Talk:Zionist political violence/Talk:Zionist Terrorism

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: There are huge problems with this article. "Israeli terrorism" is ill defined and strays from the orthodox definitions of terrorism into bizzare areas. Who defines specific actions as terrorism? There needs to be sources of the people who define it as so. There also needs to be comparisons between what is acceptable by country and what these detractors see as unacceptable for Israel. Lets compare U.S. anti terrorist actions vs Israeli actions. 
Some of the actions that are defined as terrorism are carried out 
without any problem by American forces. 
For example, targetted killings of terrorists by predator drones 
  
Yet, there is no such article as American terrorism in wikipedia even 
though the tactics are identical to targetted killings of 
Palestinian terrorists. Probably because both  parties are engaged in urban warfare to root out terrorist insurgents. Yet, Israel is singled out. This needs to be pointed out and who terms Israeli actions as terrorism identified.  
*This article contains pre-Independence operations by Zionist paramilitary organizations (none of which can be termed as Israeli terrorism, as there was no Israel at the time). They need to be removed from this article, as they are already mentioned in other articles and have no relevance to the title. 
*Then there is the whole tangent about Mordechai Vanunu. How controversial acts by different Israeli governments, such as arrest of traitors on foreign soil, or actions against combatants in foreign wars, can be termed terrorism is beyond me. This is blatantly reaching beyond the name of article and should be erased. It has no relevence to the article.  
*If the arrest of a traitor is terrorism, why not the arrest of Adolph Eichmann, a law abiding citizen of Argentina? 
*This article lists the bombing of the UN compound during war as terrorism (defined as a mistake when America bombed 2 weddings in Afghanistan). Who defines this as terrorism? If they are merely incidents, why are they mentioned in this article? Who identifies it as terrorism? Sources please. 
*the assassination attempts on terror chiefs such as Mashaal and Shiek Yassin is defined as terrorism by this article(acions which are carried out every day in America's War on Terror). Who defines these actions as terrorism? Provide sources please.  
*Even the ever present footnote in history, Sabra and Shatila debacle, not even committed by Israelis, is defined as terrorism. S&S should be erased as a tangent which has nothing to do with Israel. It's primarily a Lebanese problem, a footnote in history of a war where hundreds of thousands of people died, where Lebanese militias massacred each other's supporters everyday. Not relevent.  
Finally, acts that in Iraq are run of the mill "US action in Fallujah to root out terrorists" , become terrorism when carried out by Israel to stop rocket attacks and infiltration by 
terrorists.  This should be qualified or removed from the article unless sources are provided which specifically identify who is calling a military operation terrorism.
There are a couple of actual actions that can be described as terrorism, but not much. The Lavon affair can probably be listed, and maybe Qibya can be listed because they arguably fall under a general range of classical terrorism. Although Qibya really has no political message that it is trying to teach Jordan. 
I don't know if population transfer can strictly be defined as 
terrorism. In other words. It needs a rewrite. On actions that editors can argue one way or another, I leave to discussion. Guy Montag 02:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "orthodox definition" of terrorism.  Whose definition do you have in mind?
I have in mind this definition: the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature.
Guy Montag 02:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: PS: I moved the article, pending its possible splitting (as Guy has suggested), to the title that better reflects its current contents: Zionist terrorism. - Mustafaa 01:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Mustafaa, it's not enough just to find some website calling something terrorism; I can find any number of websites describing all sorts of things as "terrorism".  For example abortion  or Islam .  Rhetoric is thrown about all the time by partisans and propagandists merely to score points; what is first needed is credible and citable sources, not just anyone saying anything. Jayjg (talk) 02:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very nearly the only use of the word "terrorism" is for such rhetoric; the term is hopelessly subject to POV, and no universally accepted definition exists.  I'm therefore not sure what you mean by "credible and citable sources", but I imagine the Turkish PM and PNA official statements qualify. - Mustafaa 02:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, "terrorism" has a fairly narrow and well-defined meaning, it's just that the word is  often abused by propagandists who have attempted to hijack the term precisely for the purpose of obfuscation.  As for the cites provided, if that's the level of citability we're demanding, then I suppose anything that the Israeli government or Israeli PM calls "terrorist" should be added in a list of terrorist acts somewhere. I guess they'll do for now if they're cited. Jayjg (talk) 02:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: The latter is already the case, from what I can see. Why else is an act like the assassination of Rehavam Zeevi termed "terrorist"? - Mustafaa 02:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if that is a general case or an isolated item.  In any event, one thing distinguishing Zeevi was that he was a democratically elected government official. You might want to consider who killed him as well. Jayjg (talk) 04:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: The Kahan Commission held several Israeli leaders indirectly responsible.  Argue with them.  --Zero 16:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am the author of the above passages that Guy cites, and I fail to see what it proves (aside from Zero's comment directly above, that it "held several Israeli leaders indirectly responsible.") I, myself, don't think it boils down to mere negligence/inattention, no matter what the Commission members may or may not think, or say, then or today. The historical record is far from limited to their account. El_C 10:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Indeed.  Guy, you do not deny that Sabra and Shatila is a case of terrorism; you simply deny that Israel bears any responsibility.  However, the Kahan Commission - and the survivors - both hold Ariel Sharon responsible, and Israel ordered these people in to begin with. It belongs right here. - Mustafaa 22:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: That's your POV, and should be mentioned.  It should not, however, be presented as fact. - Mustafaa 00:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Honestly, I find that passage rather immaterial to your claims of involvement or lack thereof. And viewing the Commission as a neutral source should probably be supplanted, or at least supplumented, with the pertinent historiography. El_C 10:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Noting that I havne't really read this article, I'm not certain that's correct, Mustafaa. Sabra and Shatila was a case of Israeli State Terrorism, as opposed to pre-statehood Zionist terrorism. (following Western academia's conventions, which I won't comment on). El_C 22:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, sorry.  The article only just got split, and I put this comment on the wrong talk page.  But I'm glad you agree that it belongs in the Israeli State Terrorism article. - Mustafaa 22:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So, it's finally split. It seems as if it has been many months —and it has been— since I proposed that (of course, I just proposed it and did nothing – or maybe it was Jay who proposed it, I can't remember). Yes, I agree. And I am the sole author of the Kahan Commission, to boot. (though expanding it beyond what I have there currently, is really the tricky part) El_C 22:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Innaccurate, tangent ridden, POV Article

