2 months in a U.S. prison. The rest is the details... I therefore propose moving this into failed operations. Thanks. Serouj 03:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong about just about everything you wrote above. The source does not say the FBI says they were Mossad agents. It says 'sources tell ABCNEWS there is still debate within the FBI over whether or not the young men were spies.'. Other sources that were previously in the articl ehad the FBI categorically denying they were intelligence agentsts. I did not suggest we place it under conspiracy theories - i said that if you feel you must mention this - it belongs in consipracy theories, not failed operations - but I don't htink this belongs in the article at all. Isarig 04:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Isarig > "The source does not say the FBI says they were Mossad agents."

Here's the part of the article that says that they were indeed Mossad operatives: "Eventually, The Forward, a respected Jewish newspaper in New York, reported the FBI concluded that two of the men were Israeli intelligence operatives." Even Kurzberg's lawyer says he has previously worked for the Mossad: "Another of his lawyers told us Kurzberg had been reluctant to take the test because he had once worked for Israeli intelligence in another country." There's no denying that at least two of the Israelis arrested worked for Mossad. As to what they were doing, that is another issue, and irrelevant here. Once we've established that they were Mossad operatives, we can include them in the article. Thanks.Serouj 04:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, once we've established that they were Mossad operatives, we can include them in the article. You hvae not established that, far from it. Isarig 04:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

We have already established this fact and I quote again from the article, "Eventually, The Forward, a respected Jewish newspaper in New York, reported the FBI concluded that two of the men were Israeli intelligence operatives." What part of that quote don't you understand? Serouj 04:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I apparently understand a lot more than you. For starters, it does not say 'Mossad', and there are quite a number of Israeli intelligence agencies. The most you have established is that a single paper claimed that 2 were intelligence operatives, while other sources have the FBI explictly denying this. Isarig 04:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Name the other Israeli intelligence agencies. 2. Show me who says the FBI is denying that they were Israeli intelligence. Point. Serouj 05:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Some of them are listed in the intro paragraph of this very article - "It is one of the several main Intelligence Community intelligence entities in Israel, such as the Aman (military intelligence) and Shabak". Other agneies include the Lakam, and the Israeli police's intelligence arm. The link you orinially included here (from YouTube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcON2XbFR3I )end with a statement that the FBI cleared all 5 arrested form any involvement in 9/11. Similar statements can be found here. Now you - show me an FBI statmenet that says they were Mossad agents.Isarig 16:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the Israeli Intelligence Community article, the Mossad is "the agency responsible primarily for overseas intelligence work." Since these Israeli intelligence agents were arrested in New Jersey, it makes sense to place this under the Mossad article and not the Shabak (internal security), not Aman (military intelligence), not the Israeli Police intelligence, and not the Center for Political Research. This incident is going in one of the Israeli intelligence articles. Which one do you suggest? I was suggesting Mossad, since they are the ones involved in overseas operations, and this incident happened overseas. BTW, you can't use a voice-over in a YouTube video as evidence that at least the two who were arrested were not Israeli intelligence; The Forward and ABCNews both report that at least two were Israeli intelligence. This is all the shred of evidence that is needed to include this incident in one of the Israeli intelligence articles. Isarig and Amoruso are clearly trying to cover up this incident, and I don't like it one bit. Serouj 03:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What you are doing above is original research. It may "make sense" to you to do this, but it is not claimed by the source you are citing, and it may "make sense" for others to do the opposite. As the Mossad article makes clear, the Shabak does operate abroad, (see the Secret Speech of Nikita Khrushchev), and Aman does as well. This is all a side issue. The main point is that unlike the NZ incident, where the NZ gov't officially accused Israel of conducting an intelligence operation , and the Israeli gov't, at least implicitly , conceded that was true - in this case all we have is an unsourced allegation, not carried by mainstream media, not sourced to any US gov't official, denied by both the captured people and Israel - in other words - an unsubstantiated rumor, or a conspiracy theory. As such, at best it may warrant a brief mention in the "conspiracy theory' section, alongside claims that Mossad was responsible for murdering Princess Diana, nothing more. Isarig 04:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Isarig, don't be silly. This isn't "original research"; I've only referenced an article by ABCNews. I haven't added anything to it. We're not talking about conspiracy theories. We're talking about a simple arrest of at least 2 Israeli intelligence operatives. Which Israeli intelligence agency they were working for is another issue - whether Mossad, Shabak, etc. Serouj 04:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If your source does not say they were Mossad (and it doesn't), and you conclude that they are, based on the fact that some other WP article says Mossad is the primary Israeli intelligence agency working outside of Israel, and that it thus "makes sense" for you to categorize them as Mossad - you are engaging in ]. For this reason alone, this incident can't be mentioned here based only on the source you cite. I repeat: All you have is allegation, not carried by a mainstream media outlet, sourced to an anonymous source, which alleges they are intelligence agents. This is unsubstantiated rumor, nothing more, and at best worthy of a brief mention under conspiracy theories. Isarig 04:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Right. The source does not say "Mossad," and I'm fine in placing this in a more general Israeli intelligence Misplaced Pages article. I wanted your opinion as to which one it should go into. A mainstream media outlet, ABCNews cites The Forward (which ABCNews considers is "a respected Jewish newspaper in New York") which in turn states that "the FBI concluded that two of the men were Israeli intelligence operatives." Now, this is a fact. And you're certainly entitled to your opinion that their arrest is a "rumor" or a "conspiracy theory." I'd like to hear the opinion of more neutral (non-Jewish) users on this issue. Serouj 04:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone here is a Formula 1 Agenda driver. --Haizum 07:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

