Talk:Palestinian fedayeen

message: The second line of the article currently says "...the Israeli government considers them to be "terrorists"." Wouldn't it be better to say "...the Israeli government describes them as "terrorists"., given that is the extent of our knowledge? We know what they call the fedayeen; we can hardly be expected to know what they think.
Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed. By the way, even though its common knowledge, someone should find a reference for that line. --Al Ameer son (talk) 13:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

text: They are terrorists though, so shouldn’t you spell out the ideology that makes the claim ‘terrorism is armed resistance’? Because most people don’t actually believe this. Most people understand terrorism as defined in the dictionary, and the sentence as it stands makes it sound like Israel thinks they do terrorist acts but they say they don’t. And that’s not the case at all. The case is that their insistence on planning, and indeed incentivising terrorism is effectively saying ‘terrorism is active resistance’.  Does anyone disagree with that summary? The importance is clarity and accuracy isn’t it? Donald Trump calls himself a genius but that’s highly contested, and the issue isn’t what he calls himself, it’s whether or not he actually is a genius that is being debated - however in that instance obtaining proof is a different conversation. In regard to the fedayeen planning and conducting acts of terrorism they are quite forthright about this fact so anything that implies otherwise is misleading. 49.183.70.173 (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m not telling you how to write it. I’m just saying that as it stands, it’s pretty ambiguous at best. Some quotes may be appropriate in this instance, to contextualise it by how representatives describe things. 49.183.70.173 (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorists 

message: I'm at a loss:
-- first it says: "had different meanings to different people at various points" -- true enough
-- then "one who sacrifices himself" is opposed to "self-sacrificer(s)".
I don't see a difference, and indeed there is NO difference of opinion about the original /root meaning of the word. 
Just cut the second definition.  85.178.65.247 (talk) 06:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions of the term 

message: While the article following the emergence of Fedayeen groups is good, early sections detailing its emergence seem more interested in talking about Israeli retribution than the fedayeen! Needs to be rewritten to better reflect the article's focus, because right now it is thinly veiled partisan manuevering.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.25.100.85 (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Less about providing justification, more about the actual events 

message: Because President Nasser's rhetorical flourish "the disciples of Pharaoh" is merely a dramatic metaphor, and neither this article nor this section is about nor refers to ancient Egypt, I don't believe this use of the word "Pharoah" (within this quotation) needs a wikilink to that unrelated article.  Just as "Islam" (used right afterwards, in the same manner) does not require (nor have) a link.  Let's not muddy up this quotation with links which shine no light on the subject of this article.
- Zulu Kane (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  disciples of Pharaoh 

message: Even though I, personally, have no axe to grind in this fight, I know I'm walking into a minefield by choosing to edit any article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  But I can't help myself; as a frequent reader of Wikipedia, I want it to be readable to ordinary people.  Here are the guidelines I'm trying to follow, and my general thinking, as I edit this page:
* Avoid deleting or changing pre-existing "facts" supported by any kind of vaguely plausible citation.
* Minimize or simplify any "he said she said" back-and-forth debate within the article.  (Does not such discussion belong on this Talk page?)  Instead, qualify contested facts with phrases like "some believe", without favoring one cited "fact" over an opposing cited "fact".
* Of course, leave the references in place, so readers can judge these sources for themselves.
* Explaining what Israeli or Arab or Palestinian governments or peoples or organizations believed or claimed at the time seems relevant, as a cause of conflict or war.  
* This article is, or should be, about the history of the Palestinian fedayeen.  It should not be a debate about who was right or wrong, who is good or bad.  It should be confined to topic specific facts and events.
* "Facts" apparently included to justify the actions of one side or the other should be given close attention.  Do they provide any other insight into the subject of this article?
That's my current thinking, as I proceed into this minefield.  I wonder what guidelines other interested editors are applying to their own contributions?
- Zulu Kane (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  editorial guidelines 

message: Is this plug for a novel really appropriate or informative:
:The French writer Jean Genet who visited Palestinian fedayeen at their bases in Jordan between 1970 and 1972, "memorialized what he perceived to be their bravery, idealism, flexibility of identity, and heroism" in his novel Prisoner of Love (1986).
I think it could be deleted, without taking anything away from this article.
- Zulu Kane (talk) 07:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --Al Ameer (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted it. - Zulu Kane (talk) 08:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black September in Jordan 