message: I'm not spending hours of my life fighting inveterate POV pushers. What a waste of time! It's risible that you pretend to "discuss" the article.
This is outrageous:
"This article deals with actions, which detractors have categorized as terrorist acts by Zionist paramilitary groups within the British Mandate of Palestine, before and after Israel's establishment."
The well is poisoned from the get-go by suggesting that only "detractors" consider Zionists to have committed "terrorist" acts. I can't even begin to understand the mentality of people who think some of the things we are talking about are not terrorism -- even if committed by their own side. Then the article's scope is circumscribed by saying it will only cover "Zionist paramilitary groups"! That neatly excludes a/ the state of Israel and b/ any lone wolves who we may or may not want to write about. And what is the bollocks about the British Mandate of Palestine? We're just not interested in Zionist terror elsewhere? Grace Note 23:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, same old: it being about you not going to do this, and you not going to do that. Why don't you add information to this article then, or change the lead? You are familliar with the topic enough to do so? All you have added to this article and topic thus far has been hostility. You come into this article with an a priori anger, and we're supposed to say: yes, your grace? Ahuh. El_C 23:28, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, was there any defence of that paragraph among that spittle-flecked nonsense? Or were you just indulging yourself in a personal attack to show solidarity with your chums? I do feel hostile against this sort of trash, El C. Anyone with the least regard for NPOV ought to. Not to mention anyone with a regard for decent writing, who will be appalled by the atrocious grammar it indulges in. Grace Note 01:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apology accepted! I'm sure everyone here agrees that my writing cannot even be remotely compared to yours, but I do aspire to reach those heights, your grace. And I look forward to your edits to the article and further insights.El_C 01:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Guy Montag agrees that you're the greatest writer living! Well done. Grace Note 04:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: As if I am POV pushing over the Israeli-Palestinian articles, GN has shown zero evidence that I have, only anectodal innuendo. I dare say that I have a reputation for objectivity on such issues, and am even considered authoritative (which I'm not: Jay and Zero are probably more familliar with the scholarship than myself). And at any rate, I have contributed ten times, a hundred times more in this encyclopedia to 20th Ct. African history than I have 20th Ct. ME history. I take exception to all of Grace Note's insinuations and accusations against myself. El_C 03:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article speaks for itself. Your pride in it speaks for itself too. Your idea of "objective" might well encompass defining "Zionist terrorism" so that it excludes one of its most visible perpetrators, but I do not. And I'm well aware of the kind of "scholarship" that considers Baruch Goldstein not to be a terrorist. Grace Note 04:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pride in it? In your obviously highly confused mind, maybe. For the last time, I did not author this article, I have not edited or even looked at it until yesterday. Why do you keep affiliating myself with the contents of this article? I suspect this is a measure of your hasty and superficial research methods (or powers of observation, for that matter). This is the only appreciable edit/addition of mine to the article, you have yet to tell me what fault you found in it, nor cite any evidence whatsoever regarding my purported pride and otherwise nonesensical shortcomings which you (falsely & abusively) attribute to me. El_C 05:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the chums comment: I'm starting to think that GN just wants me to be hostile and unfriendly (because that is the stance he has addopted?) Who am I to collaborate collegially with Jay on, let say, Israel, or with Mustafaa on Tunisia? I must fight, fight, fight. More tension, less compromise, choosing sides just for the sakes of it, being needlessly combative, et cetera, etc. And, of course, any edits I make means that I am responsible for —and take pride in— that given article. El_C 05:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: You mean in this diff that I explained was definitionally problematic in being listed that way before but that you haven't read because you reverted it from your contributions? The one I had to solve thusly (after a 2 minute search) because you were unable to take the hint (about as subtle as a sledhammer) and assume this monemunetal undertaking upon yourself? Albeit for me to presume that you undertake any of the research yourself there. Now it is the legnthiest paragraph in the article, is undisputed by either side. Thanks for all the help. El_C 07:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Same old, same old 

message: ::The article speaks for itself. Your pride in it speaks for itself too. Your idea of "objective" might well encompass defining "Zionist terrorism" so that it excludes one of its most visible perpetrators, but I do not. And I'm well aware of the kind of "scholarship" that considers Baruch Goldstein not to be a terrorist. Grace Note 04:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pride in it? In your obviously highly confused mind, maybe. For the last time, I did not author this article, I have not edited or even looked at it until yesterday. Why do you keep affiliating myself with the contents of this article? I suspect this is a measure of your hasty and superficial research methods (or powers of observation, for that matter). This is the only appreciable edit/addition of mine to the article, you have yet to tell me what fault you found in it, nor cite any evidence whatsoever regarding my purported pride and otherwise nonesensical shortcomings which you (falsely & abusively) attribute to me. El_C 05:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the chums comment: I'm starting to think that GN just wants me to be hostile and unfriendly (because that is the stance he has addopted?) Who am I to collaborate collegially with Jay on, let say, Israel, or with Mustafaa on Tunisia? I must fight, fight, fight. More tension, less compromise, choosing sides just for the sakes of it, being needlessly combative, et cetera, etc. And, of course, any edits I make means that I am responsible for —and take pride in— that given article. El_C 05:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: You mean in this diff that I explained was definitionally problematic in being listed that way before but that you haven't read because you reverted it from your contributions? The one I had to solve thusly (after a 2 minute search) because you were unable to take the hint (about as subtle as a sledhammer) and assume this monemunetal undertaking upon yourself? Albeit for me to presume that you undertake any of the research yourself there. Now it is the legnthiest paragraph in the article, is undisputed by either side. Thanks for all the help. El_C 07:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pride and lack thereof

message: The term "Critics" doesn't cut it - it is inaccurate, conferring a sense of legitimacy as well as an implied amount of neutrality to those who use the term "Zionist terrorism" to describe various events or people. The term "detractors" does not imply these and is therefore more accurate, particularly as relates to modern-day events that the POV pushers keep trying illegitimately to add to this article.Enviroknot 05:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose, then, that John L. Peeke's (of the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School), Jewish-Zionist terrorism and the establishment of Israel, is a detractor. El_C 06:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Everyone understands and is more than familiar with the word critic.  Detractors is confusing and pointless. IMO --Silversmith  Hewwo 09:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Critics, or the simple, "could be" - I think "could be" a reasonable way of saying it, without attaching a POV to whether they were terrorist attacks or not. --FCYTravis 09:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created a new version of the intro, copied from Palestinian terrorism. Guy Montag, I don't quite know how you can say the acts committed by Irgun and Lehi are "alleged" - they're historical facts. --FCYTravis 10:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: It's important to reiterate the article title in the first line of the article, as per Wikipedia style. "Detractors" is a loaded term - "critics" carries far less negative connotation. Conversely, it's important to make clear that this is a disputed topic. Hence, the "the use of this term is disputed" line. --FCYTravis 10:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for a little sanity here Travis.  Look, those of you who claim the term critic is a white wash, I challenge you to prove that there are no critics of Zionist terrorism, but ratehr only Islamic Jew-haters.  When you can do that your EDITORIAL OPINION will have validity.  And its not only that, but the type of language that "critic" represents falls exactly in line with other articles regarding Israel Palestine and Zionism.  Look people, there is a reason you don't edit articles that you have a vested intrest in; and the reason is being clearly demonstrated right now.  I don't edit articles abou socialism or atheism, because I belong to both groups, and I cannot write about them without putting my own POV into even though that is not my intention. --LouieS 16:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as I'm not Jewish, or from anywhere in the Middle East, or someone who has any biased views on the matter, or someone who usually edits such articles, I guess that means I'm more than welcome to edit here. And it is perfectly possible to criticize Israel etc. without being a "Jew-hater". Just stick to the facts, give arguments from all sides, and don't censor something because you don't like it personally. --Silversmith  Hewwo 19:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Critics" vs "Detractors"

message: :I've taken the liberty of adding a Controversy section so that we can get down to brass tacks - who's debating the issue - in more precise terms than "critics" or "detractors" or whatnot. I'm not particularly versed on the arguments for or against calling it Zionist terrorism - so I've put in what seems to make sense. Please feel free to edit that area mercilessly. --FCYTravis 10:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: -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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Controversy section

message: All and sundry should be aware of this evidence that Enviroknot has been operating as sockpuppet of, among others, the foul-tempered, disruptive KaintheScion, and that arbitration has begun against same. BrandonYusufToropov 17:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dialogue and lack thereof 

message: delete: "However, the use of this terminology is hotly disputed." - redundant - this terminology is ALWAYS disputed. One man's terrorist etc — Unsigned comments by 62.252.0.7. Please sign your comments. El_C 01:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  However, the use of this terminology is hotly disputed. 

message: It isn't only the critics who call it terrorism. Lets stick with how we use it here and avoid judgemental language. Qualifying the use of the word like this signifies neither approval nor condemnation. — Unsigned comments by 62.252.0.7. Please sign your comments. El_C 01:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: -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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  critics who call it terrorism 

message: 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)
replies: text: A bit rambling, but overall, good points. El_C 08:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Militancy vs Terrorism

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  And Humus Sapiens writes ... 

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

message: ... a single day after the last marathon VfD concluded? (See above.) BrandonYusufToropov 16:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  By what possible logic can another VfD be appropriate... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual Dispute?

message: 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)
thread_title:  JDL Zionism dispute 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Terrorism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Attempt to minimize casualties? 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  King David bombing 

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

text:  Use Jerusalem Post instead, thier links stay good, Klonimus 06:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attack of Thursday August 4 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Motivation of Zionist Attacks 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Terrorism, not militancy