Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Zionist terrorism - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Jonesey95 (talk | contribs) at 23:50, 4 November 2024 (Fix Linter errors.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

Revision as of 23:50, 4 November 2024 by Jonesey95 (talk | contribs) (Fix Linter errors.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, and I don't think letting this stay on VFD any longer will bring about a consensus. Defaults to keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zionist terrorism

This discussion was not linked to the main VfD page, so I guess, the countdown for it starts today. mikka (t) 02:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)
    I need to go in to the political motivations behind this article? Please, it only really exists because the Israel-haters cannot handle having 'palestinian terrorism' (something indisputable) without having to come up with their own counter. This article will never be agreed upon in terms of bias, facts or NPOV , because it's whole existence is completely for political reasons rather than a desire for facts, and it will always try to portray disputed actions as terrorist, irrespective of the reality. Strong Delete. Curiosity 08:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Can it not state that the actions' being "terrorist" is disputed? Are you suggesting that there are no "Zionists" who have ever done anything that has been considered "terrorist"? We all know that "terrorist" is more a label than a description. As many others do, I try to minimise the label's use in WP, given that it's always POV, as you correctly note.Grace Note 13:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    It may be able to state that, but if the "terrorist" nature is disputed, then it really shouldn't be the title, should it? And I am aware that there are Zionists who have done things that have been considered "terrorist", but I'm also perfectly aware that a lot of the actions are being moulded and exaggerated to fit that description, and when compared to acts of terrorism today (by palestinians, amongst others) absolutely pale in comparison when you look at the brutality and the targets. Different motivations also come in to play. Palestinian terrorism is aimed at death and destruction primarily, as is evidenced by increased violence the nearer peace seems to get, because it's ultimate objective is not a palestinian state but an end to Israel. The so called "zionist terrorism" was not about eradication of a state or deliberate killing of people, on any level, nevermind a primary level. Look at the attacks (and I refer mainly to groups, not lone lunatics like Goldstein), they're on HQs etc., calculated to achieve an objective. Palestinians blow up buses and shoot innocent people, things which cannot help their objective at all. Also see my response further down the page.Curiosity 14:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • "It may be able to state that, but if the "terrorist" nature is disputed, then it really shouldn't be the title, should it?" I think my point was that the "terrorist nature" is always disputed by someone. I'm not getting into a debate with you about who is or is not a terrorist. You've made it clear enough why you oppose the article's inclusion. Grace Note 14:24, 14 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)
    • In answer to those who may not understand why this is inherently biased, try this thought experiment: change "Zionist" into "Jewish" -- which is the POV this article is intending to perpetuate. Would "Jewish terrorism" be an appropriate topic here, or one that would be more fitting to an Anti-Semitic site, such as this one listing "Past Zionist-Jewish Terrorism?" Or the Palestinian Information Center which lists a litany of so-called "(Jewish) Zionist Terrorist" acts and "illustrates the brutal ugliness of the Jewish Zionist mentality" claiming, "the entire Zionist history, at least since the establishment of the malignant Zionist entity called Israel, has been a huge accumulative criminal file."

      The Semantics of the article is in large part the problem: using "Zionist" as an adjective to modify terrorism implies that there is a continuing, ongoing effort by Zionists (i.e. Jews) to commit terrorist acts -- tantamount to claiming Zionism a terrorist ideology. A less loaded title would be "Terrorism by Zionists", but that still suffers from the inherent problem of holding up and singling out a particular political group for indictment before all others. For example, while there is an entry for Irish Republican Army there is no entry for IRA Terrorism. Likewise where are the Pakistani Terrorism or Kashmiri Terrorism articles? (I will grant that there is a List_of_ETA_attacks -- but the ETA is an avowed terrorist entity) In fact, the only place on the Web you find the term "Zionist terrorism" is in anti-Israel or anti-Jewish sources.