message: This sentence, as written, does not make sense: "[...] it would be political and religious blasphemy to call the 'leftist fighters' of the fedayeen." I imagine it was intended to say either "[...] it would be political and religious blasphemy to call the 'leftist fighters' fedayeen." or "[...] it would be political and religious blasphemy to call the 'leftist fighters' of the fedayeen 'martyrs'." -sche (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing or stray word 

message: The article says that Fedayeen groups united under the umbrella of PLO, while still using this concept also later on. In any case, no one is using the name "fedayeen" any more. My question is when has the term become obsolete - is it 1964, 1967, 1970 or 1982?GreyShark (dibra) 13:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: For sure it was still used by USA in 1975 (see ) and for events until 1982 in a Harvard monograph  (it is explained why on its page 2). Wykx 14:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The fedayeen as a real movement seems to have largely died out before or immediately after Israel's invasion of Lebanon. However, occasional fedayeen-style attacks continued to occur at least until 2001 as the article mentions. But these later attacks were pretty-much one-off events. I don't know when the term became obsolete though. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Usage of Fedayeen concept for modern groups

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Palestinian fedayeen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120920134719/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380626879&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380626879&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Palestinian fedayeen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/6b189672cac9e58a85256d9f006554b8!OpenDocument
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130605014133/http://www.aisisraelstudies.org/2006papers/Gelber%20Yoav%202006.pdf to http://www.aisisraelstudies.org/2006papers/Gelber%20Yoav%202006.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090623224146/http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/maps/fed.html to http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/maps/fed.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090122095501/http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/war_on_gaza/2009/01/200911915455957756.html to http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/war_on_gaza/2009/01/200911915455957756.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121033709/http://www.al-bab.com/arab//countries/palestine/orgs2.htm to http://www.al-bab.com/arab/countries/palestine/orgs2.htm#DFLP
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Palestinian fedayeen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080118193127/http://www.un.int/palestine/PLO/PNA1.html to http://www.un.int/palestine/PLO/docone.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please clarify what you believe is "misleading". The Fedayeen position according to the source is that any Jew who refuses to renounce Zionism is to be refused from any ostensible Palestinian state. You have inverted that logic and reworded it to read that  This misleadingly suggests it is an inclusionary policy, while in fact it is exclusionary according to the source. It is the former wording that is correct and true to the source, not the latter; this was a weak revert. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I have the source. The exact wording is   So the wording preferred by Nableezy is almost an exact quotation. Nableezy's version also matches the source regarding which Palestinian state is being referred to—it is the state which the fedayeen sought to create. There is no support in the source for Wikieditor19920's version and I invite Wikieditor19920 to assure us that his/her misrepresentation of the source was accidental. Zerotalk 06:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

text: I have found that all the references to Freedman are actually references to an article of Bard O'Neill in a book editted by Freedman. O'Neill has no wiki article but seems qualified on this topic. I'll fix it. Zerotalk 07:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

