Talk:Mossad/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

HMS Sheffield bomb removal claim

Successful operations: "Successful removal of a nuclear anti-submarine bomb from freely drifting British destroyer HMS Sheffield"

I'm removing this quite frankly ludicrous claim since its not referenced or even Googlable. --Miikka Raninen 09:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Art dealers

The page says:

to a ring of Israeli "art dealers" with military backgrounds deported shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks

Deported from where? Why? Andy Mabbett 23:16, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Several packs of former IDF (but every Israeli is or was IDF) soldiers were posing as Israeli Art Students. These 'students' were all across the USA, showing up at homes of Judges, unlisted FBI offices and other strategic targets. They would say they were selling paintings and vases and such door-to-door. They were only discovered when a Federal Judge was approached at home, turned them away, and watched as they got in their car and left... not visiting his neighbors.

But they said they were selling door-to-door... Would an Israeli ever lie?? Goodness no, they were probably Saddam's elite secret army.

Why should I believe you? Are you citing your sources? Are you even signing your comments? Sayhar 20:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

USS Liberty

What about a section Mossad's and the IDF's involvment in the attack on the USS Liberty which was pinned on Libya and used as an excuse to bomb Qadaffi? --Omar 12:19, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Israel took full responsibility for the attack on the USS Liberty, and it was never one of the reasons for bombing Libya. Impi 12:56, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Not sure about Libya, but I think the bigger question is why isn't there a point here on the USS Liberty bombing at all? Clearly it was a major Israeli debacle, which almost positively means Mossad was involved. And they didn't take "full responsibility" as you claim. They took what is commonly known as partial responsibility, saying only that it was a mistake, which is actually untrue - they did it on purpose. 63.85.190.4
To begin with, I would suggest you read the article on the USS Liberty incident, which is pretty clear that there is no hard evidence whatsoever to support the claim that the attack was deliberate. Additionally, simple logic dictates that Israel's claim is reasonable when considering the extreme fog of war that results from a rapid conventional war like the 1967 war, as well as the fact that those who claim Israel did it on purpose have still not offered a proper motive, and that NSA intercepts from the incident show clearly that the Israeli pilots thought the ship and its crew were Egyptian. And Israel did indeed take full responsibility, as it is possible to take responsibility for a mistake. That sort of responsibility involves apologising, making amends where possible, and ensuring that safeguards are put in place to ensure a repeat incident won't happen.
In any case, this is irrelevant to the Mossad article. Even if it was deliberate (which I have just shown to be in serious doubt), there's no reason whatsoever that Mossad were involved. Your reasoning of: "Clearly it was a major Israeli debacle, which almost positively means Mossad was involved" is ludicrous, and unless you can come up with a serious reason for including the USS Liberty incident in this article, this issue is not worth discussing further. Impi 07:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

How can an attack by definition not be deliberate?

Easy... If I attack you and I meant to attack the guy sitting next to you, my striking you was not deliberate. It was accidental. See how easy English is? Joey 17:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

So by that logic there was another boat next to the Liberty that Israel was trying to attack, but Liberty got struck instead so it was not deliberate. English may be easy but logic isn't it seems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.240.213 (talk) 07:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Mr omar : you may do not know that the Qadaffy is jewesh orogenal and he always was helpful for Isreal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.224.108 (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Research Department

Could someone in the know explain to me (and in the article) what is meant by "Research Department is responsible for intelligence synthesis." I thought intelligence is obtained, not synthesized.

  • It means they collect raw intelegence from many sources and then synthesise it into some thing that decisionmakers can use. Klonimus 11:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Come on now... Synthesize. Make up intelligence... You know, like the Niger yellow cake documents, all the evidence of WMDs.... remember those... WMDs? THe person defending the USS liberty attacks obviously is biased in thoughts because unbeknownst to the Israeli Pilots their conversations ( coded encrypted) were heard by US spy planes above them. During the conversation, the pilots clearly knew who they were attacking before the attack. They were also heard laughing and even once it was clear that the ship was american the attacks did not cease because the PT boats hit them with torpedos after knowing and confirming the ship was american. SO please do not tell me it was a mistake they meant to hit the ship next to it and by accident......stop it.

  • Or, you know, you could cite your "facts" from a reputable source instead of spreading baseless misinformation. Sayhar 20:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Departments

Is there some reason it says that there are 8 departments, but only lists 6 of them? --Mairi 02:52, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • The other two are secret. Klonimus 11:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Mossad under its new director Meir Dagan has had an organisational shakeup. The emphasis supposedly now is on combating Terrorism. One of the departments/sub-departments, the Metsada, has been changed and is under a different name. I think this new force is larger to reflect Dagans special operations vision he has for Mossad and the way it now does business. Needless to say alot of the veteren staff of Mossad do not like the idea, citing that Mossad is first and foremost an intelligence service, and some have left apparently. To those who don't know who Meir Dagan is or his background, well, in the 1970's he was in charge of a one-of-a-kind commando force known as Sayeret Rimon, whose task it was to eliminate Palestinian Terrorists in the Occupied territories. His successes caused a decline in activity there causing the unit to disband, however in the 1980s with the intifada the IDF realised it needed units like Rimon, and so activated two units, Sayeret Duvdevan and Sayeret Shimshon. Today only Duvdevan still exists and is one of the most successful undercover Counter Terror units in the Israeli Army.

Tomcat200 23 May 2006

The logo shows the old "politically incorrect" motto referring to war. Either it should be identified as such, or a new one should be put in. (Can it be downloaded from the official site, or will Mossad agents seek out an unauthorized use of their logo?)--Sentience 04:12, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Warning anti-semite alert

People should be hammered everytime they cry out "anti-semite" the same way racist anti-Arabs declare the "Muslims" did it on every occasion there is a terrorist attack somewhere in the world. There are Zionist Jewish terrorist organizations in a similar vein as there are Arab terrorist organizations, the KKK, Marxist and anarchist thugs, etc.

http://www.ihr.org/books/ztn/ztn.shtml on the Jewish Defense League; And, well...MOSSAD, of course. (And yes I realize IHR is a fascist press. I try to read all sides of a debate even if I don't agree with a group's politics.) --Daxtox 22:56, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Citing IHR means you lose the argument by default. Klonimus 11:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Mossad carrying out terrorist attacks on a regular basis definitely makes them at the very least a terrorist-sponsoring organisation, similar to the CIA (Gladio, for instance).
    • There are Zionist Terrorists, remember they killed Yitzhak Rabin? JJ4sad6 August 17, 2005
      • I entirely agree that the IHR is not a reliable source, because of their established record of ignoring or falsifying the facts whenever to do so serves their sinister anti-semitic political programme. However, it is not a matter of dispute that there have been Zionist terrorist organisations. The Jewish Defense League was not an invention of the IHR, and nor are any of the other groups formed by Meir Kahane, such as Kach and Kahane Chai. Members of the Gush Emunim movement carried out some pretty horrific attacks in the 70s and 80s. Going further back, the King David Hotel was not bombed in 1946 by Arabs, but by Irgun. And it takes liberties with the truth to argue that only non-state organisations have a monopoly on terrorism. Armies and governments are as capable of terrorism as any underground group, and we should call it by its name. Lexo (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

unofficial motto?

I want to ask if anyone has heard about a unofficial motto of the the Israel´s Institute for Inttelligence and Special Tasks ( Mossad ) who is quoting: " By way of deception, thou shalt do war." Is it true? and if so, perhaps we should include it, alongside the official ones.

  • Plug "By way of deception, thou shalt do war" into google... lots of stuff... of course you get the racist idiots, but lots of good hits.

... Also, what does the hebrew on the logo translate to... the logo here in the wiki? I guess it could be translated a few ways. (like FoxNews spins)

>That's exactly what it translates to.. Another option for the first word is stratagem instead of deception, but deception sounds better

The current Mossad motto (depicted on the logo in Hebrew) is "באין תחבולות יפול עם ותשועה ברוב יועץ" - "Where there is no guidance the people fall, But in abundance of counselors there is victory" (Proverbs 11:14). The quoted "unofficial" motto is in fact the previous motto of the Mossad: "בתחבולות תעשה לך מלחמה" - "For by wise guidance you will wage war" (Proverbs 24:6) according to the New American Standard Bible translation. I have no idea when and why it was changed, but I am quite positive about this. --ShaharEvron 22:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh... just saw in the see also section of article, Victor is former Mossad.

i believe if one follows international law captures and extradites it isnt kidnapping otherwise it is, its against international law and is kidnapping... very much the mossaad and other secret service modus operandi I believe capture -- cannotes that there is there no controversy ( yeah right in this case)

Any roaring successes?

Well, I read the debacles, but out of fairness, do we have any info on their effecient & supported successes? --Duemellon 14:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Capturing Eichmann? Sayhar 20:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Operation Thunderbolt, at Entebbe? - Dmichelsohn 31 August 2006

Removal of Eichman from Argentina

my question was it eichmann??? they kidnapped someone from argentina was this eichmann?? was he ever given an opportunity in an international court to be proven guilty or innocent????

In response to:

130.156.172.129 (NPOVing - Eichmann was not arrested by civil or military authorities - denied habeas corpus in Argentina)
  • Argentina has no writ of habeas corpus.
  • Eichman was indicted by an international court/war crimes tribunal.

As such, I removed the word "kidnapping" in reference to Eichman and changed it back to "arrest."

