Misplaced Pages

Guy, I am sorry to contradict you, but I think you must have misunderstood me. I never argued your wording was the best. I was attempting to avoid touching the lead altogether, and only changed it in relations to the contents bellow, to fit definitionally (thereby bringing charges against myself of great Zionist *and* Palestinian bias, which was rather entertaining). Now, critics is problematic, detractors is more problematic. With certain pre-statehood terrorist acts, it isn't just critics who argue this: it is the historiography. As I mentioned on this article's VfD (though no one except Zero seemed to care: ironically, he is the most qualified editor yet to vote, that I know of, at least), such authoritative sources as The Encyclopedia of Jewish History: Events and Eras of the Jewish People calls it that. As for Kach, while they have not committed any actual terrorist acts (they don't need to: what I call Israeli State terror —what you call counter-terror— does that already while, at the same time, inspiring counter-terror in Kach members, also), the American, Israeli, and Canadian govs. all title them this way. Should we call them official critics (when two of these critics are nuclear powers, and one of them, Canada, apperently being a sovereign state, or so I'm told over and over and over again, mercilessly and unremittingly) ? El_C 04:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

-I- instigated a flame war? Hardly. I don't know who these "usual petty editors" are that you are referring to, but I should think you should check my edit log before accusing me of being a POV flame warrior. These are my first edits to anything resembling an article about the Arab-Israeli conflict. In fact, I ran across the issue while watching RC Patrol. I hardly think it will take a week to get things in order, and you give me no credit for my attempt to *defuse* the war. I introduced a Controversy section which should be properly used to include the debate over whether specific incidents are terrorism and the debate over the ramifications of the alleged terrorism, instead of filling Talk page after Talk page with debate. Put the ideas down in the article. Which critics say this is terrorism? Who says it's not? What makes this so hotly disputed? Why are you not adding your obvious knowledge of this issue into that section so that readers will understand the arguments on each side?--FCYTravis 05:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We were about to discuss things peacefully before the flame war. I am not accussing you of maliciously causing it, but by unilateral action, you inadvertantly have turned this into a flame war. Now we need to get back to discussion.

Guy Montag 23:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I mean, who in their right mind today is going to be confused about whether Canada is sovereign from the United Kingdom? Comeon. It.does.not.make.sense. But that is the sort of argument I was faced with, to give you an idea of my plight. El_C 05:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also agree with FCY, detractors is heavily POV. But we should expect that from Guy Montag...Yuber 04:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Go take a long walk of a short pier. Unless you have nsomething to contribute, dont waste people's time with your personal attacks.

Guy Montag 04:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No one is going to take short walks, and we are no longer going to discuss expectations. El_C 04:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Montag he has a point, by your own admission you are a violent Zionist. You should really consider you true motivations in editing this and other articles before continuing. --LouieS 09:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please read poisoning the well and personal attacks before contributing to talk.

Guy Montag 23:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grace, I think you found an acceptable introduction. I wont change it anymore.

Guy Montag 06:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If pointing out you biases is a case of ad hominem argument you are wrong. If I had said yo shot a palestinian man, you would be right, I did not say that; if i had said you where a racist, you would be right, but i did not say that; if i had said you thought Jews were a race superior to all otehrs, you would be right; but I did not say that. I simply pointed out you had vested intrests is seeing that one sides viewpoint was expressed in a favorable way. --LouieS 17:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You could have worded it that way without calling me a violent Zionist. If you had any previous history in editing with me you would have known that I am fair with all the material involved. It is my right to push my pov within wikipedia policy, just as it is your right to push yours. As long as we are both reasonable, and by editing with me you will find out that I am, we can come up with an ideal solution. Now let's get back to work.

Guy Montag 20:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Militancy vs Terrorism

I had this idea pop into my head yesterday. Terrorism is a subjective term, but we need certain criteria for wikipedia to get anywhere with these articles. Some could be simply guerrilla attacks or other forms of legitimate warfare, but others could legitimately catagorized as terrorist acts. I think that we should rename articles where the majority acts could be construed as military operations to "something militancy" and mention that some call it terrorism, and rename those where the majority of diliberate targets are civilians into "something terrorism". What does everyone think?

Guy Montag 23:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that you then have a big argument over whether the "deliberate targets" really were civilians or not. Furthermore, there are those who believe that demonstrative acts of violence (I won't give examples but we can talk about them if you like) are "terrorist" because even though they can be claimed to have a "military" or quasi military target, they are carried out in the knowledge that civilians will die. There are those, too, who argue that civilians are legitimate targets of war, because war is prosecuted against a state, and not its military. Those who believe that area bombing in the Second World War, for instance, was justified could not on principle oppose the bombing of civilians in Israel or their killing by the IDF.

The big problem is that definitions of terrorism tend to serve other ends of the definer. States like to define it as "nonstate violence"; Israelis like to define it so that it excludes what they see as acts in defence of Israel; those who support the Palestinians' aspirations tend to define it so that it includes a broader range of killing of civilians, sometimes because to some extent it serves their political agenda to equate the IDF with other combatants in the general area of Israel.

However, Guy, having said that, I think that one has to accept that there is a concept of Zionist terrorism, just as there is of "Islamist terrorism". People do talk about it and consequently we should report them talking about it. We do not need to take a stance for ourselves on that. (Your relentlessly pushing the notion that "critics" or "detractors" (of something or other that you don't note) call it terrorism takes exactly the kind of stance that we should avoid -- with that version we are saying in effect that there is no terrorism but some people -- who we are implying are wrong -- think there is. Saying that there is no terrorism, when the facts of the violence we are discussing are generally not in dispute, is taking a stance on the definition of terrorism, which we ought not to do.)

By seeking a/ to have the page title changed or banned (by VfD) and b/ to very narrowly define what it can refer to, you are trying to prevent coverage of the concept. Covering the concept does not, we should be clear, mean validating it, or should not. If we were careful enough to apply the NPOV policy, it would not. Grace Note 23:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A bit rambling, but overall, good points. El_C 08:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seeing as the Palestinian terrorism article has been changed to match; this seems like much better and more balanced terminology to me. good idea all around. --LouieS 04:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

JDL is Zionist terrorism?

Can someone please explain why the acts of the JDL are considered Zionist terrorism? As far as I know the JDL is not a Zionist organization. Jayjg 15:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They are Zionist in every definition of the word. JDL graffiti has been found on settler's homes in Hebron as well.Yuber 15:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, who defines them as "Zionist", and why would graffiti ascribed to them be relevant? Or is "Zionist" being used as a synonym for "Jewish" here? Jayjg 17:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The JDL is a Zionist organization in virtually every sense of the word "Zionist". See for example.--Josiah 06:26, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Also, if you contact any of the JDL's leaders via email, I'm pretty sure they'll identify themselves as Zionistic.--Josiah 06:29, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Look at - in particular "It realizes that in the end ... that the true solution to the Jewish problem is the liquidation of the Exile and the return of all Jews to Eretz Yisroel -- the land of Israel." or " ... Zev Jabotinsky, his followers and his movement of which we consider ourselves a spiritual part."--4.131.100.9 17:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Part of their very first principle, ahavat Yisro'el. That convinces me; it may not be primarily Zionist, but it's clearly Zionist. - Mustafaa 18:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Ahavat Yisroel" means love of Jews, not love of the State of Israel. It's a phrase that precedes political Zionism by a couple of thousand years. And the JDL doesn't actually mention Zionism as one of its principles. Jayjg 19:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See, for example, "Bais Ahavas Yisroel - House (that promotes) love of your fellow Jews"., "Ahavas Yisroel Love of fellow Jews", etc. Jayjg 19:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, you've misunderstood my point. The quote "the true solution to the Jewish problem is the liquidation of the Exile and the return of all Jews to Eretz Yisroel -- the land of Israel" is from their first principle. I am well aware that the name they gave it has a far more ancient history. - Mustafaa 19:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All Orthodox Jewish groups belive that the "that the true solution to the Jewish problem is the liquidation of the Exile and the return of all Jews to Eretz Yisroel -- the land of Israel"; it's a fundamental Jewish belief, inherent in a belief in the Messiah, one of the 13 Principles of Faith. That doesn't make Satmar or Neturei Karta Zionist. Jayjg 19:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In any event, we can't label these groups what they don't label themselves. American Zionist groups are quite open and proud about their Zionism, and often include the word "Zionist" in their name. From what I can tell, the only groups that say the JDL is "Zionist" are anti-Semitic groups/websites that tend to use the word "Zionist" and "Jew" interchangeably. We shouldn't be doing our own original research on this. Jayjg 19:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That last generalization is not accurate: . "we can't label these groups what they don't label themselves" is special pleading; how many Islamist groups label themselves Islamist? However, your point about the ambiguity of the quote above is well taken. - Mustafaa 19:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It actually is pretty accurate. Do was say "Hamas is a terrorist group?" No, we say "Hamas is listed as a terrorist group by the European Union, Canada, the United States, and Israel etc." precisely because these labels are hotly disputed. Calling Lehi a "Zionist terrorist" group is pretty straightforward; that's how they described themselves. Calling the Irgun a Zionist terrorist group also has at least some justification, in that they also labelled themselves as Zionist, and at least the British insisted they were terrorists. And if you want to label the JDL a terrorist group you're on pretty firm ground, because a number of reasonably credible sources have done the same thing. But if you want to label them as a "Zionist terrorist" group, you're in uncharted waters; either you rely on your own original research, or you rely on flaky and unciteable sources. Jayjg 20:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't think all Orthodox Jews would express themselves exactly that way. The JDL emphasizes "immediate action" in this respect, which is practically the definition of Zionism. How could it be (spiritually) part of Jabotinsky's movement - the Revisionist Zionists - and not Zionist? In addition, there's featured on the main page of the site, and the bio of Kahane, describes him "exhorting Jewish students ... to make aliyah to Israel." The current chairman's bio makes a point of saying he plans to make aliyah and the mission statement has "Jews comprise a religious nation ... with a destiny to live in and create within the Land of Israel a society ..." All in all, I think it clear it is that these statements should be interpreted to express immediate, not far-off desires so it is "Zionist" as an organization or at least an organization all of whose members are (strongly) Zionist. Mustafaa's cite doesn't seem flaky or unciteable, either. Thanks for reverting the Begin bio to my version, too. I think he deserves a biography that's to the point.--John Z 23:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Many Jewish organizations (and synagogues) are filled with memebrs who are strongly Zionist, but that doesn't make them Zionist organizations either. Regarding Begin, I thought your edit was good, as most of the stuff you removed was just pro-Israel apologetics anyway, it didn't belong in the article. Jayjg 15:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If some terrorist group far far away announces that they are pro-Zionist, or some Jewish gangster in NYC announces that he is a Zionist, would them be added too - no matter what mainstream Zionists say? This seems doubly hypocritical in light of incessant attempts (including by some editors of this article) to present anti-Zionism as a popular movement among Jews. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 03:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jay and Humus, I appreciate your concerns, and I understand that there is a real problem with the wording and categorization. I don't really care too much about the exact wording, and Zionist militancy or terrorism and militancy or any other reasonable word in place of Zionism, would be fine as far as I am concerned. One problem is that there should then be symmetry with the words chosen here and for Islamic (ist) or Palestinian terrorism. It's a good thing there is the neologism "Islamist", so it does not put bad connotations on "Islamic" and avoids the problem Humus points out, but I don't see such a word choice here (Zionic? Judaist?). I just think that since people like Kahane saw themselves as heirs of Jabotinsky, like Begin, that it is not unreasonable to have an article that surveys all this sort of militancy anywhere - separating Kach, Kahane Chai and the JDL just seems unnatural. All these movements have some "family resemblance", even if fitting them squarely under one neutrally worded definition or category might be hard.

Again, regarding the JDL, well, though I haven't seen them around in a while, I happen to be friends with some close relatives of Kahane, and of course conversation turns naturally sometimes to their (in)famous relative. I just felt that they would give me pretty strange looks if I questioned whether he was a (ultra)Zionist (and by extension his organizations, which were pretty personal vehicles afaik.)--John Z 18:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

M. Begin denounced terrorism in 1948, and I do not consider continually dragging his name into the post-1948 discussion as good faith. I also strongly object to the notion that "there should then be symmetry". See Umm Nidal for one reason (an article we don't have - not surprising as "blame the Zionists" articles proliferate here). ←Humus sapiens←Talk 23:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how I am, if you mean me, dragging the mans name in - btw I recently edited a couple of articles for accuracy etc so that I put him in a better light IMO. I think that for all his faults, he was someone with a capacity for change, and a kind of brutal honesty and rationality that was absent in many of his successors and predecessors. I mean nothing more by "symmetry" than Misplaced Pages policy - one should not call the same category of acts militancy in one case and terrorism in another, it should be both X and Y terrorism or X and Y militancy, anything else not being neutral.--John Z 23:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

John, no I didn't mean specifically you. BTW, I agree with you on both points here but still insist that bringing JDL into this article effectively means misrepresenting Zionism mainstream. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 01:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If not Zionist terror, what kind of terrorism should we call what the JDL has attempted to do. --LouieS 01:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Were they attempting to promote a Zionist cause? Jayjg 01:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

As I see it in California they were attempting to kill people they viewed to be a threat to Israel; I would clal that Zionism yes. --LouieS 01:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

And how do you know they saw them as a threat to Israel, vs. a threat to Jews? Don't forget, this is the Jewish Defense League, a group that has self-appointed itself the "defender" of Jews outside Israel, not Israel itself. Jayjg 02:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Because there is a ringing endorsement of Zionsim and its defence on their webpage http://www.jdl.org.il/zionist_declaration_of_intent.htm . I'm not makign a value statement on Zionism here, saying weather it is bad or good; im just tried of people ignoring factual evidince because they disagree with it rather than for a relavent reason. --LouieS 02:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they support Zionism. Almost all Jewish organizations do, from charities to synagogues to baseball leagues. However, that doesn't mean all their actions are in support of Zionism. I too tire of people ignoring factual evidence, specifically about the JDL's actual philosophy and activities. Again, what makes you think the JDL actions were in support of Zionism and Israel, as opposed to simply carrying out their self-appointed mandate, "defending" Jews in the diaspora? Jayjg 02:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

So please give me a reasonable justification for why a ringing endorsement of Zionism does not make them an organization in support of Zionism, im confused. --LouieS 02:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they support Zionism, but they are not a Zionist organization. Zionist organizations focus their efforts of support of Israel, and encouraging Jews to emigrate to Israel. The JDL is a militant organization focussed on "defense" of Jews outside Israel; their raison d'etre is not Zionism. Thus, for example, their plot to attack a mosque was anti-Muslim, but not Zionist. Zionist and anti-Muslim are not the same thing, not even close. Jayjg 03:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

So your saying you just disagree with the facts. In that case i'm sure you won't mind if militant zionist organizations like the JDL are included in this article will you. --LouieS 05:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

LouieS, JDL is not a Zionist organization. By claiming to support Zionism, they tried to appeal to Jewish masses. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

LouieS, please do not invent strawman arguments for me. What "facts" do I disagree with? Reading your responses, it appears to me that you haven't even read what I've written. Jayjg 15:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"Zionist terrorism" vs. "Jewish Underground"

Zionist terrorism is in the end a pejorative. The correct term is the Jewish Underground.

Guy Montag 04:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... does that mean, by extension, that "Islamist terrorism" is, in the end, a pejorative -- and because emotion-laden pejoratives are (as you seem to be arguing) by definition POV, we should find another term for that phenomenon, as well? Please advise. BrandonYusufToropov 02:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No it does not. It means that Jewish underground is the historic term. If you want to defend Palestinian terrorism against women and children, do it in another article.

Guy Montag 04:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now I'm really confused. Under this reasoning...

• We shouldn't use "Zionist terrorism" because it's a pejorative, and the correct term is the Jewish Underground.

• When asked whether the word "pejorative" applies to the phrase "Islamist terrorism," though, your answer is "No, because Jewish underground is "the historic term."

• But Islamist movements predate the founding of Israel, and so non-pejorative names for them would seem to be just as "historic." I'm still not sure why my claiming that the term "Islamist terrorist" should be replaced by another (non-pejorative) phrase is different from your claiming that the term "Zionist terrorist" should be replaced by another (non-pejorative) phrase.

• Help! BrandonYusufToropov 10:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Guy, the "Jewish Underground" is a far broader topic than Zionist terrorism, and, unlike Zionist terrorism, stops in 1947. If you want to write an article on them, then by all means do so, but be aware that it is not an alternate title for this one. - Mustafaa 19:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you want to defend Palestinian terrorism against women and children, do it in another article. That comment was out of line, Guy. I insist that you keep it civil; I don't wish to see this talk page deteriorate again. El_C 21:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Attacks on military targets

It's silly to say that these do not count unless you are going to discount: - the blowing up of the US marine baracks in the lebanon. - IRA attacks on the British army in N Ireland. - the attack on the pentagon on 9/11 - attacks by the PLO etc on IDF bases by child suicide bombers in Gaza all military targets - all clearly terrorism. Or is anyone really proposing otherwise? 62.253.64.15 20:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The least controversial defintion of terrorism involves attacks on civilians. Many would argue that attacks on military don't count. And each of those examples (Lebanon, IRA, 9/11, PLO) involve plenty of attacks on civilians. Jayjg 20:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With respect - yes you are right they do but only IF you consider them as a whole campaign (which is what we are doing for zionist terrorism in the article). But separately they are clearly attacks on strictly military targets. That's really my point - you have to judge the actions by its context - and the attacks in British soldiers by the early zionists are clearly as much a part of a terrorist campaign as the pentagon attack on 9/11 was part of a larger event. The attack at Warren Point was clearly a terrorist attack - despite only British Soldiers being killed etc. 62.253.64.15 20:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They may be part of a larger campaign, but that doesn't make each incident a terrorist attack. Even the plane that almost hit the Pentagon was filled with civilians. Why not just stick to the unambiguously terrorist incidents? Jayjg 21:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have just reverted back to the original text including these attacks (which had remained stable for some time now) PLEASE do not revert back without agreeing the change in the talk page first. 62.253.64.15 21:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't revert? I haven't edited this article in months, except once to add back Kach and Kahane Chai, with additional references, when they were deleted. Jayjg 22:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think a more appropriate term for the attacks on the USS Cole, US barracks in lebannon, IRA attacks of the brittish army would be gurrila or insurgent attacks. Their purpose was clearly not to harm civilians (which as Jayjg said, is the more agreeable definition as to what is and is not terrorism). It seems like the people who are the victims of such gurrila attacks are the first one to call it terrorism as a means of generating symapthy. Millitary actions from the hit and run tactics of the US revolution to the attack upon Peral Harbor have been characterized as cowardly acts and more or less as terrorism; yet clearly we do not view tham as such from a contemporary standpoint. --LouieS 22:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that the ordinary dictionary definition of words is the one we should use for preference:

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

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

What defines "civillian"? Is the killing of IDF reservists (ie 90%+ - well a big lot of them anyhow - of the isreali male population) "Civillians"?

Frankly I think that to discount the attacks on the US marine barracks and Warren Point as not being terrorism is stretching common usage past the point or credability in order to exclude specific examples. 62.253.64.15 22:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jayg - "dont revert" was not aimed at you spoecifically. It was a reference to LouieS rolling back what he thought were modifications when in fact I was rolling back to the original state. "(cur) (last) 21:25, 16 Jun 2005 LouieS (reverted unagreed to changes)" I just put a general notice on this section of the talk page. 62.253.64.15 07:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And Humus Sapiens writes ...

Terrorism was repeatedly denounced by mainstream Zionists, a fact that article fails to mention.

Welcome to my world, dude. :) BrandonYusufToropov 12:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yet early terrorists were elects to the Israeli parliament - we shoudl mention that too! 62.253.64.14 23:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Folks, please stop removing the phrase Terrorism was repeatedly condemned and denounced by mainstream Zionists. - Unless someone can provide an evidence that Jews (or anyone else for that matter) have some kind of ironclad insurance against violence in their ranks. Here, from the man who himself eradicated it in 1948 Altalena Affair: "The increasing terrorist activities of the dissident organizations, Etzel and Lehi, and the beginning of a revolt by the entire Hagana, led to searches for arms in settlements and cities." (by the British) (Source: David Ben-Gurion Israel. A Personal History p.56 of a 860-page book, 1971). Jews are not angels, so let's stop denying common-knowledge facts that took place 60 years ago and move on. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Humus. you are POVing the article with unfounded conjecture. The Altalena affair has nothing to do with terrorism. It has to do with Ben Gurion firing on fellow Jewish fighters in the War of Israeli Independence. I would suggest you remove this line. It does not belong in the article, and connecting the Altalena affair with stopping terrorism is not only incredibly offensive to me and those who fought in the war, but also highly innacurate.

Guy Montag 18:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

VFD debate

Due to a lack of consensus at VFD, this article has been kept. An archive of the debate is kept at Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Zionist terrorism (WARNING! One of the longest VFD debates in Misplaced Pages's history!) Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By what possible logic can another VfD be appropriate...

... a single day after the last marathon VfD concluded? (See above.) BrandonYusufToropov 16:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Naming names

I tend to agree with Humus. If people are named, it should be in the main article, in "Pre-statehood Zionist militancy". Perhaps people who moved to the "left", like Nathan Yellin-Mor (or even Uri Avnery) could be mentioned too.--209.165.15.31 30 June 2005 16:40 (UTC)

Controversy

The whole point about "controversies" is they represent a conflict between two (or more) points of view. To deny that there is a countervailing arguement to "many people consider this to not be terrorism" seems to be a denial of the meaning of the word "controversy" to me. 62.253.64.15 1 July 2005 23:48 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean here. Jayjg 3 July 2005 02:40 (UTC)

Incidentally what does the abbreviation cp. mean? 62.253.64.15 1 July 2005 23:53 (UTC)

Copyedit. Jayjg 3 July 2005 02:40 (UTC)

Poisoning the well?

Please stop poisoning the well you cant use the word "only" to make 50% of the organisations listed sound like they are marginalised. 62.253.64.15 4 July 2005 22:05 (UTC)

There are four groups listed for Zionist terrorism in the article, and plenty more elsewhere. The article should not be needlessly self-referential, nor so specific as to require constant updating. Also, you don't appear to be using "poisoning the well" correctly. Jayjg 4 July 2005 22:08 (UTC)

You don't appear to use the phrase "original research" properly either. It's generally impossible to prove a negative like that, but easy to prove me wrong; find me another instance of a group described as "Zionist terrorist" which actually self-described itself as "terrorist". It should be easy enough, there are at least eight groups I can think of that have been described that way. Jayjg 4 July 2005 22:17 (UTC)

Well - No. It's down to you to prove your own point. Please read the article on logical fallacy and shifting the burden of proof. In any event you should be avoiding original research as per official wikipedia policy. 62.253.64.15 5 July 2005 19:16 (UTC)

Factual Dispute?

Is there really still an exsisting factual dispute? If tehre indeed is please give evidince to support yo claim, or the factualy accuracy tag will be removed shortly (nutrality will remain). --LouieS 00:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Given the on-going battle about whether the JDL actions count as Zionist terrorism, it would seem that a factual accuracy dispute still exists. Jayjg 01:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Thats a nutrality issue, JDL being a terrorist organization is a matter of opinio moreso than fact. --LouieS 01:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

JDL Zionism dispute

I propose a simple solution to ending this debate quickly and swiftly. I'll contact Bill Maniaci, head of the JDL in Nevada for an answer via email. Is this acceptable for everyone?--Josiah 00:30, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

And I'll ask Russian mafia folks if they wouldn't mind to affiliate their organization with Zionism (failing that, Sandinism or Greenpeace). Seriously, see the section about JDL above. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 00:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea to me, Yoshiah. Ultimately - as with religions - self-identification has to be a primary determining factor. - Mustafaa 00:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism

Why on earth do people keep removing the link to Terrorism? What possible justification can there be for not including it? 62.253.64.15 09:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Attempt to minimize casualties?

I removed the statement about the efforts of these terrorist organizations to minimize casualties and to only attack militatry targets. The statement simply does not make sense and is contradicted by subsequent information. All terrorist organizations want to receive attention by attacks on important targets or a great number of casualties, and to achieve this, many soft targets are attacked. The attack on the hotel and the murder of the UN mediator and members of the embassy are an example of this. TSO1D 02:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

No, some terrorist organizations use terrorism a means of seeking publicity, and not for the purpose of infliciting casualities. Klonimus 20:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I removed the four sentences following the the explanations that Irgun or Lehi contacted the British administrators to warn them about the bombing. Although the information is correct, one has to take into consideration the brevity of the article. Adding a paragraph to explain the inadequate British repsonce to the warning is not needed. The two senteces about the fact that the number of casualties was attempted to be lowered and the specific example should be preserved, but I would urge you not to add a lenghtier description.TSO1D 15:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not following your statement, "one has to take into consideration the brevity of the article", as adding this material expands the article. The NPOV explanation is indeed required, since other editors have removed related information claiming that it was "factually incorrect". Further, this should be epxanded even more and is highly relevant to the topic. However, until I have time to do so, I am going to compromise by moving the content to a footnote. I can't find any relevant policy that supports removing this content from the article. --Viriditas | Talk 23:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be expanded, by elaborating on the leaders and activities of the terrorists. However, when the entire article is so brief, adding a paragraph half its size that relates to the response of the British to one particular event it excessive. After all, there is a King David Hotel Bombing Page that contains all of this information. TSO1D 13:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

King David bombing

The details of the King David bombing and associated controversies belong on the page devoted to that subject. What was posted here is not correct. The British used to deny that a warning had been given, but that hasn't been true for a couple of decades. During the 1970s the secret British police report on the bombing was leaked, finally proving beyond dispute that a warning had been given. The report described how the telephone message was received by the hotel operator, passed from hand to hand, then reached the officer in charge only shortly before the bomb exploded. So the existence of the warning can be stated as fact; what remains disputed is whether the warning was given early enough for any reasonable reaction to have been made. There is no evidence for the "summarily dismissed the warning" claim, that is just a story spread by the Irgun after the bombing. See Bethel, The Palestinian Triangle, for most of this. Btw, using Bibi as a source for anything is a joke. --Zero 05:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the cogent analysis. --Viriditas | Talk 06:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Sounds to me like the brits making excuses for why they were too incompetant to evacuate the hotel right away. The Irgun intended to warn the british, so that the casualties would be minimized. 91 dead is certainly higher than anything the Irgun intended. Klonimus 01:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Lehi

Someone asked for evidence that Lehi described themselves as terrorist. One example is in the essay that is quoted in the section "Quotation" on the Lehi page. That essay uses the word "terror" transliterated into Hebrew and attempts to justify its use. The title of the essay is just "Terror". Another example is Stern's letter to Germany, which describes the group's "Terroraktionen" and "terroristischen Taetigkeit". There are other examples but those should suffice. It suited Lehi's purpose to portray themselves as fanatical and ruthless. Which they were. --Zero 00:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Citation means not merely claiming a quote exists, but clearly explaining where, when and by whom it was made, so that it can be fact-checked for accuracy. The "Quotation" page you refer to does not fulfill the need for accuracy. Doing further research reveals that the supposed quotes were actually taken from a single essay written by Yithak Shamir, who, while he was a member of LEHI, was not its leader. For further explanation see: Reprint of selections from Shamir's essay

Likewise, neither does the claim of "Stern's letter to Germany" -- I find no reference to such a letter written by Avraham Stern, himself. There is a claim that "In 1940 and 1941, Lehi proposed intervening in the Second World War on the side of Nazi Germany to attain their help in expelling Britain from Mandate Palestine..." but there's no mention of the authorship. The image of the supposed letter posted in the article is actually just a coversheet, written by the German Naval attache-- not Stern-- and makes no reference to the contents. German Cover Letter

Further, a section of a book reprinted on a German Marxist web site claims that Irgun Zvai Leumi be-Yisrael- but did not mention Stern, himself-- made the overture to Germany: Fundamental Features of the Proposal of the National Military Organization in Palestine (Irgun Zvai Leumi)

As is the case in dealing with historical scholarship, it's critically important to get as close to the original sources, and not rely on the repetition of material that may be floating around. In this case, it seems that the matter of further study, rather than approaching this with such an absolutist perspective. --LeFlyman 04:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, you can go to a proper source of information such as the book of Heller cited on the Lehi page and find the answers to all your questions. Briefly: the essay was published in the Lehi newspaper and does not have an author stated (normal for that newspaper). I have a photocopy of the original; it is also quoted by Heller. Shamir is most unlikely to have been the author, but in any case this was the official mouthpiece of Lehi not a place for presenting multiple opinions. So it is a definite example of Lehi calling itself terrorist regardless of which individual write it. The approach to the Nazis was led by Stern when he was the undisputed leader. This is very well known and you can check this in Shamir's autobiography, in the book of Heller, in the account of Yellin-Mor published in Brenner's "51 Documents", and in lots of other places. You can find Brenner's sources for this claim here. Your confusion regarding the name "NMO" is due to the fact that Stern's organization at that time was called "Irgun Zvai Leumi be-Yisrael (National Military Organization in Israel)" -- it was Stern's way of saying "we are the true Irgun". --Zero 12:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• My fault for editing late at night, while half-asleep-- I realized my error and had intended to put the full name, but in skimming what I'd written, I missed putting in the full name "Irgun Zvai Leumi be-Yisrael". Thanks for the additional note. I had actually found the section in Lenni Brenner's book, The Iron Wall, after I posted the comment. That book appears to be the well-spring of various articles such as this one. I would suggest that Brenner imposes selective (and prejudicial) reading of the obvious hindsight analysis that the Stern Gang attempted to play on the various regime's anti-Semitism to convince them to relocate the Jewish population to Mandate Palestine. He quotes Shamir (via another source) as saying, "...Stern had good memories of his work in Poland before the war. He had got many Jews to Palestine by exploiting the anti-Semitism of Polish officials. He thought it might work in Italy. At least he felt he had to try." And likewise quotes a later statement by Shamir that, "There was a plan to turn to Italy for help and to make contact with Germany on the assumption that these could bring about a massive Jewish immigration..."

However, Brenner pointedly disbelieves that Shamir was opposed to this plan -- which Brenner twice calls a "lie" with rather shaky evidence-- and makes particularly non-historian-like statements like "Shamir today pretends he was not fully involved in the Stern Gang’s pro-Nazi orientation, but we are fully entitled to conclude that his contemporary attitude towards collusion with the Colonels likewise reflects his thinking then, concerning collaboration with the Nazis."