text: Thanks Zero, but yes, it is misleading to claim that I have inverted the logic of the source by following it. Please do not pretend that you have seen a source that you oh so clearly have not. We have library cards. That something does not exist in google books does not mean you are allowed to lie about its contents. Thanks in advance for taking more care in the future. nableezy - 12:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The source is in fact available online, through a Kindle sample and Google Scholar. Congratulations on owning a library card, but you're not the only one with access to sources. The quote above is actually from a footnote that begins  This provides direct support for my earlier, correct characterization of the text, and frankly, Zero's omission of that first line seems far too convenient. The source clearly describes the policy as excluding Jews who did not renounce Zionism and allowing only those Jews (apparently, not even all Jews that renounce Zionism) into a potential Palestinian state. If you believe otherwise, please feel free to get out your library card and provide the evidence. Until then, the line in the article should be edited to reflect the fact that this was in fact an exclusionary policy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The 1917/1947 part of the source is already in the article. The text you tried to change was almost a verbatim copy of the source. Nobody here cares that you want to reword it to emphasise something that the source does not emphasise. You aren't even making sense; the words "could remain" in the sentence you imagine supports you is precisely what Nableezy's text says. Zerotalk 01:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  For the article to say that "any A who does B can enter C" (I'm now using variables, to show the logic to you perhaps more clearly) does not imply that "Any A who does not do B cannot enter C." However, that's what the source says about the fedayeen position on Jews in Palestine re: "renouncing Zionism." That's why "Only Jews who renounce Zionism were permitted in Palestine, according to fedayeen" better captures what the source says. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Except the article says remains, not can enter, as does the cited source. What the source says (the pre-1974 position of the fedayeen was that any Jew renouncing Zionism could stay) is exactly what the article says. nableezy - 03:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  With the implication that Jews who did not renounce Zionism could not remain. Because that's what the source says. And that's why this article should use the language "only" instead of "any" and indicate that this was a policy meant to keep certain people out. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The word "any" comes directly from the source. On Wikipedia we report what sources say, not what editors think is implied by what they say. It is long past time for you to drop the stick. Zerotalk 13:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think so. Using wording from the source while selectively omitting other portions in a way that fundamentally alters its meaning is not a proper use of any source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not alter the meaning, fundamentally or otherwise. That's what you are trying to do here. Luckily, we can look at the source ourselves and see that it is in fact you that is attempting to manipulate the clear meaning of the source. The source says any and you say we should use only. Funny how it is that you keep saying others are distorting the source. Absolutely nothing is left out of the source, the line you complained about being missing is literally the next sentence in our article. Stop wasting our time, the article follows the source, as it should. Your edit distorted it and was reverted, and will be again with a report for tendentious editing if it is repeated. nableezy - 15:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Spare me. It is unfortunate and telling that neither of you have responded substantively to my argument other than repeating "No it's not." The article does not currently describe the exclusionary dimension of the policy described in the source. That is what I've attempted to remedy, and your WP:STONEWALLING and edit-warring is what's disruptive. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unfortunate and telling that you continue to claim that when the article content is near verbatim copy of the source that it somehow misrepresents the source. The source says that prior to 1974 any Jew who renounced Zionism could stay in a Palestinian state. The article says exactly that. Saying that is quite different than "no it's not". Your apparent insistence that we say what the source does not say, including by repeatedly misrepresenting what our article says, is not something that really matters. The source directly supports the content. Sorry you dislike what the source says, but that is not an excuse to make things up in our article. nableezy - 18:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is not that you did not sufficiently copy-paste the language from the source. It is that it does not include all the relevant information. The source suggests that Jews who did not renounce Zionism were not permitted to remain in the Palestinian state. Do you disagree with this? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: lol, what relevant information is not included? Earlier you said it was the bit about 1917. You notice the next sentence in our article says After 1974, the issue became less clear and there were suggestions that only those Jews who were in Palestine prior to "the Zionist invasion", alternatively placed at 1947 or 1917, would be able to remain.? The article says exactly what the source says, that prior to 1974 the fedayeen position was that Jews who renounced Zionism may stay in Palestine. Full stop. It says exactly what the source says, and if you want to continue to claim that somehow saying exactly what the source says means that it does not say what the source says you can do that. I will however start ignoring you. Multiple editors disagree with you, you are welcome to attempt any of the options at WP:DR to seek a change. But as it stands the long-standing text will, uh, stand. nableezy - 23:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here's what the source says:  I'll ask again, and this is the last time I will make this point: Do you believe that does or does not say that Jews who did not renounce Zionism may not remain in Palestine, according to the fedayeen? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You're actually quoting from a paper from the Journal of International Affairs in 1978, not the chapter from the book in 1991, but they appear largely the same with some minor differences so no matter. Either way, what this is a footnote to in that article is as follows:Since the fedayeen considered the attitude of the international community to be important in the liberation struggle against Israel, they made a concentrated attempt to transform their pre-1967 image as a group that merely wished to "throw the Jews into the sea" by stressing two points. First, non-Zionist Jews would be allowed to remain in the new Palestine and second, the new nation would be a "secular, democratic, non-sectarian state."That is it both in the body and in the footnote uses the phrasing that those Jews who were not Zionist would be allowed to remain. Yes, that necessarily means that those Jews who are Zionists would not be allowed to remain. I dont quite get why that matters. What the source supports is what our article says. nableezy - 00:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nab, you are more observant than me and I didn't realise that 19920 was quoting from a different source from what he/she claimed to be quoting from. But as you say, the article matches both sources anyway. Looking back at 19920's edits in the article, it is clear that 19920 didn't understand what the source was discussing (the word "ostensible" and the edit summary "an official Palestinian state (does one exist? disputed)" simply don't make any sense with regard to a planned future state). Whether 19920 understands now, I don't know or care, but I do know that someone who endlessly argues after being decisively proven wrong is being disruptive. Zerotalk 02:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

text: The source is not a Bard O'Neill book and the phrase "While the most recent position" does not appear there. So you are not looking at the source. But this is very boring since the 1978 version that does contain "While the most recent position" also supports the article perfectly. Zerotalk 09:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

text: No, the book says Although the pre-1974 position of the fedayeen was that any Jew renouncing Zionism could stay, the paper says While the most recent position of the fedayeen has been that any Jew renouncing Zionism could stay. Either way, moot point, as both support the text as written. nableezy - 15:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fedayeen position on Jews ability to enter Zion 

message: The following quote from the article:
: The ideology of the Palestinian fedayeen was mainly left-wing nationalist, socialist or communist, and their proclaimed purpose was to defeat Zionism, claim Palestine and establish it as "a secular, democratic, nonsectarian state".[4]
Should be changed to:
: The ideology of the Palestinian fedayeen was mainly left-wing nationalist, socialist or communist, and their proclaimed purpose was to defeat Zionism and claim Palestine.
The linked book is not a source for the quote. The linked book mentions the quote in passing to dismiss it, stating:
: Disagreement on the meaning of a "secular, democratic, nonsectarian state" has been clearly evident within fedayeen ranks, with some groups striving to give the concept a meaningful content and others choosing to use it merely as a slogan for assuaging world opinion.
I could not find the origin of the quote, only places talking about it. Furthermore, all original fedayeen material is rather contradictory to the idea expressed in the quote, for instance while searching for the origin of the above quote I see in a Fatah pamphlet of the period:
:The liberation action is not only the memoval of an armed imperialist base, but, more important - it is the destruction of a society. Armed violence will be expressed in many ways.
Dotancohen (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading quote 

message: Change: "Most Palestinians consider the fedayeen to be "freedom fighters",[3] while most Israelis consider them to be "terrorists" "
To: "Most Palestinians consider the fedayeen to be "freedom fighters",[3] while most Israelis consider them to be "terrorists" due to their attacks on uninvolved civilians" McGullivan (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 October 2023 

message: Remove the claim "Others argue that Israel "engineered eve-of-war lies and deceptions.... to give Israel the excuse needed to launch its strike", such as presenting a group of "captured fedayeen" to journalists, who were in fact Israeli soldiers" citing footnote 35. The source cited references another secondary source which cannot be found when searching google either in English or in Hebrew. Searching google for evidence of the claim that Israel presented IDF soldiers as captured Fedayeen terrorists also turns up no results. Whilst it is possible it could be true, there is no evidence to be found for the claim, and if it was true, it is likely there would be evidence that could be found as it is quite damning claim on the subject.
The source cited: https://www.kulturkaufhaus.de/en/detail/ISBN-9780791455852/Eisenberg-Laura-Zittrain/Traditions-and-Transitions-in-Israel-Studies-Books-on-Israel-Volume-VI
The source references the following for its claim: "See, for example, Eyal Kafkafi’s treatment of the episode in An Optional War: To Sinai and Back, 1956–1957 (Tel Aviv: Yad Tabenkin, in association with the Society to Commemorate Moshe Sharett, 1994), 99–101 (in Hebrew)."
Googling for this source yields 0 results, when googled in either English or Hebrew. Wesoifguhqeopia (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Information on the late historian Eyal Kafkafi is here and note the mention of this book מלחמת ברירה. Full bibliographic details of the book are here. As always it would be nice to read exactly what the original source says on the topic, but the intermediate source is highly reliable by our standards. The claim is not extraordinary; after all the whole war was the result of a secret conspiracy. Zerotalk 01:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove claim about Israel faking evidence to justify invasion of Sinai in 1956