Talk:Zionist political violence/Archive 1

message: I have removed the following material from this entry.
:In a number of cases settlers on the West Bank have attacked Palestinian civilians. In particular, the Hebron settler Dr. Baruch Goldstein associated with the Kach murdered some 30 Palestinians while they were praying on February 26, 1994. Israeli security services have arrested since a number of individuals plotting terrorist activities. The Jewish Defense League and the Kach movement follow Rabbi Meir Kahane (subsequently assassinated) and support the killings carried out by Dr. Baruch Goldstein. These individuals and organizations are condemned by all mainstream Jewish organizations. Kach has been declared illegal by Israeli authorities. Members of the JDL have been 
The reason this has been removed is that these are lone actions by people acting on their own accord, and they don't reflect in the slightest the policy of the State of Israel, or even the national unofficial consensus of the Israeli populace. The State of Israel even arrests and prosecutes people who plan acts such as these. They are lone acts by lone gunmen, and do not belong in this entry I note that similar actions are not included in the sections of Palestinian terrorism. If they were included, the Palestinian terrorism entry would have (literally) several hundred more incidents added.  RK
:I don't know a whole lot about the issue, but that doesn't seem right at all to me.  "Israeli terrorism" is terrorist acts committed by Israelis.  They could certainly be differentiated from state-sponsored terrorism, but they are terrorist acts committed by Israelis.  I suppose the problem is that terrorists are generally not affiliated with any state, so requiring state-support to be included as terrorists doesn't make sense. Tokerboy 20:21 Oct 19, 2002 (UTC)
:If you define every act by an Israeli as suitable for this page, do you also define every similar act by Arabs as suitable for inclusion the corresponding pages on Arab and Palestinian terrorism? Would you include the current Maryland\DC sniper under the "US terrorism" entry, because this nutbag (probably) is an American? We need specific criteria for what we include. If not, we will end up with adding 5 or 6 more Jewish people to the terrorism page, but we will also add literally hundreds of more Arab terrorists. Then people will complaint that this is a violation of NPOV, because it makes Arabs look bad. I am willing to go this way as well. I just want to avoid a situation where only Jewish individuals are added, but Arab Muslims are not. RK
::I agree we need a criterion.  (Though I wouldn't count the sniper as a terrorist because he has no political demands that I know of)  I don't know what they should be, but I think the people you deleted are commonly considered Israeli terrorists and should be included in the appropriate article.Tokerboy 21:03 Oct 19, 2002 (UTC)
:::In order for the State of Israel to be involved in terrorism, it is not necessary for the government of the State of Israel to be involved. It's equally unnecessary for the Palestinian Authority to be involved in attacks by e.g. Hamas for it to qualify as Palestinian terrorism. The State of Israel is involved in terrorism anytime a representative of that state (be that a government official, a soldier or a citizen) commits an act of terrorism. Afaik, Baruch Goldstein was an Israeli citizen at the time of the slaughter, so it imho qualifies as Israeli terrorism. I agree with Tokerboy that the Washington DC area sniper was not an American terrorist, because his actions had no political goals. However, in my view the bombing in Oklahoma City (by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols) does count as American terrorism, since representatives of the United States (two citizens) were involved in the attacks, which served political goals. Aecis 16:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing entry

message: The article says that all acts of pre-Israel Jewish terrorism can be attributed to either Irgun or the Stern gang. I find this highly unlikely, especially since I added another act.
----
Well, apart from events after Nov 1947, it is true that Irgun and Lehi were responsible for most violent acts committed by Jews.  There were some exceptions in the 1937-9 time scale, but they were a small part of the total.  On the other hand, there were long periods of time when the official mainstream position on Irgun and Lehi was only a front (much like the relationship many people allege to exists today between the PA and the militant groups).  There were regular secret meetings and some degree of cooperation and coordination.  The King David Hotel bombing is a good example of such secret cooperation that is well documented.  There were also periods of genuine animosity such as the "Season".
I want to suggest that the very idea of this page is broken and writing an NPOV article on this topic is impossible.  It would be better to combine it with the page on terrorism against Jews/Israelis. These acts did not occur in isolation and having a single timeline would provide a little context. Perhaps we could agree on some guidelines about how events are described so it doesn't become a competition as to who can write the most bloodthirsty descriptions? The first rule could be to never use the word "terrorism"... zero 12:52, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: As ever, I strongly agree with this position. One of these days I might even implement it. ;-) Martin 21:13, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Irgun and Stern