      And in my view, the only place on Misplaced Pages that would be appropriate to list so-called "Zionist terrorism" would be in a contextual article such as List_of_terrorist incidents --LeFlyman 16:57, 14 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)
    • This is not a published book-- it is a 30-year old thesis-dissertation. Clicking on the "other editions link, makes this clear. A single post-grad thesis from 1977 ago does not make a notable term. --LeFlyman 16:57, 14 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 and militancy. 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
      • 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)
  • Strong Delete enough of this disruptive pseudo-balancing. Klonimus 03:43, 14 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
Weak Delete I still think there needs to be an article covering this topic, but after looking at what sources use the term "zionist terrorism" I've realized there's too much political bias associated with those words to create a neutral article. --Cypherx 16:18, 14 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)
Agree Klonimus 03:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So the attack on the Pentagon on Sept. 11 was legitimate guerilla warfare because the target was a military headquarters? Just making sure we're clear on that. --FCYTravis 02:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, certainly more of an act of war than the WTC, which is an act of terrorism. Why wouldn't it be an act of war to specifically target the adversary's military HQ? Didn't the US attempt to specifically bomb the German military HQ in WWII? Because it was a suicide run? Compare to kamikaze attacks. Because it was without warning and without a declaration of war? Compare to Pearl Harbor. Gzuckier 20:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Im 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)
Well, as I've observed, we bombed the crap out of German government offices in Berlin in WWII and nobody suggested that was terrorism because of the civilian workers killed there. Compare to Dresden, which is much more controversial in terms of civilian losses for no explicit military gain. I didn't make this up; the international Laws of War allow for collateral damage proportional to the desired military objective; i.e. blowing up an enemy shipyard despite the loss of many civilians is permitted, versus blowing up a hospital to nail one annoying sniper on the roof is not. Gzuckier 20:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


No-one has mentioned the fact that a specific WARNING was given of the King David Hotel bombing beforehand. Had the warning been followed and the building evacuated, instead of the warning being dismissed, the casualties would have been far lower if any at all. The fact there was a warning, shows there was not an intention to kill people, especially civilians, certainly not as the primary motivation. Terrorist attacks try to kill as many as possible as a way of coercion, they deliberately target civilian populations. This attack was on a military target and efforts were made to keep casualties down. Once again, it's a stretch and definitely POV to call it 'terrorist', especially when compared to say al-qaeda/palestinian terrorism where the main objective is killing as many innocent people as possible. A bus/restaurant/disco is not a military target, so bloeing it up with intent to kill innocents is terrorism. Blowing up a political/military HQ after specifically warning the people you're going to do so and they should evacuate? If that's 'terrorism' then there are obviously drastically different levels of 'terrorism'. Yet another example of the anti-Israelis on here trying desperately to create an equivalency between actions that simply isn't there.Curiosity 11:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't think most people are claiming equivalency between Hamas and Etzel. However, Etzel and Lehi blew a great number of people and places in the years preceding the founding of Israel, and many of those people were non-combatants. You don't have to be as evil as Hamas to be a terrorist.
I think your issues with the POV of the article can be addressed within the article itself, rather than by deleting it. --Cypherx 15:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"No-one has mentioned the fact that a specific WARNING was given of the King David Hotel bombing beforehand." Staff at the King David Hotel are on record as saying that they were recieving daily (sometimes more often) hoax warnings during the period - enough that they effectively had no warning. So yes - technically there was a warning given but... lets not be too keen to run up to that moral highh ground.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.64.15 (talk • contribs)