My favorite part of this argument is how the writer for the Israeli/9.11 connection isn't credible at all; he's a leader in the conspiracy theory 'movement.' I'm probably going to remove that garbage citation at some point for being noncompliant, but I won't say when. --Haizum 07:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks don't get you very far in a debate. Serouj 09:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, we're not talking about Mossad's or Israel's involvement in 9/11, and not even Mossad's or Israel's prior knowledge of 9/11. We're simply talking about at least 2 Mossad operatives being caught by New Jersey state police, the FBI, and the CIA, and being held for 2 1/2 months prior to being deported back to Israel. That's it. This constitutes a failed operation, and is similar to how two Mossad agents were caught in New Zealand in July, 2004. Since the latter (the New Zealand case) is mentioned, then I don't see any reason why the former (the United States case) should not be part of this article. Thanks. Serouj 09:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI the article I am quoting from above is "The White Van: Were Israelis Detained on Sept. 11 Spies?". ABCNews.com. June 21, 2002. Retrieved November 30, 2006. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). Best. Serouj 09:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This constitutes a failed operation Unless the operation was to be arrested by the FBI to survey the effectiveness of hotline tips, interrogation techniques, etc. Oh, you don't think so? Well then, please enlighten us all with the mission plan and how the arrest and release of two operatives constituted a mission failure per said plan. Oh, what's that? You don't have a copy of the mission plan? Gosh, that's sort of problematic for your premise, you know, the one that reads, This constitutes a failed operation. --Haizum 09:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you bring up a good point. The details of the operation needn't be known. For example, the precise operation in which the two Mossad operatives arrested in New Zealand in July, 2004, is unknown. Nevertheless, this event constitutes a failed operation, and that's why you see it in the Mossad article, under failed operations. The September 11, 2001, arrest of at least 2 Israelis working for Mossad is the same scenario: Mossad agents caught in a foreign country, detained for a period of time, then deported. I see no reason why this incident (which occurred in the U.S.A.) should be left out of this article, while a similar event that happened in New Zealand is included. Serouj 10:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ignoratio elenchi. Forget the New Zealand arrest, I'll challenge that one on the same grounds. Logic commands that if you're going to call a mission a failure, you must know what the contents of that mission plan are. You must. You must. You must. Operation Wrath of God had operatives die trying to complete the mission. They weren't arrested, they died. So, how does an arrest of an operative constitute a complete "failure" of a mission when 1. the mission plan isn't known, 2. the mission plan may still have been carried out despite the loss of an operative? Submit to logic. --Haizum 10:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why some people are going to such lengths to cover up this incident. All I want is for this article to mention this arrest, as it does the New Zealand arrest. I think this is a very legitimate request. Haizum, we can create a new section, if need be, titled something like "Captured Mossad Operatives," if you don't accept including the New Zealand and U.S. arrests under the "Failed Operations." That would be fine by me. Serouj 10:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not that big of a deal to me, really, it isn't. Captured/exposed Mossad agents is definitely notable, and maybe a