message: The reason Palestinians and their supporters accuse Israel of terrorism is not, as you write, just because of Israel's assassinations of militants.  It is also because they accuse Israel of deliberately targeting civilians and civilian institutions.  Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B'Tselem, and the Palestinians Center for Human Rights & the Environment all agree. It's also worth noting that Israel's assassinations are of questionable legality.  Amnesty International has written on this topic.
:This can't be right. Many Palestinian Arabs were accusing all Israeli military actions of being terrorist, long before Israel began the policy you mention. This current rationale smacks of historical anachronism.  Given the order of events, it is much more likely that people making these claims are using any new events as after-the-fact arguments to support the position they had already held to begin with. RK 17:24, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Rights

message: Recommend that this page be divided into two parts: one before the UN decision to partition the mandate and one after the partition decision.  items related to the Haganah might be added to the after page based upon the Haganah being the precursor of the IDF. OneVoice 02:44, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Length isn't an issue. -- Viajero 19:26, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: Length is not the issue.  I agree with you.  Rather Israel did not exist prior to 1948.  Terrorism prior to that time must be Jewish Terrorism.  Since then its Israeli Terrorism.  OneVoice 21:37, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since people here refuse to call a massacre of dozen of Israeli civilians "terrorism" I demand to change the title of this page to "Israeli Violence" instead of "terrorism". If Wikipedia policy is not to use the term terrorism, than it shouldn't apply either here. MathKnight 21:50, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text:  I don't think there should be any page with "terrorism" in the title except Terrorism.  --Zero 00:29, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text:  I think the terrorism prior to the establishment of the state of Israel shouldn't be called jewish terrorism, but zionist terrorism. Aecis 11:58, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Length of article

message: Protected until agreement reached. Bmills 11:22, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: * Israeli terrorism (see Talk:Palestinian terrorism) -- Added to list to make parallelism explicit.  +sj+ 02:16, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)
** So what article does this one duplicate (which was the main reason for listing P.t.)?  Keep, but the name needs changing. --Zero 02:33, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: From [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion|VfD]]

message: The amount of information on this page about israeli terrorism is slim compared to the extensive coverage on pages documenting terrorism AGAINST Israel. I hope Wikipedians will overcome their biases against documenting Israeli crimes and apply the same diligence to reporting crimes by Israel that they do to reporting crimes against Israel. Sources of information on Israeli state terrorism:
* Amnesty International on Israel and the Occupied territories
* Human Rights Watch Israel/Occupied Territories Briefing to the 60th Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights
*Human Rights Watch TORTURE AND ILL-TREATMENT: Israel's Interrogation of Palestinians from the Occupied Territories
* Human Rights Watch ISRAEL/LEBANON "OPERATION GRAPES OF WRATH" The Civilian Victims
* Human Rights Watch The Israeli Army and the Intifada Policies that Contribute to the Killings
* B'Tselem Publications
* Dispossession and Ethnic Cleansing
* Tantura Massacre exposed: 21 eyewitness testimonies of war crimes against humanity 
* Israeli Massacres: Details and Numbers
* Israeli Massacres
* A Brief List of Massacres in Palestine
* Massacres
* The Israeli Massacres 1947 - 1994 In Palestine
The continuous effort to edit, delete, obstruct, manipulate, minimize and whitewash Israeli crimes is a glaring example of a political bias being foisted on Wikipedia by advocates of Zionism. Alberuni 15:17, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I approve of any efforts of yours to add factual information to the article.  However, I don't think your making highly political speeches and accusations on Talk: pages really adds anything; on the contrary, it makes the atmosphere very non-collaborative. Jayjg 16:35, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Your Zionist POV is biased. Racist Israel is a beautiful place for supremacist Zionist Jews (like you) the way South Africa was a beautiful place for apartheid Afrikaaners and Nazi Germany was a beautiful place for "Aryan" supremacists. It's your privileged perspective as a Zionist who benefits from the Zionist project that prevents you from seeing the other side of the coin; the prejudice, hate, bigotry, discrimination, violence and oppression that Israel and its allies perpetrate against innocent Palestinians and against other Arabs and Muslims around the world. Alberuni 14:05, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Criticism of Zionism, a bigoted religious nationalist ideology, is not anti-semitism, bigotry against the Jewish religion, anonymous accuser. Alberuni 18:15, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many instances of Israeli terrorism are neglected 