Interesting if true. Any reference for that? --Cypherx 19:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
BBC TV documentary last year where they interviewed all of the survivors they could find. One of the people they interviewed was the woman who took the warning call. She absolutely confirmed that she had recieved one - then explained why it was not acted upon. Alas you can't link to a TV broadcast (and they have no transcript online) so I'll wait till I see a transcript before altering an article in the main encyclopedia. Fascinating show they also interviewed the woman who made the call - who seemed terribly proud, much like the French Resistance Fighters you sometimes see interviewed. In her mind she was clearly a Freedom Fighter not a terrorist.
  • 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 The facts this article talks about are too different to be united in a single 'zionist terrorist' article. It looks to me as an anti-zionist article, and nothing more. (Is El-C happy ?)--Revas 00:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for reading my excerpts bellow. I translated them from Hebrew precisely for those editors voting Keep or Delete without any explanation whatsoever! So it gives me great pleasure to see that my efforts were worthwhile! :) El_C 00:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Ecstatic! El_C 05:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE, as strongly as possible That the Islamists are here making asses of themselves as usual is a great reason to get rid of this nonsense. The less playgrounds they have the better Misplaced Pages is. — Unsigned by 207.241.238.149. Note that user has less than ten edits. El_C 00:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Israeli terrorism and rename into a less loaded title. IMO there is no reason to split the hair. But if there is, it better be explained. mikka (t) 02:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • many of the acts discussed were committed before the founding of the state of Israel and cannot be considered "Israeli terrorism"
  • the article Israeli terrorism is much worse than Zionist terrorism and itself should be deleted
--Cypherx 02:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • A repugnant minority of Zionists committed acts of terrorism before Israel was set up. These deserve an article. Keep. -- Hoary 02:48, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
  • Keep This is encyclopedic, and notable. At most, it should be {{NPOV}}'ed and {{cleanup}}'ed. Bratsche 02:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course - unless all the "_ terrorism" articles are deleted. - Mustafaa 03:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Yeah, we wouldn't want indsiputable palestinian terrorism to have a page if we can't have a deeply biased and inaccurate one about those 'Israeli/Zionist scum' as well, right? Curiosity 08:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If there are content problems sort them out in the article.--Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I am neither a muslim or a jew but if there's an Islamist terrorism then it can only be fair to have one on Zionist terrorism. Ultimately, both topics will stir up contrversy but that doesn't mean they're not notable. The fact is that you can't run from your past and our job is to present facts. This page definetly needs some clean up and removal of some POV statements but that doesn't warrent deletion. If as Mustafaa said, if you delete this, you have to set the precedent and delete all _ terrorism articles. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 04:10, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep regardless of current content, a valid subject for an article XmarkX 06:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Unlike the above article on Israeli terrorism, there have been clear examples of terrorism by Zionist organisations. Capitalistroadster 05:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. And merge content with Israeli terrorism Most of the actions described here are esentially linked with the Israeli state and even geographically are happening mostly within a close distance to the borders, so separate article for just Zionist terrorism apart from Israel state's one is unnecessary and creates undesired POV tensions. --Oneliner 07:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for reposting this from Israeli terrorism's VfD page, but as I said there: "I strongly disagree with this reoccuring suggestion to merge Zionist terrorism and Israeli state terrorism. I think it's a worse violation of NPOV to associate the actions of pre-Israel paramilitary groups with the Israeli government than it is to have an article on Zionist terrorism. Irgun and Lehi were a small minority of Jewish militants in the 1930s and 1940s, and the majority disagreed with and distanced themselves from violence against civilians. You can't equate Irgun or Lehi with Israel. Flip the tables and see if this merge still makes sense. Imagine a Palestinian state is formed and now on wikipedia there exists an article called Palestinian state terrorism, detailing every attack on civilians performed by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Izzadin al-Qassam, etc. Doesn't seem to make sense."
--Cypherx 08:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Agree with Cypherx. Two different subjects, two different articles. --FCYTravis 09:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep as it is a very valid article subject. And keep seperate from Israeli terrorism as there is a distinction between the two. The Zionist movement and terrorist actions done by it existed before the state of Israel did. -CunningLinguist 08:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with Zero, and XmarkX. -ÅfÇ++ 08:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Notable and encyclopedic. Terrorism by various stripes of Zionists is both real and well doccumented. Any effort to exclude this article is very anti-NPOV. Blackcats 09:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep no valid reasons offered for deletion. JamesBurns 10:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep in line with many opther articles that deal with smallscale or fringe phenomena. Needs considerable cleanup, but probably deserves existence as counterpoint to the extraordinary proliferation of articles detailing violence against Israelis/Zionists. None of the justifications for deleting this article, if reversed, would be supported on those pages, so it needs to stand (albeit in a modifed form). illWill 11:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(UTC)

