Jump to content

Talk:Zionist political violence/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Old talk archives

The history of this page has been somewhat complicated. Apparently, it was started at Zionist Terrorism (now a redirect to this article), then cut-and-pasted here. Some of you may have noticed when I deleted and restored the article earlier today to re-merge the histories for GFDL attribution purposes. In June of 2005, a sub-article, Israeli terrorism, was split from this one. That article was then re-merged with this one, and then redirected to a different article. That redirect was subsequently deleted, resulting in the deletion of all its history. Israeli terrorism has now been restored. The respective talk pages and talk archives of Zionist Terrorism and Israeli terrorism have been restored as well, and moved to be subpages of this talk page, so that they will always be available for the editors of this page. Please be aware that there is some duplication among the talk pages, as they were also cut-and-pasted, and parallel discussions appear on both of them, diverging during June of 2005. I hope I have finally fixed all of the technical issues with this page. If there are any more technical issues that I have not resolved, or that come up in the future, please let me know on my talk page. Edit in peace,--Aervanath (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If the above seems confusing, I apologize; it was confusing to me as well, and took several hours of puzzling before I tracked down everything. Cheers,--Aervanath (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

insults by IP 93

Well. Did I read well and see that "there is a small group of 44Israeli (...) with an agenda" according to IP 93 ?
I don't think this is in respect of wp:agf. particularly given the IP.93 has been explained numerous times the reasons and just refuse to listen.
There have been actions of terrorism during the mandate period performed by zionist organisation, of course. BUT :
  • there were many (and in fact a majority of) actions that were not terrorism but that were violent, such as riposts and attacks performed in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936-39, 1945-47 and during the 6 months civil war between November 1947 and May 1945. Typically by Haganah and Palmach, that were armed zionist organisation, that used violence, but no wp:rs sources classify as terrorist.
  • for some of these actions, there is disagreement among wp:rs sources to state if these were performed with the goal of terrorizing people of in the context of the usual struggle of any liberation movement. And that is for these reasons that terrorism is one of the wp:words to avoid...
Ceedjee (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I've pointed out one fundamental mistake above (calling the article ZPV but then limiting the time span to the time of terrorism, the 30s and 40s - two mutually contradictory restrictions cause us to leave out so much as to mislead the reader).
There's a second such mistake when you imply that, because Haganah and Palmach are not regularly described as terrorist, therefore they couldn't have carried out terrorist acts.
And a third fundamental mistake claiming that the "legitimate resistance" groups didn't seek to terrorize people. We have first-rate evidence, from RS, that this is precisely what these particular groups were aiming to do (occasionally even boasting of it). PRtalk 13:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed : Zionist political violence goes mainly from 1920 (when the Jabotinsky militias defended against the Arabs during the Jerusalem riots up to 1948 with the assassination of Count Bernadotte.
After, it fall mainly under the scope of the Israeli political violence. I don't think any of the actions felt under the "political objective of establishing" a state anymore.
So, there should be zionist political violence followed by Israeli political violence.
I didn't say that Hagannah and Palmah didn't practice terrorism. I say that the mainly actions that are not terrorism when they practiced political violence. And this is also true for IZL.
They didn't *mainly* seek to terrorize people. If you like, it could be written somewhere, in their fight to liberate the country from what they considered a British occupation, some Zionist activist organisations used terrorist methods.
Ceedjee (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits & reverts

I`m very surprised a number of people and even an administrator have been basicaly making blind reverts to factual and sourced material, without even taking it to the talk page First (and still haven`t). Which has currently made this page a bigger mess than what it was left in. How can you revert a sourced and relavant fact ? (because the fact isn`t liked i presume; which isn`t wp:npov). I have re-added the facts about the British Sergeants who were executed back into the introduction and on the list of attacks (with picture). Is somebody trying to tell me this is POV, by adding in that this actually happend ? This is what wikipedia is surely about, let the reader decide from the facts put in front of them.

Here are the reverts which have taken place (please note i personally have not added all this edits)

  • Intro: ``or Zionist Terrorism``- This was sourced and also mention on the Palestinian political violence
  • Intro: ``killing up to 784 British and Danish soldiers`` This was also sourced
  • Intro: ``or in the worst case, executing British soldies`` sourced again
  • List of attacks: ``The Sergeants affair: When the British passed death sentences on two convicted terrorists, Irgun members took prisoner two British sergeants. The sergeants were summarily executed and subjected to a mock trial. After their death the British sergeants bodies were booby trapped with explosives and hung from an orange grove`` This was sourced but again reverted.

Surely these issues should be brought to the talk page before reverts are done. Any comments on each of these edits would be welcomed.--Rockybiggs (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

there was a discussion on a suggested rename of this article to "Zionist terrorism". that discussion ended with a decision not to rename. Adding "or Zionist Terrorism" is an attempt to bypass the consensus decision NOT to call this article by that name. In addition to being an attempt to circumvent a consensus of editors, such a title is inherently POV, and in violation of [[WP:WTA#terrorist}]
  • I've addressed the 784 British and Danish deaths below
  • Which reliable source says the execution of the Sergeants was "the worst case" of this violence? If no WP:RS said this, we can't allow it, as it is editorializing. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Danish soldiers

I am removing this bit, because the provided reference falls short on many grounds. First and foremost, it is not from a reliable source. It is based on a personal account - a letter by an anonymous poster, available on a self-published web site (http://www.britains-smallwars.com/) which is not a reliable source. The account itself conceded that the numbers it presents are at odds with official figures and that there's a 'vast discrepancy between this new figure,and that of the MOD'. Second, even of this was sourced to a reliable source, it simply does not say what is claimed. Namely, that these people were killed by Zionist political violence. All it says is a that this the number of British and Danish soldiers currently buried in Israel. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have taken this to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard here. PRtalk 15:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Attempted assassination of the West German Chancellor, Konrad Adenauer

Ceedjee, here's information about the attempted assassination of Konrad Adenauer. In 1952, negotiations were being carried out between the Israeli Government, led by Ben Gurion, and the West German Government, led by Konrad Adenauer, West Germany's Chancellor, which produced the Shilumin Agreement, under which West Germany gave aid to Israel as a form of reparations payment for the Holocaust. These were opposed by people on the Israeli right-wing for various reasons, including that it would give the Germans a measure of unjustified rehabilitation and that money should be given to individual Jews rather than to the state of Israeli (to buy tractors for kibbutzim etc). A group based in France made an attempt to assassinate Adenauer by sending a parcel bomb. The bomb was intercepted, but exploded while an attempt was being made to defuse it, killing the bomb-disposal expert and wounding others. In a memoir written 40 years after the assassination attempt, one of the alleged conspirators, Elieser Sudit, implicated Begin. Begin, at the time of the attempt, was the leader of the Herut party, which emerged when the Irgun was dissolved round about 1948. A German journalist, Henning Sietz, wrote a book about the plot. Attempts were also made to hit ships bringing Shilumin Agreement-provided machinery into ports in Israel.

  • A Deuche Welle article: Report Says Begin Was Behind Adenauer Letter Bomb. This says that around the time that the bomb addressed to Adenauer exploded in the basement of the Munich police headquarters, other letter bombs exploded at the building near The Hague where the Israeli and West German representatives were meeting.
  • The Konrad Adenauer article contains some information and a few links to follow up.
  • Available on Google Books, Chapter 8 of Political Assassinations by Jews, by Nachman Ben-Yehuda, titled Political Assassinations by Jews in Israel between 1949-1980 contains details (as well as juicy goodies on lots of other Zionist, political-violence-type, assassination and attempted assassination attempts). Beginning on page 275, in the section titled The Assassination Plot against West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, on March 27, 1952 - Unsuccessful, it says:
The early fifties witnessed the total disintegration of Etzel and the hesitant emergence of the “Herut" party which, supposedly, continued Etzel politically. The early 1950s also witnessed one of the deepest and most bitter controversies in the history of Israel - the "Shilumim Agreement" between the government of the Federal Republic of Germany and Israel. As a result of this agreement, Israel received vital and essential economic aid from Germany. The Herut party did not like the agreement at all, and preached relentlessly and vehemently against it. Menachem Begin, a leader of Herut, was very effective. The moral claim against the agreement was that it gave the Germans an unjustifiable rehabilitation (e.g., see Segev 1991:773-236).
On this background a former Etzel member, Yehoshua Offir, was asked (it is not known by who) to create an underground in the city of Haifa. The goal of this "underground" was to hit ships coming to Haifa port and bringing equipment as part of the Shilumim Agreement (Lifshitz 1987). On September 6, 1953, Ben-Zion Herman (who worked for Herut's newspaper) was caught carrying a bomb into Haifa's port.' On October 5, 1952, Dov Shilanski from "Herut" was also caught in Jerusalem trying to put a bomb in the ministry of foreign affairs (more on this in chapter 10).
While the above two acts may be considered as acts of terror, there was a third act which did constitute a political assassination event proper.
In 1952, and following guidelines and instructions from sources in Israel, a group of five sympathizers in France (probably including Dr Eli Tavin) sent in March an explosive envelope to Konrad Adenauer (1876-1967) who was the first chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany (Sarna 1987). One of the reasons to use France as a base was an explicit attempt to mislead Ben-Gurion and disassociate Herut in Israel from the act.
On Thursday, March 27, 1952, the explosive parcel addressed m Adenauer arrived in Munich. A German bomb disposal expert - Karl Reichart - tried to open the envelope. It exploded and killed him, as well as severely wounding three other policemen (Jerusalem Post, March 28, 1952, p, 1; Sarna 1987).
Clearly we had here an act of "propaganda by deed" committed by a group of actors aiming at a specific and prominent political actor.

Round about the same time, Israel and West Germany also began co-operating on armanments; if you're interested in that, read the following article: Armaments Collaboration between Germany and Israel - Interview with Otfried Nassauer.