--jonasaurus 03:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Arrest is a legal process. The team that captured Eichmann and took him to Israel was acting illegally under both Argentine and International law. Israel in fact never claimed anything else, arguing that it had a higher moral authority. So we can't call it arrest. --Zero 10:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Lovely, someone changed kidnap to capture, and then added "war criminal". Dont you just love double standards on Wikipedia? How about we compromise, and say they "captured" him, but add "innocent of being a" before war criminal?It will be just as factual :rolleyes: --Bastion 09:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

  • It's pretty interesting. I think a good neutral term would be "apprehended". Sure, technically he was kidnapped, but kidnapping is a crime, while extrajudicially arresting a genocidal mass murderer is somewhat iffy. It's really a wash; he was kidnapped, he was apprehended, he was arrested (albeit illegally), he deserved it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Technically, it's far from clear that he was kidnapped. The US federal kidnapping statute, for example, defines kidnapping as an act done by abductors who seek some benefit for themselves, thus excluding actions carried out by government agents working for the government. It is instructive to look at the way wikipedia treats the abduction of an Egyptian suspect from Italy by CIA agents: The action is described as ' The agents are alleged to have taken a suspected Egyptian militant ', and later, "The removal of the militant wasn't unusual ". Kidnap implies illegal action carried out for personal gain. As such , it is both incorrect and POV. 'Capture' or 'aprehend' or even 'abduct' is NPOV.
      • Capture or apprehend are POV in this case, as they have no basis in fact - kidnap however, does. "kidnapping n. the taking of a person against his/her will (or from the control of a parent or guardian) from one place to another under circumstances in which the person so taken does not have freedom of movement, will, or decision through violence, force, threat or intimidation." Israel kidnapped and executed him for revenge, are you saying that wasnt personal gain(presuming you view the state as an entity?). Kidnap is a legal term, and what Israel did meets all the criteria(being for gain isnt one of them, it's just common). You have to learn that negative doesnt automatically mean its POV(although this seems to be a massive problem with people who support israel on wiki) Israel even admitted to violating Argentina's sovereignty, and apologised to them. Hell, even the CIA called it kidnap in the days after they got wind of it(you can check on the national security archive.). --Bastion 19:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
        • He was captured and apprehended. How can you seriously claim this has no basis in fact? I've provided you with at least one definition of kidnapping, under which the act would not be kidnapping. You can bluster all you want about "being for gain isnt one of them" - but it clearly *is* under US law. As you say, kidnapping is a legal term, and under the legal definition of kidnapping in the US, this act doesn't fit the definition. The dictionary definition you used, incidently, is NOT the legal definition of kidnapping, as it would include lawful arrest by the police, or the capture of a POW.

I also find interesting your concept that trying people for crimes against humanity is an act of "revenge", vs. say, justice. But even if it was for "revenge" , there is still no personal gain invloved for the Mossad aganets. Israel admitted to violating Argentina's soverignity , and this fact is mentioned in the article about the Eichmann trial, but that does not equate with kidnapping. Rather than being a problem with supporters of Israel on wiki, it seems that the problem rests with detractors of Israel, as the double standard evidenced by the CIA article I've quoted for you shows.Isarig

eishmann was kidnapped from argentina... be truthful

A very early, if not unprecedented, case of rendering a suspect. Kimwell (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