message: These terrorist massacres were conducted by Israeli proxy forces against innocent civilians. Do you really believe that this kind of atrocity could be committed without Ariel Sharon's knowledge and approval? In any case, Israel was responsible for the safety of the refugee civilians in territories under their military control. Which brings up another question, Why are you so allergic to any description of the "Occupied Territories" in Wikipedia, Sabra and Shatila listed as Israeli terrorism, and having Operation Days of Penitence listed as a terrorist incident and other Israeli crimes? Why don't you just work on the Israeli version of Wikipedia where Ziopedians will be more likely to agree with your slanted, biased, and twisted Zionist POV?  --Alberuni 20:04, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of your belief that allies are "proxy forces", this is a page about Israeli terrorism, not Phalange terrorism, and the page certainly doesn't additionally need another POV summary of the Sabra and Shatila events.  Regarding questions about other articles, please raise them on the relevant Talk: pages. Jayjg 21:58, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Israeli atrocity deniers may benefit from reading state terrorism. "State terrorism is defined by some as violence upon a national population committed by national governments or their proxies."--Alberuni 22:05, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if the claim is that the Phalange were an Israel proxy in the massacre, and that therefore this is state terrorism attributable to Israel, then state it that way and provide refererences to those making that specific claim.  Regardless, a POV re-write of the massacre is not needed for this article. Jayjg 22:24, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I've re-written it that way, though you should still provide references for that claim.  As a note, it doesn't make sense for half of the entire article to be devoted to Sabra and Shatila, a massacre committed by the Phalange, particularly when there is a perfectly good Wikipedia article that people can reference.  As I said before, a POV re-write of the massacre is not needed for this article (or indeed any other article), that's what links are for. Jayjg 15:14, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jayjg please stop trying to delete mention of Sabra and Shatila massacres 

message: Why does an ENCYCLOPEDIA (which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be, in case you forgot) need an article about Violence against Israelis, an article about Palestinian terrorism, and an article about Israeli terrorism?  Encyclopedia articles should not depend on other articles to balance out bias.  If a person were to read the Violence against Israelis article and no other article, they would be presented with a one sided argument.  Violence against Israelis, Palestinian terrorism, and Israeli terrorism should be part of the Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article.  --NoPetrol 21:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not a debate forum! 

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

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

message: You reverted my delete of:
"However, it should be noted that substantial evidence exists that the Arab leadership of the countries surrounding Israel convinced the Arab population of Israel at the time that when those surrounding Arab nations attacked Israel the local populace should leave temporarily, that the Jews would then be slaughtered and that they would then be allowed to return."
I just dont see how this is relevant in an article on Israeli Terrorism. Maybe in an atricle on the deficiencies of the arab leadership, but it doesn't point to any actual action by the Arabs - only alleged propaganda. Doesn't seem to objective to me - and its only purpose can be to cloud the issue discussed int he rest of the paragraph.
:The paragraph also describes "forced exile" as part of "Israeli terrorism"; this seems to balance the claim of "forced exile". Jayjg (talk) 23:51, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arab leadership of the countries surrounding Israel 

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

message: Why should "Israel's allies" be included in this article? I can't see why we should directly associate things done by allied groups to the people they were allied with. I know there was a connection in this case, but the very inclusion is not relevant to the actual subject of the article. Many groups are "allied" to many other groups, we do not hold all groups responsible for the actions of their allies, so why should we in this case? The whole section should be removed from the article as it is simply an attempt to put blame on to Israel for the actions, which does not exist. Curiosity 19:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Read above.  Israel itself blamed Israel for the actions. The Israelis surrounded the camps and sent the Phalangists into the camps to clear out PLO fighters, and provided the Phalangists with support including flares, food, and ammunition. - Mustafaa 20:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting definition of "Israel blaming Israel" you have there. Read what you just wrote "sent the Phalangists into the camps to clear out PLO fighters". That's Israel blaming Israel for a massacre? Israel sent them in to do one thing and you hold Israel responsible when those people then do something else off their own accord? Israel actually blamed Israel for negligence, Israeli negligence is a far cry from "Israeli terrorism" - the subject of this article. No-one can hold Israel responsible for the 'actions' specifically. As was upheld by an American court when Sharon won a libel case over an article that claimed he was responsible. I still maintain it's tenuous to put an unsanctioned "terrorist" action by an Israeli ally in to this article. Curiosity 23:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Allies?