new section would be in order. However, to link 9/11 with a "Mossad operation that failed" simply because some operatives were caught is problematic because it implies that 1.their operation had something to do with 9/11 one way or another and 2.that the unknown operation actually failed. That's all I'm saying. --Haizum ‡ μολὼν λαβέ 10:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The wording should be careful as to not imply (1) an involvement in 9/11, and (2) that they had prior knowledge. The arrest should be noted, the date, the circumstances, and the result (being deported). Serouj 10:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose a new subsection of "High profile ops" could be started since most of their ops would be considered zero or low profile - any public expsoure would be high profile for them. The word "compromised" comes to mind, since it leaves mission status ambiguous, but at the same time expresses the fact that an operative was outed somehow. This word also doesn't indicate if a mission plan was even present. Hmn, so maybe "Compromised Mossad Actions"? 'Actions' leaves the presence of a mission plan ambiguous, yet we can assume that when Mossad operatives are present, they are performing some sort of covert action (just by being secret agents), mission or not. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds to me like a good plan. Serouj 23:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Just made the changes. Let me know what you think.Serouj 03:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Serouj, Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:No personal attacks Do not call other people vandals for deleting poorly sourced materials or for content disputes. What you wrote was pure imaginary WP:OR and therefore removed. The source only said they suspected they worked for intelligence (mossad not even mentioned) and this was denied and that's it - nothing with actual depth. Amoruso 03:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Correction: it's not clear if it even suspected it. all the source says is that Vince Cannistraro, "a former chief of operations for counterterrorism with the CIA who is now a consultant for ABCNEWS" says that they suspected it but " The men denied that they had been working for Israeli intelligence out of the New Jersey moving company, and Ram Horvitz, their Israeli attorney, dismissed the allegations as "stupid and ridiculous." Mark Regev, the spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, goes even further, asserting the issue was never even discussed with U.S. officials. "These five men were not involved in any intelligence operation in the United States, and the American intelligence authorities have never raised this issue with us," Regev said. "The story is simply false." This is what is called extreme poorly sourced to suggest this was actually something related to mossad. btw, these poor souls were later interviewed in Israeli tv to their trauma being arrested and there's no doubt that they had nothing to do with the mossad obviously... it's hard to keep such secrets in israel. Amoruso 03:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, My source is ABCNews and I hardly would consider that a "poor" source. The Israeli newspaper, The Forward also covered this incident, and is mentioned in the ABCNews article. You deleted text from a Misplaced Pages article whose contents were discussed in the "Talk" section, and you yourself did not use Talk before deleting text. That constitutes vandalism. This incident is documented by two respectable news sources. Point.Serouj 03:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the part of the ABCNews article that mentions that they were indeed working for Israeli Intelligence: "Eventually, The Forward, a respected Jewish newspaper in New York, reported the FBI concluded that two of the men were Israeli intelligence operatives."Serouj

