Talk:Lavon Affair

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Portal:Egypt
 Egypt Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
News This article has been mentioned by a media organization.

The citation is in: Joey Kurtzman (November 16, 2006). "Wiki Wars". Jewcy.

Contents

[edit] Role of the Jews

No need for propaganda about so-called "persecution" of Jews. In this affair, the jews were the terrorist aggressors, not the victims.

The word "terrorist" is inherently POV. As for the paragraph you removed, it seems to say the affair was actually not a major contributor to "persecution". I've no dog in this fight, but I think (IMHO) it was fairly neutral; for this reason I've reverted your edit. -- Hadal 03:47, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What about 9/11 that americans cry about? Why is it being called "terrorist"? Isn't that also POV? Oh wait, the perpetrators are Arab and Muslim, ok never mind. If lavon affair isn't terrorist, neither is 9/11. Simple as that. As for the erroneous zionist propaganda about the plight of Jews, ask yourself. HOw many jews did the West put into gas chambers? Now ask yourself how many jews did the Arabs put into gas chambers. Now, let's talk about "persecution", shall we?

Sigh. Perhaps I shouldn't have bothered. I have no interest in quarrelling over this, and in my opinion the word "terrorist" should be ommitted from both articles—or at least rephrased so as not to present opinion as fact. That's what you're doing here, and that's what's been done on the Sept. 11th attacks article. I'm bowing out now, as I don't see your demeanour as particularly receptive to compromise. -- Hadal 04:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

--The last paragraph gave the appearance that somehow, jews were the main victims of evil arab aggression. It is completely biased and POV. This couldn't be further from the tr/uth. The real victims were the arabs. The affair derailed the secret Nasser-Sharett peace talks and indirectly led to war, something which was very good for Israel as it gained more territory at a huge cost for palestinians and other arabs. Also, the affair destroyed the good relations and cooperation between egypt and the US, leading the latter to be pushed further into the israeli sphere and become its main sponsor. With this in mind, tell me how can jews be the "victims" of arab "persecution"?

The section is factual from what I can tell, and accurately lists the fallout. It's hardly clear it led to the 1967 war, or any of the other consequences you mention. Jayjg (talk) 03:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How do you know it's accurate and factual? Do you have any unbiased references? It could very well be another zionist propaganda fairytale. I also fail to see how it's relevant to the article, apart from trying to portray jews as "victims" of some evil arab "aggression", even when it's clear israel is the aggressor. That's definitely not NPOV. I don't see any section on the plight of arab and muslim americans as a result of 9/11. Actually, the effect of the affair was to destabilize the relatively "moderate" (by israeli standards) regime of Sharett, and led to the rise of anti-peace talks extremists like Ben Gurion and Dayan to power. They soon organized cross-border provocations and terrorist attacks which led to Nasser's mistrust of Israel and the US. This mistrust ended the peace talks and contributed to the war of 1956, which, due to Nasser's success, was then a catalyst for the 1967 war.

Could you please bring some reasonable citatations for your claims and edits? Jayjg (talk) 16:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Could you? You're the one posting the BS, without any backing or even relevance to the article. However I will refer you to books like The Last Arab (a biography of Nasser by Said Aburish), or The Secret Negotiations Between Arabs and Israel (by Mohammed Heikal, not sure if there's an english translation).

I haven't posted anything, I've just reverted your deletions. As for your references, please quote the relevant sections. Please do not revert again, or you will be violating the Wikipedia:Three revert rule and will be banned for that. Jayjg (talk) 17:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're really acting like a 5 year old, childishly reverse editing over and over without even paying attention to what I'm saying. Pay attention to this: Firstly, the so-called "persecution" and "expulsion" of Jews from Arab countries is a controversial and hotly disputed matter, used by Israel for propaganda purposes but vehemently denied by Arab states. If you (or anyone else) needs to post detailed info about it, you should at least reference it to a source so that we know to what extent these claims are credible and can verify them. And note that I don't need to reference anything, since I'm not the one adding anything to the article. Secondly, and more importantly, even if it was true, how relevant is it to the article? Why is half of an article, supposedly about a zionist terror attack on egypt, dedicated to the "plight" of jews in arab states? In the WWII article, why isn't half of it dedicated to the plight of German and Japanese civilians in Dresedn, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki? Why isn't half of the 9/11 article dedicated to the plight of Arab and Muslim Americans?

For the love of god, can anyone here read english? POST REFERENCES TO THE SO-CALLED PERSECUTION OF JEWS SO THAT IT CAN BE VERIFIED, BECAUSE IT IS A CONTROVERSIAL MATTER!!!!!!!!!! There you go, simple as that. Not exactly rocket science, is it?