  • Keep Though maybe edit. The Goldstein Massacre is certainly a terrorist act, ditto for the other acts mentioned in the post-state section. Deir Yassin is well-documented as well and is acknowledged by Israel. In general though, the existence of Zionist terror campaigns should not be disputed.Termite10 12:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • STRONG DELETE . STORM LEGION666 15:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) — (The text in brackets was originally written by Newkidd and has been refactored by android per WP:RPA.)
So what's the VfD protocol for posts like these? User is obviously a troll. Has made only 7 edits, all in different VfD pages. --Cypherx 16:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I do not know, but I have reported this user for Vandalism in progress. Please remove this paragraph when problem solved. -Snorre/Antwelm 16:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like 'vandalism' to me. It seems very much like someone expressing an opinion. Perhaps it's being expressed crudely and impolitely, but it's still in essence a valid opinion and one which a lot of people share on some level, however it is phrased. Were his opinion to be cleaned up and profanity removed, it'd be acceptable, so I don't think it constitutes 'vandalism', if you read the description properly. Curiosity 17:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Curiosity, it's a clear troll user vote. He has no contributions outside making profane, derogatory, racist and homophobic attacks in the VFD space. If that doesn't fit your definition of vandalism, you have a very odd definition of the term. --FCYTravis 18:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm using the wikipedia definition, it doesn't fit! Curiosity 19:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete for reasons given above. --Briangotts 22:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up. --Ttyre 22:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and major clean up with future Terrorism in Israel article - article itself is blatantly NPOV but the info is valid. For the record, everybody everywhere at all times has done crappy things to the planet and each other - no one country or group of people has been immune and it's silly to suggest otherwise. StopTheFiling 23:36, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Hillel 02:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up for NPOV. Frankchn 02:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, because it's pretty obvious that the article is dredging up obscure stories about defunct minority groups in order to smear modern Zionism. There is lots of room in the Anti-Zionism article for "anti-Zionism". IZAK 05:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete factual stuff belongs elsewhere; confusion of state and pre-state actions (however characterized) is improper. YKahn 17:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Seems to be enough legitimate content, however, it needs clean-up and NPOVing (if possible). Israeli terrorism, however, should be merged with State terrorism and deleted, IMO. Kaldari 22:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV fork. Also wish luck to the admin sorting out consensus. The page is now 48 KB long. w00t. JFW | T@lk 23:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - the actions of Irgun and Lehi are amply covered in articles about them. Such an article is redundant to these and begs the question. --Leifern 00:04, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete(Weak Keep if we disambiguate the article by making it about pre-1948 terror by Zionist groups like Lehi, Irgun, and Haganah, the reasons, and the responses) - It seems odd to lump the actions of Lehi, Irgun, Haganah, Kach and Kahane Chai, and the Jewish Defense League together. These groups have nothing to do with each other except that they are Jewish groups - they would probably have radically different views of whether they or the others were Zionists, and had very different motivations for action, rather than a single philosophy. These incidents are covered in many places, and this article leaves open the question about whether any "terrorism" committed by Jews would not be considered "Zionist terrorism" -- would everything fit in this catagory? I think this is a case of the use of the word "Zionist" to mean "Jew", unless someone can convince me that this article could in some way be made meaningful. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Lehi, Irgun, Haganah, Kach, and the JDL have all committed violence against those they viewed as enemies of the state of Israel. (the interpretation of this violence as terrorism can sometimes get very subjective). If some religious group such as Satmars or Neturei Karta, or perhaps some group of ultra-leftwing socialist Jews were committing violent acts, they could not be considered zionist terrorists. So no, I don't think the article is assuming that Zionist = Jew.

--Cypherx 05:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I dunno, Cypherx, that seems tenuous, we are basically saying that unless one of the two or three explicitly anti-Zionist Jewish groups commits acts of terrorism it will be Zionist terrorism? Lehi and Irgun did not necessarily engage in terrorist actions against "enemies of Israel" (leaving aside they were pre-State), they engaged in often brutal terrorism with the purpose of achieving certain political goals that were not always directly related to establishing a state, while Hagannah's "Hunting Season" (listed in the article) actually involved cooperation with the British against Irgun and Lehi. Meanwhile, Kach is probably best described as a Jewish extremist group, (or even a supremicist group) its ideology is not a Zionist one. The point is that I am not sure why these groups should be lumped together. I agree that the actions of groups like JDL, Lehi, and the Irgun were often terrorist acts, but it seems to me this grouping of all of them under "Zionist" doesn't make any logical sense, and that only Neturei Karta violence would be excluded among all Jewish violence. The article lumps together a wide range of motives and beliefs under the epithet "Zionist" implying that Baruch Goldstein is equivalent to the Haganah is equivalent to the Stern Gang in goals and methods, which is inaccurate. I can't see how it will be cleaned-up.--Goodoldpolonius2 12:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think there's a fuzzy definition at work here. Is Zionism equivalent to Jewish nationalism? If yes, then the JDL (which concerns itself with Jews everywhere) can be grouped with Irgun, Lehi and Kach. Kach, unlike the JDL, is definitely a zionist group (by any definition of zionism). Their primary purpose is to expel arabs from Israel and establish a religious government there. Whether they're terrorists...I'm not sure, I've never seen anything except their support of Baruch Goldstein as evidence. --Cypherx 19:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The fuzzy definition is the problem. The meaning of the word "Zionist" in the context of terrorism is entirely unclear, and comes close to use as a epithet or propaganda, as can be seen in any Google search of Zionist + Terrorism. Again, this does not mean that terrorism was not used as a tactic by some Zionist organizations, but it implies (as Humus sapiens notes below) that terrorism was/is a primary tactic of Zionism and/or Jews. This article seems to include three unrelated topics: (1) the historical use of terrorism by Jewish groups in the Mandate against British and Arab targets (2) current groups that endorse terrorism as a tactic (JDL) and (3) controversal statements about Israeli state-sponsored terrorism. The first is historical (and covered in Lehi, etc), the second is about fringe criminals (and covered in JDL and other articles) and the third is controversal and politically charged (and the subject of many articles and fights in wikipedia) -- please explain why they should be in one article. --Goodoldpolonius2 19:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
After Tomer's suggestion, I would change my vote to Keep if we make this article explicitly limited to pre-1948 terrorism (Topic #1 in my above paragraph), this avoiding politics and slurs.
  • Delete Almog 03:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambi 05:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional keep: cleanup and rename. We already have Zionism and racism so maybe Zionism and terrorism? The current title (and the contents) suggest that terrorism was/is main Zionist tactic. Far from truth: mainstream Zionist leaders repeatedly condemned terrorism and terrorist groups. "Killing of two British sergeants": not terrorism by definition. However if it's continued to be used as a political point scoring then delete. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per IZAK's argument above. -- Nahum 10:13, 16

Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, highly POV Barneygumble 18:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment by my count, 14 users vote STRONG, 35 vote unqualified, and 3 vote weak. Dystopos 04:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge / Rename after struggling through the strident and uncooperative arguments made here, I believe the best action would be to divide this subject into more verifiable subtopics. The aggregation itself is POV. The topic is still notable, though, and it is not automatically an act of hatred to discuss "Zionist terrorism". Dystopos 04:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and make sure that content makes clear that this is a Pre-1948 concept. Most people don't realize that a significant amount of Zionist terrorism was against other Jews almost at least as much as it was against the British and that only a small part of it was against Arabs, and then usually only in retaliation for Arab attacks on Jewish communities. All such discussion, however, should be taken up on Talk:Zionist terrorism, not on this VfD page. Tomer 07:52, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
That's one of the better suggestions I've seen so far.illWill 09:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - my understanding is a VfD needs to be on the topic istelf, not on the current content or POV of an article. As such, the question is should an article on Zionist terrorism exist. It should. Saswann 13:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up as per Tomer. As for merging into Israeli terrorism, that article should itself be merged into State terrorism. Jayjg 16:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong KEEP, a notable topic and a worthy inventory. Atlant 23:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete what are the anti Israel people going to think of next? Kosher terrorim? --Diglewop 06:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I have not heard the term mentioned anywhere in the media, does not seem like a legitimate topic , sounds like sort of propaganda term more than an actuality. --Fredwall 15:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It is common opinion of various groups to consider the acts of the Israeli government as terrorist. Axon 17:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Are these groups' opinions academically verifiable or remotely encyclopædic? Tomer 09:40, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Sources & comments (please vote above this space)

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)

I'm not sure exactly what point is bring made, or what point should be made on this page. If the issue is whether Zionist groups did things that reasonable people would class as terrorism, then of course they did. What about the Irgun campaign in the late 1930s when several hundred Arab civilians were indiscrimately killed by bombs set off in public places like train stations and markets? Was that not terrorism? Similar things were done in the late 1940s. Morever, even the mainstream Jewish groups called it terrorism. The following is a typical public statement, from the Palestine Post of Dec 19, 1947. The Palestine Post was a major Jewish newspaper (later renamed to the Jerusalem Post) and the Vaad Leumi was a sort of governing body for Jewish affairs in Palestine. The "Yishuv" was the Jewish community in Palestine.

WARNING TO TERRORISTS
At an urgent meeting in Jerusalem yesterday, the Vaad Leumi Executive issued a strongly-worded warning to the terrorists that "the Yishuv will not permit them to destroy the new world we are about to build." The Executive stressed that, against its will, the Yishuv had been plunged by the terrorists into a whirlpool of blood which threatened political suicide at a time when the community was deeply concerned with its safety and security and the transition to independence. The statement continued: "In the face of abominable spilling of innocent blood in our streets, which cannot be condoned because of the repressions of an outgoing Government, the Yishuv will rouse itself to a renewed and intensified struggle against its destroyers, to save its honour, existence and future." --Zero 00:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My above translation/citation was in response to Slim's comment that: Acts before May 14, 1948 are more easily described as Zionist violence, as a clarification that they were seen as terroristic at the time, and also, I can't really find the current historiography taking issue with the term (though I am admittedly not familliar enough with it, so I refer to more knowledgable editors, such as Zero, Jay, and others, to better illustrate whether this is/isn't the case today). El_C 00:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi El C, sorry, I didn't write that clearly. I wasn't disputing the term "terrorism" for those acts (though I wouldn't use it myself, because I try not to use it at all), but I know the British used it. I was saying that, while acts of violence/terrorism before May 14, 1948 can be described as Zionist, once the state of Israel is established, it becomes harder, especially as time goes on, to say which acts are Zionist, and which Israeli i.e. the actions of a group of people trying to defend themselves, where it would seem odd to call the response Zionist. This matters because of the cut-off point of the article. May 14, 1948 is the only obvious one, but I can understand why others would see that as arbitrary. It's a tricky issue. SlimVirgin 08:44, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Gauging the neutrality of "Zionist Terrorism"