You are quoting the spokesman for the Israeli Embassy. Do you think the Israeli Embassy would admit fault if they were Israeli Intelligence agents? Of course not. Serouj 04:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

According to The Forward the FBI confirmed their involvement with Israeli Intelligence. Serouj 04:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

which is it then ? Israeli or jewish new yorkian ? <sigh> It's ok to delete poorly sourced material without discussing it first, it's not vandalism anyway it's a content dispute. To the point, I've explained to you why that story doesn't have any "meat" to it to be included. However, it is already mentioned in the conspiracy link - this story about 5 israelis being arrested because they took photos - is true, and it serves a basis for a conspiracy theory not for proof of a mossad operation. Anyway, let it go, it won't stick obviously because it's just 5 guys taking photos and detained for a while... cheers. Amoruso 04:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't buy that. All I want is a simple acknowledgement of the arrest of these 2 people working for Israeli Intelligence. We're not talking about a conspiracy theory here. We're talking about the capture of 2 Mossad operatives in the United States, similar to the capture of 2 Mossad operatives in New Zealand. There is no reason why one should be included and not the other. Whether or not there is enough "meat" is your point of view; if the FBI has said they worked for Israeli intelligence, that is meat enough for me. Serouj 04:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I've explained the difference between the two incidents above, take the time to read it. If the FBI has said they worked for Israeli intelligence, that is meat enough for me, too - now show us where the FBI said it, not an allegation my a non-mainstream media outlet that an unnamed FBI source said so. Isarig 04:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I just read your note above and responded to it. Isarig, we all get our news from somewhere. Whether or not a newspaper is a mainstream media outlet or a non-mainstream media outlet is beside the point. But despite that, ABCNews (which I think you might consider a "mainstream media outlet") considers The Forward "a respected Jewish newspaper in New York." If ABCNews considers them respectable, then I sort of do, too... Serouj 04:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

it's already mentioned in the conspiracy link. "and more recently the September 11th attacks" : "From the very morning aircraft smashed into the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon, news reports have indicated Israeli intelligence being involved in the events of 9/11 - and the planting of "false flags" to blame Arab terrorists and mold public opinion to support the pre-planned "war on terror."

"Shortly after the destruction of the twin towers, radio news reports described five "Middle Eastern men" being arrested in New Jersey after having been seen videotaping and celebrating the explosive "collapses" of the WTC." ....... it's all there. If you honestly can't see that this is a classic conspiracy theory... Amoruso 04:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

End of Introduction

This should be changed:

"Islamic Fundamentalism"

into

"Islamist terrorism" and linking to: Islamist terrorism

Reason is that otherwise you imply that Mossad combats a religion. I assume that is not what is meant.

A human 05:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Is somehow Mossad and ICQ connected?

I hear that Mossad is runnig ICQ. The best way how to get free info.

Where did you hear this nonsense? Do you also think AOL (which owns ICQ since 1998) is run by Mossad? altmany 19:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not Mossad, but Mirabilis was an Israeli start-up. I have heard right-wing (or was it far-left? Extremists overlap to me) sources claiming that there was a Mossad connection, but Mirabilis has since been bought out by Time Warner. Are they part of the Zionist conspiracy too? Oi. Joey 17:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The "zionist conspiracy." Lol.

too subjective

"It has also been at the forefront of several publicly embarrassing failures." this line is far too subjective and should only be in this discussion forum.BTW i am a muslim

edit

I removed "bloody terrorists thats what they are" because it was obvious vandalism, biased, and located in a place that didn't make sense.

Read WP:TPG before posting. Haizum 08:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

the torrorists are what then ???--69.114.174.131 22:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Lack of NPOV

Why are the Mossad successes in a shoddy bullet list while the failures are carefully written out? On top of that fact, some of the "failures" simply indicate that their cover was blown from time to time; that's hardly notable. Which anti-semitic Misplaced Pages editor is responsible for this? (semi-facetious) Haizum 08:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you just add this precious info to the article? I guess majority don't know anything about those failures. I'll remove npov tag --tasc 14:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Just because I discovered that the article fails the NPOV litmus doesn't mean I have to be the one to provide the requisite information to make it NPOV. Your removal of the NPOV tag is completely baseless, anyone can see that. Haizum