Egypt threw 1000 Jews in jail, and expelled 25,000 of them; they pretty much all left after that, with the clothes on their back. Do you dispute that happened? That isn't "so-called" persecution or expulsion. Jayjg (talk) 19:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How do you know egypt did that? Did you see them do it? Did you read it somewhere? Post references. And yes, I dispute that. And you have yet to explain how it is relevant to the article (see above). Learn how to read, and not just shove your opinion down everyone else's throat.

Try this [1]. Please do not continually remove information from the page, and please do not violate the three revert rule WP:3RR. Jayjg (talk) 20:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your reference [2] completely omits any reference to the Lavon Affair! It is a pro-Israeli POV.

[edit] Reason for Lavon Affair?

I had always understood that the Lavon Affair was an attempt by the Israelis to destroy the 1954 Anglo-Egyptian Treaty which provided for the full evacuation of British forces from the Canal Zone. Israel did not want the British to leave, as their presence was a buffer of sorts against another Egyptian invasion. Your article suggests its primary intent was to wreck Egytpian-American relations, but I would say that this was not so. After all, there was no question that the US was contemplating 'abandoning' Israel and taking the 'Arab side'. This article needs a rewrite!

Well, now it has been re-written. Leifern, do you have evidence for your claim that its purpose was to destabilize the Egyptian government? Jayjg (talk) 18:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is not an easy subject to make sense of, in part because so much of the information has been classified. Here are some of the sources: Jewish Agency account; Compendium of articles in Mideastweb; Muskingum College; Howard Sachar: A History of Israel, p. 480. Having said this, the article is poorly written and needs a lot of work. --Leifern 18:44, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

[edit] Mossad "Project"? No, it was Mossad terrorism

The Lavon Affair was an act of premeditated Israeli terrorism against American civilian installations. The editors who believe that this was not terrorism should explain themselves. User:STP

Read the very first comments on this page Alberuni, which explain this. And your edits can be reverted by anyone for any reason, as you are banned from Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 04:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Irishpunktom, could you discuss your edit here please rather than simply acting for Alberuni? If you want to call it a terrorist operation, it would be better to attribute that view to someone; also, the way you wrote it begs the question. This is a borderline case of an operation by a state designed to affect the actions of another state by directly attacking the latter's installations and interests. To call it "terrorism," you need an element of clandestine behavior, which exists here, and the aim of the operation being the spread of terror among the civilian population, or the use of civilians' fear as a theatrical backdrop to other campaigns. It's not clear that this second condition pertains in this case. I'm using the so-called UN academic definition here; I know there are others, but that's another problem with your edit, namely, that you don't define the term, and it's not immediately obvious from the context how you're using it. Therefore, it would be safer to attribute the view to someone else (a credible, authoritative source), and not to have it in the first sentence; or better still, not to use it at all. From memory, Benny Morris, who is used as a reference, calls it a psychological operation. SlimVirgin 16:38, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

I find it incredible that anyone can prevaricate against classifying those bombings as terrorism. Of course the Lavon bombings were terrorist. Just because it had some intricate international scheme behind it, and not just the terrorization of a civilian population (which they certainly achieved), does not mean it wasn't terrorist. Similarly, just because those suicide bombers have an "aim", does not mean blowing up children and civilians at a bus stop is not terrorist. --AladdinSE 02:09, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that "project" was unfortunate, and I've removed it to read Israeli Operation Suzannah, so that we're not describing it at all. It does refer to "terrorist" in the next paragraph. I think the objection was simply to calling it that in the first few words of the article, as it's becoming common on Wikipedia to try to avoid that upfront labelling if possible. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:00, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
I added this to category Terrorist Incidents before 1970, because this clearly is a "terrorist incident", whether anybody got killed or not. Leiferns argument that "there was no intention" does not hold water. If WTC (os say some building in Tel Aviv) was blown up by some foreign intelligence agency "without intention to cause harm" would that be not terrorist incident then? --Magabund 11:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Read the article called Terrorism, which concedes there are many definitions, but they all have to do with instilling great fear. This operation, ineffective and ill-conceived as it was, does not rise to that level. The explosive devices were not large enough to blow up a building, and when one detonated in the pocket of one of the operatives, it didn't even hurt him. So, no, it takes wishful thinking to make this a terrorist act. --Leifern 02:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Magabund, did you read the comments above? Exactly who was this supposed to be "terrorized" by this operation? Also, didn't you just recently make this edit? Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you actually trying to say that if I go and put couple of bombs into post offices and public libraries which go off, but are "not large enough to blow up a building" then this in not a terrorist act? Especially when I'm trying to influence that society? How big those bombs have to be to classify as "terrorist acts"? And yes, I read article Terrorism before making that edit, from the article: "...but rather to intimidate and influence the societies to which they belong". To be clear: I want to say that using IED against civilian target by any rogue organization falls clearly under Definition of terrorism.