9/11

The long section on the white van on 9/11 is too much and ought to be moved somewhere else with a link. --Zero 10:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It should be dumped: if this was true, it would be all over the news. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
"It should be dumped: if this was true, it would be all over the news."
Not necessarily. It's in the news, and the incident is a fact that should be mentioned in this article, as it relates to Mossad, and is a significant event, possibly failed operation. As it hasn't been proven that they were Mossad (but proven that they were Israelis) it has been placed in the Conspiracy theories section. Serouj 10:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
What "fact"? A traumatized lady saw in binoculars what she thought was a smile? Being Israeli is not a crime. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Remove the garbage. --Haizum 12:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Humus sapiens > What "fact"?
The incident is the fact.Serouj 20:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Humus sapiens > "A traumatized lady saw in binoculars..."
I don't see any mention of a "traumatized" lady. That's an assumption that you're making. Serouj 20:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Humus sapiens > "...what she thought was a smile?"
The pictures were developed, and sure enough, they were smiling with the World Trade Centers burning in the background. Serouj 20:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Humus sapiens > "Being Israeli is not a crime."
No one said it is. But these individuals who were taking photographs with the World Trade Centers burning in the background were Israelis. Cheers. Serouj 20:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Haizum > "Remove the garbage."
You're entitled to your point of view, but this is a valid news item, and not "garbage." I don't see why we should try to cover up this incident, and make it seem like it never happened. Serouj 20:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
What never happened? ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
"It" in my previous sentence refers to the "incident," which did happen (and is documented), but you seem to be intent on making it seem like it never happened, by removing it from this article. Serouj 22:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
What "incident"? What did happen? What "is documented"? ←Humus sapiens
What happened is that five young Israelis (at least 2 of which were working for the Mossad) were arrested by New Jersey state police, after a woman found them filming the World Trade Centers burning and taking photos of themselves smiling with the World Trade Centers burning. "The arresting officers said they saw a lot that aroused their suspicion about the men. One of the passengers had $4,700 in cash hidden in his sock. Another was carrying two foreign passports. A box cutter was found in the van." The men worked for Urban Moving Systems, and "the FBI believed Urban Moving may have been providing cover for an Israeli intelligence operation." And its owner vanished during the investigation: "The owner [of Urban Moving Systems] had also cleared out of his New Jersey home, put it up for sale and returned with his family to Israel." Also, the five were in the U.S. illegally: "The five Israelis were held at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, ostensibly for overstaying their tourist visas and working in the United States illegally." It's been reported that at least two of the men were Israeli intelligence (i.e. Mossad): "Eventually, The Forward, a respected Jewish newspaper in New York, reported the FBI concluded that two of the men were Israeli intelligence operatives." While it's unclear if these agents were working for or against the U.S. and if they had advanced knowledge of 9/11, at least some of them were working for the Mossad. Thanks and regards. Serouj 23:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
...And they were kept in detention for 2 1/2 months before being sent back to Israel. Serouj 23:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
When others were filming the disaster, there was no problem. When others were detained by the police, it was "injustice", "anti-Arabism" and "Islamophobia". But here, it is a proof of some kind of conspiracy. Sensation: a boxcutter found in Urban Moving van! ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
You're entitled to your opinion and interpretation, but they were working for Mossad, and the FBI says so according to the article. Serouj 02:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I'm not implying that the Mossad knew about 9/11 before hand or had any part in organizing 9/11 (although they are possibilities - "conspiracy theories"). What we do know is that at least two of these young Israelis were working for the Mossad. I initially had this information under "Failed Operations" but User:Isarig suggested we place it under conspiracy theories. Now that we're revisiting this, I don't think a conspiracy theory is implied here; it's simply a fact that two Mossad operatives were arrested and held for 2 1/2 months in a U.S. prison. The rest is the details... I therefore propose moving this into failed operations. Thanks. Serouj 03:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong about just about everything you wrote above. The source does not say the FBI says they were Mossad agents. It says 'sources tell ABCNEWS there is still debate within the FBI over whether or not the young men were spies.'. Other sources that were previously in the articl ehad the FBI categorically denying they were intelligence agentsts. I did not suggest we place it under conspiracy theories - i said that if you feel you must mention this - it belongs in consipracy theories, not failed operations - but I don't htink this belongs in the article at all. Isarig 04:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Isarig > "The source does not say the FBI says they were Mossad agents."
Here's the part of the article that says that they were indeed Mossad operatives: "Eventually, The Forward, a respected Jewish newspaper in New York, reported the FBI concluded that two of the men were Israeli intelligence operatives." Even Kurzberg's lawyer says he has previously worked for the Mossad: "Another of his lawyers told us Kurzberg had been reluctant to take the test because he had once worked for Israeli intelligence in another country." There's no denying that at least two of the Israelis arrested worked for Mossad. As to what they were doing, that is another issue, and irrelevant here. Once we've established that they were Mossad operatives, we can include them in the article. Thanks.Serouj 04:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, once we've established that they were Mossad operatives, we can include them in the article. You hvae not established that, far from it. Isarig 04:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
We have already established this fact and I quote again from the article, "Eventually, The Forward, a respected Jewish newspaper in New York, reported the FBI concluded that two of the men were Israeli intelligence operatives." What part of that quote don't you understand? Serouj 04:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I apparently understand a lot more than you. For starters, it does not say 'Mossad', and there are quite a number of Israeli intelligence agencies. The most you have established is that a single paper claimed that 2 were intelligence operatives, while other sources have the FBI explictly denying this. Isarig 04:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
1. Name the other Israeli intelligence agencies. 2. Show me who says the FBI is denying that they were Israeli intelligence. Point. Serouj 05:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Some of them are listed in the intro paragraph of this very article - "It is one of the several main Intelligence Community intelligence entities in Israel, such as the Aman (military intelligence) and Shabak". Other agneies include the Lakam, and the Israeli police's intelligence arm. The link you orinially included here (from YouTube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcON2XbFR3I )end with a statement that the FBI cleared all 5 arrested form any involvement in 9/11. Similar statements can be found here. Now you - show me an FBI statmenet that says they were Mossad agents.Isarig 16:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
According to the Israeli Intelligence Community article, the Mossad is "the agency responsible primarily for overseas intelligence work." Since these Israeli intelligence agents were arrested in New Jersey, it makes sense to place this under the Mossad article and not the Shabak (internal security), not Aman (military intelligence), not the Israeli Police intelligence, and not the Center for Political Research. This incident is going in one of the Israeli intelligence articles. Which one do you suggest? I was suggesting Mossad, since they are the ones involved in overseas operations, and this incident happened overseas. BTW, you can't use a voice-over in a YouTube video as evidence that at least the two who were arrested were not Israeli intelligence; The Forward and ABCNews both report that at least two were Israeli intelligence. This is all the shred of evidence that is needed to include this incident in one of the Israeli intelligence articles. Isarig and Amoruso are clearly trying to cover up this incident, and I don't like it one bit. Serouj 03:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
What you are doing above is original research. It may "make sense" to you to do this, but it is not claimed by the source you are citing, and it may "make sense" for others to do the opposite. As the Mossad article makes clear, the Shabak does operate abroad, (see the Secret Speech of Nikita Khrushchev), and Aman does as well. This is all a side issue. The main point is that unlike the NZ incident, where the NZ gov't officially accused Israel of conducting an intelligence operation , and the Israeli gov't, at least implicitly , conceded that was true - in this case all we have is an unsourced allegation, not carried by mainstream media, not sourced to any US gov't official, denied by both the captured people and Israel - in other words - an unsubstantiated rumor, or a conspiracy theory. As such, at best it may warrant a brief mention in the "conspiracy theory' section, alongside claims that Mossad was responsible for murdering Princess Diana, nothing more. Isarig 04:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Isarig, don't be silly. This isn't "original research"; I've only referenced an article by ABCNews. I haven't added anything to it. We're not talking about conspiracy theories. We're talking about a simple arrest of at least 2 Israeli intelligence operatives. Which Israeli intelligence agency they were working for is another issue - whether Mossad, Shabak, etc. Serouj 04:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
If your source does not say they were Mossad (and it doesn't), and you conclude that they are, based on the fact that some other WP article says Mossad is the primary Israeli intelligence agency working outside of Israel, and that it thus "makes sense" for you to categorize them as Mossad - you are engaging in WP:OR. For this reason alone, this incident can't be mentioned here based only on the source you cite. I repeat: All you have is allegation, not carried by a mainstream media outlet, sourced to an anonymous source, which alleges they are intelligence agents. This is unsubstantiated rumor, nothing more, and at best worthy of a brief mention under conspiracy theories. Isarig 04:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Right. The source does not say "Mossad," and I'm fine in placing this in a more general Israeli intelligence Wikipedia article. I wanted your opinion as to which one it should go into. A mainstream media outlet, ABCNews cites The Forward (which ABCNews considers is "a respected Jewish newspaper in New York") which in turn states that "the FBI concluded that two of the men were Israeli intelligence operatives." Now, this is a fact. And you're certainly entitled to your opinion that their arrest is a "rumor" or a "conspiracy theory." I'd like to hear the opinion of more neutral (non-Jewish) users on this issue. Serouj 04:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
"more neutral (non-Jewish) people" is another extreme racist violation of WP:AGF you made several of those. Amoruso 04:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, what I meant is that we need more neutral people (regarding this topic) to lend their opinion. I did not imply that people who are Jewish are not neutral. Please accept my sincere apologies if my writing made it sound so; I did not mean that. Serouj 05:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Someone here is a Formula 1 Agenda driver. --Haizum 07:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
My favorite part of this argument is how the writer for the Israeli/9.11 connection isn't credible at all; he's a leader in the conspiracy theory 'movement.' I'm probably going to remove that garbage citation at some point for being noncompliant, but I won't say when. --Haizum 07:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Personal attacks don't get you very far in a debate. Serouj 09:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, we're not talking about Mossad's or Israel's involvement in 9/11, and not even Mossad's or Israel's prior knowledge of 9/11. We're simply talking about at least 2 Mossad operatives being caught by New Jersey state police, the FBI, and the CIA, and being held for 2 1/2 months prior to being deported back to Israel. That's it. This constitutes a failed operation, and is similar to how two Mossad agents were caught in New Zealand in July, 2004. Since the latter (the New Zealand case) is mentioned, then I don't see any reason why the former (the United States case) should not be part of this article. Thanks. Serouj 09:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
FYI the article I am quoting from above is "The White Van: Were Israelis Detained on Sept. 11 Spies?". ABCNews.com. June 21, 2002. Retrieved November 30, 2006. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). Best. Serouj 09:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
This constitutes a failed operation Unless the operation was to be arrested by the FBI to survey the effectiveness of hotline tips, interrogation techniques, etc. Oh, you don't think so? Well then, please enlighten us all with the mission plan and how the arrest and release of two operatives constituted a mission failure per said plan. Oh, what's that? You don't have a copy of the mission plan? Gosh, that's sort of problematic for your premise, you know, the one that reads, This constitutes a failed operation. --Haizum 09:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you bring up a good point. The details of the operation needn't be known. For example, the precise operation in which the two Mossad operatives arrested in New Zealand in July, 2004, is unknown. Nevertheless, this event constitutes a failed operation, and that's why you see it in the Mossad article, under failed operations. The September 11, 2001, arrest of at least 2 Israelis working for Mossad is the same scenario: Mossad agents caught in a foreign country, detained for a period of time, then deported. I see no reason why this incident (which occurred in the U.S.A.) should be left out of this article, while a similar event that happened in New Zealand is included. Serouj 10:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Ignoratio elenchi. Forget the New Zealand arrest, I'll challenge that one on the same grounds. Logic commands that if you're going to call a mission a failure, you must know what the contents of that mission plan are. You must. You must. You must. Operation Wrath of God had operatives die trying to complete the mission. They weren't arrested, they died. So, how does an arrest of an operative constitute a complete "failure" of a mission when 1. the mission plan isn't known, 2. the mission plan may still have been carried out despite the loss of an operative? Submit to logic. --Haizum 10:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure why some people are going to such lengths to cover up this incident. All I want is for this article to mention this arrest, as it does the New Zealand arrest. I think this is a very legitimate request. Haizum, we can create a new section, if need be, titled something like "Captured Mossad Operatives," if you don't accept including the New Zealand and U.S. arrests under the "Failed Operations." That would be fine by me. Serouj 10:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not that big of a deal to me, really, it isn't. Captured/exposed Mossad agents is definitely notable, and maybe a new section would be in order. However, to link 9/11 with a "Mossad operation that failed" simply because some operatives were caught is problematic because it implies that 1.their operation had something to do with 9/11 one way or another and 2.that the unknown operation actually failed. That's all I'm saying. --Haizum ‡ μολὼν λαβέ 10:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The wording should be careful as to not imply (1) an involvement in 9/11, and (2) that they had prior knowledge. The arrest should be noted, the date, the circumstances, and the result (being deported). Serouj 10:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I suppose a new subsection of "High profile ops" could be started since most of their ops would be considered zero or low profile - any public expsoure would be high profile for them. The word "compromised" comes to mind, since it leaves mission status ambiguous, but at the same time expresses the fact that an operative was outed somehow. This word also doesn't indicate if a mission plan was even present. Hmn, so maybe "Compromised Mossad Actions"? 'Actions' leaves the presence of a mission plan ambiguous, yet we can assume that when Mossad operatives are present, they are performing some sort of covert action (just by being secret agents), mission or not. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
That sounds to me like a good plan. Serouj 23:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Just made the changes. Let me know what you think.Serouj 03:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Serouj, Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:No personal attacks Do not call other people vandals for deleting poorly sourced materials or for content disputes. What you wrote was pure imaginary WP:OR and therefore removed. The source only said they suspected they worked for intelligence (mossad not even mentioned) and this was denied and that's it - nothing with actual depth. Amoruso 03:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Correction: it's not clear if it even suspected it. all the source says is that Vince Cannistraro, "a former chief of operations for counterterrorism with the CIA who is now a consultant for ABCNEWS" says that they suspected it but " The men denied that they had been working for Israeli intelligence out of the New Jersey moving company, and Ram Horvitz, their Israeli attorney, dismissed the allegations as "stupid and ridiculous." Mark Regev, the spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, goes even further, asserting the issue was never even discussed with U.S. officials. "These five men were not involved in any intelligence operation in the United States, and the American intelligence authorities have never raised this issue with us," Regev said. "The story is simply false." This is what is called extreme poorly sourced to suggest this was actually something related to mossad. btw, these poor souls were later interviewed in Israeli tv to their trauma being arrested and there's no doubt that they had nothing to do with the mossad obviously... it's hard to keep such secrets in israel. Amoruso 03:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, My source is ABCNews and I hardly would consider that a "poor" source. The Israeli newspaper, The Forward also covered this incident, and is mentioned in the ABCNews article. You deleted text from a Wikipedia article whose contents were discussed in the "Talk" section, and you yourself did not use Talk before deleting text. That constitutes vandalism. This incident is documented by two respectable news sources. Point.Serouj 03:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's the part of the ABCNews article that mentions that they were indeed working for Israeli Intelligence: "Eventually, The Forward, a respected Jewish newspaper in New York, reported the FBI concluded that two of the men were Israeli intelligence operatives."Serouj
You are quoting the spokesman for the Israeli Embassy. Do you think the Israeli Embassy would admit fault if they were Israeli Intelligence agents? Of course not. Serouj 04:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
According to The Forward the FBI confirmed their involvement with Israeli Intelligence. Serouj 04:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
which is it then ? Israeli or jewish new yorkian ? <sigh> It's ok to delete poorly sourced material without discussing it first, it's not vandalism anyway it's a content dispute. To the point, I've explained to you why that story doesn't have any "meat" to it to be included. However, it is already mentioned in the conspiracy link - this story about 5 israelis being arrested because they took photos - is true, and it serves a basis for a conspiracy theory not for proof of a mossad operation. Anyway, let it go, it won't stick obviously because it's just 5 guys taking photos and detained for a while... cheers. Amoruso 04:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't buy that. All I want is a simple acknowledgement of the arrest of these 2 people working for Israeli Intelligence. We're not talking about a conspiracy theory here. We're talking about the capture of 2 Mossad operatives in the United States, similar to the capture of 2 Mossad operatives in New Zealand. There is no reason why one should be included and not the other. Whether or not there is enough "meat" is your point of view; if the FBI has said they worked for Israeli intelligence, that is meat enough for me. Serouj 04:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I've explained the difference between the two incidents above, take the time to read it. If the FBI has said they worked for Israeli intelligence, that is meat enough for me, too - now show us where the FBI said it, not an allegation my a non-mainstream media outlet that an unnamed FBI source said so. Isarig 04:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I just read your note above and responded to it. Isarig, we all get our news from somewhere. Whether or not a newspaper is a mainstream media outlet or a non-mainstream media outlet is beside the point. But despite that, ABCNews (which I think you might consider a "mainstream media outlet") considers The Forward "a respected Jewish newspaper in New York." If ABCNews considers them respectable, then I sort of do, too... Serouj 04:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

it's already mentioned in the conspiracy link. "and more recently the September 11th attacks" : "From the very morning aircraft smashed into the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon, news reports have indicated Israeli intelligence being involved in the events of 9/11 - and the planting of "false flags" to blame Arab terrorists and mold public opinion to support the pre-planned "war on terror."