You don't have to fix the article yourself, and you don't even have to explain how it might be fixed. However, as the tag itself states, you have to put a summary in Talk of why you think the tag is deserved. Without this information there is no reason to keep the tag. Summarising your reasons here will also bring the benefit that other editors may see your point and agree with you, or that a discussion may start. A tag all by itself is pretty useless. --Zero 02:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It's your responsibility to read all prior posts. I already explained why the article (or section) fails the NPOV litmus; it's called the first post of this thread. Haizum 02:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Hazium, history of your contribution doesn't create an image of reliable and NPOV-adherent user. Sorry, but blanking, quality and amount of your contribution in main namespace make this kind of talk pointless. as well as your attitude. --tasc 10:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

What you call "blanking" was actually removing vandalism, and this was established by multiple editors and administrators. You're right, I guess my efforts are pointless if other editors are going to draw erroneous conclusions (or lie). Your fallacious stance with regards to a new editor's contributions is also less than helpful to Misplaced Pages. Haizum 13:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Supporting what I've already observed in the past, this thread is a typical show of bureaucratic diversionism and maintaining the status quo for the sake of an agenda. How so? No one has succeeded in answering a simple question: the first question in the first line of this thread. Everything in between that sentence and my impending truncation of this one is Misplaced Pages as I define it. Haizum 13:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Krushchev's speech

I deleted this: "* Audio surveillance of Nikita Khrushchev's Secret Speech. The recording was later turned over to the CIA." because it isn't true. In fact, the speech was obtained by the Shin Bet, not the Mossad, and it wasn't a recording but a photocopy of a Polish edition sent to Warsaw. The details (a fascinating story) can be found in Haaretz: and . --Zero 04:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Rearrangement of successes/failures

I slightly rearranged both of them to be subcategories under "Well known operations"(edit: ended up changing again to "High profile"). I felt is was necessary to indicate that these are just some of the more notable public occurrences, not an actual list of their operations. To bring it up again, is it possible to expand a bit more on their successes? The meager bulleted list doesn't seem like much against the full explanations of their failures, although the positive occurrences are no less noteworthy. Abhorreo 20:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Constant Gardener quotation

From the John le Carré film The Constant Gardener:

Tessa Quayle: "I thought you spies knew everything, Tim?"

Tim Donohue: "Only God knows everything, and he works for Mossad."

I know it's not encyclopaedic and shouldn't be in the article, but it ought to be recorded somewhere. It's just such a great line... Tyrhinis 19:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree the quote doesn't belong here--maybe under the film's entry? There are many possible interpretations of the line anyway, I'm curious what you think it means.

The KGB article has a trivia section, so perhaps there could be a "Popular Culture" section at the end of this article. Joshdboz 15:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it means that the true God is the Jewish God? --Dmichelsohn 22:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Controversies

Surely the controversy surrounding Mossad should be mentioned, such as the fact that the organisation frequently violates international laws, for example abductions and assassinations.

To distinguish it from which other intelligence agencies? You're not trying to highlight a specific 'controversy.' It would be controversial if Mossad didn't violate international laws. That's why states maintain clandestine services after all. Since ignoring other countries' laws is intrinsic to what intelligence agencies do what would be the point to singling out one agency?

Successful operations subsection

I expanded the piece on Gerald Bull, hopefully just the first expansion of many in that section. I took the informtion from the Gerald Bull WP article. I also cited the source, although i'm not sure that citing another WP article is allowed/means anything. Perhaps, if neccesary, the sources from the Bull article could be used for the piece here. s»abhorreo»i 04:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages can't cite itself. Jayjg 22:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh well. I added an external reference. s»abhorreo»i 07:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Copywrite Problem

The subsection Departments and Personnel is a partial copy of a portion of this page. I don't see any problems with the rest of the article, so I would just suggest a rewrite of this particular section. Joshdboz 15:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

JFK Assassination

I removed this section for two reasons: 1. Poorly written. 2. The source provided was shoddy at best. In terms of reliability, it was somewhere between a LaRouche rant and the National Enquirer. It should not be included unless a better source is provided.