I think the term "Zionist terrorism" is more loaded than I originally suspected. Try doing a google search for "zionist terrorism", the results are of a uniform anti-Israel political bias and use the term in reference to actions of the current state of Israel, rather than its para-military predecessors. So perhaps this isn't a good name for an article after all. There definitely should be an article documenting the terrorist activities of Irgun and Lehi, but what's a less loaded name we could use? --Cypherx 16:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There already are articles documenting the activities of Irgun and Lehi (group) -- as neither group exists today, the list of "terrorist activities" can be included in their own source articles, rather than breaking them out pointlessly. The problem lies in the contention of the political movement of Zionism itself being categorized as terrorist, whereas it was only in the extremist quarters (and early history) of the founding of Israel that this was the case. By those standards, the American Revolution's Minutemen might be considered terrorists. --LeFlyman 17:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree to a certain extent, judging by the google results it seems clear that the common usage of "zionist terrorism" implies that zionst is terrorism and that all Israelis (and most Jews) are Zionist terrorists. This is definitely not the article we want to have. Still, I think Islamic terrorism is a valid term, even though it only a small minority of Muslims are terrorists. Similarly we need to think of a term for terrorism motivated by Zionist ideology, (carried out by Zionist groups) which does not associate all Zionists with terrorism. --Cypherx 18:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I guess we could use the same approach that people use to disasociate Palestiaian Terrorism with all Palestians - oh gosh - they dont! Perhaps we could try to not have a double standard for a while? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.64.15 (talk • contribs)

I wonder about the absolute equivalency people try to cast between the two groups. Terrorist organizations are powerful political forces in Palestinian society and repeated polls have shown a majority of Palestinians support violence against Israeli civilians. As you will notice Palestinian terrrorism currently has an NPOV notice because it's very hard to nail down what terrorism is and when it can be attributed to a group. So this isn't clear cut, but it's obvious to most people that violence commonly interpretted as terrorism has become a major part of Palestinian society, thus Palestinian terrorism is a valid term...though it must be applied carefully to not paint all Palestinians as terrorists or supporters of terrorists. In contrast terrorism plays a minor and mostly historical role in Zionism. Terrorist tactics were rejected by the mainstream Haganah and the groups that did employ terrorism (Lehi and Etzel) were much smaller and considered fringe. The post-Israel incidents of "Zionist terrorism" are very limited and in my opinion limited to actions of Kach and people associated with Kahane. --Cypherx 19:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not trying to draw absolute equivalency. Clearly, terrorist acts by Zionists have been few and far between compared to modern Islamic terrorism. But just as clearly, terrorism has been a force in the history of Zionism, and arguably played a major role in forcing the British to re-evaluate their occupation of Palestine, much as the Marine Barracks Bombing arguably prompted the withdrawal of Marines from Lebanon. This deserves historical discussion. The fact that there was less of one than the other is irrelevant - the fact is, there is Islamic terrorism and there is Zionist terrorism. To delete or rename the article is tantamount to denying that Zionist terrorism ever existed. --FCYTravis 19:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I was initially in favor of keeping the article but then discovered the term "zionist terrorism" has been co-opted. It does not mean terrorism committed by zionists such as Irgun or Lehi, but refers to actions of the current state of Israel that most people do not consider terrorism. For example, I think Compassionate Conservative describes a quaker...but tough luck, the term has been taken and its meaning can no longer be redeemed. Something similar has happened to zionist terrorism and we need to find a new term to describe it. --Cypherx

There is no such "separate" term-- it's 'just' terrorism. Creating a separate category of terrorism for militant Zionists is tantamount to the new anti-Semitism: "Misrepresenting Zionism or singling it out for obloquy." There is nothing in Zionism, as a movement, which promotes terrorist acts, while it may be argued that the contrary is true (to an extent) with a number of Islamic groups-- particularly of the fundamentalist perspective. However, I would urge caution when using a term like "Palestinian terrorism" as opposed to specifying the actual organization responsible-- such as Hamas or the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. Finally, I think we have strayed from the vote into political discussions --LeFlyman 19:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is creating a separate category of terrorism for militant Islamists then tantamount to anti-Islamic hatred? --FCYTravis 19:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The argument could be made that certain aspects of modern Islam support and promote terrorism as a means to an end. See, for example, "The Religious Sources of Islamic Terrorism" (Policy Review, June 2004) and the contrasting article from the same issue, "The Psychological Sources of Islamic Terrorism" (by Michael J. Mazarr, professor of national security strategy at the U.S. National War College). Likewise, PBS's Frontline looked at "The Evolution of Islamic Terrorism" and noted that, "n 1995 almost half of the identified groups, 26 out of 56, were classified as religiously motivated; the majority of these espoused Islam as their guiding force."

Now please find something in the mainstream that discusses so-called "Zionist terrorism" -- apart from anti-Semitic, conspiratorial or Islamic anti-Israel sites such as Radio Islam --LeFlyman 20:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://terrorism.about.com/od/timeline/a/timeline60.htm - reference to "zionist terrorist" http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9069635 - encyclopedia Britannica refers to Irgun as "Zionist Terrorists" http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/syriadenial.html - quotes a source using the phrase - though they seem to disapprove of it. http://www.worldpress.org/print_article.cfm?article_id=669&dont=yes - uses the phrase "zionist terrorist" http://newssearch.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?q=%22zionist+terrorism%22&x=0&y=0&scope=newsukfs&tab=news BBC shows several uses - usually in quotes.

The term is pretty clearly in common use - and not only with extremists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.64.15 (talk • contribs)

62.253.64.15, please sign your posts. It's very confusing when you don't. All it takes is four tildes. --Cypherx 07:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there certainly can be zionist terrorists, and if the term "Zionist terrorism" were free of political connotations that's what we could call the collective phenomenon. Unfortunately the phrase already has politically charged meaning. In the links you provided "Zionist terrorism" is used by (1) Dr. Ian Steer, a nobody from Oxford writing a letter to the editor (2) Abdel Aziz Rantisi, Hamas spokesman (3) Al-Thawra, a Ba'ath party newspaper in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. It's simply not a neutral term! If any mainstream, unbiased sources used "zionist terrorism" then it would be fine as the name of a wikipedia article. But that's simply not the case. Anyone describing "zionist terrorism" is clearly speaking about current Israeli actions and has a serious political agenda. Seriously, look through the google results: Google and try to find a disinterested party using the term "zionist terrorism". --Cypherx 22:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for making my point for me. Here are the 3 (!) BBC references noted, in context:
  • It quotes Hamas spokesman Abdel Aziz Rantisi as vowing to retaliate for the attack. "Hamas will escalate martyrdom operations inside Tel Aviv and Jaffa and Haifa and everywhere. We are determined to wipe out Zionist terrorism," Mr Rantisi is quoted as saying. ("MidEast press pessimism over intifada" 28 September, 2002)
  • "It takes the utmost in courage and integrity for a Jew to criticise Israeli behaviour and acknowledge Zionist terrorism past and present as one of the root causes of this conflict, together with Palestinian terrorism." (Dr Ian Steer, Oxford, Internet comments 6 December, 2001)
  • "We expect nothing but failure, despite the promises he might receive during his tour," Al-Thawra, the mouthpiece of the ruling Ba'ath Party, says in a front-page editorial...Blair's trip aims at "containing the Arab public's anger at Zionist terrorism in Palestine and the crusade being waged against Afghanistan," the paper says. (Mid-East papers sceptical over Blair tour, 1 November, 2001)
And the page from JewishVirtualLibrary quotes from an anti-Semitic article:
  • The editor of the Syrian Regime's daily, Tishrin, Muhammad Kheir Al_Wadi, wrote an article (January 31, 2000) in which he denies the Holocaust and accuses Zionism of being worse than Nazism... "While history turned the page on the Nazi acts, the Zionist terrorist acts reached their peak. They committed massacres against innocent people and led a policy of aggression and expansion. This is the plague of the twentieth century that was passed to the third millennium and it spread destruction in every place it reached...
Pretty clear biased material, and yes, what was found was out of the mainstream. --LeFlyman 07:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I notice you have totally ignored the reference from Britannica and About.com.

http://terrorism.about.com/od/timeline/a/timeline60.htm - reference to "zionist terrorist" http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9069635 - encyclopedia Britannica refers to Irgun as "Zionist Terrorists"

Are these both clearly biased?