"Shortly after the destruction of the twin towers, radio news reports described five "Middle Eastern men" being arrested in New Jersey after having been seen videotaping and celebrating the explosive "collapses" of the WTC." ....... [1] it's all there. If you honestly can't see that this is a classic conspiracy theory... Amoruso 04:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, I understand that there is a conspiracy theory floating out there on websites such as rense.com about either (1) Israeli involvement in 9/11, or (2) Israeli prior knowledge of 9/11. I'm not one who is advocating this viewpoint. What I'm after is not mention of the conspiracy theory in the "Mossad" article; a reference to it is already there. What is lacking in the Mossad article (or alternatively, a general Israeli Intelligence article, since Isarig makes a good point that "Israeli Intelligence" might not necessarily refer to Mossad) is a reference to the arrest of 2 "Israeli intelligence operatives" (quoting from the ABCNews article) in the U.S. on September 11, 2001. There is no conspiracy theory implied here! Just an acknowledgement of the arrest of Israeli intelligence operatives. Thanks. Serouj 04:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
This fantasy claim that Israeli intelligence operatives were arrested is covered already in the rense.com article. It's the core of the conspiracy. Amoruso 05:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
That the report of these arrests is a "fantasy" is your point of view. At this point, I think that we need the opinion of more neutral (non-Jewish) users. Thanks. Serouj 05:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm happy to hear that you do not support the theory that this indicates Israeli involvement in 9/11. However, even what you do believe - that at least 2 of these people were Israeli intelligence operatives - has not been supported by the sources you cite. The only thing you have supported (and borderline at that, since it relies on an archived version of an ABC story, not an article available on the ABC News site itself) is that The Forward has alleged that 2 of the five were intelligence operatives, but used an anonymous person as a source for that claim. This is not enough to state as fact that they were really intelligence operatives. I am warning you for the 3rd time to stop your racist personal attacks on editors of this page. Next time I will report you at [[WP:ANI] Isarig 05:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Isarig, I think now you should be watching your personal attacks: you just called me a racist. Acknowledging that we need the input of more neutral Wikipedia users on this topic does not constitute racism. Serouj 05:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I called your personal attacks racist - and they are. Questioning an editor's good faith, and his neutrality based on his alleged Jewishness is racism. Like I said, you've had your last warnign on this topic. Isarig 05:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Isarig > "This is not enough to state as fact that they were really intelligence operatives."
Who says it's not? The Forward doesn't say that "an anonymous person" said that the 2 of the five were Israeli intelligence operatives. It sources the FBI. Serouj 05:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
It does not name the FBI source, and does not point to an official FBI statement. That is an anonymous source, alleged to be an FBI person. We can't verify that it is true, and as such, it is unsubstantiated rumor. Not enough. Isarig 05:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Isarig, I don't buy that, because if we go by that logic, then almost all news is rumor. If a newspaper says the FBI said "so and so," it means that an FBI spokesman says "so and so." Most news that quotes the FBI or the CIA won't name the spokesman; rather, the news item will often say, "the FBI says..." or "the CIA says..." Serouj 05:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Too bad for you. An archived version of an ABC News story not available on the ABC cite, which alleges that a non-mainstream magazine said something (without citing the exact source - e.g, date, volume # of that magazine) which is attributed to an anonymous source is simply not WP:V. Again, look at the differences between this unsubstantiated rumor and the NZ case. There is just no comparison . Isarig 05:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
And, incidently, you are wrong about what "most news that quotes the FBI" is like. Go to google news, and search for "FBI said". In today's stories, we read that "He has sustained some physical and emotional abuse, but he's in the United States and reunited with his family," said Norman Townsend, supervisory senior FBI agent in Laredo. Mueller, 45, was scraped up, and his wrists were swollen from his captors' handcuffs. Apparently he was kicked around a little bit," FBI spokesman Erik Vasys said."First story that comes up and that "The FBI disagreed that Mayfield's religion was a factor, because his faith wasn't discovered until after the fingerprint identification, said Robert Jordan, who heads up the Portland FBI division. “Of course we regret what happened to Mr. Mayfield, but again, we are proud of what we did here,” Jordan said."2nd story that comes up and that "The FBI said it had been asked to assist with the Litvinenko probe. FBI spokesman Richard Kolko said the bureau's experts on weapons of mass destruction would provide scientific analysis."3rd story that comes up Isarig 05:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
You've only provided examples of places where an FBI spokesman is mentioned, and not statistics on its frequency. It's like my claiming that most cars today run on gasoline, and your refuting the claim by saying that most cars run on solar. You return with a Google search with websites with many cars that run solar, and claim therefore that most cars run solar. There's clearly a logical fallacy here. You need to provide statistics, not instances. Anyways, I'll leave it up to other Wikipedians to voice their concern on this topic. I've already given my opinion, and still stick to it. Cheers! Serouj 05:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I've listed the first 3 stories - they all were the same. I could do so for the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, etc..If you want to claim that most stories have the kind of unsubstantiated anonymous sourcing as in the archived ABC story about what allegedly appeared in The forward - you need to support that with some kind of evidence, the onus is not on me to disprove it (though I've done quite enough already). You have indeed given us your opinion - and you are welcome to it. You need to realize that that is all it is - your opinion , or POV. It does not belong in the article and does not conform to WP's standards. Isarig 06:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
And that, my friend, is your opinion, too. But let it be known that neither 1 nor 2 of the following, nor their combination, is my opinion:
  1. In ABCNews's opinion, The Forward is a "respectable" newspaper.[2]
  2. The Forward, according to ABCNews, "reported the FBI concluded that two of the men were Israeli intelligence operatives."[3]
I'm not going to argue over "interpretations" of facts. Serouj 06:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Serouj, this non-story has nothing to do with Mossad and does not belong in a serious encyclopedia. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
A few of you need to recuse yourselves from this discussion, and in doing so, abstain from calling anyone a racist. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 19:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone bothered to examine this incident in this direction though?; Why would Mossadniks smile at the sight of the towers burning? Israelies & Jews died in 9/11 too, not to mention that Israel would not "Peral Harbor" the United States (into waging war against Islamists on a wider scale) when the cost is the lives of so many people, and the constant risk of being exposed which would surely drag international reaction, political or militant. --Random

End of Introduction

This should be changed:

"Islamic Fundamentalism"

into

"Islamist terrorism" and linking to: Islamist terrorism

Reason is that otherwise you imply that Mossad combats a religion. I assume that is not what is meant.

A human 05:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Is somehow Mossad and ICQ connected?

I hear that Mossad is runnig ICQ. The best way how to get free info.

Where did you hear this nonsense? Do you also think AOL (which owns ICQ since 1998) is run by Mossad? altmany 19:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not Mossad, but Mirabilis was an Israeli start-up. I have heard right-wing (or was it far-left? Extremists overlap to me) sources claiming that there was a Mossad connection, but Mirabilis has since been bought out by Time Warner. Are they part of the Zionist conspiracy too? Oi. Joey 17:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The "zionist conspiracy." Lol.

edit

I removed "bloody terrorists thats what they are" because it was obvious vandalism, biased, and located in a place that didn't make sense.

Read WP:TPG before posting. Haizum 08:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

the torrorists are what then ???--69.114.174.131 22:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Lack of NPOV

Why are the Mossad successes in a shoddy bullet list while the failures are carefully written out? On top of that fact, some of the "failures" simply indicate that their cover was blown from time to time; that's hardly notable. Which anti-semitic Wikipedia editor is responsible for this? (semi-facetious) Haizum 08:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you just add this precious info to the article? I guess majority don't know anything about those failures. I'll remove npov tag --tasc 14:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Just because I discovered that the article fails the NPOV litmus doesn't mean I have to be the one to provide the requisite information to make it NPOV. Your removal of the NPOV tag is completely baseless, anyone can see that. Haizum
You don't have to fix the article yourself, and you don't even have to explain how it might be fixed. However, as the tag itself states, you have to put a summary in Talk of why you think the tag is deserved. Without this information there is no reason to keep the tag. Summarising your reasons here will also bring the benefit that other editors may see your point and agree with you, or that a discussion may start. A tag all by itself is pretty useless. --Zero 02:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
It's your responsibility to read all prior posts. I already explained why the article (or section) fails the NPOV litmus; it's called the first post of this thread. Haizum 02:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Hazium, history of your contribution doesn't create an image of reliable and NPOV-adherent user. Sorry, but blanking, quality and amount of your contribution in main namespace make this kind of talk pointless. as well as your attitude. --tasc 10:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
What you call "blanking" was actually removing vandalism, and this was established by multiple editors and administrators. You're right, I guess my efforts are pointless if other editors are going to draw erroneous conclusions (or lie). Your fallacious stance with regards to a new editor's contributions is also less than helpful to Wikipedia. Haizum 13:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Supporting what I've already observed in the past, this thread is a typical show of bureaucratic diversionism and maintaining the status quo for the sake of an agenda. How so? No one has succeeded in answering a simple question: the first question in the first line of this thread. Everything in between that sentence and my impending truncation of this one is Wikipedia as I define it. Haizum 13:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Krushchev's speech

I deleted this: "* Audio surveillance of Nikita Khrushchev's Secret Speech. The recording was later turned over to the CIA." because it isn't true. In fact, the speech was obtained by the Shin Bet, not the Mossad, and it wasn't a recording but a photocopy of a Polish edition sent to Warsaw. The details (a fascinating story) can be found in Haaretz: [4] and [5]. --Zero 04:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know from reference cited and from a book and many references on the Web it was obtained by the Mossad (there are no Shin Bet agents in Europe) which got it from a Polish politburo member, not audio surveilalance. The Ha'aretz references cited above are not on the Web. This CNN article for example, also says it was the Mossad. http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/experience/spies/isaacs/index.html . Formally, even if the Shin Bet obtained it, I would think it would have to be property of the Mossad. If someone is certain it was the Shin Bet, then it should be explained why the Mossad is credited with it by most histories - it was evidently a significant event for Israel. Israel also had some role in the unmasking Kim Philby, but I forgot what. I think that was pre-Mossad. [[Mewnews (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)]]


Because the Mossad is in charge of transferring intelligence to other western agencies it is often over credited, as shown in the very page we're commenting on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.24.217 (talk) 10:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

As the user above me stated, this has been widely discussed in Israeli media, and there was an interview in Haaretz with the relevant Shabak Chief. The copy of the speech was םנtained by a Shin Bet agent, a journalist in Poland, who had a romantic involvement with a secertary of a communist politburo functioner. He saw the speech by mistake, asked to copy it, and then had it transferred to Israel. source: [6] (hebrew) - Siro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.210.31 (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Rearrangement of successes/failures

I slightly rearranged both of them to be subcategories under "Well known operations"(edit: ended up changing again to "High profile"). I felt is was necessary to indicate that these are just some of the more notable public occurrences, not an actual list of their operations. To bring it up again, is it possible to expand a bit more on their successes? The meager bulleted list doesn't seem like much against the full explanations of their failures, although the positive occurrences are no less noteworthy. Abhorreo 20:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Constant Gardener quotation

From the John le Carré film The Constant Gardener:

Tessa Quayle: "I thought you spies knew everything, Tim?"
Tim Donohue: "Only God knows everything, and he works for Mossad."

I know it's not encyclopaedic and shouldn't be in the article, but it ought to be recorded somewhere. It's just such a great line... Tyrhinis 19:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree the quote doesn't belong here--maybe under the film's entry? There are many possible interpretations of the line anyway, I'm curious what you think it means.

The KGB article has a trivia section, so perhaps there could be a "Popular Culture" section at the end of this article. Joshdboz 15:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it means that the true God is the Jewish God? --Dmichelsohn 22:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope you're joking. Joshdboz 21:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Controversies

Surely the controversy surrounding Mossad should be mentioned, such as the fact that the organisation frequently violates international laws, for example abductions and assassinations.

To distinguish it from which other intelligence agencies? You're not trying to highlight a specific 'controversy.' It would be controversial if Mossad didn't violate international laws. That's why states maintain clandestine services after all. Since ignoring other countries' laws is intrinsic to what intelligence agencies do what would be the point to singling out one agency? --- Agreed. What conspiracy theories? Even Fox News recognized that Mossad had foreknowledge of 9/11, and they are widely recognized to have carried out assassinations at least a few times. EDIT: I'm not an "anti-Semite", nor do I recognize any "Jewish" conspiracy theories. I'm aware that 4000 Israelis are known to have been in the area when the attacks occured. It would be foolish of Mossad to organize such an operation not only against their alleged "proxy" (from the conspiracy POV), but while thousands of Israelis were vulnerable. 64.231.211.63 23:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"Even Fox News recognized that Mossad had foreknowledge of 9/11"? What does that mean? Since when is Fox News even remotely reputable? Jerry Springer may "recognize" Mossad's foreknowlege (I don't watch him enough to know if that is an applicable platform for those ideas), but that means nothing. The "4,000 Israelis" (or Jews) does not come from any Census source, the only possible statistical source of information. It, like every other aspect of the "Jews did it" is made up (which I think you recognize, albeit for the wrong reasons).Kimwell (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Successful operations subsection

I expanded the piece on Gerald Bull, hopefully just the first expansion of many in that section. I took the informtion from the Gerald Bull WP article. I also cited the source, although i'm not sure that citing another WP article is allowed/means anything. Perhaps, if neccesary, the sources from the Bull article could be used for the piece here. s»abhorreo»i 04:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't cite itself. Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh well. I added an external reference. s»abhorreo»i 07:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

??? were the murdered "black september" conspirators ever convicted if not arent they alleged (innocent until proven guilty -- uk law thanks to the magna carta) ??? others prove innocence hard to do when u are dead????

Copywrite Problem

The subsection Departments and Personnel is a partial copy of a portion of this page. I don't see any problems with the rest of the article, so I would just suggest a rewrite of this particular section. Joshdboz 15:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

JFK Assassination

I removed this section for two reasons: 1. Poorly written. 2. The source provided was shoddy at best. In terms of reliability, it was somewhere between a LaRouche rant and the National Enquirer. It should not be included unless a better source is provided.

AKA Vandalism. It was added in two places, you missed one. I removed the other. si»abhorreo»T 11:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Its not just the usual type of conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo,there are a lot of academics including Jim Garrison believed the Mossad where involved in the presidents assassination —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.84.78.157 (talk) 07:45, 6 March 2007

Claims of Mossad involvement in the JFK assassination are not supported by any evidence. Jim Garrison was a discredited District Attorney, not an academic. Just because you can claim a spurious connection or interest, doesn't make the claim hold, it just looks ridiculous. Kimwell (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

"Convincing Madonna and others in the entertainment industry who are not Jewish to participate in the rituals and mysticism of the Kaballah." Uhh...ok? Where is the citation? Seems like an anti-semite wrote this part. Cman 05:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Gerald Bull was working on a Giant Cannon not a scud missle. The cannon shells could have reached into Israel.

bull was working on super cannon not a missile

Peer Review

I've just requested a peer review for Operation Wrath of God, which was a campaign directed by the Mossad to kill those responsible for the 1972 Munich Massacre. I'd appreciate any comments and suggestions. Thanks.--Joshdboz 11:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

About Klein's allegations there, I don't think his claims are so groundbreaking. Israel never claimed it was killing only those who were responsible directly, essentially left only those 3 probably at the time, but the organization who sent them. Klein as I can see doesn't refute that key members of the Black September were killed (such as Abu Youssef), including (eventually) its leader. Israel's assassinations are the reason this group was dissolved completly because of its members being wiped off. Some of them had only indirect responsibility obviously. Amoruso 21:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

History->Structure: Tel-Aviv=capital of Israel?!

In this article, at the History-Structure headline, Tel Aviv is mentioned as the capital of Israel. Are my eyes fooling me? DDRRE 13:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Myths

There should be a mention of how the Mossad is blamed for many high-profile operations without any evidence. (For examples, just read the earlier parts of this talk page!) Since most talk of "Mossad" in a significant part of the world is about the myth of the organization, not its actual operations, a list of these mythical operations — and the resulting reputation of the Mossad — should be presented (with a clear statement that there is no evidence, let alone proof, to support the myths). Calbaer 21:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Some critics

Is it possible to introduce a section about critics of the Mossad operations:

BLACKLISTED URL REMOVED IN ORDER TO ALLOW PAGE SAVE Robert Brockway 16:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Is that site serious or is it a parody though ? Amoruso 06:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead and introduce it --Nielswik(talk) 08:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

History contradtiction

The date for established (under the logo) contradicts the date given in the History section.

Liastnir 14:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Israel wasn't even an official state until mid-1948. Joshdboz 21:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

role section

what was it based on... i think the wp:v version was in intro. Amoruso 06:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Popular culture

One of the bullet points in this section of the article simply states "The Evil Mossad and their Zionist supporters create many troubles throughout the world." Is this a case of vandalism?

I think that section is a bit presumptious. Mossad is mentioned in infinite sources of popular culture like CIA, KGB and MI6. These don't have popular culture sections AFAIK. Amoruso 12:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If the popular culture section gets to large it can be easily moved to a separate article. It's not the most useful information, but I see no real reason against having it, so long its verifiable. Joshdboz 18:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Agencies like the Mossad do feature prominently in popular culture (film, books, even conspiracy theories). If the articles on the CIA do not have an equivalent section it doesn't mean this needs to be dropped from the Mossad article. I'd rather see a similar section added for the CIA and other agencies. Robert Brockway 16:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"The" Mossad

The intro section asserts that Mossad is usually preceded by "The" and the article conforms to this usage. However, in standard English Mossad is almost never preceded by "the". The article needs to conform to standard usage. If "The" is used by some speakers (presumably Israelis), they need to be identified. Ashmoo 06:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there a standard English usage? I've seen it both ways in a variety of reputable sources. Joshdboz 00:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I came in here to check this point. I have never read or heard it preceded by 'the' before. If it should be included, it should also be included in the title of the article. Furthermore, it's wrong for it to be capitalised: 'The' does not need to be capitalised just because it is part of a proper noun. Salopian (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
In Hebrew Mossad is referred to as HaMossad and never as plain Mossad, 'Ha' is Hebrew for 'The', which is probably the origin of the translation 77.124.136.132 (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Mossad assassination of Iranian nuclear scientist

Ardeshire Hassanpour, a prize winning Iranian nuclear scientist has been assassinated last week by Israel's Mossad according to Stratfor. See:

--64.230.126.170 18:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Mexico and the Mossad

I found some websites stating that Mossad members were accused of trying to blow up a building in Mexico.

Then I found this: http://www.pgr.gob.mx/cmsocial/bol01/oct/b69701.html

What is going on? WhisperToMe 16:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think what is happening is that the "accused of trying to blow up" was made up by La voz de Aztlan. I read this forum: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/lofiversion/index.php/t5658-50.html WhisperToMe 16:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Irving's site stated that it has "visual proof" by showing a newspaper cover of the October 11, 2001 Diario de Mexico.

Irving has: http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/12/Mexico2.html

Does someone have an actual copy of this newspaper? Who is the author of the article?

WhisperToMe 19:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I cant make na new scetion so making it here, can people (presumably Jewish israelis) please stop refering to criticism of Mossad or Israel as 'anti-semitic', some of the criticism claimed to be 'anti-semitic' is A) justified even if it doesnt beong in a wkipedia B) Unjustified, however does nto insult the Jewish community or use racist termanology. A criticsim of Israel or Mossad is not anti-semitic, and I have Jewish friends who would be insulted to think that Mossad or israel is the same thing as Judaism.172.207.221.188 01:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

By Way of Deception.............

"Tachbolot" is Hebrew for "Deception". Apparently, Hebrew on this site is not considered an original source. What gives? You guys would rather cut and paste from some bible translated into English?

Learn some Hebrew first. Even the Mossad's "official" website posts the wrong translation in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.34.176 (talk) 11:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Evidently it is you who are not familiar with Hebrew, as "Tachbolot" is not even a Hebrew word but rather a barbarous distortion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

1969 Boats of Chrebourg is Not Mossad Operation

Mistakenly people tend to refer the escape of the 5 boats form Cherbourg Harbor at the Christmas eve 1969 to Mossad.

This affair had no relation to Mossad.

The plot to take the boats was made by Israeli Navy and Rear – Admiral, Retired Mordechi (Nick name Mokka) Limon who was the head of IDF mission in Paris France.

To make the long story short, the boats were transferred to a straw company called Starboat. This company was Norwegian company for Oil Drills. The idea was of Mokka and he was aided by the connections of Milla Brenner, retired Naval officer Commander in Rank that had the Merchant Marin company for fruits freight ships in Israel.

The boats were sold and transferred legally by the government of Israel to the straw company by the approval of Michel De-Breh the French minister of defense.

The crew on board of the ships was Israeli Navy. They kept routine of short sails to the Atlantic. Also they started to operate engines at nights in full noise to make a routine of noise in Cherbourg. The local police came and that issue continued. So the locals gave up on that and it became normal. Prior to escape, small groups of reinforcement navy crew started to come officers ratings and sailors. They purchased food in local stores in small groups to prevent attention, since Cherbourg was a small town and Israeli Navy guys were known there.

Next they asked help from ZIM navigation company Europe Lines for fueling. This was given to them by Edmond Wilhelm Brillant, a retired navy officer. He designed M.V. Lea and M.V. Netanya. To provide fuel at the Biscay (Netanya Bcackup) and Gibralter (Lea). Lea’s bow was modified from settling tank to fuel tank. Lloyds register insurance ticket for letting the Lea go to sea with fuel in her bow was solved by the aid of Kirstine shipyards

The second fueling was in Create by the Dan, a RO – RO (roll on roll off) ferry ship that carried fuel trailers in the garage. This was a different task of ZIM RO – RO dept.

At Sylvester time December 24th 1969, five missile boats sailed at night from Cherbourg harbor to Israel. Boats arrived Haifa at Dec 31st 1969. The boats had significant role in Yom Kippur war 1973 and made huge victory in the first Naval warfare of sea missile using ECM (electronic counter measures) and EW (electronic warfare) technologies. This was studied by USN.

Operation commanding officer Captain Hadar – Kimhi, Vice, Commander Ezra Kedem Krishinsky (Nickname “Karish” Shark), INS Suffa (Storm) skipper Lt. Ronna Arie, INS Ga’ash (Volcano) skipper Lt. Gil Koren, INS Herev (Sward) skipper Lt. Commander Gaddi Ben Zeev,INS Hanit (Spear) skipper Lt. Commander Haim Shaked, INS Hetz (Arrow) skipper Commander Moshe Tabak. The rest is history. (Boats names for oil drill company Starboat 1, 2,3,4,5)

Recommended reading: The Boats of Cherbourg by Abe Rabinowitch

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.199.104.198 (talk) 07:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll move this to Israeli Naval Intelligence, OK? Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Tachbulot means "wise counsel", "guidance", not deception

The root means to "steer", i.e. give guidance. No matter how some people are trying to debase the meaning of this word, the definition of the word within the Biblical phrase (which is the basis for Mossad's motto) is clearly attested and proven. Attempts to twist its original meaning are reminiscent of the attempts to slander and misrepresent the organization itself. J.D.

I have since edited this section as well, as it is clearly biased. Both mottos are actually Biblical quotes, not simply "claimed to be" Biblical quotes. Aniboker (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This article seems to have withered away

I don't know why but this article seems to have withered away, and looks like it could be the offical Mossad website. What happened to the alleged operations? They are one of, if not the most secret and active intelligence and special operations units in the world. Its obvious they are probably involved in more operations we don't know of or can't completely prove, than ones that can be proven. So shouldn't there be a balance?--Equilibriummike (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi eqMike,

I reformatted the operations section into Activities by Region by Country by Date.

If there are any operations missing from the Activities section vs prior versions of Mossad, please feel free to add them, especially if you have external references supporting each addition. When using websites or books as references, please take care to wikilink the author or organization when possible, because in many cases individual websites have points of view, and it helps the reader to identify the point of view by linking to existing Wikipedia articles about the author or website. E.g. if Benny Morris is the primary source then you can say "Author Benny Morris says " or if it is an interview with Benny Morris on Counterpunch you could say "Author Benny Morris interviewed in Counterpunch says " followed by reference and then blockquote of text gives people a better idea of source and POV of the quote. Note that it is not forbidden in Wikipedia to quote sources with POV, it is forbidden to have a POV. By giving context on the POV of a quote you are mitigating any injection of your own POV, and also giving some sense of the authoritativeness of the reference. In general, if you can identify an incident by an on-the-site news report or by a government report of some sort that usually contains more weight than a website not associated with any print media or a blog which may simply be echoing or copying some other source.

Gerald Bull?? I see no mention of him in the entire article? While it is speculation, it is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.240.213 (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

kidnap/capture

1. the IP was edit was me, i forot to login, rather than try to hide the fact that the edit was mine. 2. kidnap seems to be 100% accurate, there are no implications with the term, it does not say it was morally correct or not. just because an editor approves of the action due to their political beliefs, does not mean they can imply that it was justified, nor does it mean that they can ignore the legal implications of mossad capturing/abducting/kidnapping/whatever-ing someone. Sennen goroshi (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

detention.. the reason I dislike that term is more to do with the mean, than the implication. Please correct me, if I am wrong, but doesn't detention mean to keep someone in one place? I used kidnap, because it was the removal of him from Argentina that needs to be explained. To me, capture is catching him, detention is keeping him in one place. Is there a non-legal form of extradition? I have just woken up, my brain is sleepy, someone find me a more suitable word, if you think kidnap is NPOV, give me a better alternative, that means the same as kidnap/extradite. Sennen goroshi (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition#Extradition_and_abduction this shows that either kidnap or abduct would be suitable. I really do understand why anyone with anti-nazi or pro-israel feelings would dislike both of the above, I think that removing him from Argentina was totally justified, but that does not mean, that I will allow that feeling to be reflected in a POV term in wikipedia. The only other option is to totally ignore the removal of Eichmann from Argentina, and just mention his execution, which to me seems like a crappy solution. Well another choice is something like " controversial extradition" which seems even worse.Sennen goroshi (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, at this point, the sentence no verb; needs a rewrite. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
agreed. I concentrated on getting the correct information, but it does sound crappy. Sennen goroshi (talk) 02:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
"Abduct" is pretty good and neutral, I think. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
How 'bout "apprehension", then?
"The apprehension and transfer out of Argentina (in violation of Argentine sovereignty; see U.N. Security Council Resolution 138) of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann."
(Good find re. the U.N. resolution, btw! ;)
—Wikiscient— 05:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks perfect to me. thanks for the help. Sometimes I wish wikipedia did not have to be NPOV, I would have liked to have used the word "bastard" when describing Eichmann, however the trouble with POV, is that I would only accept my POV. jpgordon/wikiscient, thanks. :) Sennen goroshi (talk) 11:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. It's precisely neutral, and eliminates the rather interesting but ultimately fruitless issue of "exactly what sort of authority differentiates an illegal kidnapping with a legal capture of a criminal." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys, the source nowhere says it was "illegal". Jayjg (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that as people are finding illegal not to the suitable for this article, it should use the exact UN wording "in violation of sovereignty" then if people don't like the wording they can complain to the UN, instead of entering into a constant revert cycle. I have cited it, and included the wording as per the UN documentation. Sennen goroshi (talk) 04:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, it's POV-pushing silliness. I'm not quite sure why you're intent on trying to state that the apprehension of this Nazi war criminal and mass-murderer was "illegal" in some way. I'd also like a reasonable explanation for why that specific phrase out of that U.N. resolution are particularly notable to this article. Are there secondary sources which note its significance? Let's get agreement before you try to push it into the article. Jayjg (talk) 11:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I re-added the reference to the UN resolution, cleaning it up a bit (I think). Obviously, a UN Security Council resolution on a particular action is a notable reference in the article about the organization that undertook that action. 69.19.14.41 (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the reference to the UN is highly. The UN are highly notable, the fact that Mossad operate outside of conventional legal methods is notable. It adds a rather interesting 007 style slant to the article. I don't think anyone is going to change their view of Eichmann just because the method of getting him out of Argentina was a legally a little dodgy. If you are pro-nazi/anti-jew, this won't change your views, if you are anti-nazi/pro-jew it wont change your views. It is certainly not a POV, its a fact. And to be honest, I dont really consider violating a nations sovereignty to be "silliness"Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps you think the UNSC reference is "highly notable". Please find some reliable secondary source that mentions this in relation to the Eichmann incident, and summarizes the key points from the resolution. Jayjg (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The UN Security Council is a reliable source on matters of international law. Therefore, it is relevant that they say the Eichmann capture was a violation of Argentina's sovereignty. Tegwarrior (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Err, no, UNSC resolutions are primary sources when it comes to international law, and it's original research to draw conclusions from them. Jayjg (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Ha ha ha! I don't think I've ever seen virtual word-for-word quoting called "drawing conclusions" about something. Are you disparaging my ability to transcribe? Tegwarrior (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Why would that specific material from the UNSC resolution be relevant, as opposed to any other material in that resolution? The resolution contained considerably more than the snippet used in the article - clearly the Security Council felt that all the material in the resolution was relevant and important, not just what editors here chose to insert. And what makes you the expert in "matters of international law" that lets you decide what to include and what to omit? Nothing, of course; that's why we rely on secondary sources to make those determinations. Jayjg (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry; I don't recall when we exchanged our legal credentials. When was that? I'm not sure what your intent is, Jayjg (it's a bit difficult to assume good faith, I have to admit), but you're really raising a straw man here. Why include that portion of the Resolution and not everything else? Indeed, why is anything included in any article here, when obviously there are so many more things that might be relevant, too, but only "what editors here chose to insert" gets in? Seems unfair, doesn't it, all that good information out there being ignored?
Here's a thought: if something in that Resolution is just nagging at you for its exclusion from the article, add it. And don't presume to know better than someone who has added something else from it that it doesn't belong. Indeed, what makes you the expert in "matters of international law" that lets you decide what to include and what to omit?
In the meantime, you might do a little research on what sorts of incidents are considered Acts of War and what sorts of incidents are considered legitimate Casus Belli. Let me know what you discover, and then this conversation might become slightly interesting to me.
Tegwarrior (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent, edit conflict, r to Jay) Come now, this looks dishearteningly like mere petitfogging. Do you really believe that there is a shortage of secondary sources discussing Eichmann, the Mossad, the UN and Argentinian sovereignty?

Of all the things about the Eichmann case that gave Hannah Arendt pause, she singled out the extraterritorial abduction as "the only almost unprecedented feature in the whole Eichmann trial, and certainly [...] the least entitled ever to become a valid precedent. What are we going to say if tomorrow it occurs to some African state to send its agents into Mississippi and to kidnap one of the leaders of the segregationalist movement there? And what are we going to reply of a court in Ghana or the Congo quotes the Eichmann case as a precedent? [ellipses in src]" Today, international lawyers generally frown on the abduction. [em. mine]

The Israelis knew, of course, that they were playing with fire. Isser Harel, who as Mossad chief ran the abduction of Eichmann, later wrote that the operation "caused us a great deal of inner conflict. My mind was by no means easy about the need to carry out a clandestine operation in the sovereign territory of a friendly country, and the question of whether it was permissible to do so - both from the ethical and political points of view - had to be faced in all its gravity."
[...]
Argentina claimed, quite plausibly, that the "illicit and clandestine transfer of Eichmann from Argentine territory constitutes a flagrant violation of the Argentine State's right of sovereignty" and that even the understandable considerations of bringing Eichmann to justice could not justify "taking the law into one's own hands and the subjecting of international order to unilateral acts which, if repeated, would involve undeniable dangers for the preservation of peace." The Security Council debated Argentina's complaint and adopted a resolution declaring that such acts could endanger international peace and requesting Israel "to make appropriate reparation in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the rules of international law."

Bass, Gary J. (2004.) The Adolf Eichmann Case: Universal and National Jurisdiction. In Stephen Macedo (ed,) Universal Jurisdiction: National Courts and the Prosecution of Serious Crimes. (ch.4) Philadelphia: U.Penn. Press.

In Eichmann's case, the most salient feature from the perspective of international law was the fact of Israeli law enforcement action in another state's territory without consent; the human element includes the dramatic circumstances of the capture by Mossad agents and the ensuing custody and transger to Israel[.] [em mine]

Damrosch, Lori F. (2004.) Connectiong the Threads in the Fabric of International Law. In Stephen Macedo (ed,) Universal Jurisdiction: National Courts and the Prosecution of Serious Crimes. (ch.5) Philadelphia: U.Penn. Press.

The principle of territorial integrity (in Art. 2(4) UN Charter)

At its most obvious level this means that the exercise of enforcement jurisdiction within the territory of another state will be a violation of territorial integrity 32
Note 32: E.g. after Adolf Eichmann [...] was abducted from Argentina by a group of Israelis, now known to be from the Israeli Secret Service (Mossad), the Argentine Government lodged a complaint with the UN Security Council [...] It is however unclear whether as a matter of international law the obligation to make reparation for a violation of territorial sovereignty such as that involved in the Eichmann case includes an obligation to return the offender. [em mine]

Higgins, Rosalyn and Maurice Floy. (1997). Terrorism and International Law. UK: Routledge. (p. 48) In short, Jay, there is a clear academic consensus that the apprehension of this Nazi war criminal and mass-murderer was indeed "illegal" in some way (although I don't believe that most international lawyers used your charming scare quotes in so saying.) I would also appreciate if you could dial down your tone; S.G. is "trying to push it in" just as you are "trying to push it out," and he has at least candidly explained his rationale for wanting it in, while your contributions above consist apparently of uncivil claims of POV-pushing, and wikilawyering over secondary and primary sources. It would be nice if you could please acknowledge that disagreeing with your idiosyncratic personal interpretation of international law does not make one a Nazi apologist. Just a thought. <eleland/talkedits> 01:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Your sources are good, your personal comments are inappropriate. In the future, please focus on the former and avoid the latter. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
And your edit comment, "remove POV-pushing silliness;" was that appropriate? Tegwarrior (talk) 02:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I should have used a better one - but that doesn't excuse anyone else's behavior. Jayjg (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

POV tag needed

Redacted. 64.126.34.118 (talk) 02:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I restored the above comment, not because I agree with it, but because I don't think comments should be removed unless they are revealing personal information. I assume me restoring the above was within wikipedia guidelines.

Regarding the claim made in the above comment, I don't think a POV tag is required. In the current state, this article seems pretty neutral. Sennen goroshi (talk) 11:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sennen, this ip is indisputably a troll and has, IMHO, calculatedly abused the right to utilise the talk pages. Why? Because these ips have exhibited a profound interest in abusing their editing privileges to use talk pages as a platform for the expression of anti-semitic/racist sentiment without any sincere indication of constructive intent.
This ip is one of a series (24.27.151.226 (talk · contribs), 65.30.76.58 (talk · contribs), 24.27.130.12 (talk · contribs), 65.27.38.203 (talk · contribs), 64.126.23.130 (talk · contribs)) which has engaged in a campaign of racist/anti-semitic disruption and harassment on the talk pages of various articles and users. Admittedly, the dogma seems so formulaic, so stereotypical and contradictory that the sincerity of these ips is debatable. The aforementioned ips have been discussed on AN/I and repeatedly blocked, some for 3 months in consequence of multiple violations of policy. I believe the anon's comment above should be redacted as it is highly unlikely it was made to enhance the quality of this article but designed to disrupt the project and provoke other users. SoLando (Talk) 14:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, I didn't realise that the IP is question was part of a group of IPs involved in such bullshit, neither did I realise that they have a history that people are aware of. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I've redacted the comment. It amazes me Wikipedia still attracts people like the above. Anonymity still emboldens this type of editor, I suppose, whether their dogma is genuine or not. Anyway, regards. SoLando (Talk) 15:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Uhh?

i found somewhere that the massad was formed by joshua (the 12 spies)Geoman888 (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

In popular culture

Mossad is seen in many books, tv shows and movies. Just to name 2 right now, NCIS mentions Mossad alot and one of their agents is with Mossad. The upcoming moview, You dont mess with the Zohan main character is a Mossad. Im sure more people can name more. 72.138.216.89 (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Spying in the USA

I've read a number of sources where Mossad were accused of spying activities within the USA. However none of this is mentioned in the article. Why is this? --Dumbo12 (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes there was a Israeli spy operation in the US that was found just before the 9/11 attacks and fully unraveled just after the attacks. It turns out it was the biggest espionage operation in US history, bigger than the Soviet Union. No one in the media really wanted to touch it though, there was a lone Fox News report on the incident though. Why is this fact not in this article?--M4silent (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Just prior to the 9/11 attacks an Israeli spy ring was discovered in the United States and was fully unraveled after 9/11. At least 200 suspected Israeli spies were arrested in regards to suspected involvement in the 9/11 attacks and were subsequently deported back to Israel.

Mainstream media reports on this issue are going to be almost nonexistent as most of the media in the US is controlled by Jewish individuals. Nevertheless it is fact. If there are queries about the information above please state before information is placed in article.

The lone mainstream media report can be found on the this link. [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by M4silent (talk • contribs) 02:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

None of that material or any other implies that the Mossad knew anything specific about the 9/11 attack that they did not pass on, or that they planned 9/11, or could have stopped it and chose not to. It is well documented that Israel warned the US that they thought a big terrorist activity was going to take place. (I remember them saying it on 9/9/01). - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Mengele

I got onto this page after reading a little on the Josef Mengele page. On that page, it claims he died swimming (by accident or because of a stroke). Yet on this page, it claims the JDLI assassinated him based on info from Mossad. A little consistency between pages would be nice

I'm going to remove the bit about Mengele's death until there is good reason otherwise. Quinnfeld (talk) 22:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


Mengele didn't die under fire from a commado!!!! That's completely made up. It wasn't even known that he was dead until almost ten years after his death. Could the person who wrote that please post references to prove that statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.14.118.222 (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed pseudo advice of 11/9

====United States of America==== The Mossad informed the FBI and CIA in August 2001 that as many as 200 terrorists were slipping into the United States and planning "a major assault on the United States." The Israeli intelligence agency cautioned that it had picked up indications of a "large-scale target" in the United States and that Americans would be "very vulnerable."[http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/mossadwarn.html Mossad Warned U.S. Of Impending Attack].

Because the reference SAY THE SAME of the site (so it's insufficient and copyrighted material) Citing as source as: Los Angeles Times, (September 20, 2001)" No other media will show or prove any other evidence of this facts, so if NPOV, media populism or simply a gossip from a unidentified journalist.

Please, the source must be valid and not just a pile of garbage copied from a blog. --190.47.241.187 (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)--190.47.241.187 (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There is speculation among some conspiracy theorists that Bernard Madoff, alleged to have stolen as much as $50 billion, financed much of the Mossad's activities within the United States.[8]

Unorthodox Zionist organization

I didn't quite understand why someone find it suitable to mention that the Mossad is "unorthodox". I'm from Israel and here we don't refer to organizations as having both "orthodox" or "unorthodox" identities. From its beginning many of the people who serve in the Mossad were orthodox while many others were unobserving Zionists-but it has nothing to do with this intelligence organiztion identity.

- unorthodox in this context means that it acted in original ways. not its religious affiliation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.210.31 (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

In the context of Judaism, I think we should reserve the words 'orthodox' and 'unorthodox' for the degree of religious observance. Otherwise it leads to confusion. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Balance

I'm not particularly knowledgeable, but on first look it would seem to me the article is heavily unbalanced. There is a very large section of operations and activities, yet the criticism section points out murder and torture and is a single sentence. Can we elaborate on this a little bit, and maybe cut out some of the sunshine fluff? Grsz11 03:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't count on much being done, any criticism of MOSSAD or indeed anything Israeli tends to lead to cries of anti-semitism and quickly removed. 84.65.133.139 (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Even the current criticism section seems to get deleted constantly. Offliner (talk) 06:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources that state "Mossad" with reference to the Israeli spy ring operating in the US leading up to Sept 11

Canadian Monkey has repeatedly deleted this information [9] on the Israeli spy ring, claiming it does not refer to the Mossad. There are other sources which do state that it was a Mossad ring explicitly:

I trust that others will work to restore this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.41.111 (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Protection ?