AKA Vandalism. It was added in two places, you missed one. I removed the other. _si»abhorreo» 11:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

"Convincing Madonna and others in the entertainment industry who are not Jewish to participate in the rituals and mysticism of the Kaballah." Uhh...ok? Where is the citation? Seems like an anti-semite wrote this part. Cman 05:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Gerald Bull was working on a Giant Cannon not a scud missle. The cannon shells could have reached into Israel.

Peer Review

I've just requested a peer review for Operation Wrath of God, which was a campaign directed by the Mossad to kill those responsible for the 1972 Munich Massacre. I'd appreciate any comments and suggestions. Thanks.--Joshdboz 11:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

About Klein's allegations there, I don't think his claims are so groundbreaking. Israel never claimed it was killing only those who were responsible directly, essentially left only those 3 probably at the time, but the organization who sent them. Klein as I can see doesn't refute that key members of the Black September were killed (such as Abu Youssef), including (eventually) its leader. Israel's assassinations are the reason this group was dissolved completly because of its members being wiped off. Some of them had only indirect responsibility obviously. Amoruso 21:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

History->Structure: Tel-Aviv=capital of Israel?!Structure:_Tel-Aviv=capital_of_Israel?!-2006-08-10T13:56:00.000Z">

In this article, at the History-Structure headline, Tel Aviv is mentioned as the capital of Israel. Are my eyes fooling me? DDRRE 13:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Structure:_Tel-Aviv=capital_of_Israel?!"> Structure:_Tel-Aviv=capital_of_Israel?!">

Myths

There should be a mention of how the Mossad is blamed for many high-profile operations without any evidence. (For examples, just read the earlier parts of this talk page!) Since most talk of "Mossad" in a significant part of the world is about the myth of the organization, not its actual operations, a list of these mythical operations — and the resulting reputation of the Mossad — should be presented (with a clear statement that there is no evidence, let alone proof, to support the myths). Calbaer 21:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Operation Grapes of Wrath as a success

I am unsure what Operation Grapes of Wrath should be described as. It was successful in that it killed many members of the PLO and Black September. But:

1. It is in dispute as to how many of the people who were killed were actually involved in Munich
2. Ditto for how high-ranking the people were
3. The Lillehammer Affair

What do others think? Batmanand | Talk 22:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The Lillehammer Affair is already mentioned on the "failed operations". The operation was successful in assassinating 10+ members of Black September. Whether that was wise or had a positive impact is a question that can be asked over evey asssassination, but as for this succint list, I think it's fairest to say it was successful while listing the failed affair on the failed section like it's now. Amoruso 12:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

OK I can see what you are saying. Was just a thought. Batmanand | Talk 20:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Some critics

Is it possible to introduce a section about critics of the Mossad operations:

Is that site serious or is it a parody though ? Amoruso 06:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and introduce it --Nielswik_(talk) 08:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

History contradtiction

The date for established (under the logo) contradicts the date given in the History section.

Liastnir 14:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Israel wasn't even an official state until mid-1948. Joshdboz 21:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Personnel

The History section states "Its current staff is estimated at approximately 1,200", yet the Structure section states "the Mossad oversees a staff estimated at approximately 3000 personnel". Which is it?

role section

what was it based on... i think the wp:v version was in intro. Amoruso 06:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Popular culture

One of the bullet points in this section of the article simply states "The Evil Mossad and their Zionist supporters create many troubles throughout the world." Is this a case of vandalism?

I think that section is a bit presumptious. Mossad is mentioned in infinite sources of popular culture like CIA, KGB and MI6. These don't have popular culture sections AFAIK. Amoruso 12:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Unassessed Israel-related articles
• Unknown-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles