Talk:Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2004/Archive 1

message: :...acts that are legally and morally sanctioned (the killing of terrorists) with those are universally recognized throughout the civilized world as morally rehensible and illegal (the wanton murder of innocents).
Each of us contributors (and this includes me) has his own opinion about what sorts of acts are morally sanctioned, and how we think laws regarding these acts ought to be interpreted. The hardest thing I've ever done at Wikipedia is to describe someone else's point of view (POV) without immediately saying "but of course he's wrong, as all good people know".
To step back and say that this group believes it is right and that group believes it is wrong is really difficult. So I'm proud to be part of a project which encourages us to do difficult writing.
This doesn't mean I'm giving up my beliefs. I'm not calling badness good, or goodness bad. But I can say that he thinks this way without compromising my integrity. --Uncle Ed 19:29, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Can writers be neutral?

message: It seems that the issue is pretty clear-cut, and there's not a whole lot of room for compromise, so perhaps we should take a vote to gauge opinion on this issue?
If I'm not mistaken, the two positions are currently:
# We should have one page containing a timeline of all types of violence on all sides.
# We should have multiple, separate pages: one containing a timeline of Palestinian terrorism against Israelis, one containing a timeline of Israeli military activities that resulted in Palestinian deaths, and so on.
Is that an accurate summary of both sides' viewpoints? --Delirium 09:38, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, yes it is. There is probably the issue of defining "terrorism" for the second option, which is one of the reasons why I choose the first. Luis Dantas 15:08, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Acts of revolutionary or guerrilla warfare usually are not considered to constitute terrorism, unless the revolutionaries or guerrillas they deliberately and specifically select civilians as targets of violence in the pursuit of political or religious ends.
One can substitute militants for revolutionaries or guerrillas without doing violence to the quote above.  
This page is one of 5 pages covering years of activity.  All five should be treated similarly.  This will require one group to review 5 years of newspaper articles to verify each occurance to be added, just as each occurance added to date has been based upon newspaper accounts.  This work could be undertaken immediately.
The crux of the matter is that one group has created and maintained over a period of 5 years a series of pages recounting Palestinian terrorism that has resulted in Israeli deaths.  The other group objects to such a page and seeks to include a partial (timewise) list of Palestinian deaths in the same page.  Wikipedia could have all three pages: Israel deaths only, Palestinian deaths only, and a combined page.  OneVoice 15:32, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for a vote? 

message: I'm calling a vote then, since the various positions seem pretty well-established.  Please list just your name here, and carry out arguments further below. --Delirium 22:16, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
*Option 1: One timeline of violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, containing all the violence by both sides.
*#Luis Dantas 23:12, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that almost the only thing BLplusplus has done is to post messages on the talk pages of people likely to vote the "right" way here.  Almost certainly a sock puppet. --Zero 23:55, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, I have taken the liberty of moving user:Soul Kitch's comments to his Talk page and removed his votes from above as an anti-troll measure. -- Viajero 23:38, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Delirium, it turns out that that is not the case.  Soul_kitch's very first action on Wikipedia was to add comments (three commits) to a Wikipedia article/talk before the vote here.  Since he has contributed to at least two other articles/talk pages. OneVoice 19:22, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Luis Dantas said "Suicide bombings are _not_ clearly terrorism IMO." Surely, I am not reading this correctly. As a hypothetical, if a person were to come to your daughter's wedding, commit a suicide bombing, killing and wounding dozens of people, this would not be terrorism? The same act performed by radio controlled transmitter (like those found in RC cars) probably would be, but even then there would be significant room for argument? Surely you are trolling ??? OneVoice 15:04, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Luis Dantas, did it not occur to you that preferring to believe you are trolling rather and serious indicates that I considered you may be playing with statements that you do not take seriously rather than deliberately, with malice aforethought engaging in reprehenisable behavior? OneVoice 19:22, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It did, but that is not much better at all.  I will let the matter rest at that for now.  Luis Dantas 19:58, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote 

message: Based even on just the short interchange among me, Delirium, Viajero, who I think I know pretty well by now -- plus OneVoice :-) ...
I would say that the key issue is whether a given act is "justified" or should be "condemned". Some people use the word "racism" to mean unjustifiable race discrimination (as when an evil majority exploits an innocent minority) -- as opposed to justifiable race discrimination (as when an exploited innocent minority gets extra goodies like preference in being hired for a job or admitted to a college (see affirmative action). Likewise, some people used the word "terrorism" to mean unjustifiable violence against civilians -- as opposed to justifiable violence against a "legitimate military target".
For the racism issue, it hinges on whether the discrimination is justified. For terrorisim, it hinges on whether the violence is justified.
We Wikipedians need to step back far enough from these articles and discussions to be able to identify and distinguish our own opinions and judgments from those of others. In particular, we'll have to avoid assuming that any one of us is in touch with the Universal Standard of Judgment. (Okay, everyone but me, heh, heh :-)
No, even I have to do this: it's the promise we all make when we click that "Save page" button! --Uncle Ed 14:45, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The Justification Issue

message: :I have an idea re the definition of "terrorism", which I'll explain on after I put it down.
::Terrorism: Attacks by non-state actors upon civilian targets with the purpose of intimidating or terrorizing the population.
:OK. What I mean by this definition:
::1. Non-state actors: If you aren't a state, you do not have the right to use force. If you are, you do. This is a fundamental qualification of [sovereignty]: Does the entity/group in question have a monopoly on the use of violence?
::2. civilian targets: A checkpoint would not, per se, be a civilian target. A bus, however, or a restruant, or a discotheque, however, would be. If you attack even ONE civilian target, you're a terrorist. If you restrict yourself to military targets, however, you're a guerrila or insurgent.
::3. purpose of intimidating or terrorizing: I was trying not to make the definition itself clunky, so this will require explanation. I am not, despite the temptation, calling La Cosa Nostra or similar terrorists. Generally, the activity should be for (broadly) political reasons.
:But where's the line, then?
::Good question. What defines a civilian target (or a civilian)? Well, common sense helps. A reservist not called up would be a civilian. An off-duty soldier, out of uniform, would be a civilian. In short, if (knowing all the facts) you cannot figure it to be military, it's civilian. Some cases that may help in explanation:
:::Sherman's burning of Atlanta - A war crime, perhaps. NOT terrorism. This is where the definition of "war crimes" gets sticky, but it's not terrorism.
:::The bombings of Dresden - NOT terrorism. A terrorizing act, yes, and MAYBE a war crime, but not terrorism.
:::The bombing of the King David Hotel - Maybe. On one hand, yes, a hotel is civilian. On the other hand, an entire wing of the hotel was used by the British as a military headquarters, an obvious target. You could argue either way, but it seems clear that the target was that HQ. Problem is, the possibility of accuracy wasn't there.
:::Bus bombings - If this is not terrorism, what is?
:::Bombing of Iraq by US forces - No. That's called collateral damage.
:-Penta 00:10, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Penta, but that definition is not really useful.  Leaving the ethical issues aside (and they are major), there are still the reliance on a consensus on what is a "state" (does the Palestinian Authority qualify, for instance?) and what is an uncalled reservist (cloudy issue with many Israelis - or for that matter, many Arabs).  I don't think collateral damage is a good name for Iraq's bombing either, since it was such an evitable conflict (not that anyone here asked, sorry).  Making state acts automatically non-terrorist is a major handicap: it makes the whole morality of such acts as Hiroshima's bombing automatically "terrorist" for whoever doesn't recognize the USA's sovereignity, at the same times that it makes whatever bombings IRA or the PA might conceivably conceive "not terrorism" if you only recognize them as true governments.  I don't think any of us want to go there.  I certainly don't. Luis Dantas 01:23, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Anyone can revert a page. See: Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version. -- Viajero 14:15, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: This very discussion page pretty much reached a consensus (except for you and MathKnight) that calling recent, possibly poorly-understood events "terrorism" is both unneeded (since the events should be clear for themselves) and quite possibly harmful.  You don't have to take my word for it - it is all written a few paragraphs above.  I will avoid answering your provocations. To the best of my knowledge everyone is being fair except you. Luis Dantas 18:53, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: I actually contest your point about the absence of trouble in naming the WTC event, but that surely is quite besides the matter.  The question is _meant_ to be kept in a NPOV form at least as far as it remains a Wikipedia article.  If you want to consider that "refusal to confront" the matter, fine with me.  But it is still the rule established here.  And in case you are wondering, yes, I do indeed feel that the Palestine-Israel situation _is_ far too complex to be fairly described in the terms you insist in using.  Your attempt to equate this situation with each and every other possible use of the word terrorism is a clear diversion tactic that does not change the inapropriateness of its use in this article a bit.  Just to answer your question (irrelevantly so, since no one is advancing that _my_ POV should be exerced), terrorism IMO is any violent act (including those commited by recognized states with demolition tools and tractors) that could be avoided - e.g. by diplomatic means.  It is not a completely clear-cut definition, but then again I don't believe there _is_ a clear-cut and respectable definition for that word.  That is exactly why its use should be avoided here in Wikipedia.  You know, at times you and MathKnight sound like Terrorism is some sort of sacred word that must be used in order not to disrespect the Israeli people.  Luis Dantas 19:28, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So Baruch Goldstein's shooting in the mosque in Hebron killing 29(?) Muslims during prayers was not an act of terrorism?! My opinion is that it was terrorism .  If you disagree, I'll remove it from the Israeli terrorism page and describe it as an act of violence instead (terrorism being a subset of violence, just as larceny is a subset of crime.)  (! its not listed there...well, based upon the outcome here we will know whether or not it belongs there.) People use more specific words because they are more informative than the more general term.  There is a substantial difference between the person that steals a loaf of bread off a window ledge without violence and the person that steals money from another person using the threat of violence.  They have committed different sets of crimes and are indicted for different crimes and if convicted face substantially different penalties.  One of the most famous novels of all time, Les Miserables, is centered around a person, Jean Valjean, that committed the first crime and is treated as if the committed the second or worse.  Failing to distinguish between the severity of actions forms the basis of Victor Hugo's books and the great character flaw of Inspector Javert.  Do you wish to emulate Javert?  Fail to distinguish between crimes of different magnitudes? OneVoice 22:24, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Baruch Goldstein's killings, as I am sure you will agree, was a specific case, which we now see with the benefits of nine years of hindsight _and_ a clear statement from the Israeli government.  Even then there are some who think he is a hero (at least according to the current version of the article about him).  Maybe the PA announced that it activelly disapproves of those bus killings, and in that case it is probably fair (by some definitions, not all) to call them acts of terrorism.  I truly believe there is no benefit in waiting until it becomes clear and uncontroversial that most people agree on specific acts being terrorism before including them, and I trust you will concur on that at least.  With such explosive subject matter it is paramount to leave the least possible room for misinterpretations and be as factual as possible.  A challenge to be sure, but we are talking about actual human lives here. Best, Luis Dantas 23:10, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Luis Dantas, even Noam Chomsky calls suicide bombings of buses terrorist attacks: Few would question Israel's right to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks like the one yesterday, even to build a security wall if that were an appropriate means..  Baruch Goldstein's killings were specific in being perhaps the only Israeli action of the kind.  It was clear at the time that it was a terrorist act.  It is clear today.  It is clear to Noam Chomsky that suicide bombings of buses are terrorist attacks.  You seem to condition calling them terrorist attacks based upon the perperator agreeing to that name. That is ridiculous there are many who will never accept the correct naming of the acts. OneVoice 12:30, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions: An idea