Most of the edit to this page are arguments between some 9/11. Maybe we should semi-protect the page and get a consensus of this. It seems to me that it has sources, but I would like further opinions on this. Hreinn (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There are reliable sources on some sort of possible round-up of Israeli art students in 2001, or at least reliable sources on the controversy, but 1) few if any of these sources even try to make a direct link to Mossad (more often it's vague, not even sure if it is even intelligence-related) and 2) the way it is being added to this article is full of false innuendo, POV, and conspiracy-based ramblings. The legitimate controversy might warrant its own article for all I know, but the way some are trying to claim here that the Mossad was involved in 9/11 leads most editors striving for objectivity, including myself, to question good faith. I'd be happy to see if someone wanted to write up a fully verified and neutral proposal based on the reliable sources that exist (Salon, Washington Post among others), but I still don't think there's any direct link to include in this article. For those who want to assume that any media-alleged Israeli foreign intelligence collection is linked to Mossad, just remember that Pollard was tasked by Lekem. We can't just make wild assumptions about this stuff. Joshdboz (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Gramatical error?

This line, "The Mossad is the most terrorist intelligence organization intelligence collection" does not make sense to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.151.170 (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

I added this line, which was removed without explanation:

It has also been accused of violating international law.[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_332]

What do people think? - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'm putting it back in since no one wishes to discuss it. It's referenced and if anything is too kind to Mossad - Mossad was found by the UN to have violated international law. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Please write in the article exactly who accused the Mossad, when, and why. In addition, bring a better source than Wiki-something. Thank you and good luckEddau (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Reputation

The reputation is as super-scary thugs who would take an eyeball of yours in your sleep. No personal experience, just the reputation I heard. Should be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.150.160 (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

we do not deal with rumors in Wikipedia. Thank you!Eddau (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

electrocution

Mabhouh was allegedly electrocuted and interrogated for information, and then his veins were injected with poison.

Interrogated after electrocution? What, with a oiji board? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.11.14.235 (talk) 07:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Australian passports

Should it be mentioned that the alleged Mossad assassination recently involved the use of 3 Australian passports? This was considered a potential breach of friendship between Australia and Israel, resulted in the calling of the Israeli ambassador, attempts by the Australian ambassador to Israel to contact relevant Israeli authorities and some harsh language in Australian Parliament. Not sure if this constitutes an actual operation by Mossad or even an alleged one, but the language being used in Australia is quite strong.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

too subjective

"It has also been at the forefront of several publicly embarrassing failures." this line is far too subjective and should only be in this discussion forum.BTW i am a muslim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.40.196 (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Personnel

The History section states "Its current staff is estimated at approximately 1,200", yet the Structure section states "the Mossad oversees a staff estimated at approximately 3000 personnel". Which is it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.200.49 (talk) 09:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Coordinates

{{geodata-check}}

Please note that the coordinates in this article need fixing as:

22° 7′ 33.56″ N, 24° 68′ 35.84″ E —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.220.216 (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Famous Operations?

Shouldn't these be called infamous? Operations that severely violate international laws are infamous, not famous.--85.49.231.17 23:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Famous is neutral; infamous is subjective (negative) and therefore violates NPOV. altmany 07:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, "Notable" should be used instead of "Famous" ("Notable" is used for the KGB entry).99.96.39.187 (talk)


Why is there no mention of Mossad's luring of Mordechai Vanunu from Britain to Italy & him subsequently being smuggled into Israel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bickle76 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the reason why is because Wikipedia is run by a bunch of Zionist Jews who attempt to sway public opinion/facts because they take the hideous truth about Israel personally. Notice how the criticism section is like a single line? Kinda funny considering how much VALID CRITICISM actually exists against the Mossad. You know, considering how they're an evil organization hell-bent on murdering anyone (especially brown people who practice Islam) who stands in the way of their warped Zionist agenda. Sure, that might be a bit POV, but any idiot who has read a fucking newspaper shouldn't have much difficulty in finding evidence of the Mossad's dirty dealings.

Oh and here's a fun thing to notice: the criticism against the CIA in its wiki article is about an order of magnitude larger than that of the Mossad. Could Wikipedia be any more biased than they already are? I think not, nor could they be any more transparent about their cognitive bias. So come on, Wiki, can't we get just a little less POV from this so-called "encyclopedia?"

Well, if you don't like the fact that there's only one line in the criticism section, why don't you add to that section with information backed up by legitimate, referenced sources.99.96.39.187 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC).
Actually, there's an extensive amount of criticism on the CIA page (sorry if this isn't enough for you). Anyway, on the subject of fairness, why isn't there a criticism section for Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service (and why the hell doesn't the KGB entry have one)???99.96.39.187 (talk)

Citizenship?

Does an individual have to be an Israeli citizen to join the Mossad?

YES.


Normally yes, but there are exceptions. If one thing cannot be said of the Mossad, it's that Mossad is always a beaurocratic stickler to written procedures.

To be an official employee of Mossad, it could be assumed that one would have to be an Israeli citizen. It should be noted that the Mossad has used many non-Israeli citizens in operations on many occassions. This is a matter of public fact. Were these people official members of Mossad? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Indeed pinning down exactly who is officially a member of Mossad can be quite difficult. I once heard it said in Israel that in a certain sense Mossad had no members as all of its employees were paid by the IDF. This may or may not be true but it seemed like a reasonable way to avoid detection of operatives through paper trails, which is a problem for similar agencies in other countries. Robert Brockway 06:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

isnt famous against POV as it confers positive connotation... ?? (look up the meaning of famous ?)

- - - - - - - - - - -

So do CIA agents here have to be American citizens? Answer: no, see http://www.informamerica.net/mossad-cia.html "a significant number of Israeli Mossad agents are now working in the United States as employees of the Central Intelligence Agency. These agents, some of whom are listed below, are initially paid by the Israeli Embassy in Washington but Israel then bills the U.S. Government for the salaries and is reimbursed in full on a monthly basis...All of them, without exception, work for Israel and Israeli interests, not American interests...."

Wow, that looks like a legitimate website. Note the ad at the bottom about "restoring the Constitution to save lives.99.150.201.97 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC).

It used to be the case that you had to have been born in the US, not just hold US citizenship, to be eligible to be an officer of the CIA (thanks to the difficulties conducting background checks in countries where they don't speak 'Merican). That I got from a CIA recruiter, a generally more reliable source than the marginal website you cite. By the way, more from the "infoamerica" website: "but many of the middle level CIA officials are American-born Jews and not included in this list but we do know who they are. All of them, without exception, work for Israel and Israeli interests, not American interests..." I suppose there are contributors here who believe that any stupid and anti-semitic comment can be characterized as "criticism" if nominally directed at a state, but here the comment is flatly baseless and an attempt to promote a hate website. Kimwell (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

kidnapping

in the Famous Mossad operations section, why use "kidnapping" instead of "capture" or something more NPOV? - Omegatron 18:17, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

well tell us, how you think that taking someone ( civilian or suspected terrorist, who even as suspects should have the same rights under the law )from his home ( or at least his familiar surroundings ) by suprise, without a official court order ( of the country in which you are living ) could be described as "capture"? NPOV should not mean that we blind ourselfs.

Anyone who simply follows the news knows that Mossad behaves like the Russian mafia in more ways than one.

hello! "the news" is controlled by anybody who gives them money and is extremely biased!

Anyone with basic understanding of Wikipedia knows that comments need to be signed per WP:TPG. Haizum 08:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe he is afraid that the Mossad is reading this and that it will track him down and kidnap him (sorry, capture him) if he signs with his real name :)

It is kidnapping, but it would be way harder to POV it by changing it to "arrest" if it just says "abducted" instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.55.127 (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Operation Grapes of Wrath as a success

I am unsure what Operation Grapes of Wrath should be described as. It was successful in that it killed many members of the PLO and Black September. But:

  1. It is in dispute as to how many of the people who were killed were actually involved in Munich
  2. Ditto for how high-ranking the people were
  3. The Lillehammer Affair

What do others think? Batmanand | Talk 22:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The Lillehammer Affair is already mentioned on the "failed operations". The operation was successful in assassinating 10+ members of Black September. Whether that was wise or had a positive impact is a question that can be asked over evey asssassination, but as for this succint list, I think it's fairest to say it was successful while listing the failed affair on the failed section like it's now. Amoruso 12:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
OK I can see what you are saying. Was just a thought. Batmanand | Talk 20:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It's "Operation Wrath of God." --L.J. Tibbs (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Relationships section removed

This section was based entirely on a few pages taken out of a single book of dubious accuracy. Multiple references to the same book create the impression that multiple sources provided the information, but in fact it came from a single source, apparently uncorroborated by any other source. I couldn't find a serious and unbiased review of the book, which sounds like an alarmist tract of the type one commonly encounters in conspiracy circles, and given the wild nature of the claims, it hardly seemed like reliable material to include in an encyclopedia. If what the book says is true, there must be other sources that can verify it, but the mere fact that someone puts wild claims in a book doesn't make it a reliable source for an encyclopedia. Agateller (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

SIS and Spanish intelligence

How does Mossad compare with the British intel service and Spanish intel (Centro Nacional de Inteligencia)L.J. Tibbs (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC). Many know about the close relationship between U.S. intelligence and Mossad, but who knows about the SIS and Spanish intel. Which is better? Of course, Spanish is much better than SIS. In fact, many Spanish intel agents are recruited from parts of Spain where Castilian is not the first langauge. Basque country, Galicia, Asturias, Catala, and of course Aroganese, not to mention English speaking communities. Now SIS also recruits out of Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and other places that speak langauges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79039152c (talk • contribs) 14:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the relationship between SIS and Spanish intel and the Mossad is that Britain and Spain have become perverted. Extremely liberal values and illicit prostitution have been mainstream in both countries for the last 30 years. Sexually transmitted diseases and abortions are common in Hollywood and the European entertainment business resulting in the Mossad looking eastward for influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.18.9 (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mossad/Archive_1&oldid=1037701323"