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

message: From the comments I have read on this discussion page, some seemingly reasonable sentences by people are really outrageous. So, if someone is wearing an IDF uniform and killing innocent people then it is not terrorism it is simply defending oneself? It is not “deliberate”. Poor soldiers, victims of 12-year-old Palestinian stone throwers and “accidental” killers of journalists. Let us go back to the roots of the issue; the state of Israel was created on the basis of terrorism. I mean stealing land from people, kicking families out of their houses and burning their homes, and ethnically cleansing the local Palestinian populating by committing massacres. Is this not terrorism? Also, the massacres at Qana, the UN camp in Lebanon and killing countless civilians, is this not terrorism? Putting random roadblocks and building a “Berlin Wall” dividing the Palestinian territories from Israel, thus separating families from each other, students from their schools and putting the economy to a standstill. While Palestinian tactics are NOT ideal and I certainly do not support their blowing up of buses with innocent people, we should not forget their reasons and all the bad media surrounding this people. It is as if poor Israel is the victim and the Palestinians are the brutal terrorists. Israel is no angel, but saying that Arabs do kill people deliberately while Israelis don’t as one very very ignorant user has said is just plain wrong and outrageous. It is a stupid statement and how could such a statement be said. Well it’s the media stupid. People are brainwashed and have only one view of the issue especially those living in North America. This is why people in Europe are more open and aware of issues while here (US) they are not.  Building walls and settlements and stealing water from nearby farms, sending Christian phalangists to eliminate Palestinians and committing massacres at various camps; all this is deliberate, stop kidding yourselves. When have Palestinians used an F16 to bomb a city full of innocent people? Well, never. The Israelis have, bombing Beirut and killing hundreds, leveling buildings with children inside, hiding from the bombing. If the Lebanese civil war raging on wasn’t enough, I’m sure we didn’t need Israel involved. Just because it’s an “official army” then this makes it not terrorism. Hey, the retarded Taliban were official and had an army, how come they are terrorists then? The same rules apply. One should look at the causes of anger within the Palestinian people (such as the daily killings of innocent Palestinians that we in the US do not hear about, I have satellite and thankfully get international news, the only thing we hear about is suicide bombs targeting poor Israelis) and not simply judge them by watching extremist news channels such as Fox news or such. Israel has a right to exists but within limits and reason. Get educated people and read stuff on academic websites, read books, read articles from real journalists, not “articles” written by biased people in this encyclopedia.
Agree with the anonymous editor. Jeus 16:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Such a small article and yet so much debate, just leave it as is

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

message: I briefly protected this page because you're all on the verge of being blocked for 3RR. Guy has already been reported for it. Please respond to the points Joey has raised - or Joey, say what you think about my responses. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:48, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
I only reverted 3 times. 
Guy Montag 01:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page lock

message: It would be nice if people would stop trying to turn a page entitled 'Israeli Terrorism' into a page justifying Israeli military actions against Palestinians.  If that's the kind of page you want to see, just go make one already.  But this -- this whole, "I'll make sure as little badness gets posted about Israel as possible, so help me" nonsense has got to stop.  This is NOT a pro-Israeli article.  Why is this so hard to accept?
Stop trying to fill this page up with stuff that is not terrorism or turn it into another Israel bashing article - this is not the place for your propaganda
Would either of you mind ID'ing yourselves?  I'm guessing from the 'history', that you're the two warring IP addresses.  Perhaps this article *should* be protected. Jeus 03:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, if it is protected, what version would it be placed to? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Willy-Nilly Revisions 