Such biased writing throws into question the veracity of Brenner's aim itself. As is clear from his further material in that chapter, Brenner isn't writing as a historian; he's laying out an indictment against Shamir (as then Israeli PM), Stern and modern Zionism-- which he contends is Revisionist Zionist, akin to fascism. In short, his work is an Anti-Zionist screed, with such closing statements as "We are, however, witnessing the initial stages of the terminal illness of Zionism..." and "One thing is, however, absolutely certain: the struggle against Zionism will go on, and inevitably it will succeed..." That's why Brenner's work appears on a German Marxist web site-- it's propaganda and selective history, just as Das Kapital. Written twenty years ago, the predictions in "The Iron Wall" have not yet come to pass. Brenner is a Marxist relic and fringe scholar -- not that there's anything wrong with that. But using it as a sole source is disingenuous and fails the NPOV. --LeFlyman 18:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Brenner is an activist and his work has to be treated carefully like with all activists. However, nothing I have written relies on Brenner as a source. --Zero 03:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Now that the article's called militancy, shouldn't it include military organization and warfare against the armies of sovereign governments? Obviously violence against civilians was militant, but wasn't organizing an army and fighting the Egyptian army militant? Wasn't the 6 day war militant, and subsequent land grab militant? Wasn't developting a nuclear program?

Attack of Thursday August 4

A lot of information has been added but without source. The source that I originally added is woefully out of date. Further, the last revision claims that this AWOL soldier is a member of Katch, but the incident is not mentioned in the Katch article. Also, there have been numerous reports of this mans name, have any been confirmed? --Uncle Bungle 22:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

If you want to keep up with Israeli news, I recommend you adopt Haaretz as a regular source. It has a high record of accuracy by newspaper standards. See for example, both your questions are answered. Incidentally, Haaretz articles disappear from the free part of the web site after a while (a week or a month) so they aren't suitable for putting into the article. --Zero 02:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Zero. --Uncle Bungle 19:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Use Jerusalem Post instead, thier links stay good, Klonimus 06:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Motivation of Zionist Attacks

To those who keep changing the sentence about Irghun's terrorist activities by including the part about the attacks' being a reprisal against similar Arab attacks, please stop. Information about Arab attacks is already available on other pages (such as Palestinian terrorism), and if it will be also included here, at least let it be in another sentence, although I would not encourage this. Nevertheless, the way the modifications is being made removes the part about many of the Arab victims' being civilians, and instead complements the sentence with a justification for the attacks. No other article on terrorism has such an appologetic form included so predominantly in the article. I urge you to refrain from making such changes in the future. TSO1D 02:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

You really have no idea on the subject you are editing. They were reprisal attacks against Arab attacks against Jewish civilians and the Yishuv's inability or lack of will to do anything to defend against Beduin and guerrilla attacks.

Guy Montag 22:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism, not militancy

The article should not be moved to zionist militancy. When we the discussion over the proper term took place no consensus was reached to make such a great change. In any case, I believe that it is ridiculous to use the term militancy instead of terrorism. The page about palestinian terrorism is called terrorism. This page fits the description of terrorism perfectly. There is absolutely no reason to change the word to militancy. The destruction of a civilian hotel and murder of politicians is by all means terrorism. TSO1D 13:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The hotel wasn't civilian, it acted as the British military headquarters for the Mandate. Reading upon the subject you are discussing should be done before we start moving things around.

Guy Montag 22:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I am aware of the fact that the hotel served as hq for the British, but included a certain number of civilians, but in any case, the British were not at war with the Jewish populace, therefore this act was an act of terrorism. And there is simply no way you can attempt to state that the other attacks did not represnet acts of terrorism. In any case, I agree that you can use the term militancy in some subsections that describe certain aspects of the warfare. Nonetheless, the article is classified under terrorism, and it is ludicrous to change its title to zionist militancy. TSO1D 22:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing ludicrous about it. The Irgun was at war with the British Mandate, and the British Mandate was at various times at war with the Irgun. The only reason it is classified under terrorism is because an anon troll keeps doing so.

Guy Montag 22:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand your argument, however I continue to insist that this article should keep the current title and classification. This is a sensitive issue and various people have diverging views on the subject. However, while Palestinian terrorism retains this title, I don't think this article should be treated differently.

• ps. Montag, this is not relevant to the article, however when I saw that you persistently made these changes that are contrary to my views, I went to your user page to try to understand why you proceed thus. And the most interesting thing that I discovered is that you are from Chisinau, like me. What are the chances of that happening. LOL Well, despite of our differences, at least we have something in common. TSO1D 22:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The chances are pretty slim actually. Nice to meet you.

Guy Montag 03:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Guy, I don't think you have consensus to move the title to "Zionist militancy". The fact that Kach and Kahane Chai are categorized as terrorist groups by even the US State Department, the Canadian government, and the Israeli government especially legitimizes the idea that such a thing as "Zionist terrorism" does indeed exist. Leave the title, and discuss NPOVing the contents instead. --MPerel 01:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Please move it back to Zionist terrorism, then.Heraclius 01:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

We really dont have any consensus over a move here - so the original title "zionist terrorism" should remain. 62.253.64.15 01:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I moved the page back to Zionist terrorism, not because I like that title, because I really dislike it, but because there was no agreement for the move, and Zionist militancy sounded just as bad. My preference would be Zionist political violence. SlimVirgin 01:35, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Would you similarly support "Palestinian Political Violence"? Zionist terrorism in the 1930's was a profoundly important phenomenon and has been argued by many as forming the base pattern around which most modern media centric terrorism operates. It's increadibly important because 1. they won - very rare 2. many of today's Palestinain terrorists look at the early Zionists as role models. Lets not use weasel words and call a spade a spade - contemporaneously they were nearly universally known as terrorists (self admitted in some cases) it's a bit revisionist to call them otherwise now. 62.253.64.15 01:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe the British called the early Zionists terrorists, so I'd be more inclined to agree with you if we were talking only about the early Zionists, but people are adding contemporary criminal acts to the article, like that of Eden Natan-Zada. If I had to use the word "terrorism" anywhere, I'd say it's appropriate for groups who blow up international airliners without cause, warning, or even a claim of responsibility. The further we extend the definition beyond that kind of act, the more we dilute its descriptive meaning and rely on its prescriptive impact, which is POV. SlimVirgin 01:49, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

That actions of various militant Zionist groups, Kach, Lehi, Irgun etc., where classed as terrorist acts by major world governments (the same ones that today call pelestinian crimes terrorism) and saying otherwise is simply dishonest, regardless of if you agree or disagree with that classification. --LouieS 09:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the name "Zionist terrorism" but "Zionist miltancy" doesn't handle the objection. "Miltancy" would include any sort of pre-state military activity such as of the Haganah, including operations that few would call terrorist and are not in the gamut of this page according to its current content. "Militancy" is also not less POV than "terrorism": calling an attack on a military target "terrorism" is not worse than calling a marketplace bombing "miltancy". We need a better idea. --Zero 11:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

What if the article was titled millitancy with a Terrorism subsection. I don't think it can be denied that there have been a few such acts (hotels etc.). --LouieS 19:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

A quick search in Current events for "terrorism" and for "militant" (skipping Iraq) revealed:

• An Israeli settler kills 3 Palestinian civilians in the West Bank. The attack was condemned by Ariel Sharon as a "Jewish Terror act"
• two Qassam rockets fired out of the Gaza Strip by Palestinian militants land near the southern Israeli town of Sderot.
• Five Palestinians, including Islamic Jihad leader Ribhi Amara, are killed in a gun-battle following an Israeli raid on the Palestinian refugee camp of Tulkarm in the West Bank. Israel maintains that all five were militants, while eye witnesses say that three were unarmed teenagers.

I'm wondering why such inconsistentcy in applying the terminology, especially in light of Zionist terrorism and Israeli terrorism. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 21:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see anything inconsistent. The only use of the word "terror" you have listed is in a direct quote from Sharon. The quotation itself is newsworthy as it is so rare for an Israeli politician to apply the word to a Jew. --Zero 00:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with that quote. I am talking about WP: if our policy is to avoid the T-word even for those who fire rockets into civilian areas, why use it here? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

As I've said before, I'd be happy to ban the T-word from Misplaced Pages altogether. I can't understand why people are so obsessed with labels. It shows a sort of disrespect for the reader if we can't trust them to make their own moral classifications on the basis of the facts that we present. --Zero 09:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Marketplace bombings

Zero, you of all people should know that summarizing actions in bullet points is not going to give all the information. All the historians I read have commented that the Irgun carried out marketplace bombings after the Yishuv snd Hagagah proclaimed their policy of "restraint" against Beduin and Arab raids on Jewish communities. The Irgun believed that they had to take the fight to the Arab side, and committed revenge attacks against villeges who sponsored the attacks.

Guy Montag 19:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

For a historical reference, please see Jabotinsky and the Revisionist movement by Jacob Shavit.

Guy Montag 23:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

All terrorist groups make similar claims. Wopuld you support a similar appology in the article on Palestinian Terrorism? That they were just responding to Israeli violence? Answer honestly now. 62.252.0.7 23:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I refuse to discuss anything with you.

Guy Montag 23:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

All in the spirit or working together - nothing likie cooperation! 62.252.0.7 23:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't cooperate with internet trolls.

Guy Montag 23:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Unless there is some sort of private messaging going on here, you are totally out of control and being absolutely unreasonable. You need to shape up and then come back and edit. --LouieS 20:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Stuff missing

(I'm trying to do too many things at once, but..) stuff missing from here includes various Jewish terrorist groups in Israel since 1948. For example there was the group that blew the legs off a couple of Arab mayors, a large number of attacks against Arabs in the West Bank in the early 1980s, various attempts to blow up the buildings on the Temple Mount, etc.. --Zero 15:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

This is page is unusual

Shouldn't this page be called Zionist and Arabic terrorism inside Israel? Hierogre 05:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

No. See Palestinian terrorism and lots of other articles for terrorism done by Arabs. Since this is your only comment here, I'm removing the tag you inserted. --Zero 09:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)