Hope that helps. -- ZScarpia (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware of that attempt. thank you !
Is all this not a form a "jewish terrorism" ?
With the refusal to see money given to Israel but rather expecting this to be given to some Jews personnaly ? In a way, it is even an "antizionism form of terrorism", given it is opposed to the fact that the money be given to zionist institution (kibbutz) and in a way, arguing Israel (and the zionist goals) are not the representative of the Jews and doesn't have to take benefit of the shoah ?
Ceedjee (talk) 07:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The opinion about money being paid to individual Jews rather than to Israel is attributed to Eliezer Sudit, the supposed bomb maker, and appears in the Guardian article:
Mr Sudit said he was summoned to a meeting at Begin's Tel Aviv home. "I remember that at the beginning of the meeting Begin said that something had to be done against Adenauer and the reparations. I didn't know even who Adenauer was, but I agreed with Begin that this agreement should not be accepted. "We thought the Germans should pay directly to the survivors of the Holocaust and that the government of Israel should not take the money from them in the name of the Jewish people and buy tractors with it for the kibbutzim."
All the sources give the similar versions of the reason why Begin was opposed to the agreement as the one given in the Deutsche Welle article:
Begin vehemently opposed the Reparations Agreement between West Germany and Israel, claiming that it was tantamount to a pardon of Nazi crimes against the Jewish people.
There appears to be a contradiction in that, if the group had been opposed to the Germans being given any opportunity to make amends, it might have been expected that it should have been opposed to money being to individuals as well as Israel (as a representative of the Jewish people). A difference seems to be being made between the debt to individual Jews and the debt to the Jewish people, though. When it comes to Begin's attitude, none of the sources actually say whether he shared Sudit's viewpoint and would have found the payment of compensation to individuals acceptable, all we have been told is that he was opposed to the Israeli government taking money (personally, I suspect that if he had been Prime Minister rather than Ben Gurion, he would have found a way to accept aid from the Germans without it officially passing through the hands of the Israeli government).
Whether you view it as terrorism and, if so, how you would classify it, depends, of course, on how you define things. As far as classifying it as anti-Zionist goes, I don't think that would be correct, as it was carried out as part of a struggle between groups at either end of the Zionist politcal spectrum (Revisionists against Labour Zionists) rather than between pro-Zionists and anti-Zionists. My own view of terrorism is that it is a kind of gangsterism whose motivation is to coerce, but for political reasons (including political reasons derived from religious beliefs) rather than for direct personal gain. By gangsterism, I mean activities such as taking hostages, planting bombs (including ones carried in suicide vests or simply thrown out of moving vehicles), killings carried out for coercive reasons and so on. Normally, the label terrorism would only be applied to acts carried out by non-state organisations. However, I would also apply it to state-sponsored acts carried out by non-state bodies or which have the appearance of being carried out by non-state bodies. Acts carried out by state bodies, such as area bombing (with conventional or nuclear weapons), I might classify as state-terrorism, which might, in certain circumstances, be a war crime, but I would consider separately from non-state terrorism. A problem that you mention above is the pejorative connotation attached to the term terrorism. People start referring to acts as freedom fighting or guerrilla warfare rather than terrorism if they are in sympathy with the aims of the perpetrators. The armed wing of the ANC (African National Congress) carried out acts which used terrorist methods, but many people would hesitate to call them terrorism or the leaders terrorists because they would rationalise that the acts were carried out in a good cause and that the ANC had no recourse to normal political methods open to it. I think that it is necessary to separate the question of legitimacy from the question of whether something is terrorism. So, there would be terrorism carried out in a legitimate cause (and, of course, there would be divided opinions on the question of legitimacy of various acts) and terrorism not carried out in a legitimate cause.
--- ZScarpia (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with 95% of what you have written; the 5 remaining concerning more points I am not sure to understand rather than disagreement.
To go even farther... The bombing of Dresden was state terrorism (even if the article on wp says that it is controversed). But, of course, given the war, given the Germans, ... well, let's no go up to classifying this as terrorism because it was legitimate terrorism.
If we go in that direction, we will have to split the category in 3 others : legitimate terrorism, unlegitimate terrorism and unclassifiable terrorism.
But that is a false debate. I can tell you that on the point of view of Germans who lost their parents, children, brothers, etc, it is absolutely and totally unacceptable to consider that the bombing of Dresden have been legitimate in any way... How do you want we respect WP:NPoV when we don't take their mind into consideration ?
The big advantage of the wording political violence is that it totally removes the moral (or unmoral or legitimate or unlegitimate) aspect and if, according to the different point of views, we can debate 100 years about the (un)moral action of bombing Dresden, nobody will never deny it was a violent action in the political context of a war...
Ceedjee (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I have long puzzled why this well known incident is not included, both here and at Menachem Begin. The perpetrators of most of these incidents is officially unknown - but we've not got that problem in this case and should not be hesitating. Nor do I understand the excluding of settler violence, since it is firmly linked to "redemption of the land", a political goal of Zionism. If anyone were suggesting it should be treated as either religious or criminal I doubt they would get consensus. PRtalk 09:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest : Neo-Zionist political violence Ceedjee (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd not come across the "World Neo-Zionist Organization" before, nor had I heard of the "Neo-Zionist Agency". As best I know, the original organizations are still in operation, with their original names. Would you be agreeable to writing the article to the RS, and then splitting out the parts that need their own article when this one gets too large? PRtalk 14:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
WZO and Jewish Agency never performed terrorism. Ceedjee (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Biased article

ref.1: ^ Lilienthal, Alfred M., The Zionist Connection, What Price Peace?, Dodd, Mead and Company, New York, 1978, pp.350-3 - 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'. See text at Harvard.eduand image here. Verified 1st Nov 2007. is hosted on a virulently anti-Israel website. Also, it is simply a letter to the editor from some Americans who opposed Jewish self-determination. The fact that Albert Einstein, a physicist, signed it shouldn't mean anything special. The source itself states: To the editor of the New York Times therefore, it should not be taken more seriously than a letter to the editor from today's paper. Iminflorida (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

-Einstein was a prominent american Jew.93.96.148.42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC).
So ? NoCal100 (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Einstein had escaped the Nazis so i assume he knew what he was talking about, and btw letters signed by Einstein carried a lot of weight they wouldn't of been the Manhattan Project without such a letter. 86.25.180.182 14:15, 12 January 2009
Einstein is only the most famous of 18 signators to that letter, the effects of which were electrifying. Lilienthal wrote of that Nov/Dec 1948 visit and the effect of this letter in "The Zionist Connection, What Price Peace?" 1978, pp.350-3: "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'". (Cited in "The Gun and the Olive Branch" 1977, p472-3 David Hirst).
Only later did it become known that Begin was not just preaching fascism, he was a card-carrying member eg "Economic Warfare" by R. T. Naylor In 1963, David Ben-Gurion said of him "I have no doubt that Begin hates Hitler - but this hatred does not prove that he is different from him. When for the first time I heard Begin on the radio, I heard the voice and screeching of Hitler. PRtalk 15:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
PR, what is your point? Jayjg (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
At a guess, I should think that PR is replying with a refutation to Iminflorida, who wrote "it is simply a letter to the editor from some Americans who opposed Jewish self-determination" and "it should not be taken more seriously than a letter to the editor from today's paper." The letter wasn't merely from some Americans (after all, Einstein was probably the most famous Jewish person in the world, for which reason he was offered the Presidency of Israel when it was created), they weren't opposed to Jewish self-determination or even Zionism, just the way it was being put into practice by the Revisionists such as Begin, and its effect was much greater than a run-of-the-mill letter to the editor. -- ZScarpia (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
PR, thanks for mentioning the book "Economic Warfare" by R. T. Naylor. It's the first time that I've come across an explanation of events in the Middle East based on economics. Interesting stuff. And there was a lot of food for thought. I can't remember having seen cholera and typhoid outbreaks being mentioned as a cause for people fleeing before. That caught my attention because we know from the writing of Benny Morris that Ben Gurion ordered the Haganah to infect the water supplies of places with cholera. -- ZScarpia (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
My memory failed me: Benny Morris, whose books are based on researches done in the Israeli military archives, wasn't the one who wrote about the infecting with bacteria of water sources by the Haganah. -- ZScarpia (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is biased. It limits Zionist political violence to a time frame when it is on going, It doesn't describe it as terrorism, which the Zionist council itself did, and Incidents of Political Violence are consistently removed. This page contains many arguments on this.93.96.148.42 (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"Zionist political violence or Zionist terrorism" in the opening line

Given the discussion above, and the content of the article, it seems reasonable to open the article with this formulation, or "Zionist terrorism or Zionist political violence". I made this change, but it was removed without explanation. If you disagree please discuss it here. 93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. As explained in the reasons why I put the pov-tag at the top of the article, there were many acts of political violence performed by Zionists that were not terrorism.
That is not at all synonym. Ceedjee (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Ceedjee you are not adhereing to the WP:NPOV, its seems to me you are only stating your opionion, It is up to the reader to decide, . The palestinian page (Palestinian political violence) refers to ``or Terrorism``, so why not this page because thats what it is, the acts carried out are Terrorism, and to say some aren`t is folly.
Now this section was added with a source originally and i will be reverting this back. The revert should not be made and then brought to the talk page, it works the other way round.--Rockybiggs (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Rockybiggs, you seem to have WP:BRD completely backwards. Please review it. Jayjg (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Support "or Zionist terrorism" - while these things are not exactly the same (and I would have opposed re-naming the article), these things are so intimately linked that the inclusion is necessary. PRtalk 11:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
There has been a move survey here above to discuss all these and the reasons where explained why it could not be moved.
For exactly the same reasons, it cannot be added zionism terrorism. This is in full respect of wp:npov.
PR, Do you read other comments ? It is explained 2 times here above why these are not at all intimely linked. Ceedjee (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I have great respect for the thought you apply to these things, but I sometimes wonder whether we're speaking the same language as you are. Terrorism always has political roots - in the ZPV case it's even more obvious since racism didn't come into it. As the famous Einstein letter reminds us "... the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community ... By gangster methods, beatings window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute." PRtalk 09:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

How many sources are needed to justify including "zionist terrorism" in the lead? I don't see any sources to justify "Zionist political violence", and it produces very few google hits. 93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

zionist terrorism is just a part, a small part, of zionist political violence.
it is not a question of number of sources.
Ceedjee (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Why can this small part not have it's own wikipedia entry?93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Irgun's claim to be Terrorists

An irgun leaflet reported in the times of july 19 2008 contains “Most of you have been in this country for quite a long time. You have learned what the word ‘terrorist’ means, some of you may even have come into direct contact with them (and heartily desire not to repeat the experience). But what do you know about them? Why does a young man go underground?” How is POV to say that Irgun claimed to be terrorists? 93.96.148.42 (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

How is this related to the changes you are trying to make to the lead? NoCal100 (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
It is clear that these groups prided themselves on conduct we'd now call terrorism, and used the same language as we do today. Terrorist is a word to avoid (by policy) since few groups have ever described themselves as such. But both Irgun and Lehi did so. PRtalk 10:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Levine Daniel, The Birth of the Irgun Zvai Leumi - A Jewish Liberation Movement, Gefen Publishing house, 1991, ISBN 9652290718
This guy is a scholar.
The analysis of a wp:rs secondary source is more relevant than a wp:pr from a primary source.
Whatever, they are numerous wp:rs secondary sources that also consider Irgun's activities as terrorism; so it doens't mind much.
Ceedjee (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
PR, what do your statements have to do with article content? Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If groups boasted of being terrorists, and the government condemned them as terrorists, surely that is more important than what pro or anti israelis say now.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Stand

The idea that the word 'terrorism' can't (or won't) be used in reference to Zionism is absurd and highlights a real failure of Wikipedia to be politically objective. I would hope that editers here will take a stand against the people advocating the watering down of 'Zionist political violence'. It was terrorism. And this article needs to reflect that (and be NAMED that) if Wikipedia is to have any credibility. That's all. Here are my four tildes. 24.174.82.195 (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If only it was easy to be so objective about terrorism. Which of the dozens of definitions are you using? And when you say, "it was terrorism," do you mean that it was all terrorism? In Wikipedia articles, the aim is to fairly present all the major viewpoints. Are you suggesting that the view that at least some of the acts weren't terrorism should be excluded. -- ZScarpia (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
It is easy, it just depends if you are an involved party, and then im sure this would influence your view. As with the Israelis today who view their past terrorist acts as heroic and as freedom fighers in the creation of Israel [1] (which Netanyahu actually said). With these same people declaring their own as freedom fighters, and then declare the Palestinians as Terrorists. Pot calling the kettle black me thinks. --Rockybiggs (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello Rockybiggs, I didn't realise that it was you. Since Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to 'take sides', shouldn't the views of the 'involved' parties (both on the receiving and giving sides) be represented? Saying that what you were doing wasn't terrorism because you were fighting for freedom is quite common. Bruce Hoffman, in Inside Terrorism, writes (the following is published on the Internet):
Not surprisingly, as the meaning and usage of the word have changed over time to accommodate the political vernacular and discourse of each successive era, terrorism has proved increasingly elusive in the face of attempts to construct one consistent definition. At one time, the terrorists themselves were far more cooperative in this endeavour than they are today. The early practitioners didn't mince their words or hide behind the semantic camouflage of more anodyne labels such as `freedom fighter' or `urban guerrilla'. The nineteenth-century anarchists, for example, unabashedly proclaimed themselves to be terrorists and frankly proclaimed their tactics to be terrorism. The members of Narodnaya Volya similarly displayed no qualms in using these same words to describe themselves and their deeds. However, such frankness did not last. The Jewish terrorist group of the 1940s known as Lehi (the Hebrew acronym for Lohamei Herut Yisrael, the Freedom Fighters for Israel, more popularly known simply as the Stern Gang after their founder and first leader, Abraham Stern) is thought to be one of the last terrorist groups actually to describe itself publicly as such. It is significant, however, that even Lehi, while it may have been far more candid than its latter-day counterparts, chose as the name of the organization not `Terrorist Fighters for Israel', but the far less pejorative `Freedom Fighters for Israel'. Similarly, although more than twenty years later the Brazilian revolutionary Carlos Marighela displayed few compunctions about openly advocating the use of `terrorist' tactics, he still insisted on depicting himself and his disciples as `urban guerrillas' rather than `urban terrorists'. Indeed, it is clear from Marighela's writings that he was well aware of the word's undesirable connotations, and strove to displace them with positive resonances. `The words "aggressor" and "terrorist"', Marighela wrote in his famous Handbook of Urban Guerrilla War (also known as the `Mini-Manual'), `no longer mean what they did. Instead of arousing fear or censure, they are a call to action. To be called an aggressor or a terrorist in Brazil is now an honour to any citizen, for it means that he is fighting, with a gun in his hand, against the monstrosity of the present dictatorship and the suffering it causes.'
This trend towards ever more convoluted semantic obfuscations to side-step terrorism's pejorative overtones has, if anything, become more entrenched in recent decades. Terrorist organizations almost without exception now regularly select names for themselves that consciously eschew the word `terrorism' in any of its forms. Instead these groups actively seek to evoke images of:
* freedom and liberation (e.g. the National Liberation Front, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Freedom for the Basque Homeland, etc.);
* armies or other military organizational structures (e.g. the National Military Organization, the Popular Liberation Army, the Fifth Battalion of the Liberation Army, etc.);
* actual self-defence movements (e.g. the Afrikaner Resistance Movement, the Shankhill Defence Association, the Organization for the Defence of the Free People, the Jewish Defense Organization, etc.);
* righteous vengeance (the Organization for the Oppressed on Earth, the Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide, the Palestinian Revenge Organization, etc.);
-- or else deliberately choose names that are decidedly neutral and therefore bereft of all but the most innocuous suggestions or associations (e.g. the Shining Path, Front Line, al-Dawa (`The Call'), Alfaro Lives -- Damn It!, Kach (`Thus'), al-Gamat al-Islamiya (`The Islamic Organization'), the Lantero Youth Movement, etc.).
What all these examples suggest is that terrorists clearly do not see or regard themselves as others do. `Above all I am a family man,' the arch-terrorist Carlos, `The Jackal', described himself to a French newspaper following his capture in 1994.
-- ZScarpia (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the epic answer ZScarpia, ill have to pick through each point later. You mention Carlos saying he is a family man, and I’m sure he genuinely thought/meant that. It still doesn`t hide the fact he was a murderous terrorist, and I’m sure every terrorist thinks of themselves and their cause as not being terrorism. But the fact of the matter, it is black and white. Further more if you were implying im the IP user 24.174.82.195, im afraid you are incorrect.--Rockybiggs (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I was taking a guess that it was you who wrote the first comment. Thanks for correcting me. You can find the Bruce Hoffman article (in a more readable format) on the New York Times website, but you'll have to sign-up to read it (unless you already have a free subscription and unless Google carries a cached copy). -- ZScarpia (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

A need for Death Figures in the lead

At the momment no mention of deaths is made in the lead. Over 1000 innocent lives were lost to zionist terrorism - should not some mention be made in the the lead?93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Add them in with sources, nobody can object to these murders. But im sure they will try.--Rockybiggs (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
We have a firm figure of 784 for the number of British soldiers buried in Palestine in two military cemetries and a non-RS account that some were ethnically Danish. We cannot say who died in non-combat incidents and who were killed by Arabs (I have no evidence for any of the latter and we know that the deaths were overwhelmingly due to Zionist political violence). "Many 100s of British troops killed amongst the 784 left buried in Palestine" will have to cover the case for now. PRtalk 10:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
No. We have no indication that these British troop dies as a result of Zionist political violence, so we can't just speculate that hundreds of those buried did. Find a reliable source that says that NoCal100 (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
NoCal100 is right. A few of them died due to Palestinian Political Violence, even if not the majority. Ceedjee (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
PR, please review WP:NOR. Jayjg (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The figure of 784 may be wrong, but the source is authorative enough to quote it. I added the figure, with reference and it was deleted. It is essential that material removed from the article is moved to the talk page, not trashed93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if material is incorrect, or original research, then it's essential that it not be added to the article in the first place. Jayjg (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The figure is neither incorrect nor is it OR - the fact that these deaths were overwhelmingly Zionist political violence is so well known that I've only got passing reference to it in those terms in my sources. PRtalk 22:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the figures were OR, for the reasons mentioned above. Re "so well known etc.", please provide citations for any claims made in articles. Jayjg (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not original research if it is wrong, it is original research if you make it up. Even if they are not entirely accurate, British Government figures do exist.93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Infecting water sources with typhoid, cholera and dysentry bacteria

Shortly before the British Mandate ended in mid-May of 1948, the Haganah started poisoning the wells of defeated and cleared Arab villages with typhoid bacteria (supposedly, to prevent the return of the former occupants). Sometime before the 6th of May, the 10km distant water supply of Acre was infected and a typhus epidemic ensued (British troops were victims as well as Arab civilians). Perhaps coincidentally, on March 17 1948, to terrorise them into fleeing, the Irgun had made an Arabic language broadcast warning urban Arabs that "typhus, cholera and similar diseases would break out heavily among them in April and May." At the end of May 1948, after the Israeli declaration of independence, two members of the Haganah were caught by the Egyptians while trying to infect the wells of Gaza with typhoid and dysentry. They were tried and hung. The Palestinian Arabs also believed that their Jewish opponents were behind outbreaks of cholera in Egypt and Syria in 1947. Some sources: Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine; Avner Cohen, Israel and Chemical/Biological Weapons: History, Deterrence, and Arms Control; the article Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus; Salman Abu-Sitta, Traces of poison, Israel's Dark History Revealed; Naeim Giladi (author of the book Ben Gurion's Scandals), The Jews of Iraq. -- ZScarpia (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, well, going from "Encyclpedia of the Palestine Problem" to sourcing material to Holocaust denial sites. Why am I not surprised? I think it's best you left this article alone, if this is your idea of sources for it. NoCal100 (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't realise that the Avner Cohen article was hosted on a Holocaust denial site. I've changed the link. -- ZScarpia (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
You need to be careful with your sources, since the denialists will indeed seek to smear you as "taking your views from the Holocaust Deniers", and seek to conceal the part that biological warfare played in the Nakba. But it's all very well known - the NTI says the same thing here. They're a body that is "Co-chaired by philanthropist and CNN founder Ted Turner and former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn, NTI is governed by an expert and influential Board of Directors with members from the United States, Russia, Japan, India, Pakistan, China, Jordan, Sweden, France and the United Kingdom". PRtalk 22:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd originally obtained a copy of the Cohen document from a subscription-only site. In order to find a location that anyone could download it from I did a Google search and used the first link returned. Of course, when you download a pdf document, you get no indication of the nature of the site you're downloading from and, since there's nothing dodgy about the document itself, it didn't occur to me to check. But, I promise to be more careful in future. -- ZScarpia (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Should a new section on Biological Warfare be created?93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

My mind is that it should be mentionned but not in a new section but in the current text. That would be undue:weight. Ceedjee (talk) 06:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Zionist Terrorism

Given that there is agreement above that Zionists practiced terrorism, why is this reflected in the article solely in media condemnation of Irun?93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It should be developed.
Rather claim of terrorim (that could mean it wasn't), I think a more neutral term, such as qualification of terrorism is better. But I am still convinced that violence denunciation is the best. Ceedjee (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Patria disaster

Can the people trying to add the Patria disaster explain why they wish to do so? It was a failed attempt to make the ship un-seaworthy, and thus impossible to deport the people on board; it was not an attempt to sink the ship or kill anyone. Jayjg (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Exploding a bomb is violent. The Zionist Haganah's aims were political. This is not an article about terrorism. The following passage seems appropriate to an article on zionist political violence - please explain why it is not.
  • November 25, 1940. The Haganah sinks the Patria, killing over 200 Jews and some Britons and Arabs, and injured 172 people.Deaths of 260 in 1940 ship explosion commemorated The ship carried around 1,800 illegal Jewish immigrants who were being deported by the British authorities from Palestine to Mauritius and Trinidad.(Reference-> Geneviève Pitot, The Mauritian Shekel: The Story of Jewish Detainees in Mauritius, 1940-1945. Rowman & Littlefield, 2000. ISBN 0742508552) The Hagana opposed the deportation and planted a bomb with the intention of disabling the ship to prevent it from leaving Haifa. However, the Haganah had miscalculated the effects of the explosion, and the ship sank in less than fifteen minutes, trapping hundreds in the hold. (Reference -> Monty Noam Penkower, Decision on Palestine Deferred: America, Britain and Wartime Diplomacy, pp. 55-59. Routledge, 2002. ISBN 0714652687) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The section is titled 'Irgun, Hagganah and Lehi attacks' - but this was not an attack. It was an attempt to disable the ship NoCal100 (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Planting a bomb with the intention of disabling a ship is an attack.93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Really? who is attacked? NoCal100 (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The ship. Political violence is not just about deliberately killing people. Attacks on transport infrastructure are common.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Whose "transport infrastructure" were they "attacking"? Their own? Jayjg (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure that it is correct to say that there wasn't an intention to cause deaths and I agree that the Patria incident shouldn't appear in this article. It may be incorrect to say that there was no intention to sink the ship, though. Eva Feld, in the article The Story of the S/S Patria, in which a detailed description of how the bomb was smuggled aboard is given, says that the intention was to sink the ship, but that a far bigger hole than intended was blown in its hull and the ship sank too quickly for those on-board to escape safely. I have seen claims that the intention was to break a propeller shaft, but the sinking theory makes more sense to me. To sink the ship, the construction and placement of the bomb would have been far less critical. Sinking the ship would have hindered deportation efforts more. And, it would have been more spectacular and therefore had more symbolic power. -- ZScarpia (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is not about death, but political violence. Blowing up, or sabotaging a ship is a violent act. Killing people accidently is a violent act.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Main occurences - lead

I have added the section "main occurences" where main different types of zionist political violences have been described with numerous internal link where these different events are described.
The lead has been modified in consequence.
I think the background should be removed (or strongly modified). It is not the background of the ZPV. The selected actions performed by Irgun, Hanagah an Lehi should be removed and some merged in the section "main occurences".
A new section with assassination of British and UNO officials (Moyne, Bernadotte) should be added.
Main occurence section could be expanded in 4 different sections :

  • zionist political violence against Palestinian Arabs
  • zionist political violence during WWI and WWII
  • zionist political violence against the British
  • zionist politicla violence against zionist organisation or Jews.

Ceedjee (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC) I think it would be better to break it down by decade from the establishment of Zionism. Possibly worth seperating attacks on the colonial governments and united nations from non-state bodies and people. Your suggested classifications seem a little racist to me.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

terrorism -> violence denunciation

I suggest to replace the section "terrorism" by "violence denunciation", which refers to the way the violence was reported (denunciated) by the different authorities. Ceedjee (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Why *strongly* ? :-)
This is just the title of the section and more, a section I added myself.
The question is not here to source or not an information; the question is to use a npov title for a section. The zionist political violence was denounced by different people. As a form of terrorism, as unjustified, UNO observers didn't talk about terrorism but about "acts of barbarism"...
Ceedjee (talk) 07:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be ample RS for calling these acts "terror", and calling the organizations themselves "terrorist". Not least because, most unusually, they used these words for themselves and their actions. I'm becoming concerned about other changes I'm seeing, such as adding "Zionist political violence expressed itself mainly simultaneously with Palestinian political violence" - I don't recall any of the latter until 1936, and the Yishuv didn't respond because the British did it for them. Why are we getting statements such as "... whom Lehi accused of a pro-Arab stance during the cease-fire negotiations" added? PRtalk 16:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Zionist terrorism was condemned as such by the world Zionist council, the British Goverment, United Nations, London and New York Times.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion to ban a biased editor from this article

Ceedjee who disputes the death toll from zionist terrorism, and has made personal attack on me, is openly biased. His home page states -

Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Judaism

My potential biases about this subject are : 

   * a higher empathy for Jewish culture and history than for Arab or Islamic culture.
   * a higher empathy for Zionism than for Arab and Palestinian nationalisms.
   * a categorical rejection of antisemitism; a rejection of any form of racism as a rule and rejection of racism towards Arabs and/or Muslims ie Islamophobia.

I have a range of opinions on these topics but I do not think it proper to expatiate on one's personal opinions in wikipedia, even on a user page.


Is it possible to stop Ceedjee editing this article, or force him to take a more neutral approach?93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss other editors. Jayjg (talk) 03:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Where should it be done?93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Start at Wikipedia:RFC#Request_comment_on_users. Jayjg (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Ceedjee for your more constructive approach to editing this article!93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Jewish Palestinians, and the Yishuv

Is there a difference between Jewish Palestinians and the Yishuv?93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Having clicked the link I find that they are synonyms, so I will add both of them, in the interest of neutrality.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
They are the same but Yishuv is the most used. Ceedjee (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

In which newspapers? It's the first time I've seen it - best use both, I think.93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That is what I met the most often in the books dealing with Mandatory Palestine or the '48 war.
see here
Ceedjee (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I think "Jewish Palestinan" is more suitable in an English encyclopedia, as it is more explanatory to those not versed in the subject .93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Should it be put to the vote? Should Palestinian political violence have terrorism removed? Should the two articles be connected?

The original reason for CHANGING the title of this article was to match Palestinian political violence.( Check the history page on Zionist terrorism redirect page.) If that logic was faulty, and I think we agree that it is, this page should revert to its original name. Alternately there should be two entries, one for murderous terrorism, and another for damage to infrastructure.93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

  • 07:08, 2 January 2006 Humus sapiens (Talk | contribs) (moved Zionist terrorism to Zionist polical violence: See Palestinian polical violence. We cannot allow such disparity in titles)
The reasons why the current title is the more appropriate have been given here above. Ceedjee (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
With or without the second title? I think everyone is agreed that "Zionist terrorism" existed, and that the term is widely used. Please check Stern Gang before disagreeing.93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Zionism terrorism is just a part, a small part, of Zionist political violence.
Ceedjee (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't follow - all of the violence was illegal, and most of it was aimed at either terrorising the population/administration into particular actions or inactions, or destroying property with a similar result. I believe bank-robberies were prevalent and might not count, but that's hardly a very significant extension of the topic (and is not mentioned anywhere). I see nothing included at the moment that doesn't also count as terrorism. PRtalk 15:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I’m baffled too, more so about the sources comment `it is not a question of number of sources`--Rockybiggs (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry you are baffled. May I advice you to read book on the topics or at least wikipedia articles about the 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936-39, 1945-1947 and 1948 events in Mandatory Palestine where Haganah, Palmah, Irgun (and less Lehi) used violence against Arabs and British ? You will see that the aim was not terrorism.
Ceedjee (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
You can't have it both ways - the wider "Zionist Political Violence" started no later than Dec 1882 and continues to this day (eg settlers nail-bombing a Holocaust Survivor last summer - attacking Jews in this fashion is ZPV whether we parse it as "legitimate resistance" or "Zionist Terrorism").
Now, this article is artificially restricted to the 30s and 40s by editors who refuse to engage in Talk, but presumably on the grounds that earlier and later events were ZPV not terrorist. But the 30s and the 40s is the very period where everyone agrees that the actions were terrorist in nature. Hence, ZPV is a euphemism (under WP:WTA?) for the "Zionist Terrorism" that the article is actually about. Don't let yourself be bullied by people who will accuse you of taking your views from the Holocaust Deniers. Please also note that I've asked 93.96.148.42 to log-in, there's only a short period of grace before highly partisan admins start handing out blocks, probably starting with Rockybiggs on the completely specious grounds that the IP is him sock-puppeting. PRtalk 10:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The first actions of zionist political violence took place, I think, in 1920.
The article is not artificially limited to 1930-40; only the lead is. It should be changed accordingly.
After 1948, it is better to talk about Israeli political violence. Ceedjee (talk) 13:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Is Israel a Zionist State?93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

In what sense? Jayjg (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Is Jewish Participation in British Wars relevant ?

I have removed the following passage from the lead, as the article is about Zionist Politiacl Violence, not "Jewish Palestinian Violence".93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It has reappeared - I shall remove it, please explain why it is relevant.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Jewish Legion = composition "34 per cent from the United States, 30 per cent from Palestine, 28 per cent from England, 6 per cent from Canada, 1 per cent Turkish war prisoners, 1 per cent from Argentina." Jewish Brigade -"by 1944 over 50 nationalities were represented". Serious Factual errors too!93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It's political violence by Zionists; why is it any less relevant than anything else mentioned here? Jayjg (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Provide reliable references describing it as "Zionist political violence", or "Zionist terrorism", and I withdraw my objection.93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

British public records: details of 1948 attacks by Zionist underground organisations

Chapter 7 of the Encyclpedia of the Palestine Problem contains a list split over five pages of details of attacks carried out in 1948 by the Zionist underground organisations which was sourced from British public records {edited by ZScarpia (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)}. An article by Ronald Bleier published on the Americans for Middle East Understanding website, In the Beginning, There Was Terror, may be of interest, particularly for its description of the contents of the book which published extracts from the diary of Moshe Sharett (head of the Jewish Agency’s political department from 1933 to 1948). -- ZScarpia (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

neither one of these are reliable sources, as should be obvious. NoCal100 (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I would have gladly linked to a comprehensive list of the acts of the Zionist underground organisations (albeit for one year only) on a pro-Zionist site, but, unfortunately, they tend to be a bit light on detail when it comes to Zionist political violence. It is obvious that the linked texts cannot be used as sources, as obvious as that someone would point out that they cannot (it was just a question of which fish would bite at the bait first). -- ZScarpia (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are British Public Records not reliable sources?93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that NoCal100s objection was to the Encyclopedia of the Palestine Problem being used as a source, which, in any case, I was not proposing. By their nature, most government documents will be primary sources, which should be used with care: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." -- ZScarpia (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Does that apply to repetition of facts from public records? I would imagine that was neither "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims"93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

How would you know those "facts from public sources" are accurate and relevant? Jayjg (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Please explain, rather than attacking!93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Please re-word your request so that it is less inflammatory and more accurate. Jayjg (talk) 06:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Changes to the lede

The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. the article says nothing of attacks during the ottoman period, so that has no place in the lead. There's also no need for cumbersome wording such as 'a conflict between Zionist immigrants and the Yishuv, or Palestinian Jews, with Muslim and Christian Palestinian' when ' a conflict between Zionists and Arabs' will do. And there's certainly no need for original research about this violence post-1948, which is sourced to talk page discussions between Wikipedia editors. NoCal100 (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

wp:LEDE. Ceedjee (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Please join the discussion above! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk • contribs)
The Lede should summarize the article not introduce new material. In particular, it should not introduce original research sourced to a Wikipedia talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that is is original research to say "arguments persist as to whether Zionist political violence ceased with the establishment of the Jewish State." A simple google search throws up tens of thousands of arguments. I agree that it was lazy to cite the talk page, but I thought it better than no reference. I would like to point out that attempts by editors to add references, or a section dedicated to post 1948 Zionist Violence have been deleted. 93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

"A simple google search" is not a reliable source. Jayjg (talk) 04:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
please find one!93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Domestic, commercial, and government property, infrastructure, and materiel were also attacked

I have added this inelegant line to the lead. I hope it can be improved.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for it? Jayjg (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
It is supported by the body of the article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
By which source? Jayjg (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are you so aggressive? The article describes the destruction of villages, air fields, trains, hotels, government offices. The lede is supposed to summarise the article, isn't it?93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

What did the addition "add" that wasn't already there? For example, what other kind of "property" is there besides "domestic, commerical and government"? Isn't it redundant to say all three? And what kinds of objects exist besides "property, infrastructure, and materiel"? Jayjg (talk) 05:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
If you don't like it, improve it - this is wikipedia. I think that summarises the range of political violence fairly accurately. The lede is short anyway.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't "summarize", it provides a meaningless list that basically says "they attacked everyone and everything". Jayjg (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
If you read the article, you will find that to have been the case. They did not just attack people, but state and private property, transport infrastructure etc. Previously the lead did not mention this.93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
In other words, "they attacked everyone and everything". Or, perhaps you can list a kind of thing that is excluded by your list? Either make it more specific and relevant, or leave it out. Jayjg (talk) 06:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is it not relevant to use 11 words to describe what was attacked, as described in the article. Please suggest an alternative wording you are happy with, that accurately summarises the forms Zionist political violence took.93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

"The hanging of the two British Sergeants did more than anything to get us out [of Palestine]".

I believe that this statement by Colonel Archer-Cust, Chief Secretary of the British Government in Palestine is appropriate in the lead, as it is short, and to the point.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

To what point? It's a quote by an involved party, not a historian. Jayjg (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
It seems relevant.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Which is why it is in the body of the article already. Jayjg (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the lede should reflect the article, and that repetition was allowed.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The lede should reflect all important points in the article, but certainly not repeat all of it. A decades old quote by an involved party isn't significant enough for the lede. Jayjg (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

ok93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Zionist political violence achieved its aims with the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948

I have added this line to the lead, as it seems to represent the consensus here. Please discuss if you disagree.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no consensus for this; where did you see it? Jayjg (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
If you read the comments above, you will see that there is consensus that Zionist political violence stopped in 1948. You will also note that the aim of Zionism was the establishment of a Jewish homeland.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
And where was the consensus for adding the statement that "Zionist political violence achieved its aims with the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948"? Jayjg (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully it can be established here. Please try to be constructive. Suggest alternatives - I am working on this for free!93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The sentence implies that Zionist political violence was intended solely to establish the state of Israel. Aside from being unsourced, it leaves out one quite obvious rationale used by those who engaged in it, that of self-defense. Jayjg (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Please work on the article, be constructive! - The establishment of the State of Israel was the aim, and triumph of Zionism, wasn't it - please edit Zionism if you disagree.93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The aim of Zionism was the establishment of the State of Israel; however, despite the views of some to the contrary, "Zionist political violence" is not the same thing as "Zionism". And please stop asking me to "be constructive", as if I'm not. I believe every edit I make is constructive, as I'm sure you believe of every edit of yours. Constantly implying that I'm deliberately making unconstructive edits is rude at best. Jayjg (talk)

It was not your edits, but your comments, I found unconstructive. I have added self defence to the lead.93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality in the Lead

I have endevoured to create a neutral lead. I have tried hard to achieve balance and use objective language. I would like mention made of the death toll, but this seems hard to source. I would like to suggest that any proposed changes are first debated here, rather than continual edit warring on the article page. Here is my provisional version:

  • Zionist political violence refers to acts of violence committed for political reasons by Zionists. These actions were mainly carried out in the Ottoman Empire, followed by the British Mandate of Palestine by individuals and Jewish paramilitary groups such as: the Haganah, the Irgun, the Lehi and the Palmah as part of a conflict between Zionist immigrants and the Yishuv, or Palestinian Jews, with Muslim and Christian Palestinians about land, immigration, and national aspirations[1]. United Nations personnel, Palestinian Arab fighters and civilians and Jews[2] were targets, and, or victims of these actions. The British Government condemned this as terrorism. Attacks, such as the Deir Yassin massacre and market bombings, are widely described as terrorism by historians. During the last months of the Mandate, there were also forced expulsions of whole villages of Arab Palestinians followed by the destruction of the villages.
  • Zionism is a political movement that was formally established by the Austro-Hungarian journalist Theodor Herzl in the late 19th century following the publication of "Der Judenstaat".[3] seeking to encourage Jewish migration to the Promised Land or Palestine.
  • Colonel Archer-Cust, Chief Secretary of the British Government in Palestine, said in a lecture to the Royal Empire Society that "The hanging of the two British Sergeants [an Irgun retaliation to British executions] did more than anything to get us out [of Palestine]". [4]
I agree it is more neutral.
I think nevertheless there are some issues to discuss. Let me a few days.
Ceedjee (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I still think we should try to include figures for killed and wounded.93.96.148.42 ([[User talk:93.96.148.42|talk]]) 07:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

it will not be easy to state how many British or Arabs were killed due to Zionist political violence. I think I have some figures for years '47 and years '48 concerning British but Arabs and British fought a lot during 36-39 (with 5000 deaths among Palestinian Arabs, mostly due to British political violence). Ceedjee (talk) 09:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Could we not use "Estimates of killed, wounded, and damaged property range from x to y."93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
As long as the estimates all attribute the effects to Zionist political violence. Jayjg (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Is "Zionist terrorism ok as a synonym?93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you have sources for it? Also, the parallel article Palestinian political violence doesn't list "Palestinian terrorism" as a synonym. Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"Zionist Terrorism" or "Neo Zionist terrorism"

"Zionist Terrorism" or "Neo Zionist terrorism" is frequently used to describe the actions of the Israeli state, and extremist settler organisations (cf Jewish Terrorism). Should not some mention of this use be made in this encylopaedia article, given that Zionist Terrorism redirects here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The article on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of state terrorism by Israel was deleted, per AfD consensus. Jayjg (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
How does that affect this article?93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
You are suggesting we re-create it. Jayjg (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read this talk page thoroughly. I do not believe I have made that suggestion. However I do feel that it is important to represent all views to achieve neutrality.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You quite specifically stated that "Zionist Terrorism" or "Neo Zionist terrorism" is frequently used to describe the actions of the Israeli state, and that some mention of this use be made in this encylopaedia article. The article alleging State terrorism by Israel was deleted at AfD. Jayjg (talk) 05:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Are you denying the existence of such allegations? Doesn't balance require that they be mentioned? Where did I suggest re-creating an article?93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Please review the fallacy of many questions. There are allegations of everything under the sun. Repeating them doesn't provide any sort of "balance". Jayjg (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I fail to understand your meaning. Do you deny that "Zionist terrorism" is, and has been, used by many governments, media outlets, books and people to describe the actions of the Israeli state.93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Please state what changes you want to make to the article, based on what sources, rather than asking me if I deny X, Y, or Z. Jayjg (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Not very up-to-date

Why does this article end in the 1940s? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

all the organizations mentioned here ceased to exist after that. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The article is not called Lehi, Irgun and Haganah political violence. Zionist political violence has not ceased to exist. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
What are some current examples? Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps: the attempted assassination of Konrad Adenauer (the German Chancellor) by parcel bomb; the forcing down and holding hostage of a Syrian airliner, its crew and its passengers by Dayan (1954); terrorising of Iraqi Jews (1950-51); the Lavon Affair (July 1954); Operation Damocles, when parcel bombs were sent to West German scientists (1962-63); the Hebron Massacre (1994); other activities of Kach, the Jewish Defense League and the Gush Emunim Underground. -- ZScarpia (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The "terrorising of Iraqi Jews (1950-51)" is a controversial conspiracy theory. Most of the other incidents are either actions of Israel, or actions of religious groups that are already described in Jewish terrorism. Jayjg (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Emphasising that I used the word perhaps, even "controversial conspiracy theories" may be outlined on Wikipedia (in a form like, person X says in his book and in newspaper articles that group Y did act Z based on evidence W). After all, if you were to ban everything from Wikipedia that anyone objected to on the grounds that it was only a mere allegation or a theory, you'd have to remove a lot of material. State-sponsored acts are normally excluded when discussing terrorism, but, of course, that is not the title of the article, so perhaps it is appropriate to list one such as the forcing into Israeli airspace and landing of the Syrian airliner because, for one, it was such a singular incident (no other country, as far as I know, has done anything similar) and, secondly, it appears to have been done without the full approval of the Israeli government. Maybe it would be a good idea to define Zionist political violence, described in the article as referring to the use of violence performed with the aim of promoting the political objectives of Zionism, more tightly. I think that the change of title has obscured the purpose of the article and that it needs clarifying. The Lavon affair might deserve inclusion because, though sponsored by Israel, it was disowned by its government and made to look like the act of two ex-Lehi members acting on their own (that is, two individuals using politically-motivated violence, or terrorism, for ends connected with Zionism). Acts such as the Hebron Massacre may already appear in the Jewish Terrorism article, but, if they have political motives (in the case of the Hebron Massacre, it is supposed that it was an attempt to stop the Oslo Acccords from being enacted), perhaps it is appropriate to list them again. When you say most, I assume you mean, all of them apart from the attempted assassination of Konrad Adenauer? -- ZScarpia (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I think you may be right about the Lavon Affair. But on the other way, we don't have to be fully exhaustive. Given there is controversy about this, we could just list the article Lavon Affair in the See also section of this one.
What is the assassination attempt of Adenauer ? I Never heard about this. Ceedjee (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Details below. -- ZScarpia (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC) See Archive 4. -- ZScarpia (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Operation Ezra and Nehemiah was performed by Israel (and not by any zionist organisation ?). It was decided and lead by the Israeli government, not by the World Zionist Organisation (?).
In the "zionist politcal violence" should also also be added the collaboration of zionist militias (eg Irgun of David Raziel) to commando operations against Germans in Iraq. Ceedjee (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Jayjg says that "Most of the other incidents are either actions of Israel, or actions of religious groups that are already described in Jewish terrorism." But the first line of the [Jewish terrorism] article says "Jewish terrorism is religious terrorism by those whose motivations are rooted in their interpretations of Judaism.", clearly not the same thing as many of the politically-motivated events described above. My idea of current Zionist violence (apart from that noted above) would be the attacks and provocations of settlers against Palestinians, and any actions of the state of Israel that involve the acquisition or colonisation of more territory. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand your point.
It is difficult. What is the motivation of the violence performed by settlers against Palestinians ? Is this linked to Zionism or to Judaism ?
I think most "Zionists" and most "Jews" would not recognize themselves in that violence...
But, if we can gather enough material, we could have :
Neo-Zionist political violence (see Neo-Zionism about that...)
Ceedjee (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
So Neo-Zionist political violence to cover from 1948 onwards? Sounds OK. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
My suggestion is to create :
Ceedjee (talk) 13:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy with those. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Similar to British political violence, Chinese political violence, Soviet political violence, Columbian political violence, French political violence? Jayjg (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
With time, hopefully. For now we'll have to remain content with the similarity to Palestinian political violence. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
We already have an article similar to Palestinian political violence; it's called Zionist political violence. Jayjg (talk) 07:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I understood you "2nd degree humor" above but here I don't get the second level of your comment...
British political violence in Mandatory Palestine, Palestinian Arab political violence and Zionist political violence are all parts of Political violence in Mandatory Palestine. But the 3 former are different.
It would be even better to fuse all of these because they grew in paralell (as I added recently in the article). Ceedjee (talk) 11:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg,
Ceedjee (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
No, because these "political violence" articles are used for non-state actions. "Political violence" performed by states is covered under the articles for the states - usually those actions are called "wars". Jayjg (talk) 07:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Not exactly.
For examples, the chase of former Nazis or the murder of the perpetrators of Munich is not an act of war but is typically political violence. In the occupied territories, outside any context of war, Israel also performed political violence, one of the least being eg the blocus of Gaza.
China performed political violence too at Tian An Men. The US performed low level political violence when they confiscate all laptops at the borders or ask people to remove their shoes for x-ray.
The concept of political violence has no moral connotation (good, bad, right, wrong, stupid, clever, ...). That is excellent for NPoV.
It is the same for everybody and in fact State Terrorism is a form of political violence; the term terrorism is only used to point out it is/would be morally condemnable, which is just a pov. I am at 100% sure that 99% of the people or organisation that perform these actions (terrorism/political violence/fight for freedom/self defence) consider their action is positive. And that is not wp:rs
I am sure you would be one of the first to protest is the reprisal and assassination of the perpetrators of Munich would be classify in Zionist terrorism" or even Zionist political violence. This is only Israeli political violence in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Ceedjee (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Ceedjee (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Wait, "This is only Israeli political violence in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict"? According to what reliable sources? Jayjg (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Jayjg, wp:rs is required for each given information.
The way the information is structured depends on wp:npov (and wp:undue, not wp:rs.
Anyway, do you require a source that :
  • the reprisal of Munich are *political* *violence* performed by the *Israelis* in reactions of other actions that took place in the context of the *Israeli Palestinian conflict* ?
I am not sure to understand. Ceedjee (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Munich is a great example. Jay, you would hardly describe the actions of a group of assassins as a "war", would you? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
No, that particular incident isn't a "war". There are lots of kinds of state "political violences" that aren't wars. Famous ones would include, for example, the Cultural Revolution, Tienanmen massacre, The Killing Fields. Are you suggesting that the first two belong in an article on Chinese political violence, and the third in an article on Cambodian political violence? How about the Cuban intervention in Angola, would that go under Cuban political violence? Jayjg (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
In answer to your first question, yes. In answer to your second, no. A quick glance at the Cuban intervention in Angola article will show you that it was a "large-scale military intervention". Unless all of Israel's wars be included in the article about that state's political violence, I don't believe it should be included. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 10:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I eagerly await the Chinese political violence article. After it settles down, and assuming it survives the inevitable AfD (which is unlikely), we can use it as a template for other possible articles, including one about Israel. Jayjg (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
You could always start it yourself. Be bold! I'll back you up at any AfD. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd prefer to see your take on it; no doubt you'd have more expertise in the material. Jayjg (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
You're too modest. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

cases of states

the other are :

  1. Allegations of Iranian state terrorism
  2. Allegations of State terrorism by Sri Lanka
  3. Allegations of state terrorism by Russia
  4. Allegations of state terrorism by the United States
  5. Allegations of state terrorism committed by Pakistan

Ceedjee (talk) 11:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No reason we can't have two articles for each country, one about their political violence and another about their state terrorism or allegations thereof. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Think we should create and `Allegations` page for the state of Israel. I will look into creating a page. Thanks for pointing this out.--Rockybiggs (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Well it seems the actual page was deleted on 27/01/2009. crazy.--Rockybiggs (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Why did Zionist political violence stop in 1948? What about extremist Zionist settlers who fight the IDF (cf Jewish Terrorism), or use nail bombs. Why can they not be included here?93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Their actions are motivated by their religious beliefs. That's why they are described in Jewish terrorism. I'm not sure why you ask, though, as you are already aware of this. Jayjg (talk) 05:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
All of them? As well as those who kill Palestinian farmers? Purely religious? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Please review WP:SOAP. Jayjg (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I have. Care to answer any of my questions? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Shall I take that as a no? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Jayjg is not currently on wikipedia...
I answer for him : the acts to which you refer are rather performed by Neo-Zionists, which are motivated by a mix of religious-nationalist goals.
It is not appropriate to mix under the same label events that occured with more than 50 years of interval and were performed by people who do not recognize themselves in the other group.
We should fit to wp:rs source to use these words.
I think that is what Jayjg meant. Ceedjee (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Recently added unreferenced section - Main occurences

I am not sure if this section is appropriate, I have removed it here for discussion. While the riots may have been started by Zionist political violence, I think references are needed to back this assertion.93.96.148.42 (talk)

Zionist political violence expressed itself mainly simultaneously with Palestinian political violence during the :

You forgot to mention you had deleted much more.
To answer your question : if you know other occurence of zionist political zionism we can add them.
In fact, you deleted this part and moved the others in the former section.
So, I followed your principle and added these events back in the former section Ceedjee (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The Need for Context in the Lead

As discussed above, I added the following line to the lead, to give a context to the violence. It is copied from Zionism. If you object, please explain, do not just delete it.

  • Zionism is a political movement that was formally established by the Austro-Hungarian journalist Theodor Herzl in the late 19th century following the publication of "Der Judenstaat".[3] seeking to encourage Jewish migration to the Promised Land or Palestine93.96.148.42 (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
There's no need for that in the lead - that what links exist for. If we were to do it, it would be best to stick with the definition given in the first line of Zionism - 'Zionism is the international Jewish political movement that originally supported the reestablishment of a homeland for the Jewish People in Palestine'. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Exactly; that's what the links are for, and if an explanation must be used, use the one in the main article. Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I understood that this article was concerned with Zionist violence before 1948, and am unclear whether you dispute the existence of Zionist violence under the Ottomans, or its inclusion in the lead prior to its inclusion in the the body of the article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced "political aims" with "the reestablishment of a homeland for the Jewish People in Palestine" in the lead, in line with the discussion here.93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

See discussion below on the "aims" of the Zionist political violence. Jayjg (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I removed it without adding to the discussion. Like most terrorism, "Zionist Terrorism" was committed for "political reasons". The reader can decide what the aims of the various groups were based on information provided. --65.127.188.10 (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The political aims of Zionism were ""the reestablishment of a homeland for the Jewish People in Palestine", according to the Zionism entry. Removing this information from the lead deprives readers of essential information. I have reinstated it.93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
"for political reasons" is in line with the other "political violence" (terrorism redirect) articles. The reader needs to have more information before they decide for them selves what the motives of these groups were. --65.127.188.10 (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Is it not pretty obvious from the article's title that the violence is for political reasons?! "the reestablishment of a homeland for the Jewish People in Palestine" is used on Zionism so it makes sense to have it in this article. I've changed it back Smartse (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The title is in line with the other terrorism articles to maintain NPOV per WP:TERRORIST. This talk section is called "the need for context in the lead". The stated aims of radical political groups hardly passes as "context" or "neutral". The reader can decide what the intentions were, and the larger historic and political context, based on the body of the article. --65.127.188.10 (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I've read WP:TERRORIST but don't see how or why it applies to this. As I said before just saying that political violence is violence is for political reasons doesn't tell readers anything. Having some information about zionism does tell the reader what they were fighting for. Does anyone else have any opinion? Smartse (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I only cited WP:TERRORIST as a reasoning for the title. Is there really a need to state the aims of radical political groups in an over simplified statement in the lead? The last sentence of the paragraph states land, immigration, and national aspirations. This provides context and is about as neutral as it's going to get. --65.127.188.10 (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Please explain how replacing "political aims" with "the reestablishment of a homeland for the Jewish People in Palestine" in the lede detracts from the article. Otherwise I shall reinstate it, in line with the opinions expressed here.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I still feel that this would be a good change to make. Smartse (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Will change to "the reestablishment of a homeland for the Jewish People in Palestine" in line with the discussion here.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
And I have again reverted it. We will let the reader decide the justification and motivation for these acts after they have read the details in the article. --65.127.188.10 (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
As a neutral reader who is not involved in any of the mentioned articles/projects, I agree with 65.127.188.10. It does not improve the article to add information already given in the main Zionism article. If people want to form an opinion on the motivation, let them read a well structured, well written article. The head section is a short summary, and will do nicely here without the added 'context'.Pim Rijkee (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Completely disagree - This edit war has been going on for many months. This issue does not fall under WP:TERRORIST, but something far more basic, and that is avoid weasel words. Under that rule, under here is this citation:

Uninformative. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to spread accurate and useful information. Weasel words are neither accurate nor informative.

Replacing "political aims" with "the reestablishment of a homeland for the Jewish People in Palestine" in the lead in just that - weasel words, and detracts from the article. What were those "political reasons"? Bad health care? A bad Bar Mitzvah? A Bad Hair Day?

This debate has been going on for months. The consensus has long been established. If this continues, it should be taken off of this page and to the next level. Dinkytown (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I think it was added due to the "context" in the lead. With that removed, can we remove the tag? --65.127.188.10 (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No objection, no tag. Cheers. --65.127.188.10 (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Extent of fighting - Request for source

Can anybody provide a source to back up the following sentence:

In April, 6 weeks before the termination of the Mandate, the Jewish militias launched wide operations to control the territory dedicated to them by the Partition Plan.

Obviously, there was widespread fighting throughout the Palestine Mandate area. Six weeks before the end of the Mandate, were operations by the Jewish militias confined to the area allocated for a Jewish state? If so, when did the fighting spread? -- 23:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZScarpia (talk • contribs)

terrorism template

I have added this template, as a number of the groups discussed here fall into that category.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine, but while doing so, you created an awful blank space of over 8 inches (over 20 cm.) below the heading "Main occurences". I tried in vain to restore this. What can we do about this? Paul kuiper NL (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Not in my browser, so hard to know.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

This entire sections needs to be merged in to a terrorism article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.195.119 (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a long but slow edit war over what the lead of this article should say in the section above. I'd like someone else's input as top which is best. It's a tiny point but it's annoying arguing over it. Thanks Smartse (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The line "....Zionist Jews for the reestablishment of a homeland for the Jewish People in Palestine" really must be added. The present line of simply "Zionist", dose not fully explain what they are and "Zionist" is derogatory loaded with anti-Arab imagery. Include the described line for clarity. Dinkytown (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be glad to offer a nonbiased opinion regarding this question. It might be helpful to concisely restate the gist of the question/dispute in order to facilitate uninvolved comments. --Matheuler 16:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Matheuler, thanks for coming. I guess I'm one of the main participants in this "dispute" but since I had no input in the RFC being opened, I will wait for Smartse to explain their specific contention. Thanks. --65.127.188.10 (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I would like to propose refers to acts of violence committed in the British mandate of Palestine between world war 1 and 1948. This provides some context (and keeps out modern claims of Israeli terrorism). --65.127.188.10 (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately it contradicts the title of the article. Zerotalk 00:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for being a little slow to reply. The dispute has largely been between 65.127 and 93.96 - 65.127 thought (altough they appear to have decided otherwise now) that having "ZVP refers to acts of violence committed for political reasons" was sufficient in the lead. 93.96, myself and others have suggested that "ZVP refers to acts of violence committed by Zionist Jews for the reestablishment of a homeland for the Jewish People in Palestine". 65.127 and 93.96 were continously reverting each other (over long periods, never WP:3RR) and so I though that it was sensible to ask others what they think. Smartse (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The words "for the reestablishment of a homeland for the Jewish People in Palestine" sound like a Zionist slogan. They are not acceptable. Maybe "to promote the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine" would be ok. Zerotalk 00:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
If you read the section above that wording comes from Zionism, it is still used there now. Smartse (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
That article is hopelessly POV but fixing it seems impossible. Zerotalk 01:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Zeno had a good suggestion for the above. My complaint has been using weasel words in this lead and both of 65.127.188.10's suggestions have been just that. Neither "political reasons" nor, "refers to acts of violence committed in the British mandate of Palestine between world war 1 and 1948" describe as to why there was fighting. Zeno's suggestion of "to promote the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine" would be better and avoids the Zionist slogan issue, but the word "promote" sounds like we're getting ready for an infomercial. How about "...whose aims and objectives were to establish a Jewish state in Palestine." Which was the objective of the Zionist to begin with. Dinkytown (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
To me the question is: do the stated aims of a group of terrorists belong in the lead? --65.127.188.10 (talk) 02:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The answer is - yes, why wouldn't it. Perfect example, see the forth paragragh in the lead for Al-Qaeda. It tells you exactly what their objectives are. Dinkytown (talk) 02:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
good day everybody! After a lot of reading and of pondering hereafter my two pence:

A) the title: it’s problematic, as much as ‘Zionist’ is authentic period wise, today it is –as you know- used by those which want to avoid ‘Israeli’ and ‘Israel’ for being tantamount to recognizing its existence, and will do so for a verrrryyyyyy long time indeed according to their recent declarations –and Wikipedia will last as least as much-, and since this article appears in the ‘Palestine project’ and in the 'Zionist terrorism' category, the title is then strongly POV, what do you think of ‘Violent opposition to the Mc Donald White Paper’ which is what it actually was

B) the lead: I agree with the weasel words objection. Let’s use the official wording of the preamble to the (British) mandate i.e. ‘the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people’ the very words of the Society of Nations, thus removing the possible taint of a ‘Zionist propaganda’ flavour, while recalling the Balfour Declaration vs the Mc Donald White Paper issue, the core of their dispute
It says "national home", Irgun demanded a state (and there is a large history of dispute over the difference). It says "in Palestine", Irgun demanded all of Palestine. Anyway, it still sounds like Zionist slogan. Zerotalk 12:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

C) since 93…. and 65…. are both so sanguine regarding this point and stuck there, they could be advised to take some ‘time off’(only about the said point); keep things as is and after a while, steam cooled down, their views will have moved and they will, hopefully, contribute more constructively even among themselves

With all the festivities of Ramadan, of the Jewish High Holydays, and then the long Christmas season –due to the many different trends of Christianity its lasts until the 19th of Jan.- enjoy you all the goodwill spirit, I hope that helps, with wikilove, Hope&Act3! (talk) 10:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Gosh Hope - with all this love and joy going around, I almost cried... I agree with you accounts: A, B and C. Since "Zionist" is unavoidable for the article (and its loaded meaning), we can use "national home" as described in the preamble to the mandate. I personally never cared for the loaded word "Zionist" as it's presently used by anti-Semites for their political rhetoric. Never knew it was used as a around point for avoiding "Israeli". In no particular order - Kumbaya, Musotov, Eid Mobaric and Seasons Greetings... Dinkytown (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
There was once Palestinian Terrorism, then there was Zionist Terrorism, then they both became "political violence", then they both had context in the lead, then it was removed. I agree that the "for political purposes" is like saying "A windshield wiper is a wiper for cleaning a windshield", but it is neutral. If we're prepared to accept the goals and motives of Irgun and Lehi here, then we're going to have to accept, in the lead, the goals and motives of Hamas and PLO in Palestinian Political Violence. If we're prepared to agree on that, then I'll discontinue my opposition and live happily ever after. That said, we may need to post a notice about this RFC on the other talk page. --65.127.188.10 (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to make a quick comment. I responded about a week ago to the WP:3O request. Now it looks like there is a thriving discussion involving many editors with much more experience than I, so I will defer to them. Thanks for the opportunity to watch this interesting discussion though, as I can see that it presents unique challenges. I am however, confident that an appropriate resolution will be reached. Matheuler 20:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added some similar context to Palestinian political violence so long as it is there, then it shall remain here. I consider this RFC resolved and thanks to all.

The answer is - yes, why wouldn't it. Perfect example, see the forth paragragh in the lead for Al-Qaeda. It tells you exactly what their objectives are.

--65.127.188.10 (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, I hadn't realised that the same obvious statement was repeated on that article too. .... political violence is/was violence committed for political reasons = no shit sherlock! Smartse (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Illegal immigration?

Hi, who says it is? in the following: 'During the 1920 Jerusalem riots, the 1921 Palestine riots and the 1929 Palestine riots, Palestinian Arabs manifested against illegal Zionist immigration and attacked Jewish communities, etc.' according to which law? to be deleted if there is no ref., thanks Hope&Act3! (talk) 11:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hope - I think they meant illegal Jewish immigration as described in the White Paper of 1939. I've heard elsewhere that after the riots, the British limited immigration to placate the Arabs in Palestine. In any event, the pargarph needs reworking. Dinkytown (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
good day to you Dinkytown, I thought so, I mean I thought it is about the Mc Donald White Paper quotas, BUT, this document was issued in 1938, ratified by the Parliament in 1939 (as you said), SO, no relevance to the 1920 riots... thanks for trying, regarding the petty policy of the British Mandate, which was the main cause of the Jews violence as they felt that the promised home land was withheld from them and that the British supported the Arabs -I know that the latter felt the opposite was true- , I agree that a lot of reworking is needed!
I'm still waiting for the eventual law data,anyone ? Hope&Act3! (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Opps, my overlook. I'll keep looking... Dinkytown (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, to date no new input so I deleted "illegal" Hope&Act3! (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I've restored it. Surely the British mandate of Palestine had immigration laws. Further, generally immigration which is not explicitly authorized is illegal. --65.127.188.10 (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
There were quotas for the Jews after the White Paper (and even these were not respected, they gave less visas than the annual legal number) before that the Jews were allowed to immigrate on a free basis, may be some individual did come illegally -as it happens anywhere anytime- that wd be a minor occurence and on its own wd not cause wide spread violent opposition, anyway the root of the matter was that the rioting Arabs simply opposed the immigration of any Jew for they considered their settlement as a threat to the identity of the land, and actually accused the british authorities to want to wipe them out and to favor the Jews. I guess you know that.
So if you have no source for the "illegal" nature of the immigration then (in 1920), do not state that it is such. Cannot add a putative word as if being proof of a fact.
Therefore it must be deleted until you -or anyone else- can provide the relevant source Hope&Act3! (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

SEVERE POV PROBLEMS

Well, there is no criticism section as should be in any controversial subject And spread throughout the article are basically attempts to mirror one side to another without real mention of temporal context and scale. While the cases themselves like the hotel bombing and hanging the british soldiers were indeed real this article elaborates on certain but not other details too much. I guess the editor list speaks for itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.124.106 (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "I guess the editor list speaks for itself"? If you think that more content should be added then please do. Smartse (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"Cleansing"

The book may only be used to support the opinion of its author, as the vast majority of educators and authors not only disagreed with it, but caused it to be redacted. Picking the one disparate author out of hundreds is likely an WP:UNDUE violation. Placing it in the article as unqualified support for the term is a POV violation. -- Avi (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Here we have a work of history, approved by the ministry of education for use in schools, pulled from the shelves following outcry over the phrases. The fact that Israel engaged in ethnic cleansing has at last been published. Now, down the old memory hole with it. I won't challenge that some Wiki-cratic rule forbids it's inclusion, and I'm not its original contributor. Thank you for engaging in discussion Avi. --65.127.188.10 (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Glad I wasn't the only one who after reading that thought of Nineteen_Eighty-Four! I'm not really sure whether it is correct to say that the book isn't a reliable source anymore or whether including it is undue. To be honest, we were citing a news article about the book, not the book itself and therefore the information remains verifiable whatever the Israeli government say. Could Avi provide more justification of why they think it should be kept out the article? Smartse (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
For what its worth, I think it should be included as well. IMO, that the Israeli government pulled the book is rather irrelevant. There are other sources that discuss the ethnic cleansing of Palestine too, as mentioned in our article on the subject. Tiamuttalk 16:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

palestinefacts.org

I didn't add this link, but I don't understand why it is removed. I've gotten the explanation that it's "false flag" or that it's not an WP:RS, but I still haven't gotten an explanation. Someone please, I beg you, please explain why this site is not suitable for inclusion. --65.127.188.10 (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. If you read WP:RS, you will see what some of the problems are here. It is neither a scholarly source nor a news source. In fact, there are no authors listed on the site which would help to determine whether they hold expertise in this subject area. As such, its a questionable source that seems to be self-published (and by whom, its not clear). RS states: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable."
I think what Huldra meant by "false flag" is that the website's name is Palestinefacts, but its quite a pro-Israel website, and a lot of the material is less factual than it is propaganda. But this is less relevant here than the issue of its not being a reliable source for the reasons stated above. Sources can be biased or partisan per WP:NPOV (everybody has a point of view or POV), but they have to be reliable and verifiable as outlined above.
I hope that answers your question. Welcome to Wikipedia. Tiamuttalk 01:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I also could not find anything on that site to indicate who is responsible for it. There is no list of editors and no indication of an quality control process. It looks like it is deliberately hiding its origin. So it simply does not meet Wikipedia requirements for a citable web resource. Incidentally, the internet domain "palestinefacts.org" is registered to "ZOA" with no contact address apart from the ISP. I can't prove it is the ZIonist Organization of America... Zerotalk 01:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

palestinefacts.org is in fact registered to an address of the Zionist Organization of America and I don't think you could claim it as a neutral source in good faith. Sol Goldstone (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Irgun + Hitler

I'm not supporting the statement, but why is it vandalism? --72.148.136.13 (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It calls vandalism because there's absolutely nothing in the source that says that Irgun wanted to make a deal with hitler. As a matter of fact thae source says just the opposite. So re-installing that claim over and over again is a vandalism.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Except that the source does state exactly that, albeit not in reference to the Irgun, but in reference to the Stern group. That is a minor editing question, not 'vandalism'. Unomi (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Google books shows up a solid list of sources for Avraham Stern wanting to make a deal with the Nazis and our current article on Lehi_(group)#Contact_with_Nazi_authorities has a section devoted to it. Unomi (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

How it belongs to the article about violence. Did any violence followed from that so called "wanting" of a single man to do something? Please stop your insinuations.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
So you are now willing to entertain the possibility that it wasn't vandalism? Unomi (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
It was a vandalism:
a. The included text is POV which is not supported by the source. As a matter of fact the source says just the opposite.
b. It was re-posted after two different users, but me, removed it.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
And this was my last comment here. I have much more interesting things to do.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it was not vandalism.

a. The source supports that Stern, a member of Irgun - I am not clear on exactly when he officially parted ways with Irgun to form the Stern Gang - later Lehi - did in fact entertain the idea and acted on it. Attributing the act to Irgun was incorrect, but that doesn't make it vandalism. Reading the source shows that changing it to Stern Gang / Lehi would have made the edit appropriate.
b. Thats nice, but when you take an action on wikipedia you should take responsibility for it yourself, not try to defend it by saying that they did it too. Unomi (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't this named Zionist terrorism?

It redirects from "Zionist Terrorism", it's the closest thing to a main article in the "Zionist Terrorism" category but it's not actually called "Zionist Terrorism". "Political violence" can cover anything from terrorism to acts of war and revolution. This category isn't talking about the IDF or the War of Independence or other legitimate groups or conflicts. So can we just call it "Zionist Terrorism"? Sol Goldstone (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing myself, but upon reading the archived discussion, it seems this is some sort of compromise, to parallel the situation that exists on Palestinian political violence and Palestinian terrorism. HupHollandHup (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! I guess I didn't look close enough at the archive and didn't realize it was mirrored in Palestinian political violence. Only these two get the "political violence" instead of "terrorism" treatment (as far as I can tell) so there might be others where PV is more fitting label but I guess that's a problem for another time! Sol Goldstone (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it's pretty dumb. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.10.51.35 (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

delete false claim

Deleted "Colonel Archer-Cust, Chief Secretary of the British Government in Palestine, said in a lecture to the Royal Empire Society that "The hanging of the two British Sergeants did more than anything to get us out of Palestine".(ref)The United Empire Journal, November–December 1949, taken from The Revolt, by Menachem Begin(ref)" — Leaving aside the obvious fact that Begin is not a reliable source for this, Archer Cust (first and last names) was only Secretary of the Royal Empire Society, not a government official of any significance. This error in The Revolt was noted by J. Heller, The International History Review, Vol. 3, No. 4 (Oct., 1981), pp. 540-564. Zerotalk 16:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Why does this article only cover events up until 1948?

I think anyone can fairly say that their has been zionist political violence since 1948. Why is their no information about it in this article? The palestinian political violence article covers a much broader time period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.115.234 (talk) 07:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


I am American & I recognize the bias in Western sites like Wikipedia. The motive is clear. Isn't the Mossad currently training terrorist to kill Iranian scientist?

Sources: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099142/Mossad-training-terrorists-kill-Irans-nuclear-scientists-U-S-officials-claim--Israels-real-target-Obama.html

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/sunday-times-mossad-agents-behind-iran-scientist-assassination-1.407593

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/western-intelligence-sources-tell-time-magazine-israel-s-mossad-targeted-iranian-scientist-1.407322

http://rt.com/news/iranian-scientists-assassinations-israel-923/

Patiently awaiting the spin of excuses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.174.255 (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No reason has been given why this artificial date of 1948 shoud not be removed, so it will be removed.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Jewish public opinion

It seems that the current content of the section, especially the last paragraph, are very loosely related to Jewish public opinion, and more relevant to what historians believe was the Zionist narrative. I believe it's not relevant to the article. If there are no objections, I'd like to significantly trim the section. —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well Marokwitz introduced this in a very pov-ed way and it had to be neutralized.
What would you suggest precisely ? 81.247.173.44 (talk) 10:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
For a start, I'd completely remove the 2nd paragraph and the first sentence of the 3rd, because they are not about Jewish public opinion at all. After that it depends on the flow of the prose. —Ynhockey (Talk) 11:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
We can analyse this from different ways.
  • Is "public Jewish opinion" relevant for this article ? Is this what is stressed by historians ?
  • Would not an alternative solution be to keep the content but to modify the title of the section ?
  • What global ideas do you think would be important to add here ?
  • To give an answer to the 1st point : as far as I know, historians globally stress the shift from a "defensive mind" to an "offensive mind" in the Yishuv opinion that occured mainly during the '36-'39 revolt. Huge pressure existed in the community to follow Irgun's policy but that didn't comply moraly with the official aims of Zionism and the claim that both Jews and Arabs could live in peace in Palestine. (Of course there are some nuances according to the each historian as for any issue on this topic but that's the main analysis.) Do you agree ?
  • To give an answer to the 2nd point : we can keep this section but then we can move the material in another one. Could it be : Jewish Agency support to the resort to force ?
  • To answer to 3rd point : my mind is that this article first lacks an appropriate background section.
91.180.33.92 (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The reason I didn't suggest modifying the title of the section was that no connection could be made between the parts I referred to and Zionist political violence. Fighting against Arabs does not necessarily mean "Zionist political violence". Neither do violations of purity of arms. It might belong in another article altogether, but I am having trouble tying the topic of the "offending" text to political violence.
For example, you are right that "Jewish Agency support to the resort to force" (or something similar) would be a better title for this text—but it doesn't make it relevant to Zionist political violence.
So in summary, some connection needs to be made between this text and the concept of political violence (as opposed to violence in general).
—Ynhockey (Talk) 19:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand your point. "Fighting against Arabs" would not be "policital" ?
The Jewish Agency was the political representative of "World Zionist Organisation" in Mandatory Palestine and it set up paramilitary organisations for the ressort to force (read violence) in the fights with the Arabs.
If you mean that they defended against the Arabs and did not attack them, it doesn't change anything. What is "political violence" for you ?
81.253.50.244 (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I think political violence is fairly clearly defined. It has to fulfill two main criteria: it has to be for a political goal (i.e. not criminal violence), and it has to be on a limited scale (i.e. not battles involving armies or militias). An assassination of a political leader is political violence. A war is not. Some actions, such as terrorism, may or may not constitute political violence. In any case, most Haganah operations do not fall into this category. —Ynhockey (Talk) 19:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok. I see your point.
Even if it is not important, you are not right with the definition and the limited scale. Paul Wilkinson (academic), Terrorism and Liberal State, U.K., McMillan Press, 1977, p. 32 classifies political violence in two scales : small and big. In the big scale you can have "nuclear war". It is well known that Hiroshima bombing had the political aim to stop the 2nd world war. That was a political action. Wars, Civils wars, Riots are on the big scale. Sabotages, political assassination, guerrilla, terrorism are on the other scale.
For small scale actions concerning Haganah, I see the "hunting seasons" events, the sabotage of bridges by Palmah before. The sagote and the bombing of the Patria. The Altalena was bombed by Palmah too but later. Palmah men assassinated Arab leaders at the beginning of the '48 Civil War. Both Haganah and Palmal troops placed bombs (eg. Semiranis).
On the bigger scale, Haganah collaborated with British during 36-39 Arab revolt. Aims were numerous. To protect civilians and settlements but also to train their own army, to prove their good will, to prevent the independence of the full Palestine. They also collaborated with Allied during Second World War to prevent the triumph of Nazism and the victory of democraties. That is a political objective. There are many other examples of political violence by Haganah...
All in all, Haganah was the armed arm of Zionism. After 1939, Zionist leaders knew they would need an army to set up a viable State able.
"Political violence" is not synonym of terrorism/resistance. It is a term used by political scientists to study, out of any consideration of legitimation or condemnation, "violence" that aims at influencing other decisions, whatever the scale of the violence.
81.253.50.244 (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Why have the photographs been removed?

Looking at the edit notes, I guess some people just didn't like them - and couldn't be bothered to discuss it first- will reinstate.88.166.32.210 (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

At Palestinian political violence they made the decision not to add any pictures of dead bodies, because they were "unrepresentative". The hanging of the two sergeants is obviously "unrepresentative", it's the only time this was ever done. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I do not see the relevance of that discussion. The photograph of the hanging of the two sergeants is representative and relevant as a famous image of Zionist Political Violence that has been reprinted many times. I would also like to point out that other photographs have been removed without discussion on this page.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Why no mention of the 1948 Palestinian exodus?

I understand that there is a dispute as to the extent that this was a consequence of Zionist political violence, but I believe that the consensus is that it played a role. Some mention should be made of it here, and a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus included.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is this article not titled "Jewish terrorism", or at least "Zionist terrorism"?

The text relating to groups with an Islamic bent committing political acts of violence is titled "Islamic terrorism", and the first sentence defines it as "a form of religious terrorism[1] committed by extremists of Islam for the purpose of achieving varying political and/or religious ends." I propose the the title of this article be changed (or redirected), and that the first line be brought into parity with other articles related to the same behaviors of other religious groups.Bainst (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, this very special treatment is a disgrace, we have links and articles dismissing the perfectly relevant 'terrorism' term as soon as judaism and zionism is concerned: that's a plain double-standard if not part of a propagandist agenda... We have "Christian terrorism", "Islamic terrorism" and then "Judaism and violence" [sic] and "Zionist political violence" [sic]... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sensi.fr (talk • contribs) 20:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Some people are more equal than others, perhaps? Just a thought. Solntsa90 (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

  1. Jewish and Zionist are not the same thing.
  2. There is already an article Jewish religious terrorism that uses the word "Jewish" with "terrorism".
  3. This article follows the naming convention of the Palestinian political violence article. Have you tried to get that article renamed? Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for making my point: Why would I? It's accurate, since the political violence is being committed by the Palestinians in that context. However, in this context, the political violence is primarily from Israelis and Israelis of Jewish extraction, not necessarily Zionists, who seem to be mostly peaceful (Last time I heard, Jews in America and Christian Zionists weren't spraying bullets into Muslims like they do in Palestine).
I suggest a renaming of this article to "Israeli political violence" or even "Israeli Zionist political violence" as either way, "Zionist" just seems to be a bit short. Solntsa90 (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
This article discusses violence carried out by Zionist groups before the founding of Israel, or carried out by non-Israeli Zionist groups. There are many other articles that discuss Israeli "violence", including Israeli settler violence, Israeli targeted killings, Price tag policy, etc. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Why not post 1948?

Surely Zionists have used political violence to achieve their aims since the founding of the State of Israel, so why does Israeli political violence redirect here and there is no mention of post-1948 incidents?--TM 18:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


I would assume that Israel being a State a/o May 14, 1948 had something to do with "...why does Israeli political violence redirect here and there is no mention of post-1948 incidents?"

Right? (Paleocon444 (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC))

No it doesn't. That would explain coverage of post 1948 violence here. Without that coverage the redirection is not sensible.93.96.148.42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC).
Pro-Zionists claim that zionist political violence stopped in 1948, and keep it that way. I do not remember their arguments, but I think assassinations of anti-zionist politicians should be included here.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The article should include post-1948 Zionist political violence. Many Zionists disagree with Israeli government policies and so non-government sponsored violence is still appropriate for this category. People argue over whether Rabin's assassin should be considered someone who committed Zionist political violence. Some would say he's a religious fanatic, and the organized Zionists disavow him, but he's got plenty of followers who don't reject his violence. VanEman (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zionist political violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Such as David Ben Gurion or Vladimir Jabotinsky
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zionist_political_violence/Archive_4&oldid=1137344724"