Talk:Zionist political violence/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

NPOV review

As the one who most recently put in the POV dispute notice (see above), I am now of the opinion that the article is significantly more balanced and neutral on the topic than it was when the notice went up, and would be willing to support removal of the notice. Thoughts? LeFlyman 20:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

"Campaign of Violence?"

The current article reads something like "the Haganah, LEHI, etc. committed several violent acts ..." I think this is very weak, and I'd like to replace it with something more like, "a campaign of violence." They were, after all, trying to force the Brits out. Comments? Marsden 23:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking that it can't be characterized as a campaign, because it wasn't particularly coordinated, and attacks were suspended by a number of groups for years. Also, driving the British out wasn't their only goal. Did you see, I made my latest edits probably right as you were posting your comment. I don't know if you think it's improved, but the wording did get changed slightly from "several violent acts". I understand wanting to make the violence sound more violent though. I'll ponder on whether there's a nonsubjective way to make it sound less weak. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you'll find that it actually was pretty well coordinated, albeit the Haganah, the Irgun, and sometimes LEHI operated separately. Check the Irgun site. The words "several violent acts" (not sure how those ended up in your latest edit) gave me the impression of a mafia that just occasionally saw that "terrible accidents" would occur if they didn't get protection money (which I guess was actually the case with the Stern Gang for a while, but that would be outside of "Zionist terrorism" activities). Marsden 16:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The modifier "some"

Hi Leflyman, I'm not sure what "some" adds to the sentence in "some acts of political violence committed by the Zionist underground". Were there acts of political violence committed by the Zionist underground that weren't considered terrorism? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Was a follow up to what you wrote above under "Campaign of violence," as to whether it could be called a "campaign" per se; as well as clarifying that not all historians call all acts of political violence by pre-state Zionist groups "terrorism." Even in the historic context, the term "terrorism" is used sparingly, and typically only when then-contemporary figures refer to each other as such. A particularly apt recent (2003) University of Oxford Masters Thesis in Modern Middle Eastern Studies by Paul Bagon directly addresses the subject (see page 37)

Terrorists or Underground?

The first obvious question to raise when addressing the issue of Jewish political violence in Mandate Palestine is which term to use in order to describe the organisations involved. For the purposes of this thesis these organisations will collectively be referred to as the ‘Jewish underground’. This is the term most often used to describe the militant Palestinian Jewish organisations, both at the time of their operation, and in subsequent studies. The notion of combining three distinct organisations under a single appellation is, not without its faults, particularly since within the bounds of political violence—the common feature binding the organisations in the Jewish underground—there is a considerable gradation of activities.

Before addressing the question of ‘military equivalency’, it is first prudent to tackle the equally vexing issue of ‘terrorism’. Use of the term ‘Jewish terrorism’ to describe the activities of the Jewish underground in Mandate Palestine is not without precedent, having been employed in works such as Edward Horne’s A Job Well Done. However, the appropriateness of using such a politically charged term in academic work is questionable. The limitations are amply displayed by the selected literature that refers to the activities of the Jewish underground as ‘terrorism,’ which typically, like Horne’s book, are partial, less scholarly works, written with a political agenda or a vested interest.

Will that do as a reason for "some"? LeFlyman 09:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes thank you, you've clarified the reason for it, and I think the rephrasing by Unbehagen better presents what you seem to mean, that it was then-contemporaries (the British) who used this term, and some historians today. Are you satisfied with the current wording? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 15:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree -- his edit is an improvement. Thank you, Unbehagen for your contribution. (Bet you thought you'd never hear that from me!) I would wish some clarification, however, to "used by the British during the 1940s" as it brings up the question of whether the term was used exclusively by the British and only by them during the 1940s (as in, was it not used by anyone in the 1930s?) That seems something for which we should find historical sources: who did use the term historically? — LeFlyman 18:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The two sources I have seen the term used in (Time of London - read in hard copy and Pathe News Film Archive) are both British - but both had a widespread international circulation throughout the English speaking world. I think it's reasonable to say that the term was used worldwide - but certainly the main use would seem to be British. I have not personally seen a source from the 1930's for the term (and cant access the Times stack without significant effort - sorry). Unbehagen 18:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the precise issue is that is being discussed here, but maybe it is relevant to note that the word "terrorism" was widely used in Palestine by mainstream (ie. Mapai-connected) Jewish sources starting in the 1930s to refer to violent acts by the Revisionists. Many examples can be seen in sources like the Palestine Post. There were also frequent uses of the word in the US press (check the Wash Post archives for example). --Zero 18:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. The point I was getting at, was that we fall into a similar sourcing concern if we state that only a certain group in a certain period used the term "Zionist terrorism." Was the phrase used at the time "Zionist terrorism" or "Jewish terrorism," for instance? In the historical context, was there a difference (i.e. were they interchangeable?), as opposed to what one might say today? I just came across a 1998 article at Israel's Institute for Counter Terrorism which deals with present day concerns of "The Threat of Jewish Terrorism in Israel" -- which would certainly not be the same thing that extremists now call "Zionist terrorism." In fact, the only place one can find the term "Zionist terrorism" on the ICT site is in reference to an analysis of Al-Qa`idah web sites (many of which no longer exist). LeFlyman 19:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The most common phrase was "Jewish terrorism", by quite a margin if my reading is representative. This was true of the British, US, and mainstream Zionist press of the period (at least of those sources that used the word "terrorism" at all). In the case of the mainstream Jewish groups in Palestine, they considered themselves the true, if not only, representatives of Zionism and were hardly going to apply the word Zionist to the murderers of the Etzel who were their political opponents as well as being opposed in strategy. They used "Jewish" in distinction to "Arab". I recall phrases like "Fascist terrorists" as well from these sources. --Zero 12:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Consistency please

I'll try to be unemotional here. An item for POV police: Palestinian terrorism redirects to Palestinian political violence but we have Zionist terrorism and Israeli terrorism (redirecting to State terrorism#Israel). Comments? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 23:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a fair comment. Can we agree that "political violence" is a better title? It isn't perfect, but "terrorism" is even less so. I'll move this page now. --Zero 09:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Both pages need to state terrorism. If the actions of Irgun and Lehi aren't the definition of terrorism, what is? I agree that no double standard should exist: both need to be titled terrorism. Avengerx 02:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Whatever is the title, the latest renaming cannot stand. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Title Change?!

I definitely do not agree with the change of the title of the article from Zionist Terrorism to Zionist political violence. The acts of Irgun and Lehi are textbook terrorism. I vote that the article get changed back to Terrorism. Avengerx 01:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that many of the acts described on this page were terrorism. It is also true that many of the acts described at Palestinian political violence were terrorism. However, from that it does not logically follow that the word terrorism must appear in the titles of these pages. My opinion on the use of language in WP is that scary words like "terrorism" should only be used in limited contexts such as in direct quotation. Even though there could be many reasonable uses of such words, all too often they are used to sneak in an opinion in the guise of being objective. They are also the subject of regular content wars that overall have been very damaging. In any case, Humus is justified in asking for consistent naming. An alternative (less preferred, in my opinion) is to rename both pages back to "...terrorism". We can't have one of each name. --Zero 02:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess it would be idealist for me to assume that either group would be first to accept that both Palestinians AND Israelis have committed acts of terrorism in the past. I think it is sad that both articles deny the fact that they cover acts of terrorism. Sadly, I am probably in the minority when it comes to abhoring the politically correct misnomers, so I will not change anything unless more people come forward in support. Thanks for discussing this with me. Avengerx 03:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If you change the title then this stops being an article about an historical phenomenon. We can lose the tortuous introduction limiting scope to the historically defined Zionist Terrorism and just like the Palestinian political violence we should be putting in cutrrent events and state actions. Are we all agreed on that? Unbehagen 16:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• No, we are not "all agreed" to that. We've had extensive discussions regarding "current events" and the consensus has been that the historical events may be included, but inclusion of "state actions" was not appropriate. While I'm not a fan of the new title-- I have put forth that "Zionist terrorism" was a non-neutral title itself-- I agree with Zero's statements above. If we're aiming for less loaded titles, I'd more be in favour of "Zionist underground" or even "Jewish underground" (as used by Paul Bagon in his 2003 Oxford Masters dissertation) As Bagon notes there, "The nebulous nature of terrorism has rendered all attempts to find consensus on a definition unsuccessful, and it is for this reason that it is advisable where possible to seek alternative terminology." —LeFlyman 20:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I misspelled the title while attemting to rename it back to Zionist political violence. Would an admin step in please. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 07:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Excised commented-out sections

I've removed the commented-out extraneous/left-over "post-statehood" sections, which no longer have a place in the article. Here is the start of the sections, formated for readability. Those who wish to review the full material can check article history:

Both Arab and Zionist events: should probably just copy the Zionist ones into this article

Post-Statehood militant incidents
Since the establishment of Israel, there have been isolated incidents of killings of Israelis and Palestinians by Israelis for political reasons. These actions are not connected to the organized activities of the Jewish underground in the pre-state period. These acts of lone wolf terrorism are conducted without the assistance of an organised group or ideology. All these incidents have been strongly condemned by the government of Israel and the Israeli public. It is widely believed by the Israeli public that perpetrators of many of these incidents, (e.g. Baruch Goldstein, Eden Natan-Zada, and Asher Weisgan), were mentally unstable.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

—Leflyman^Talk 19:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

redundant article name

Zionism is a political and religious movement. It is therefore redundant to have the word political (or religious, for that matter) in the title. Anyone disagree?--Urthogie 15:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is about Zionist terrorism. Why is the article not named as what it is about? Where is the consencus for the rename? Im undoing the rename that was made without consencus. --Striver 13:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

page rename

I happen to agree with renaming this to Zionist terrorism. However, I think the content needs to change to reflect this. For example, killing british army sergeants is violence, but not terrorism(which is against civillians). Disagree, agree?--Urthogie 14:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't oppose that in principle, but it seems to be pretty much all the page is about. Would it be useful to keep both pages, redirecting neither one? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

How about we call one Zionist terrorism and the other Zionist violence against the British army?--Urthogie 15:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay by me. We could start out by sectioning Zionist political violence into violence against the British army and Zionist terrorism; If the later grows big enough, it could be spun off to Zionist terrorism. Or if it's more convenient, stubify for Zionist terrorism and begin populating it. I guess I have no preference; Maybe someone else will speak up. Either way, I imagine popluating the article with examles of "Zionist terrorism" will be contentious. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"Terrorism" is a word fraught with ambiguity and disagreement, which is why the previous agreed to change was made. I think that any name changes will have to be carried out with full consensus, and in concert with a name change on Palestinian political violence. The reality is that these actions cannot be taken in a vacuum. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Consensus above is that Terrorism should be replaced with political violence, if a change is desired it will need to be with consensus and then changed in related articles like Palestinian political violence for example, my personal opinion is that as per what is discussed above in the talk page back when this was being discussed is that given the naming of other wikipedia articles like Palestinian political violence for example, Zionist political violence is the proper name for this article. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Wait, its contentious that attacks on civillians are terrorism?--Urthogie 16:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently so; see Palestinian political violence. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

We have already developed a consensus regarding the usage of "Zionist terrorism." This article is stable and does not require sudden re-editing/re-naming, as that would be contrary to the work of those who hashed out the language over an extended period. I would suggest that new editors who were not a part of those previous discussions, scroll up to view the extensive earlier debate above.—Leflyman^Talk 03:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Caution

To everyone in general, please do not make any cut-and-paste moves. There has been a lot of page renaming and shuffling of redirects lately. At some point it might look uesful to cut and paste content from one page to another. Do not do that. If a move is not absolutely simple and straight forward, ask for help, or request that the page be moved for you. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Right. On top of that, Striver's unilateral changes broke a whole bunch of re-directs. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