message: The biggest problem is, where to start. 
#First, s/he insists "Attacks which did not result in death or injury are not included." and in the same edit adds 
#* 1948 exiles
#* "men and boys may become permanently crippled from bullet wounds suffered during the last five months of stone-throwing protests"
#* "restrictions on Palestinian movements"
#* "international community often views these as punishments of the masses because of the actions of a few. This perception of unjust persecution provides a continuing rationale for hostility toward Israel" -- see, if Israelis allow the terrorists walk freely into their cities, the "international community" would have loved it. 
#* "2,870 Palestinian civilians" -- all of them are civilians? and all are victims of Israeli terrorism? Proof please.
#* "Arab publications and others have compared Zionism to German Nazism", Many Arabs, and others, including noted activist and linguist Noam Chomsky, believe Israel practises a form of "apartheid" against the Palestinian people, as bad as, or worse than, that practised by South Africa, and that Zionism is a form of "colonialism" and has been carried out through extensive "ethnic cleansing". -- lovely but sorry WP is not a soapbox. 
#* Pro-Israel advocates reply..., Palestinians hold... -- irrelevant here. Please don't turn this article into another Arab-Israeli conflict or Israeli-Palestinian conflict
# The propaganda picture is unencyclopedic and uses cuddly huggable children to stir emotions against those bloodthirsty Jews... please. 
#:Though the picture can be removed from the article, its vote on IFD seems to be keeping and retagging the image in question. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We already talked about the difference between "murder" and "killing". I'm glad you agreed to distinguish the two. Similarly, there is a big difference between "civ casualties" and victims of terrorism. When a police squad fights a street gang (or firefighters fight arson), some civilians may die by accident in the effort to spare more innocent lives. That is a tragedy but not terrorism. OTOH, when a suicide bomber intentionally detonates his device in a crowded bus, that clearly is terrorism. This article (as any on this sensitive subject) must clearly distinguish between the two, instead of trying to blur the line. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 23:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

text: Have you chosen WP for a platform for Arab answer to the IDF? Is seems so. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 22:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with edits by [[User:Jeus]] 

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

message: Someone please point out a factual dispute on this page, and site disagreeing facts from an unbiased source; or the tag is going away.
: Why is this article almost entirely duplicated in State terrorism#Israel? OTOH, curiously, all efforts to add [Palestinian state]] in all possible articles and lists, there is no State terrorism#Falastin. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Guy Montag put it there, I believe in an earlier attempt to simply have that page re-direct here (part of a VfD).  However, it should be removed now, as it has now become a fork. Jayjg (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual Dispute

message: Get your own conslusions, but you don't just fire at a crowd and kill dozens if your a democratic state. The tag should go and article expanded like before. 
"I have been to several regions of the world and have seen destruction of various kinds, but the scenes in the Jenin camp were different, terrible and tragic. We retrieved charred corpses and others that were rotting, and they all belonged to civilians, including women, children and elderly persons. Some bodies were buried under the rubble of houses destroyed by the army. It was a real massacre and the scenes were terrible."
- Chivvas Moore, an American Red Cross volunteer
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=6725
http://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node.php?id=432
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/DBBDD979-5ECC-4159-B5B2-829320C06920.htm   check this one out Guy ull like it
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/child_41304.html
Let the pictures and the text talk (what are you gonna tell me now, they were taken on the moon, well the IDF turned Jenin into a moon crater)
http://this.is/jenin/index2.html
http://www.jenininquiry.org/photo.htm
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/gallery/special_focus_jenin.htm
http://www.jeninjenin.org/
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/Feature/camp_that_became_a_slaughterhous.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-268533,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,685595,00.html
http://www.jeninjenin.org/evidence.htm
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/Feature/once_upon_a_time_in_jenin.htm
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51a/041.html
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/Feature/un__reveals_monumental_destruction.htm
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51a/040.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,825315,00.html
ok that's NOT enough and i am not satisfied, but if you want more, please tell me and i will surely find more information about countless other massacres (thus acts of terrorism israel commited) there should be no dispute, israel, like palestine, has commited acts of terror and that's it. Whoever's not happy with that could stop complaining like Guy and go to sleep. --Doge120 02:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you stop this diarrhea of propaganda and check the facts (that even PNA accepted), you'll see that in heavy fighting and boobytraps of the Battle of Jenin 2002, the casualies were: 32 Palestinian militants, 22 Palestinian civilians and 23 Israeli infantrymen. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence for the "garbage" I said

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

message: It's just bad english as it stands!
How about "some of the deaths resulting from .... were claimed by Israel as collateral damage follwoing from the main objective."
or similar? Anything to turn it into the language I love. 62.253.64.14 22:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Collateral Damage 

message: Do people really think that Assassination is better than "extra-Judicial killing" or was this just a knee jerk revert by Guy Montag?
Personally I think it's much less judgemental with assassination having some quite perjorative connotations. 62.253.64.15 09:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assassinations 

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

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