What about the Guardian Newspaper? http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,960951,00.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,,1109213,00.html 62.253.64.14 19:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Like I said above, "zionist terrorist" (the term used in both your links) still means what it appears to mean...that is a terrorist who is zionist. "zionist terrorism" has become a politically charged codeword for military actions of the modern state of Israel. "Zionist terrorism" is what we're debating on this site, and unfortunately its only usage is found among people with a strong anti-Israel agenda. It's too biased to be the title of an encyclopedia article. --Cypherx 19:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not, however, disagreeing that there were zionist terrorists, or that we should have an article about them. We just need to find a NPOV name. --Cypherx 19:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So you're saying that there are terrorists but no terrorism? An interesting point of view. I'm sorry it's starting to look like we're jumping thropugh hoops in order to make a point here. 62.253.64.14 19:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm saying there were terrorists, there was terrorism, but when you put the words together to form "zionist terrorism" you've made a statement of political belief. I don't like it, I wish we could use the term because it would make our lives easier, but seriously, I ask again: try to find a single disinterested party in the Google search for "zionist terrorism". There are none. If we named an article "zionist terrorism" it would be inherently tainted with POV. --Cypherx 19:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also don't dispute that actions of the Irgun and Lehi groups were akin to terrorist activities in the years prior to Israeli statehood. These groups, which were rightly termed "Zionist" no longer exist. The JDL, which is not a "Zionist" organization, hasn't done anything of note in the last 20 years, unless you count attacking each other. Even the Anti-Defamation League has a page detailing the JDL's sordid antics. The problem, as noted by Cypherx, is that the title imputes an ongoing form of terrorism that is Zionist in nature-- which is a political epithet. Thus, I have a suggestion for a more neutral title: "Militant Zionism" -- which semantically makes more sense, modifying the form of Zionism, rather than creating a Zionist category of "terrorism" --LeFlyman 20:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would support that in principle, as its a lot more descriptive, although a lot of the debate here seems to be about sematic equivalency. For example, is it fair to have a page that is headed 'Militant Zionism' describing Irgun etc. and not change the equivalent pages on other groups? I would personally favour changing 'terrorism' to 'militancy' in every instance, but I'd like to see somebody try it without a lot of time on their hands. illWill 20:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm also starting to feel that the word "terrorism" itself is perhaps too loaded to be useful for wikipedia. We should delete the "______ terrorism" articles. Even when I consider a group like Islamic Jihad (who to me are clearly terrorist) I have to acknowledge that some of their actions can be classed as non-terrorist militancy (attacks on checkpoints). Now the way I divide terrorist and non-terrorist actions depends heavily on my POV. I don't think we can ever manage a satisfactory NPOV definition of terrorism. So why not drop the judgement of the action let the readers judge for themselves? --Cypherx 20:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Definitely, I think the any discussion of this topic will always stumble because the term 'terrorism' is inherently POV - I can't think of any type of military action that doesn't produce 'terror'. Also, I could think of numerous armies, groups and factions whose broad aims I support (including the allies in WW2) who have committed actions that I would describe as 'terrorist'.illWill 00:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I was thinking about this at work today. I agree that the vast majority of the use of the term "Zionist Terrorist" is by people who condemn their actions - these tend to be on the "sympathetic to -> rabid support of" the Palestinian cause. But then I got to thinking - how many articels have I ever seen that use the phrase "palestinian terrorist", or "IRA terrorist" that are not written by people who oppose their actions and usually the cause they stand for. You just dont write "our brave terrorists went out and killed a bunch of people today - hurrah!" do you? As such if one is going to condone the use of the word in one context (palestinian, IRA, shining path etc) then it's more than a little out of balance to refuse to use it just because in your moral viewpoint they are doing something wrong. 62.253.64.15 19:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What about amending the article to reflect that Zionist terrorism is historical?

In line with many of the comments made on this page, maybe the article should be amended to reflect the fact that, historically, Zionist terrorism has existed, but there are no longer any active groups. Material relatiing to kach should be mentioned, but forked off to the main article.

Like many people here, I think the material here belongs in State terrorism or whatever is closest, but I don't think we should delete the article as it allows the Israeli side to occupy the moral high ground in any discussion of terrorism ie. terrorism is a tactic which only the palestinians would stoop to. I don't think either side should be allowed to occupy the moral high ground, even if it does mean too many articles.illWill 20:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism Articles

I'm still somewhat new to the community, can someone suggest to me how to have a wiki-wide vote on limiting the use "_____ terrorism" on wikipedia (especially in article names)? --Cypherx 05:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) (I just saw Christian terrorism and it's also pretty bad)

I dont know if you can - but you'd get my vote! it's a silly title for an article - but use it once - you have to be consistent. 62.253.64.15 19:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Dont Delete this Article

Pls dont delete this article. We will expand this article in abetter manner. Abulfazl 10:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)