How about someone move protects this until we once again reach consensus?--Urthogie 16:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I have protected it against moves. I could not find which template to put if there is any. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

idea for content organization

How about we set it up so there's a section for violence against the british, and another for violence against nazis, and another for violence against arabs?--Urthogie 17:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I like that idea Faz90 00:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral language in intoduction

The current introduction was reached through a long period of negotiation and neutralizing. Additions such as "killing unarmed civilians to push their political cause" are decidedly not neutral, and the introduction of the term "terrorism" without attribution contravenes Wikipedia's reliable source and neutral point of view policies. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It appears as though its only the mainstream press of countries that have fought Israel that even use the phrase "Zionist terrorism".[1]--21:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

An editor removed "While the latter term is still used in this way today by some mainstream historians, in reference to present day events outside that historical context the term is used as a political epithet to deprecate Israel or Jews." saying in the edit summary that it was erroneous. Is it erroneous? Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not erroneous, and was the result of significant discussion and compromise a few months ago. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd be ok with it if it were verified.--Urthogie 08:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It has been already; please read the rest of the Talk: page, for example the section #First sentence above. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That seems to verify the fact that the phrase is used. But wheres the verification for mainstream historians using it?--Urthogie 17:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Not just verification that the phrase is used, but that it is not used today by credible sources or historians. As for mainstream historians using, they don't today; see, for example, this other section on the page: #Present-day_useage_continued. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That section says that its only anti-israel groups who say it. So why does the page say "While the latter term is still used in this way today by some mainstream historians"?--Urthogie 18:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, actually. Are there any mainstream historians who use it that way today? If not, the opening section of that sentence can be removed. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That phrase brings pro-Israel bias. In the Palestinian political violence article, does it say that the term "terrorism" is used to insult Palestinians? No! Terrorism is the killing or harming of innocent civilians in a political situation. Both Palestinians and Israelis do that. How come it's okay to call Palestinians "terrorists" while if someone calls Israelis "terrorists", it is an insult? If someone refers to Palestinian militants as "terrorists", won't that depricate Palestinians? --Faz90 20:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Faz, "Zionist terrorism" isn't used by the mainstream press or mainstream historians, while "Palestinian terrorism" is. That answer your question?--Urthogie 20:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

But why does that sentence have to be there? Regardless of what terms the media likes to use, Wikipedia should be neutral on who it labels "terrorists". It should not endorse calling Palestinian militants "terrorists", while criticizing the label of Israeli killers as "terrorists" --Faz90 21:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You've misunderstood Wikipedia's neutrality policy. It says that the views of mainstream sources are represented in the article; in this case, there are many mainstream sources which refer to "Palestinian terrorism", but none which refer to "Zionist terrorism". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it says there should be no bias. It is a bias to refer to Palestinian violence as terrorism, while condemning Israeli violence being labeled as terrorism. --Faz90 23:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"Jewish terrorist" is not an anti-Semitic epitet to insult Israel. What did Sharon call Natan Zaada? --Faz90 21:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This is an article about "Zionist political violence", not "Jewish terrorism". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference between "Zionist political violence" and "Jewish terrorism"? Usually they are the same thing, unless the Jewish terrorism has nothing to do with Israel, or the Zionist violence is not Jewish. --Faz90 23:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

According to whom are they the same thing? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

According to typing "Jewish Terrorism" in the Wikipedia search! Faz90 00:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you give me a source which says they are the same thing? I typed the phrase in, and found a lot of neo-Nazi sources which claimed that Jews were beating up or intimidating Holocaust deniers, and that this was "Jewish terrorism". If a Jew beats up a Holocaust denier, is that "Zionist political violence"? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

" however, this term is used as a political epithet to deprecate Israel or Jews"

I think a better wording would be however, many consider this term to be a political epithet to deprecate Israel or Jews. --Faz90 23:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"Many consider" is just weasel words; simple facts should be stated as simple facts. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It is called the NPOV!! And it's not a simple fact. A simple fact has NO CONTROVERSY. This opinion is controversial. And "weasel words" are not as biased.--Faz90 00:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a random collection of facts-- it represents the knowledge of our day accessible through authoritative sources. NPOV doesn't mean making editors feel better by adding "many say otherwise" to every authoritatively sourced sentance.--Urthogie 09:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey Urthogie, why did you revert that edit? I think it was a perfectly neutral statement which should not offend anyone. If you think it was biased, tell me if the last sentance of the introductory paragraph in this article is biased. Faz90 21:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You made it say "many Jews and Zionists consider this term to be a political epithet". Number 1)Its not just Jews and zionists and 2)This asserts that its a matter of opinion, when it actually is a political epithet.--Urthogie 22:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you didn't answer the second part of my question. And it is just Jews and Zionists. A non-Jew who is not pro-Israel(Zionist) would not find it offensive to use the term "Zionist terrorism" if there really are Israelis/Zionists that kill civilians. It is common sense. Faz90 05:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The term is not an epithet when used to refer to stuff before the state of Israel existed. However, Jews and non-Jews alike consider the term to be an epithet in reference to modern day events. And by the way, I stopped editing Islamofascism a while ago, as it was too stressful.--Urthogie 09:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

"Mainstream historians"

Which mainstream historians today refer to "multiple acts of political violence by Zionists, during their campaign for a Jewish National Homeland in the British Mandate of Palestine" as "Zionist terrorism"? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I am quite sure none Christophe Greffe 21:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This is why I removed the sentance pending verification. Can we comment it out? Its a very powerful claim, and it is reasonable to suggest it is actually false.--Urthogie 21:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I found it in use in a couple of reviews and some articles by a quick search through http://www.jstor.org This included both a review of Richie Ovendales book The Origins... by John Ruedy and a book review by Ovendale himself. Although not proof of extensive use (and I haven't consulted any books on the matter), it at least show that some historians use it from time to time. In the cases I found it was used in the context of violence towards the British. Stable links to some articles/reviews using the term (requires access to JSTOR): [2] [3] [4] [5] Note that some of these articles are from the 80s, as I see you emphazise today, but it does show some mainstream authors long after the British left the area have used the term, which I guess is half the point: it is not only used by hate-groups, Arabs opposed to Israel etc. I'm guessing other examples are found if an extensive search is made.

It also seems like "Jewish Terrorism" is used more often (got twice the amount of hits through JSTOR, but don't know in which context). I.e. a review of "The Stern Gang; Ideology, Politics and Terror, 1940-1949"[6] titled "Jewish Terrorism".[7]. --Cybbe

question- what are the standards for getting on to JSTOR?--Urthogie 21:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Some affiliation with a participating institution [8] [9]. Your local university/library might have access. --Cybbe 21:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Analysis of links:

• 1st one[10]:Royal Institute of International Affairs aka Chatham House. Its not a mainstream historian-- its a think tank. Although its nonpartisan and fair, its a think tank, which cant count as a historian.
• 2nd one[11]: Also by the Chatham House think tank.
• 3rd one[12]:is by John Ruedy. Although he is a mainstream historian, what is listed here is a review of A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict and The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Wars; two books which talk about the conflict, dating back to the early history of the war, in which terrorism was the appropriate term(but is no longer anymore, according to mainstream historians).
• 4th one[13]:Talks about the 1947 UN resolution, and therefore uses the appropriate phrase--terrorism-- for what zionists were doing in the period. of course, this doesn't fit in with the article's first paragraph which suggests that the term has been used in recent years.

Please correct me if you think my analysis is biased. Otherwise, I suggest we comment out the lines pending verifiable evidence.--Urthogie 22:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the term has been used in recent years"? Im not sure whether I misunderstand you or not, but all instances of "Zionist terrorism" I found referred to actions during the period of the British mandate, i.e. pre 1948, which is what Jayjg asked for. That the term has been used in recent years is not the same as saying it has been used to desribe recent events. And Richie Ovendale et al are mainstream historians no matter where their reviews are published. --Cybbe 22:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the article needs to make clear that "zionist terrorism" is only used in reference to the violence against the british, and the content of your links seems to back this up.--Urthogie 07:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, but it already does. .--Cybbe 08:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll make a quick edit to increase clarity.--Urthogie 08:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Your re-write appears to have missed the point of the entire prior discussion that Zionist terrorism is used (to apparent exclusion) in modern day writing to deprecate Israel. Thus, I have returned that language. I would also agree that removing "some mainstream historians..." section was appropriate, as so far, no one has been able to come across any such historians. Note however, that "Jewish terrorism" does have some limited usage within the Israeli and Jewish community in dealing with its own extremist elements. See, for example:

• The Threat of Jewish Terrorism in Israel - The Institute for Counter-Terrorism (August 30, 1998)
• The Threat of Terrorism by Jewish Anti-Disengagement Extremist - ADL.org (August 18, 2005)

However, this is a fine-grained area, as vehement anti-Semitic and anti-Israel groups are also prone to use of this term. —Leflyman^Talk 09:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Good edits.--Urthogie 11:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

POV issues aside, I think the current language by Leflyman is unclear and awkward.--DieWeibeRose 04:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It would help if you could be specific; how so?--Urthogie 10:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

faz is disrupting to prove a point

Faz, you are intentionally trying to avoid 3rr by reverting at the right time. If you keep doing this, you will still be blocked for WP:POINT. Please stop reverting, and actually discuss. You've refused to continue the discussion after I replied.--Urthogie 08:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

What happened to Zada and Weisgan?

Why were these incidents removed? Israeli Terrorism still redirects here, and both of these acts were identified as terrorism. I mean, if former General and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is not qualified to describe an act as terrorism, then who is? --Uncle Bungle 20:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add the information in a neutral voice.--Urthogie 20:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• No; we've already developed explicit consensus that the material is inappropriate here. See the extensive discussions above as to why this article is about historical context, not present day events. If you wish to re-hash the same arguments about terrorism v. political violence and the usage of the phrases "Zionist terrorism" and "Israeli Terrorism" (which is not what this article is about, obviously) then fully expect that the results will be contentious. —Leflyman^Talk 08:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Both Zionist terrorism and Israeli terrorism redirect here. The fact is these events took place, and Prime Minister, General Ariel Sharon himself described Zadas' actions as terrorist. Oh well, down the old memory hole. --Uncle Bungle 18:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Leflyman removed ({fact}) label

Well, where in this discussion is this "fact" well covered? I think it is a biased opinion with one POV. Faz90 19:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Removing a fact label is a no-no, and it should be considered vandalism in most cases. Faz90: don't remove the sentance, I'll work on getting a source.--Urthogie 22:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• It most certainly is not vandalism to remove a disingenuous template notice. The usage of the term "Zionist terrorism" has already been discussed ad nauseam. Not every factual statement requires a citation-- otherwise there would be a footnote after every sentence in Wikipedia. The question of "who uses the term" has been posed multiple times before-- just scroll up this page to "First sentence" and "Present-day usage continued".

One look at the article list of political epithets shows that every one of them is uncited -- including the entry for "Zionist" which states: "Political epithet sometimes used to show contempt for Jewish nationalism (formerly nationalist aspirations). Also used by anti-Semites as a synonym or code-word for Jew."

Likewise, there is no need to "prove" that the term "Zionist terrorism" is an epithet, if it is used overwhelming as one-- as repeatedly demonstrated by the Google test (and any other search engine). I even checked the Library of Congress to find a use, and came up with exactly 9 books and one motion picture for the keywords Zionist terrorist or Zionist terrorism-- of which six were from Arabic authors denouncing Israel, one was from the Zionist Organization of America about US casualties of Palestinian terrorism, and one was titled "Hate industry" : anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist, and anti-Jewish publications in the Arab world and Iran. And I've just searched Google books and come up with no neutral usages of "Zionist terrorism" in reference to present-day events (one conspiracy wacko held that the Zionists were responsible for 9/11). In short, no one has been able to find any modern-day usage that is not intended to deprecate Israel or Jews. --Leflyman^Talk 01:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Lefly, instead of complaining, use that stuff as a source. By the way, I don't think Faz is {{fact}}'ing every statement of fact in the article-- he's just doing it to one.--Urthogie 11:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Urtho, I think you may have misunderstood: there's nothing to "cite". Identification of an epithet such as this is based on usage, not on a published source saying, "The term 'Zionist terrorism' is used as an epithet". However, I have come across numerous sources which point out that "Zionist" is a frequently used insult by anti-Israel and anti-Semitic groups. One such, just found, is this 2004 article from the East Bay Express (a Village Voice owned news tabloid), which says, "One protester hoisted a sign reading, "Israel: Born of British colonialism. Created through Zionist terrorism. Supported by Western imperialism. Sustained by Israeli militarism." Then later notes, "Amid this polarizing rhetoric, "Zionist" has become the most cutting of slurs."

Finally, it is not a complaint, but a response to your claim of "vandalism" in removing Faz90's POV-promotion; and it was a statement of frustration at his intentional and willful disregard for the extensive discussion and evidence already present on this page, prior to his showing up in late February. He has previously made the claim that pointing out such usage is "pro-Israel bias." Further, he has stated that, "And it is just Jews and Zionists. A non-Jew who is not pro-Israel(Zionist) would not find it offensive to use the term "Zionist terrorism" if there really are Israelis/Zionists that kill civilians." To which you rightly replied, "However, Jews and non-Jews alike consider the term to be an epithet in reference to modern day events." —Leflyman^Talk 15:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You can in fact cite a certain type of usage. Just supply several examples(with external links) in a note at the bottom of the page.--Urthogie 19:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't believe that Wikipedia should be in the habit of creating links to antisemitic material (and thus giving greater Google rank) just to demonstrate that such material exists. It's readily apparent to find; and it's unnecessary to supply examples of such usage to prove it is used thus. This isn't an article about the term "Zionist terrorism" and how it is used. --Leflyman^Talk 20:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion on anti-semitic websites' page ranks has nothing to do with this. I know this may surprise you, but there are people--unlike me or you-- who don't know that the term is anti-semitic, and would want sourcing. An encyclopedia is supposed to source such things. It has nothing to do with page rank or focusing the article on this. Sourcing one aspect of something does not make the whole article about that thing. I really don't see why you dont just source it-- it would make the statement of fact much stronger.--Urthogie 12:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Under "Partisan websites" inWikipedia:Reliable sources:

"...Widely acknowledged extremist political or religious websites — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources i.e. in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source."

As a compromise: since that is the only place in the article which even refers to "terrorism" and is at the heart of this dispute, I would not be opposed to removing the two sentences beginning with, "At the time, the British described such political violence..." That would likewise remove the claim of anti-Israel/Jewish usage altogether. --Leflyman^Talk 17:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

except as primary sources i.e. in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source.

This is exactly the type of use I'm suggesting-- to prove, sourced with them as primary sources, that hate groups use it this way.--Urthogie 14:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This article does not talk about current Israeli terrorism

Robin Hood 1212 13:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because Israel's actions are not Zionist terrorism? Psychomel@di_(s)cussion 22:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Because the term usually refers to pre-state terrorism. --Ian Pitchford 22:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask, where exactly is Israel's State Terrorism (alleged or otherwise) discussed on wikipedia? — JEREMY 07:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess you don't read the news! --Yas121 19:10, 27 July 2006 (GMT)

Warning: Revert Warriors

In reference to present day events outside that historical context, however, this term is used as a political epithet to deprecate Israel or Jews.

What we have here is an axiomatic statement that links the present use of "Jewish" or "Zionist terrorism" with an automatic deprecation of Jews or Israel. So according to the above, anyone who uses the term is an anti-semite. Here are two sources from Israeli newspapers that prove quite the contrary, unless they mean to "deprecate Israel":

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1130954357003 http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=619138

What I tried to do is remove the axiomatic statement with something more accurate and realistic:

In the present day, however, some supporters of Israel regard the term as a political epithet to deprecate Israel or Jews, citing the historical context of the events.

Unfortunately, I have had a bunch of revert warriors pounce on me, threatening me into submission. Anybody care to voice their opinion in a civilized manner? Ulritz 21:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing in the passage that you have such a problem with which states that anyone who uses the epithet is automatically an anti-semite, seems like you are the one using axiomatic arguments.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps there's some confusion in that the article still mentions "Zionist terrorism"-- which was its former title-- but it's not clear this particular term is the one used as an epithet. No one is denying that "Jewish terrorism" has been used by Israeli media and scholarship to describe attacks by Jewish extremists, but this does not have the same meaning as when "Zionist terrorism" is used by anti-Israeli activists/media. This has been covered above, but for those unfamiliar with the prior discussions, coming to the article to the first time, it might not be explicit. --Leflyman^Talk 02:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well then let's make the distinction. Ulritz 10:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Now that the distinction has been made, will you please cease edit warring? This issue has been discussed ad nauseum above, and the repeated re-insertion of "{{fact}}" is unhelpful, and may be construed as antagonistic.--Leflyman^Talk 23:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Amusing you find enforcement of Wikipedia:Verifiability policy "edit warring". Please provide sources which explicitly state that the term is "used" as opposed to "regarded" (by some) as an attempt to deprecate Jews. Shouldnt be that hard, so why accuse me of antagonism? Ulritz 11:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You have reverted for the fourth time 24 hours and 3 minutes after your first revert. This is 3RR gaming. Pecher ^Talk 11:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you asking for civil discourse from the people you just described as revert warriors? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Need some discussion of Haganah and Palmach

Surprised to find here no details about Haganah and Palmach operatiosn against the British, including the famous "Night of the Bridges." - Mikedelsol 09:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It is funny to see when Israelis commit terrorist acts it is called Political violance or self defence

The problem is that this is currently the redirect from israeli terrorism. As such it either needs to adress isrseli terrorism or that needs to be adressed elsewhere. It cant stand as wikipedias entry on israeli terrorism and simulatanuously claim as jayg does that thats outside the scope.

There is way more to Israeli terrorism than this...there is kidnapping, rape, assasination, car bombs, threats, state survillance, torture. It should all be mentioned and it is all state sponsored terrorism from the Israeli state. 69.196.164.190

If any evidence exists from reliable sources to support and corroborate this feel free to edit it in, making sure to maintain a neutral point of view Snellios 21:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• This article is not about "Israeli terrorism" -- it's about the use of political violence by Zionist organizations prior to the creation of Israel. If one wishes to assert some so-called "Israeli terrorism" it can be done at State sponsored terrorism, but not here. As to whether the terminology is appropriate, see Palestinian political violence. --Leflyman^Talk 22:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear All, if you are good enough to include Terrorism tag/list thingy in the Palestinian political violence article then be good enough to keep it here also. Thanks --Yas121 00:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Yas121, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not "tit for tat". What Zionists did in the 1930s and 40s may or may not have anything to do with what Palestinians did in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? are you implying "Terrorism" is simply reserved for the Palestinians?? I was simply commenting that both Zionist Political Violence and Palestinian involve "Terrorist" activities so BOTH should get this "Terrorism" tag or NONE Yas121 02:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Zionists and Palestinians are not identical, nor is everything they have done identical. Please edit this article appropriately for this article, not to make some sort of political point. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and George Galloway is a politician, and a particularly anti-Israeli one at that; he's not a historian. Please find reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, You may be trying to chamption the Zionists cause here in wikipedia and thus to you "Zionists and Palestinians are not identical" that is your POV (unless you can provide reliable sources) Well here's another...They are identical both want/ed a homeland, both think they own the land, both use/ed terror tactics to get it (have you actually read this article?). Both think their terrorists are/were "Freedom fighters"! Don't forget Irgun was a terrorist group and its leaders later became Prime minsters of israel and were hailed as "freedom fighters". still think not identical?

• As for sources here is another for you "Hope" it's reliable enough for you [14], doesn't take a genius to calculate that if out of 91 people killed there were 41 Arab, 17 Jewish, and 5 other and neither the Arabs nor the Jews formed part of the Army that it's fair to assume they were civilians!

PS. Stop edit warring you are in serious breach of WP:3RR Yas121 11:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Three reverts in two days is a "serious breach of WP:3RR"? I'm not sure whether that's the most amusing part of your comment or the fact that you tell other people to stop edit-warring even as you edit-war them, or the fact that you insist Zionists and Palestinians are identical. In any event, Wikipedia cannot be used as a source; I have no idea what militias the Arabs and Jews who were killed might have been in, nor do I care to speculate. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Since it was the Jewish "militias" who were responsible for the attck I dont' think they would "hang-around" the hotel while the bombs went off. Neither do I think many Arab militias spent much time socialising with the British Army at that hotel. Anyway point is it was a terrorist act, as were the others, whether you like it or not carried out by terrorist organizations hence the terrorism tag! oh and 2+2=4 Yas121 19:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yas121, you seem to misunderstand WP:NPOV and equate something that is not equal. Terrorism was limited only to a extremist fringe of Zionism and only for a short time and was widely rejected by the maintream. OTOH, terrorism was/is widely popular within the Palestinian society (proof per request). The Palestitians have never had their Altalena Affair. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I write this comment out of sheer desperation: want to change a terrorism title

I worry that I will simply attract more ideologues to a current debate we are having, but I am desperate. (Leftist ideologues are sometimes more damaging than right ideologues, because leftist ideologues alienate potential allies.)

I am attempting to change the current title:

Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America 

to

Political violence by the United States. 

I was inspired by this policy page, Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structures_which_can_imply_a_view which prominently mentions this page's history.

The current debate at Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America, which has gone on for a month, is found here:

Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/strawpolls#Current_title

How did you all do it? How did you "herd cats" and get a consensus to change:

Zionist terrorism 

to

Zionist political violence?  

No matter what I try, those on the left refuse to drop the word, I suspect because they figure it is pandering to the right, and I suspect those on the right want to keep the word, because they can then be more rigid about what stays in the article and what is deleted.

Any suggestion about how to herd these cats?

I noticed that the very first edit[15] to this talk page is:

Talk:Zionist terrorism moved to Talk:Zionist militancy: rv. to 'militancy', as per discussion and Vote for Deletion

Is there anyway to get the title changed without a Vote for Deletion first?

Travb (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

biased article

there's already an article about attacks in the 30's. either article shows both sides or it's not NPOV like the claimed palestinian political violence. Amoruso 10:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've reverted your insertion of the NPOV tag; it appears you are confusing this article with one discussing the current conflict between Israel and Palestinians. --Leflyman^Talk 15:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Zionist terrorists r shown as good guys whiile Arab "terrorists" r demonized. Is wikipedia zionpedia? Robin Hood 1212 22:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

attacks against british / arabs

there's a difference between the time of attacks against british and attacks made agaisnt Arabs for retaliations. I attempted to clarify this, or disputed/npov tags will have to be added. article is somewhat sloppy and doesn't describe background unfortunately. Amoruso 09:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read the relevant literature. Attacks on Arabs were often not "retaliatory". --Ian Pitchford 20:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually they always were. That was their purpose. To stop Arab attacks, to deter them. I suggest you read the relevant literature. Amoruso 22:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you get that from a bumper sticker? The Zionists went to Palestine to drive poor people from their lands. They managed to lie and confuse most people from realising it - but it's not working any longer.

Yes, the zionist attacks were to "stop Arab attacks, to deter them"...I wonder where Hamas get their ideas and inspiration from? Yas121 14:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The attacks were against civilians who had not committed the acts the terrorists were 'retaliating' against. If you view the attacks as retaliation, that is essentially racist, given the implication that the act of any Arab can be used as justification to end any other Arab's life.

Jewish Terrorism

So what is the right article? Jewish Terrorism redirects here. --Uncle Bungle 21:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

please don't re-add this section which is POV, un-cited, and out of place. AFAIK such articles exist elsewhere - List of terrorist organisations#Jewish. Amoruso 23:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No POV there, just as cold a fact as possible. Sources in companion articles as linked. Thanks for the link, didn't know where else to put this factual and relevant information because of the redirect. --Uncle Bungle 23:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Leflyman the disambig was fully legitimate when Jewish Terrorism redirected here. Since Amoruso changed the re-direct, there is simply no reason for it. Thank you for reverting back to the last version by Amoruso. --Uncle Bungle 02:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

thank you my friend. You'd notice the redirect is now for an even better elaborate article with also a link to here. Amoruso 02:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

political epithet

I added the {{fact}} tag after the statement although the latter is used as a political epithet in reference to present day events outside that historical context.. Please remember WP:NOR and WP:RS. Also, it may be prudent to break up that statement, since it leaves the impression that the concept of Zionist Terrorism in an historical context is illegitimate. Thanks. --Uncle Bungle 04:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• I've removed your insertion. This has been well-covered previously. Please review the very long discussion at Talk:Zionist_political_violence/archive3 (as well as above). --Leflyman^Talk 05:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I re-added it. I didn't see any reliable sources in those talk pages. Further, it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. Please provide a source or leave the tag for someone who can. Thanks. --Uncle Bungle 22:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Leflyman. I read the talk page entries and it seems to me that while the point was discussed extensively, there was no consensus. As per WP:NOR If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. As per Wikipedia:Common knowledge Citing sources when your edit is challenged by another editor is Wikipedia policy. By your own admission, the point has been discussed extensively, which, it seems to me suggests that the point is still very contentious. The statement is not a mere summary, it is a statement of fact, in the opening paragraph, of an article in an Encyclopedia, and it deserves a reference. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 02:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• There most certainly is consensus. It has been discussed extensively because every so often a newly minted editor appears to once again dispute that "Zionist terrorism" is a political epithet-- when the only reason that can be seen for doing so is to push a particular POV. Do you contend that it is not a political epithet? As I've repeatedly pointed out, the only usage of the term is by anti-Zionist/anti-Semitic sources.--Leflyman^Talk 03:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, there is no need to be uncivil. The history of my edits (more than two years) is not relevant, and I am offended by the remark newly minted editor. Should you have any concerns with regard to my intentions, please discuss them on my talk page. I must apologize, I was not totally clear as to the scope of my challenge. It is a shortcoming of the template. The statement, as a whole although the latter is used as a political epithet in reference to present day events outside that historical context. needs to be cited. Perhaps a reliable source could qualify the present day events. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 04:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• "Newly minted editor" was not a reference to you. If you'd look back at the extensive discussion in the archive (under First sentence and Neutral language in introduction), as well as above you'll notice that the disputes typically come from new editors who arrive suddenly, tag that sentence and contend that "Zionist terrorism" is a legitimate term.--Leflyman^Talk 05:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Leflyman, it seems I misunderstood. It appeared to me that since I was objecting to the statement as well, you were including me in that category. I appriciate your clarification. --Uncle Bungle 07:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The book referenced covers the periods 1929-1949 in pre-statehood Israel. Though I have not read the book in its entirety, I would agree that it easily qualifies as a reference for this article in it's current context. The book, as a whole (per WP:CITE), does not exemplify the point of view: although the latter is used as a political epithet in reference to present day events outside that historical context . A book dedicated to exploring the use of "Zionist Terrorism" as an epithet following 1949 would not require a specific footnote. No such reference has been provided. WP:V makes it very clear that The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. I have indicated previously, that the contentious statement is not merely a summary of the content of the article. It is being presented as a very specific and definite idea, and it deserves a reference. If the reference text supports the statement, then please provide a page number so that others can verify. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 03:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the citation policy both of wikipedia and normal writing, we do not add a footnotes unless the passage is taken directly from the source, if the passage is a paraphrase or summary of what was in the book like this sentence is-

"At the time, the British described such political violence as "Jewish" or "Zionist terrorism"

then the reference at the bottom of the article is more than sufficient. People seem to have grown to accustomed to having websites and now actually attempt to think that without a source from the web a passage must be removed upon request. This is a rather silly concept.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not asking for a web page, I am looking for page numbers so I can verify the second part of the statement. I should be clear that I have no issue with the statement "At the time, the British described such political violence as "Jewish" or "Zionist terrorism". I have made it very clear above that a book covering a period from 1929-1949 can not be considered to qualify the use of the term as an epithet in reference to present day events, unless the author has specifically stated it. Please remain focused on the issue, as clearly and repeatedly stated. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 07:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Would something like this work?

At the time, the British described such political violence as "Jewish" or "Zionist terrorism", although J. Bowyer Bell, in his 1947 book, Terror out of Zion: Irgun Zvai Leumi, believes that the phrase is used as a political epithet in reference to present-day events outside that historical context. (?)

As you can see, I am not even sure what the sentence means. Perhaps it could be recast entirely. Just a suggestion.

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 06:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If no one disagrees, I think we could change it to read: At the time, the British described such political violence as "Jewish" or "Zionist terrorism". The latter is used as a political epithet in reference to present day events outside that historical context.. --Uncle Bungle 07:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, why use the last sentence at all? It seems self-evident that the word terrorist is an epithet. If there is a particular point to be made, then we would still need a source (because WikiP is not in the business of making points). Otherwise the sentence is not encyclopedic but is mere fluff which carries no weight or meaning. We would also need a source for the British description of the violence. (I will admit I missed the rest of the discussion: Is there really a source for these statements other than a WikiP editor or writer?)

Frankly, I do not understand what the sentence is trying to accomplish. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 07:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The underlying issue is one of trying to create moral equivalence. In much of the public debate about the Arab-Israeli conflict, people (primarily those hostile to Israel) will say that "well, if the Palestinians committed terrorist acts, the Jews/Zionists/Israelis were no better." And by repeating this often enough, it becomes part of the received wisdom, i.e., that "Jewish terrorism" is equivalent to "Palestinian terrorism." As an example, a former Norwegian prime minister, Kåre Willoch, recently wrote an article in Aftenposten where he claims to trace the origins of terrorism in the Middle East to "Jewish terrorists" in the 1920s. The fact that he can get away with such falsification comes from the fact that the epithet is accepted as a truism in the Norwegian political debate. How to cite a source for this is problematic for reasons that should be obvious. --Leifern 11:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, gentlepeople.

The only reason I am here is because I am on a self-assigned campaign to get rid of as many Citation Needed tags as possible. I am working my way through the Z section at

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Articles_with_unsourced_statements&from=Z.

I would prefer not to see this article listed there anymore.

Can we please just omit the entire paragraph as a bad deal?

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 15:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, since you put it so nicely... actually, in kind of going against my previous stance, I have no objections to that section being excised; clearly it causes a lot of consternation, what with the claims of citing and the back-and-forth reverting. But the thing we may have forgotten is that the article is no longer phrased in "terrorist" terminology, so it seems rather out of place to include a statement about "Zionist terrorism". I would however suggest that "Zionist terrorism" be likewise removed as a redirect. --Leflyman^Talk 06:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

refocus

Just to re-focus on the issue, and try to reach a resolution:

The issue is wether or not the statement although the latter is used as a political epithet in reference to present day events outside that historical context. requires a citation.

Opponents of the statement argue:

• Per WP:CITE, WP:V and WP:NOR whenever a statement is challeneged, the burden of proof lies on the supporter of the statement to back it with a reliable source
• The book referenced at the end of the article covers a period from 1929-1949, and was published in 1977. Because of this, it is not possible for the book to as a whole, is being used to exemplify a particular point of view as stated in WP:CITE#Page Numbers.
• The statement is not a mere summary of the article, and therefore requires a specific footnote.
• Although not explicitly stated, present day events is assumed to be the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Supporters of the statement argue:

• The issue has been discussed ad nauseam
• The reference text is sufficent to qualify the statement without a specific footnote per WP:CITE

Can you quote the specific text from WP:CITE that backs up your statement? I have to admit I am not an expert on deciphering some of the more arcane aspects of that policy. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 13:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:CITE#Page_numbers states the following:

When citing books and articles, provide page numbers where appropriate. Page numbers must be included in a citation that accompanies a specific quotation from, or a paraphrase or reference to, a specific passage of a book or article.

Page numbers are not required when a citation accompanies a general description of a book or article, or when a book or article, as a whole, is being used to exemplify a particular point of view.

User:Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg argued that 1) then the reference at the bottom of the article is more than sufficient and 2 (from edit summary) please see the citation policy, the paragraph isn't taken as a quote but rather as a paraphrase of what was in the book so a footnote is not called for, there is nothing that is done incorrectly here. This is in line with the second part of the Citation policy on page numbers. I argued against that, because of the scope of the book and the date it was published. Al-Silverburg chose not to respond to my argument. In the main part of this section, you'll see my argument more point by point. Thanks. --Uncle Bungle 00:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Then there should be a citation, with reference to the particular pages in the book that back up the statement. Seems pretty clear. If a cite is not forthcoming, then remove the whole graf. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 01:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Which paragraph?--Leflyman^Talk 02:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If anything is missing, please fill it in. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 22:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That said, I do not understand why there has been so much resistance to providing a source for this statement. "It should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts". Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 22:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

See my comment in the section above, as a compromise, removing the claim entirely. This one sentence has caused way too much discussion and debate, when it really isn't even needed in the article. --Leflyman^Talk 06:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The passage is integral to the article's subject, it is not taken as a direct quote but rather a summary of what was in the book that is cited at the bottom of the article, therefore a page number does not make much sense. I have not seen a single convincing argument for why a relevant and sourced passage should not be in the article, in fact the least compelling reason is that we should remove it because other people think we should.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore the idea that because the book focuses on 1929-1948 it can't relate the events to a later date is laughable.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no way although the latter is used as a political epithet in reference to present day events outside that historical context is a summary of that entire book. The subject matter of the book is violence during 1929-1949, not political epithets and not present day events, therefore a oage number makes perfect sense. --Uncle Bungle 13:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the fact that because a book focuses on 1929-1949 it can not, as a whole, be used to exemplify the contested point of view is deadly serious. --Uncle Bungle 13:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

None of that makes any sense, your trying to say that because a book focuses on a certain time period, it cannot have anything to do with a later time period. If that is the best argument you can come up with you might want to move on with your life.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Please allow me to clarify. You have argued that the statement is a summary of the text and does not require specific quote. WP:CITE, as previously indicated, requires that as a whole, is being used to exemplify a particular point of view. If the text were an exploration of political epithets, or even of "present day events", then I would agree with your argument. The book, however, is a history text, published thirty years ago. The primary purpose of the text is to describe the events of 1929-1949. If the author has made a reference to "present day events", as you have correctly indicated is possible, then it should be backed with a reference. Remember, the book is about policital violence, not about usage of the term "Zionist Terrorism". In fact, the phrase "epithet" does not occur anywhere in the first 206 pages of the text [16]. Neither does pejorative. The book was published in 1977. Have you read the text? If so, perhaps you could quote a passage here where the author has made such a connection. Until then, I must contend that a history book, on its own, can not verify the contented statement without a specific citation. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 00:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

redirects

I changed Jewish terrorist and jewish extremist terrorism to redirect to Religious terrorism. That article links back here anyway.

Israeli terrorism should probably redirect to List_of_acts_labelled_as_state_terrorism_sorted_by_state considering the narrow scope of this article. If no one objects within a few days, I'll make the change. Thanks. --Uncle Bungle 01:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It should redirect to State sponsored terrorism with an entry for Israel 202.6.129.214

I changed the redirect to List_of_acts_labelled_as_state_terrorism_sorted_by_state which already has some content with regards to Israel. --Uncle Bungle 02:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Terror out of Zion

Well, regarding J. Bowyer Bell (1977). Terror out of Zion: Irgun Zvai Leumi, LEHI, and the Palestine underground, 1929-1949. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 0-312-79205-0 —

I've just reserved the book at the main public library in my city (via the Internet), and it should be at my local branch by next Thursday, so I will look through it and see if it actually supports the following sentence: At the time, the British described such political violence as "Jewish" or "Zionist terrorism", although the latter is used as a political epithet in reference to present day events outside that historical context. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

I suggest that others who are interested do the same thing. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 04:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Epithet

I have restored my version (reverted by Moshe without explanation) as I cannot see any reason to separate the fact that the actions were regarded as terrorism other than to try and make out that this was somehow wrong or unjust and thereby apply a personal commentary to the article. Arniep 12:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Virtual Library

Hi Humus,

The Jewish Virtual Library is a self published source. It has been described as a "partisan source". [17]. The author of the article, Yehuda Lapidot, was a member of Irgun, hardly impartial. I replaced your source with a fact tag with the hopes that you can find another. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 01:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

First, I did not insert that link initially, I merely formatted it. Second, the Hunting Season is not an opinion or a fiction, it was a prolonged campaign. Third, the JVL is a publisher and not the author. In this case we quote Y. Lapidot, a participant and an eyewitness (perhaps we should say it), so I don't comprehend the removal of the quoted source. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, I didn't realize you just re-formatted it. I don't disagree with the hunting season, I just would prefer a different source. The Jewish Virtual Library, copied the article directly from Lapidots own "The Irgun Site" [18]. It doesn't get more self-published than that. --Uncle Bungle 02:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

A testimony from a participant is important. The source itself does not need to be NPOV (especially about their own past), but our coverage should be. BTW, I am sure we can find additional sources about the Hunting Season and we need an article on that campaign. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree whole heartedly that an article on the Hunting Season is needed. I tried to find some more info but was unsuccessful. With regards to Lapidots account, my only concern is that it's on a website without any peer review. --Uncle Bungle 02:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The JVL is not a self published source. Isarig 03:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

At the JVL: Who is the editor in chief? Who reviews content? Who copied the article in question directly from Lapidots own website, as stated above. Compare [19] vs [20]. Feelings on the overall content aside, in this instance, the article was copied directly from "The Irgun Site" and has not undergone any verifiable independent peer review. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 04:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are interested, you can e-Mail them and ask. I don't know who made the editorial decision regarding this particular article anymore than I know which BBC editor is responsible for editing a certain news or radio broadcast. The JVL has an executive director (who is not the author of the article), a board of directors, and two dozen or so advisers on its advisory board, none of whom, again, are the authors of this piece. It is a nonprofit 501(c)(3), nonpartisan organization. In short, it is not a self published source by any stretch of the imagination. With regards to the particular piece, you don't know it was copied from the Etzel site. For all you know, it was the other way around. Or, more plausibly, both sites chose to feature the same article, by an important source - hardly an uncommon phenomena on the internet. Please refrain from removing well sourced material in the future. Isarig 04:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Scroll down to the bottom of the JVL copy, and it says "Source, The Irgun Site, which, when you follow the link, delcares "Written by: Prof. Yehuda Lapidot". Thats a poster child for self published. --Uncle Bungle 05:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you might be confused about this issue. First of all JVL is itself a notable website, second of all, just because Yehuda Lapidot wrote that particular article does not mean that JVL qualifies as a "self published source".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The AICE puts up a website they call the Jewish Virtual Library. The AICE populates the website it owns with articles. Some of these articles are taken from other sites, like this one. When you put up a website and fill it with articles, some written in house and some from other sources, how is that not self-published? --Uncle Bungle 00:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Self published means an individual writes something, then creates his own web site and publishes it there, or takes his article to a printing press and self-publishes a hard copy. When there is a 3rd party involved, an that 3rd party has an execuitve director and an advisory board, which selects which material they publish, that is not self-publication. I hope I made that clear enough. Isarig 00:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Isarig, thank you. In some instances though I don't think thats true. For example, when there is a 3d party involved, and that third party is a non profit 501(c)(3) organization, and it has a board of directors, and it selects which material they publish, then it doesn't qualify as a source for Wikipedia. Ok, I know that is a streach, but I hope you see my point. I won't argue against the JVL further. With regards to the article in question, I'll leave it since it was "re-published", but I really think something better could be found. They repubished the article verbatim from a source which is without a doubt self published, and gave no indication as to who reviewed it. When I read a BBC story for example, I know who the contributor is, can easily find out who their managing editor is, and am confident that they have a reputation as a long running and reliable source. As Humus Sapiens accurately stated, there should be an article on the hunting season. If some better sources can be found, then hopefully one will be written. Cheers. --Uncle Bungle 01:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The Jewish Virtual Library was established in 1993 as a nonprofit 501(c)(3), nonpartisan organization. It has a public Board of Directors. The authors of its articles are known, as is its executive director, Mitchell Bard. I'm not sure what you're objecting to. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean I can hold Mitchell Bard personally responsible for every article publised at the JVL? Even if this were the case, is there any way of knowing that he (or whatever author is credited) has at least some expertise in the situation with regards to any article "published" there. The above article has an author of unknown qualifications, and the peer review process of the JVL is also unknown. --Uncle Bungle 05:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If you mean from a legal perspective, although IANAL, I believe the answer is yes. We don't know the peer review process, but that is irrelevant, since many reliable sources have NO peer review, just editorial oversight. I refer you again to the example above, of the BBC (or any other news website) which is a reliable source, despite the fact that we don't know who authored every article, nor the editorial process involved. You earleir wrote that you "won't argue against the JVL further" - that was a wise decision. I don't know what cuased you to change your mind, but I suggest you reconsider- you are wasting your time and ours. Isarig 18:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Such hostility, Isarig, is upsetting to me. The BBC is a long standing news organization with a wide audiance, articles and news segments are clearly attributed to an author. When an error is made, it is very easy for the BBC (or another news organization) to offer a correction, and it is in their best interest to do so, as their credibility is at stake. The BBC and the JVL can not be compared on the same field, period. The JVL is a registered non-profit, yes, but does that make them experts in any field. The fact is, the website is like any other: it exists, and if errors are found, in what forum are the detractors able to express themselves, and what guarentees are there that the JVL will make necessary corrections? --Uncle Bungle 19:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What hostility are you talking about? I posted a civil, detailed repsonse to your post, answered your questions, with examples that illustrate the point. I did not say the BBC is the same as JVL, but they are the same in the one aspect you were previously complaining about: the lack of peer-review, and the lack of individual authorship. Th eBBc has no peer-review, jsut like teh JVL, and contrary to your claims, most, if not all, BBC articles do not have an individual author named. See for exmaple, selecting at random from today: this, this and this.I see that you have now backtracked from the claim that it is the lack "peer review" that makes JVL objectionable, and are instead focusing on th eallged lack of address to which requests for error corrections can be sent. But that is patently flase - as was pointed out to you, The JVL is an organization with a named board , a known address , and even an e-mail address for you to mail complaints directly to the executive editor. What guarentees are there that the JVL will make necessary corrections? Excatly the same kind that exist for the BBC, which is that if you comaplin about an error, they may correct it, or they may not. Isarig 22:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There are some references to "Hunting Season" in

The History of Israel (The Greenwood Histories of the Modern Nations) by Arnold Blumberg (Hardcover - Aug 30, 1998)

Liberal Nationalism for Israel: Towards an Israeli National Identity by Joseph Agassi (Hardcover - Nov 1999)

Some more can be found using Google Books Arniep 01:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

WP article about Zionist political violence - but we can't blame the Zionists?

There is ample evidence that much Zionist political violence was supported and instigated by mainstream Zionist organisations, even though they publically condemned it eg the sinking of the Patria in 1940 (252 dead, mostly refugees) was carried out by Haganah. And Israel has continued this practise, glorifying the terrorism such as the 1944 killing of Lord Moyne, re-burying the executed killers on Mount Herzl in 1975. It is difficult to understand the motives of editors who remove such well-referenced evidence, and it would be nice if we could get on with writing an encyclopaedia without this kind of obstruction. PalestineRemembered 19:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it would be nice. Yas121 13:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Explaining reversions (May 2007)

I'm sorry but automatic edit sumnmaries and ones limited to "POV" are not sufficient grounds to undo edits, and I certainly expect more from experienced users. So, let's start at the beginning: explainig the reversions using full sentences. Thanks. El_C 10:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. For example, I see deletions of references to the Jewish underground of the early 1980s and to various Kachist organizations, but I can't find any argument here for those deletions. I'm not saying that text is particularly good, but deleting it rather than improving it requires an argument. --Zero^talk 13:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Academic sources only refer to the pre-1949 groups as terrorism; the insertions were original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Except that the article is about Zionist political violence, rather than Zionist terrorism.ابو علي (Abu Ali) 16:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Which sources state those followers of the Kach faith committed "Zionist political violence"? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, it's not properly sourced. Most of it is completely unsourced, and PalestinedRemembered is claiming that the rest of it comes from the "Evening Star of Auckland, July 2, 1975". Of course, PalestineRemembered has never read the Evening Star of Auckland, which is why he doesn't know the article name or page number; rather, he has copied his views and references from the Holocaust Denial Institute for Historical Review: [21] It's a violation of WP:CITE#Say_where_you_got_it; frankly, I think copying from Holocaust Deniers while pretending to do your own research is a blocking offense. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence whatever that PalestineRemembered got his information from IHT. I believe he got it from Bitter Harvest like he says on his talk page. Clearly he should have given his direct source as the rules dictate, but that is the only offense he committed in this instance. The information, by the way, is completely true, well known, and very easy to source. The killers of Moyne were indeed returned to Israel and buried at Mount Herzl with state honours. Commemorative stamps were issued too. I'll add this information to Lord Moyne with good sources; other people can argue over whether it belongs here too. --Zero^talk 01:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Jay; it might be better to note post-1949 groups elsewhere. For ex., the Hebrew wiki starts its Jewish terrorism in Israel article in 1949. Obviously, anything IHR-related should be nuked from orbit. My point about stale, poorly-explained reversions stands, however. El_C 19:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The title of this page does not give a time limit. A clean solution would be to add "before 1949" or something like that, as well as creating a new page. On a slightly different topic, it should be sufficient that a group conducts political violence in the name of Zionism. Otherwise all conceivable cases can be ruled out by means of arguments that they aren't really Zionist. Nobody would get away with trying that in the case of Palestinian violence, and nobody should here either. By the way, El_C, is the Hebrew article you mention of good quality? Would starting here with a translation be a good idea? --Zero^talk 01:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This article certainly talks about "terrorism"; as I recall, the reason post 1949 events weren't included in the article was because there were no reliable sources referring to those events as "Zionist terrorism". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I havne't read it closely, but it seems to be of an okay quality (most of the subsections deal with individual terrorists). The problem with using the term Zionist to describe them is that most Israeli Jews are zionists, so it tends to lose its meaning when applied as such. El_C 21:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

For information: the charges Jayjg made against PalestineRemembered led to a messy argument and a block and an Arbitration Committee case. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#PalestineRemembered. --Zero^talk 01:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have posted a sufficient proof that PalestineRemembered did not get his material from IHR on his talk page: here. --Zero^talk 10:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Added material

Per discussion elsewhere I have added the following based on three relatively solid sources:

Although J Bowyer Bell writes:

"In June 1975, the Egyptian government released the bodies of Eliadu Hakim and Eliahu Bet-Zouri, thirty years after the assassination of Lord Moyne, in return for twenty Arabs jailed in Israel as fedayeen or intelligence agents. In Jerusalem the two were given a heroes' burial in the Mount Herzl military cemetry, the resting place of Israeli premiers and presidents."(also corroborated by other accounts )

It seems well established. --Abnn 02:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, your source didn't refer to them as "the terrorist assassins". Go figure. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

True. The book is called 'Terror out of Zion', however. *grin* Hornplease 03:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend dropping this unnecessary tangential conversation, since I don't think it serves a purpose. --Abnn 03:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Consider it dropped. Hornplease 03:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this really OR?

The following was removed based on a user arguing that it is OR, but it seems to be fully sourced and Kahanism is a political and zionist movement, although very right wing and fundamentalist, which has restored to violence. Thus I don't see the OR aspects of it.

Other Militant groups

The following groups were all started or branched off from those started by Meir Kahane:

• Jewish Defense League: A "right-wing militant group" [22] according to the FBI. Although several members have been charged or convicted with offenses related to the handling of explosives, the group is not thought to have any current connection to violent attacks. [23]
• Kach and Kahane Chai: (defunct) Israel and United States. Eden Natan-Zada was involved with Kahanism before killing 3 people in Shefa-'Amr, an act described by then prime minister Ariel Sharon as "a reprehensible act by a bloodthirsty Jewish terrorist".
• Gush Emunim Underground: (1979-1984) Formed by prominent members of Gush Emunim. [24]
• Jewish Defense Organization: a Jewish Militant rival offshoot of the Jewish Defense League, which was founded by Kahane.

--Abnn 06:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that designated this as "Zionist political violence"? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I support Abnn here. I'll open a RFC to solicit fresh input. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 06:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The material is already in the Religious terrorism article; indeed, it was copied directly from that article. You're well aware of this issue; see, for example, this edit from 3 months ago. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The case of the Gush Emunim Underground seems to belong here. They were definitely Zionist first and religious second. Of course the subject deserves better treatment than it currently has. The books of Ehud Sprinzak would be a good start. --Zero^talk 13:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If Gush Emunim is nationalist and not religious, then by all means source and include it. Kach is a violent cult, and there is an article for that allready. --Uncle Bungle 14:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing that Gush Emunim is not religious. It is both religious and Zionist. Kach certainly are a violent organization, both religious and zionist. The fact that it has its own article does not mean that it should be censored here. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 19:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop reinserting the same irrelevant content. Jewish Defense League, etc. don't belong here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Those groups are all well known and violent, and I would think implicitly non-religious as well, because political violence contravenes the religious teachings. They should all be included in the article. --Marvin Diode 21:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I used to think that such stuff belonged here (cf ancient talk), but Jay and Humus convinced me otherwise. The problem is that such stuff belongs somewhere in Wiki-Israel-land, but where? I dunno how Zero knew that Ehud Sprinzak's book "The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right" was staring at me - in fact I tripped over it in my kitchen, but as usual, he is quite right. To enlarge on the problem, just take a look at some of Spinzak's section headings -Ch. 2 The Zionist Roots of the Radical Right finishes with a section on "The Political and Historical Marginality of the Old Radical Right" There's a connection, sure, but it isn't straightforward. After leafing through the book, I realized that plagiarism (always the best choice in scholarly endeavors) might be the answer. Maybe we should have an artickle on "Israel's Radical Right" focusing on the stuff people want here, Gush Emunim, Kahane, etc. linking here and elsewhere and explaining connections, following Sprinzak?John Z 05:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That Gush Emunim is part of Religious Zionism, and thus is Zionist, is really obvious. There are countless remarks to this effect all over the web. I think it's also fairly obvious that Kahane's movements are Zionist, though I can't find a reference. Except that he wrote a book titled "Listen, Vanessa, I Am a Zionist"...--Doron 21:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

These groups should be included because they are Zionist groups that engaged in political violence. I don't see where the opposition to their inclusion has even been adequately articulated. It seems like a no-brainer really. Tiamut 08:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Kahane groups motivations were religious; there's a difference. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Kahane groups motivations are both religious and Zionist, as a Gush emunim underground etc. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 19:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

They are? What are your sources for that claim? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What are your sources for your [[25] that these groups are not Zionist? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 09:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a weird and reversal of the burden of proof. You are the one making a claim in order to add this to the article - you need to support it. It is not up to editors who disagree with you to prove their position in order to remove your addition. Isarig 15:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Same old, same old.

PalestineRemembered has inserted into the very beginning of the article the claim that "Irgun and Lehi, militant Zionist organizations, "inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community" based on this link. To begin with, the provenance listed for the letter is dubious; read the bottom of the page. Second, I'm not sure why someone would consider "Jews for Justice for Palestinians" to be a reliable source; it's obviously a highly partisan site, and it's unclear exactly who runs it or how it is structured. Its address appears to be a P.O. box, and e-mail accounts associated with it are all free Yahoo accounts. Finally, PalestineRemembered should know by now that even if the source were reliable and accurate, it's just one claim, which should be attributed to its sources. There's no reason why this specific opinion, supposedly from 1948, should lead the article as fact. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As for the source, I've seen this circulated before a couple of times. As dubious as it looks, it might actually be genuine, though, could somebody perhaps check out [26]? The lead at least looks the same. Of course PalestineRemembered was presenting an opinion as if it were a fact. Anyway, if this turns out to be genuine, it may be worth mentioning in a relevant section about reaction to the violence from within the Zionist movement or something like that.--Doron 16:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, if it is genuine, it is probably worth mentioning in some sort of section on Jewish views of/reaction to the violence. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course I agree about how it should be used, but not sure I understand what is being called dubious. The Einstein et al letter is well-known. There is a scan of the original paper which is strangely missing the first column (one third of the text) on the net, I should have the URL somewhere, probably have to go to webarchive. I've seen scans of the full letter elsewhere. The jfjfp text is OK, although what they say at the bottom of the page is odd. The letter is mentioned, e.g. in Hirst's Gun and Olive Branch p.473, citing Lilienthal's Zionist Connection p.350-353, which probably prints it in full. There's a bit more of it here [27] John Z 18:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't use brenner or marxists.de for anything either. Let's get a reliable source for this, then insert it in a more appropriate spot. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Doron gave us the best possible one, from the horse's mouth, but I guess no one has times select or wants to shell out the big bucks. PR informs me that the jfjfp text has 856 words, as the Times says. The source is really the Times, jfjfp is just a web copy which someone willing can check, it seems OK to me for the moment if coupled with the Times and the others, for checking, Brenner has even more of it here [28] and comments "With Einstein’s name attached to it, the critique attracted enormous attention. Although it was written from a pro-Zionist perspective, their powerful statement became the classic summation of Revisionist politics until that point, and has been reprinted many times since:" He is perhaps exaggerating, and he definitely has a POV and makes some errors in his books there, but I think he is "usable with care" for some purposes - this statement really was famous. I suggested to PR that he write something up, less inflammatory and in a better spot following your and Doron's suggestions, but I guess he hasn't seen it.John Z 05:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I forked out the money and the article should be coming in shortly. I'd expect it to be instantly, but I suppose the electrons are taking their time going over the Atlantic.--Doron 05:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article finally came in. It is exactly the same as the text in the link, except for a couple of minor typos (especially in the spelling of the names of some of the signatories). We can safely cite "New Palestine Party; Visit of Menachen Begin and Aims of Political Movement Discussed". Letters to The Times. The New York Times. December 4, 1948, Saturday. p. 12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)--Doron 20:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Doron. I have also seen the original. --Ian Pitchford 20:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou Doron. I'm sorry you were put to this trouble and expense.

After all, this was not some "surprising" result needing some "super-strong" backing. This particular story is well known, and matches everything else we know, eg David Hirst "The Gun and the Olive Branch" at p 472-473 quotes Lilienthal, Alfred M., The Zionist Connection, What Price Peace?, Dodd, Mead and Company, New York, 1978, pp.350-3 as follows:

[Americans] ........ had first been introduced to [Menachim Begin] in 1948 when he was a candidate for Prime Minister. His American supporters in the League for a Free Palestine spared no effort to promote the fortunes of `the man who defied empire and gained glory for Israel'. They assembled a Reception Committee which included eleven Senators, twelve Governors, seventy-odd Congressmen, seventeen justices and judges along with educationists, public officials and mayors by the score. It required only a public warning by three prominent clergymen, one of them a rabbi, however, and the Reception Committee disintegrated. All the duped politicians - among them Congressman John F Kennedy of Massachusetts - suddenly discovered that either they had been ignorant of the true nature of Begin's activities or they had no idea how they had got on the list. Albert Einstein joined other distinguished citizens in chiding these `Americans of national repute' for honouring a man whose party was `closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties'.

I'd be fairly confident that this information is central to the scope of this article and that it belongs in the lead. The activities of Menachim Begin during WWII are well known. 1948 was the peak of the violence (whether you accept it ended then or not). Begin was publically exposed in fairly well-documented detail in Nov/Dec 1948 because he travelled to the US to raise money and put his case. I'm just waiting for someone to put my edit back. PalestineRemembered 22:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, you have impressive research skills, but I urge you to be careful about how you present the material you add. I'm sure you understand that the quote you added is an opinion, and you presented it as a fact. Besides being clearly unencyclopedic, it is also futile, because the reader recognizes that this is an opinion and the whole article is rendered as a political pamphlet just because of the way this material was presented. The reaction to the violence from within Zionism is important, but it does not belong in the lead, and certainly it shouldn't be presented as fact.--Doron 10:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Primarily targeting British?

I would question whether "primarily targeting British policemen and soldiers" is necessary - or whether they're weasel words. We'd never accept an equivalent statement about Sunni insurgents in Iraq, for instance "primarily targetting occupation forces". And we'd not accept it in Iraq for good reason - it's not true. Where is the evidence it was true in the case in Palestine? Ditto, where is the evidence that "all" (or most) immigrant victims of the "reign of terror" described by Einstein were "collaborating with the British"? Or the native victims were attacked "in response"? Much of what I've seen suggests these guys armed themselves first, attacked banks etc to raise funds and then attacked the weak, including their own. And where is the evidence that calling them terrorists was restricted to the British government, as implied by the words used? PalestineRemembered 16:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What is "intentionally misleading"?

My edit here has been reverted with the summary "intentionally misleading". I'm confident that it's the revert that leaves the article with a misleading impression, while my action improved it. The Yishuv indeed condemned terrorism, but was carrying it out itself. It's direct successor (Israel) recovered and honored the bodies of the assassins (took 31 years, exchanged for 20 prisoners). Israel has denied numerous bombings, massacres, assassinations etc and it's misleading to present their denials at face value with "was opposed".

I'd have brought this matter to the TalkPage before, except I queried another obvious fault in this article, and nobodies bothered defending it. It would appear nobody cares for the article, other than to make POV reverts with misleading summaries, re-inserting misleading phraseology. PR^talk 14:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"Intentionally misleading" means trying to imply that the Patria disaster was actually a Haganah plot to murder 200 Jewish refugees. Tewfik^Talk 22:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

They bombed a ship full of refugees in order to sink it. Any court would find them guilty of murder - that's probably the right word, not the wishy-washy "carried out bombings, killing over 200 Jewish refugees" that I've edited in. And it's not as if this is some kind of one-off, they denied these killings, just as they denied all the other assassinations and killings, including ones the Nazis would have been proud of. PR^talk 10:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You are entitled to have personal beliefs, but not to including them in the article. Tewfik^Talk 11:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Straw-man argument, I've never tried to put the word "murder" into the article. Let's not try to whitewash people who carried out bombings, including one costing over 200 Jews, who carried out a reign of terror on the Jews of Palestine and have always denied their crimes. The official leadership was plainly not opposed to these crimes - they carried out the sinking of the Patria themselves. PR^talk 06:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

unsourced list of attacks

I removed the list because it is unsourced. Original research has no place here, and should be removed. Yahel Guhan 03:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

All of that stuff can be sourced, as we all know. Deleting all the acts of Political Violence from an article political violence is vandalism.

Meanwhile, real OR is being inserted "In 1944, after the defeat of the Nazis was assured" which cannnot be referenced because nobody has ever claimed it - and it's not true anyway. PR^talk 17:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Than source it. But unsourced, it does not belong in the article, and should be removed per WP:V. Yahel Guhan 07:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not damage articles without consultation and on no evidence. We link that section to the main page of another article, where you will find the following:

The book from which I took this list was written in 1951 by sympathizers of the Irgun and Lehi, with cooperation with Aba Ahimeir, and a few other Revisionists, based on the Etzel Archives. The book is a chronology of all events related to these organizations (as well as the Hagana during the brief period of cooperation) from 1936 to 1948, including arrests, illegal immigration, "executions" of suspected colaborators and attacks against Arab and British targets, for which they claim responsibility and take pride of. The book does not list attacks on Jews, except for when they are directly related (i.e., the Irgun/Lehi response was immidiate). The wording of the book does not indicate whether the victims where civilian or combatants in most of the cases listed (the exceptions being when the victims where policemen, as I have specified, e.g., April 12, 1938), and during the late 1940's attacks against Arabs are usually described as attacks against "gangs" or "rebels", which might suggest that in the absense of other adjectives, the victims were civilians. Also, one would immagine that attacks on markets and cafe's are aimed at civilians. Based on this book, I can also compile a list of their attacks during the 1940's, as well as Lehi attacks, arrests, illegal immigration, etc., when I have the time. Alas, there are no comperhensive lists of Arab attacks in this book, but the challange is interesting and I'll look it up if I find the time. Of course it would be quite discouraging to bother to do such research only for you to slap the TotallyDisputed patch on what I have painstakingly written. ... --Doron 08:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Read further on that page and you'll discover other sources of the same and more information (the Palestine Post apparently being on line) suggesting that the list is incomplete and the Irgun killed many more than 250 people.

Needless to say, the only real OR is the "In 1944, after the defeat of the Nazis was assured", I trust you'll not force me to escalate the matter, but I'll give you a chance to revert yourself first. PR^talk 17:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Source added: [29] Now it is accurate. Yahel Guhan 23:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

??? I have not found anything in this report about Irgun attacks. As far as I can see it is just reporting that Germany capitulated in May 1945. And this is not something which had to be proved, we all knew this. If you can render any proof that the line in the article stating that the Irgun resumed their attacks in February 1944 is incorrect, then please submit it. Otherwise please stop damaging this article, there is no room for Israeli political censorship in Wikipedia (nor for Palestinian censorship). I will restore the neutral wordings that were carefully chosen, and I expect this will not be altered any more without providing solid documentation. Paul kuiper NL (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Paul on this. Without a source that ties the Irgun's return to attacks on the British to some sentiment that their battle against the Nazis was coming to a close, we shouldn't say as much. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 22:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think since the Irgun resuming attacks is unsourced, it shouldn't even be mentioned at all. My question to you is where is the doccumentation for that? Yahel Guhan 05:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If it doesn't belong, then take it out. In the meantime, much evidence has been challenged and has now been sourced, so it needn't be interfered with again. What is not sourced is the blatant OR "after the defeat of the Nazis was assured". PR^talk 17:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Strange omission: Jacob Israël de Haan

There seem to be some strange omissions in this article. Most noticeable: why is there no reference to Jacob Israël de Haan, the Zionist Jewish Dutch idealist who was murdered by the Haganah in 1924? It seems to be arbitrary to let this article start in the 1930's. Paul kuiper NL (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is this strange ?

I expect you can give a clear and precise answer to my question.

Ceedjee (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As at this time, Jacob de Haan is in the article. There is a lot more work to be done before this article is anywhere near complete however. PR^talk 19:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Article Title

This is a redirect from Jewish terrorism and clearly is Jewish terrorism; why isn't this article labelled appropriately, as per Christian terrorism and Islamic terrorism? It seems very slanted to me. Unless ALL Jewish terrorism is Zionist related, in which case it should probably be called Zionist terrorism. Zionist political violence is clearly the wrong title as it breaks the cycle. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing Zionism, a mostly secular-nationalist movement, with Judaism, a religion. This article title, in fact, parallels that of the Palestinian political violence articles. As for the re-direct, it has been fixed, and now goes to the appropriate spot, Religious terrorism#Jewish. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. Everytime I add Barabbas to the terrorist category, I get reverted. But there's kind of a long gap in between, so I'm hard pressed to see how an all-inclusive article could be written. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Patricia sinking

I've restored this with refs from the main article, which should alleviate the WP:OR complaint. I can re-ref from gbooks pretty easily if that's preferred. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What's stopping you? Yahel Guhan 05:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Terrorist Organizations - removed

As Jayjg has previously stated: there is a difference between Judaism and Zionism, and I would argue those entities are different again from the modern state of Israel. The scope of the article is pretty obvious, and Kahanist groups do not apply. They have their own spot in Religious Terrorism which is referenced in the see also section. Accusations of state terrorism by Israel belong in their own article, and have no business here either. I've removed the content and provided this explanation.

Thanks and regards,

--Uncle Bungle (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of state terrorism by Israel clearly don't belong (and I've recently removed two examples).

I'm extremely pleased to hear that we at last differentiate between Judaism and Zionism. However, that doesn't stop there being overlap between religious terrorism and Zionist terrorism (just as there is with Palestinian nationalist terrorism). Kach and Kahane Chai belong in both categories and their actions need a mention here. PR^talk 17:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Double Standard

Quite possibly the most glaring example of double standard and NPOV problems in any article on wikipedia. Where is the logic in calling Zionist terrorism 'political violence', and other forms of political violence terrorism? I am quite curious as to how the stewards of this ridiculous white-washing farce justify it. 74.56.218.173 (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian Terrorism actually redirects to a political violence article. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Improve writing of this article

This is not a very well-written article, but there seems to be a problem with improving it. This edit has been reverted for no reason that I can see, the writing in the new version is a lot better, and what few changes I've made should be non-contentious. Clearly, the Yishuv, while condemning the violence, supported some of it (eg certainly Patria and likely the killing of Lord Moyne). PR^talk 16:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you still flogging that "sinking of the Patria was Zionist terrorism" dead horse? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I see an article entitled "Zionist political violence" into which bad writing is re-inserted at the expense of good.

I see an article in which discussion of the violence is artificially restricted to the 30s and 40s, although it started in the 20s (and earlier) and has continued at least into the 90s.

I see an article which conceals the fact that a future Israeli Prime Minister perpetrated a reign of terror against Palestinian Jews - in fact, no mention of Menachem Begin atall.

I see an article that doesn't mention another ex-terrorist Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Shamir.

I see an article in which the terrorists close cooperation with Mussolini (and seeking an alliance with Hitler) are missing.

I see an article laced with weasel words aimed at defending the terrorists. So what if they sent an inadequate warning?

I see an article that could be interesting and informative rendered trivial by leaving out the masses of good material available.

Lastly, I regret that administrators feel unable to support people looking to improve this article. PR^talk 12:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just cleaned up some of the worst of the writing. Can anyone really think that a sentence starting with "His assassination was well researched and reported in the book..." is in any way encyclopedic or compliant with WP:NPOV? Anyway, This article is a summary, it doesn't need lengthy descriptions of each incident. Compare with Palestinian political violence, which contains, at most, 3 sentences on each incident. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Jewish terrorism

The 1940s violence is often known as Jewish terrorism ([30]), yet that article had nothing mentioning those events (and apparently a see also to this article was removed some time ago as "not relevant"). Should we consider a merge? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Jewish religious terrorism is about violence carried out for religious reasons. Zionist political violence was violence carried out as part of a movement of national liberation. They are not the same. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The very term "Jewish religious terrorism" is hardly used in any literature ([31]), and the term "Zionist political violence" is a complete OR ([32]). Both phenomena should be discussed under Jewish terrorism, and split only if there is too much material.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Those sources speak of 1940s actions, not 1990s. And we're not allowed to use the term "terrorism" on these articles: see Palestinian political violence. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Not allowed? Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and WP:OR argue otherwise.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't see a problem with the title of this article, particularly since the Jews were often the victims of this political violence by the Zionists. The problem comes from edits like this, stripping out all the context behind, for instance, the decapitation of the non-Zionist Jewish movement in Palestine in 1924. And this article is mysteriously limited to events of the 30s and the 40s, although Zionist political violence started in 1919 or 1920 (at the latest) and continues, probably, to this day. However, I should warn you against using any information that might, conceivably, have also been quoted by Holocaust Deniers, since it could be treated as an instant perma-block offence. PR^talk 18:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

PR, please stop using article pages as soapboxes, you've been warned about this before. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't researched Palestinian terrorism, but "Palestinian political violence" is at least used by some publications (although "Palestinian terrorism" is much more common). However as I've shown before, "Zionist political violence" is a Wikipedia-only term, and as such, a likely violation of OR. I am sure it was invented for what some thought was good reasons, but we are building an uncensored encyclopedia without euphemisms; those are simply bad for this project, outside or inside titles of articles. Perhaps a better solution would be to move this article to "Zionist terrorism", move Jewish religious terrorism back to Jewish terrorism, and summarize the "Zionist terrorism" there (as one section; religious terrorism can have another one, it so far does not look significant enough to merit its own article). PS. Please note I have no agenda for or against either side of the PI conflict, but I simply am interested in using the most correct and commons terms (hence I would also likely support renaming of "Palestinian political violence", as noted above). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources don't use the term "Zionist terrorism", as a closer look at your google books search shows, and use of the term "Jewish terrorism" in reliable sources is pretty rare too. This title is fine. In any event, I think it would be better to start at the "Palestinian political violence" page first, since the term "Palestinian terrorism" is significantly more common than either "Jewish terrorism" or "Zionist terrorism" among reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with PR, it's absolutely ridiculous that this article's content only covers events up to the 1940s. Zionists still exist, and they are not above using violence for political ends when they believe it's warranted.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No, actually it's perfectly reasonable for the article to cover through the time of the founding of the state of Israel. Zionist political violence up until that point centered on the goal of establishment of a Jewish state. Post 1948, any such instances carried out towards the "political ends" of the Jewish state would be more accurately termed Israeli political violence. Of course there are extra-state acts of violence carried out in and out of Israel. eg, the Jewish Defense League, but these are more accurately referred to as Jewish, rather than Zionist, purveyors of violence. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 17:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Little known facts

Can anyone confirm what's stated in a letter to the Daily Mail on 8th July 2008?

Terrorist killing of British servicemen by Zionists between May 1945 and May 1948, no British government has given an accurate figure but "Forgotten Conscripts" by Eric Lowe puts it at 784. Two kidnapped British soldiers were garrotted and their booby-trapped bodies hung from trees. Since it was the British and their soldiers who first declared war on Nazi Germany on 3rd Sept 1939 this retaliation against them seems slightly surprising. Templar98 (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that indicate that Britain declared war on Nazi Germany on behalf of Jews? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, that need not concern us since this article concerns political violence, and the killing of 784 British soldiers (if that number can be confirmed), for whatever purpose, is indeed political violence. (It sometimes appears that half the population of the Western World believe WWII was fought on behalf of the Jews, so it probably is in the RS somewhere).

This source claims there was a fair amount of political violence against forces of the Crown rather earlier, during the war itself, and claims to have very good RS backing, the proceedings of the House of Commons ("Hansard").

1. Two policemen were gunned down by members of the Stern Gang in Feb 1944 (Hansard, House of Commons Debates, February 25, 1944, pp. 1117-11 18.).
2. Between 5th Apr 1944 and 13th March nine policemen were killed and five wounded or injured. (Ibid., April 5, 1944, p. 2017.)
3. On the 8th August 1944 a well-prepared attempt was made by the Stern Gang to assassinate the High Commissioner Sir Harold MacMichael. (Ibid., September 26, 1944, pp. 74-75.) Although several assailants are seen to go into the Jewish Settlement of Givat Shaul, followed by police dogs, and the Settlement cordoned immediately, noone there volunteered or gave any useful information.
4. Terrorism increased, four police stations were attacked by Irgun on the night of 27th September by a force of at least 150 strong, armed with explosives and automatic weapons, causing casualties and considerable damage to police buildings. (Ibid., October 11, 1944, pp. 74-75.) Two men arrested, quantities of ammunition, two bombs and Irgun flags seized.
5. The Stern Gang assassination of Lord Moyne in Cairo was in November 1944 and Churchill told the House that: "This shameful crime has shocked the world. It has affected none more strongly than those, like myself, who, in the past, have been consistent friends of the Jews and constant architects of their future. If our dreams of Zionism are to end in the smoke of assassins' pistols and our labours for its future to produce only a new set of gangsters worthy of Nazi Germany, many like myself will have to reconsider the position we have maintained so consistently and so long in the past. If there is to be any hope of a peaceful and successful future for Zionism, these wicked activities must cease, and those responsible for them must be destroyed root and branch. The primary responsibility must, of course, rest with the Palestine authorities under His Majesty's Government. These authorities are already engaged in an active and thorough campaign against the Stern Gang and the larger, but hardly less dangerous, Irgun Z'vai Leumi." (Ibid., November 17, 1944, pp. 557-561). The bodies of these terrorists are the ones recovered from Egypt in 1975 and buried with honor at Mt Herzl.

Lesser acts of political violence occured throughout 1944.

1. On 29th Jan the Irgun carried out explosions at the Government Transport Agency Car Park at Jaffa wrecking one lorry and damaged others. One arrest.
2. 3rd Feb - Arab taxi-driver surprises two men preparing to plant an electrically operated bomb (what we'd now call an IED) on a wall near the entrance to St. George's Cathedral, Jerusalem. An Arab civilian is killed in the shootout but no arrests. Zionists are blamed.
3. 12th, 13th Feb - bomb outrages at Jerusalem, Haifa and Tel-Aviv against Immigration Offices causing damage to buildings and to archives at Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv, no casualties. The Irgun claims responsibility in a letter to the Hebrew Press.
4. 24th Feb - Stern Gang blamed for a bomb placed outside the garage of a Deputy Superintendent of Police explodes under his car as he drove out. The car is wrecked, but the officer escapes with superficial injuries. A second road-side bomb targets a 4 Policemen in a car, which is damaged, but withoug serious injury and a third bomb defused.
5. 26th Feb - explosions at the Income Tax Offices at Tel-Aviv and Haifa cause extensive damage to buildings. UXB at the Income Tax Office, Jerusalem. No casualties. 2nd March - Stern gang shoot constable in back and escape.
6. 13th March - Jewish Constable murdered at Petah Tikvah.
7. 16th March leading menber of Stern Gang caught with pistol and explosives.
8. 19th March - Stern gang member escapes onto roof, fires at police and is killed.
9. 23rd March, three British police killed in Tel-Aviv and one slightly wounded. At Haifa bombs explode and kill three and wound three British constables in the police headquarters. At Jerusalem the police headquarters are bombed by terrorists wearing items of police clothing, they cause serious damage and shoot dead an assistant superintendent of police. At Jaffa an air-raid shelter below police headquarters is bombed without casualties.
10. 1st April - a Stern Gang den discovered, seargent killed by grenade and inspector slightly wounded. Military uniforms, arms, electrical appliances and printing equipment seized.
11. 5th April - British constable wounded, assailant wounded and arrested. 6th April - two armed Jews in a house are killed without police casualties.
12. 9th April - drive-by shooting and grenade at a British police billet in Northern Tel-Aviv, two British constables and a Jewish constable slightly wounded. No arrests.
13. 10th April attempted killing of a deputy superintendent of police, no arrests.
14. 10th May - Jewish police constable of the C.I.D. shot dead by unknown assailant, no arrest.
15. Late on 17th May 1944 - three Arabs in a taxi blown up outside Ramallah. 30 Jews with submachine guns, rifles and pistols allow Arabs to escape, then fire at them, wounding two. Immediately thereafter eight men similarily dressed men shoot up the Broadcasting Station at Ramallah. No casualties. In the early hours of that morning the police ambush a patrol of three trucks, about 24 assailants escape. The trucks have been hi-jacked from Petah Tikvah, the owners bound but released later.
16. 14th July - 15 to 25 Irgun terrorists, some disguised as police, attack the Jerusalem District Police Headquarters and the District of Jerusalem and Bethlehem Land Registry. There are shots fired and grenades thrown, followed by three large explosions doing extensive damage to buildings and starting a fire which guts the ground floor and closes the Registry sine die.
17. 22nd Aug - Jaffa Divisional Police Headquarters and two police stations on the Jaffa-Tel-Aviv border attacked by armed Jews. The attackers, in three separate parties each numbering about a dozen men, were armed with home-made bombs, grenades and submachine guns, and one party arrived and left in a truck. The way was prepared for the attack by mining of the roads and rail crossings in the neighbourhood and by laying boobytraps. A large ambush party lay near the Divisional Headquarters. Where road junctions were mined posters had been left bearing warnings by the Irgun. The attackers were driven off by small arms fire, except at one police station where the Palestinian personnel on guard were out-numbered. Fourteen rifles were taken from this station. Minor damage was done to the buildings by bombs. Six suspects arrested, one of whom was wounded by police fire and was seen to throw away a bomb.
18. 29th Sep - senior British police officer assassinated while walking, no arrests.
19. 5th, 6th Oct - Tel-Aviv offices and stores of the Department of Light Industries were raided by 50 Irgun, some armed, textiles valued at 100,000 Pounds Sterling taken (Ibid., Dec 6, 1944, pp. 557-561.)

PR^talk 21:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No Explanation or Motivation?

In order for this to be a slightly more neutral article, there must be an explanation for why these acts were committed. This article is rated as "moderate importance" to "WikiProject Palestine" but not to WikiProject Israel or even WikiProject Terrorism. Is it because unmotivated or pointless "Jewish terrorism" would back the Palestinian Arab political viewpoint and give justification for a Palestinian state in Israel?

I recommend that to understand this in an historical manner, one must know that the Jewish Palestinian organizations such as Lehi were formed to put an end to British imperialism and oppression.

The article should also mention the struma (ship) and the exodus (ship) in order to provide insight to the conflict.

I should also mention that other "terrorism" articles provide justification for Islamic terror (or, "freedom-fighting"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iminflorida (talk • contribs) 19:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The big problem with this article is the absurdly POV insistence that only Zionist political violence from the 30s and 40s can be included. Never mind that a Palestinian was shot dead by the Zionists in 1882, just 6 months after the first one arrived, and that the last nail-bombing of a Jew by Zionists was earlier this year, 126 years later - only the atrocities of one period of 20 years can be mentioned.

And that's before we examine individual edits and general conduct as the ArbCom tells us is important and actionable. PR^talk 13:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Would a proposed rename like Zionist attacks against British Palestine help narrow the focus of this article a bit, so that people don't feel it's minimising a century of attacks into one period, and allowing another article to deal with other periods in the history of the territory? Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 05:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Zionist political violence is a perfectly proper article title (if the article grew too big it could be split into pre-1920, pre-1948 and post-1948, there is ample material to fill articles on each).

There's no secret about this violence, which has been widespread (Iraq, Egypt, the UK, Germany, France etc etc) and aimed at friend and foe, Jew and gentile. There was a nail-bomb attack on a Holocaust Survivor, in Israel, a few months ago. A substantial gang of Zionist neo-Nazis were jailed for attacking Jews earlier this year. What's needed is administrative action against the serious bad-faith that's been evident (and that's just in this article), trying to stop the project covering this kind of topic honestly. PR^talk 09:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

PR, which "substantial gang of Zionist neo-Nazis were jailed for attacking Jews earlier this year"? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I do remember hearing about a gang of Russian-Israeli neo-Nazi hoodlums who attacked Jews in Israel earlier this year. To call these low-lifes "Zionists" or to allege that their violence was motivated by Zionism is quite a stretch indeed. --GHcool (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

"Quite a stretch indeed", or just more soapboxing. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

pov flag

Zionist political violence doens't only concern Irgun and Lehi but also Haganah, Palmah and all other militias that was active in the Yishuv. This article is not neutral in that sense.
The reasons and origin of this political violence should be explained (that looks too much like an attack of Zionism today) : it was in reaction of 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1936-39 arab palestinian attacks that were themselves a reaction of the arrival of more and more zionists in Palestine. Ceedjee (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

merging with jewish terrorism

I removed the flag because I didn't see any discussion anywhere ? Ceedjee (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I support this merger. Zionist terrorism is a subset of jewish terrorism93.96.148.42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC).

No, it is not. It is not religiously motivated. NoCal100 (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Pro-Israeli terrorism then?93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we just leave it as it is? Why the need to merge it into anything? NoCal100 (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with NoCal.

The origin of the violence was not religious.

Ceedjee (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Name Change to Zionist Terrorism

The title of this article should be changed to Zionist Terrorism. It was the term used by all the parties at the time, and is still current.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use the most easily recognized name

"zionist terrorism" =35,400 google hits

"zionist political violence" = 727 google hits.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That is not in accordance with npov.

Zionism terrorism is an expression that characterizes the zionist political violence in assuming it was not legitimate. For most zionists and the time, many Israeli today and several historians, that was part of a struggle to get independance (from Brits and Arabs).

Ceedjee (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved. Neutrality trumps all other arguments. Aervanath (talk) 04:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Zionist political violence → Zionist Terrorism — Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use the most easily recognized name — 93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support 93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per WP:WTA#terrorist. Terrorism is inherently POV. Compare also with Palestinian political violence, which I don;t see you proposing we move as well. I also note with interst that in the section above, about the Patria, you claim "this is not an article about terrorism" - which appears to contradict your position here. NoCal100 (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

And perhaps suppressing the discussion of acts as terrorism could be inherently POV, particularly when those acts include what most reasonable people would regard as terrorism (such as throwing bombs into crowds, setting off bombs in market places and railway stations, sending parcel bombs, carrying out or attempting to carry out assassinations of politicians and diplomats, bombing embassies in other countries) and particularly since there is a WikiTerrorism project (which implies that a discussion of those acts which are seen widely as terrorism, as terrorism, is supposed to take place). -- ZScarpia (talk) 13:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - PEr WP:NPoV applied to the concept of terrorist and freedom fighter as explained in wp:wta#terrorist. More, most of the violence had a political root in the context the zionism's goals. Only in a few cases was the goal to terrorize people. Ceedjee (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that fighting for freedom and using terrorism are mutually exclusive. A freedom fighter could use terrorist methods and therefore be a freedom-fighting terrorist or a terroristic freedom fighter. Wouldn't it be legitimate to discuss the few cases (such as throwing bombs into crowds, setting off bombs in market places and railway stations, sending parcel bombs, carrying out or attempting to carry out assassinations of politicians and diplomats, bombing embassies in other countries) where the aim was to terrorise (albeit for political reasons rooted in Zionism's goals) as terrorism? -- ZScarpia (talk) 13:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is better to keep a neutral title to globalize all the actions with any morale connotation. We can have a section titled terrorism where all this actions would be explained with their due weight. The NPov issue about this subject is that we mislead people in making them believe that the "zionist political violence" was mainly terrorism (the minority case) and when we don't give a clear background. And anyway, that doesn't justify the move. At best, another article could be creating only focusing on that but I would suggest, for a global npov concern of wp on this hot issue, only when this one is properly developed. Ceedjee (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose This move is POV and anti-semitic in origin.24.182.142.254 (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:AGF and wp:civil. Ceedjee (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support They are the modern day founders of Terrorism after all..--Rockybiggs (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Who is exactly the "they" ? and do you have references from wp:rs sources for that allegation ? Ceedjee (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

People who were involved in Terrorism at the time in the land of Palestine (aka Israelis) [33][34][35][36][37]--Rockybiggs (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I assume you didn't mean what you wrote... Ceedjee (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Comment. Clearly "Terrorism" should not be capitalized, as "Zionist terrorism" is not a proper noun. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.