The change to Yvonne Ridley article is explained on the relevant talk page, you are welcome to reply there. --Magabund 10:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Influencing a society and terrorizing it are two entirely different things. Who was being "terrorized" here, and how? Also, which "rogue organization" was responsible for the actions of Baruch Goldstein and Ami Popper? Jayjg (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, of course there can are lone nut type terrorists also. As you did not respond, then I assume that willfully bombing library or post office NOW would be considered terrorist incident under similiar circumstances. Therefore we can safely assume the same about Lavon affair bombings. Also see: National Front for the Liberation of Corsica Typical acts of terrorism by the FLNC are bombings, aggravated assault, armed bank robbery and extortion through ‘revolutionary taxes’, and are mostly aimed at public buildings, banks, touristic infrastructure, military buildings and other symbols of French control. Usually the attack is against buildings and infrastructure and not against persons. So I presume we have no more objections and can put the categorization back. --Magabund 12:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
No, you may not presume that at all. There are many definitions of terrorism, but they all involve instilling fear in people that their lives may be in danger. I realize that there is a fervent wish out there to make Jews no better than Nazis or other terrorists, but wishful thinking does not make a fact. --Leifern 13:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Ben Gurion's biographer (Shabtai Tevet), stated that the assignment was "To undermine Western confidence in the existing [Egyptian] regime by generating public insecurity and actions to bring about arrests, demonstrations, and acts of revenge, while totally concealing the Israeli factor." Of course you can continue to play the "definition" game, but "generating public insecurity" is exactly what you define as "instilling fear in people". What you, leifern, are trying to say is that you can go to a New York cinema or library, blow it up, and it is not a terrorist act (and if the bomb goes off in your pants before the act, then you are not terrorist either). Btw. there are also Israeli sources that refer to Lavon affair as acts of terrorism, but this is beyond my point. --Magabund 10:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
True, beyond the point. If you're going to accept one Israel opinion as the truth, you should accept others as well. But let's be clear here: these bombs, even when successful, did minimal property damage and didn't even injure anyone, because they weren't intended to. If this was a terrorist campaign, it was the most inept such campaign in the history of terrorism. Public insecurity is not the same as the kind of fear blowing up school buses or sniping at apartment buildings does. I realize it probably feels really good to equate this operation with, say, suicide bombings in the second intifadah, but we still need to keep things in proportion. There is much to criticize in this matter, but terrorism is not a foregone conclusion. --Leifern 12:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
In technical parlance, the Egyptian Zionists were, in fact, members of a TERRORIST CELL that was activated on instruction coded in a recipe broadcast on Israel public radio. "I was ready to do ANYTHING to help Israel," said Marcelle Ninio, the Egyptian Zionist (Israel Uber Alles) and proud terrorist. "Making an incendiary bomb was very simple. The basic materials were condoms and acid. We timed how long it would take for acid to burn through a condom and ignite the flammable material. In Cairo I went to one cinema, my friend to another. I put the bomb under an empty seat, I didn't stay to see the film." - Robert Dassa, Egyptian Zionist (Israel Uber Alles)and proud terrorist. (quoting from The 50 Year War, BBC, British Version) Many thousands upon thousands of Jews are quite hostile to Israel, Leifern, and are not as sympathetic to its perpetual acts of terror as you appear to be. Shame on you. 58.106.70.198 15:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference

For the record, a good source on this topic is the book "Ben Gurion's Spy" by Shabtai Teveth. --Zero 12:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Egyptian Jews expelled because of the Lavon Affair?

I thought it had far more to do with the Suez Crisis. Jayjg (talk) 20:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] redlinks

please help by creating redirects or new articles from redlinks, rather vthan deleting them. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 11:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An article shouldn't be two-thirds redlinks, and in particular it shouldn't have redlinks for articles that are unlikely to be created, or are on unencyclopedic topics. Jayjg (talk) 18:42, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"disastrous for Israel in several ways:

The Egyptian government used the trial as a pretext for a series of efforts to punish Egyptian Jews culminating in 1958 when, following the Suez Crisis, 25,000 Jews were expelled by Egypt and at least 1,000 ended up in prisons and detention camps." This quote to me appears rather inaccurate, as Israel had been trying hard for many years to get the Jews of other Middle Eastern countries 'expelled' so they would come to Israel and help settle it. The expulsion of Egyptian Jews may have been a disaster for them, but was infact a blessing for Israel. Conflating the interests of all Jews with the interests of Israel is highly inaccurate.

[edit] Intelligence operation

I've changed this to "Israeli covert operation": although it was orchestrated by the intelligence community, they weren't trying to obtain intelligence, so covert operation is more accurate. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:15, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Orphan footnote

We now have an orphan footnote, that used to refer to "Israeli Mossad agents from "Unit 131" 1 planted bombs in several buildings" Jayjg (talk) 00:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reference request

Hi 24.193, I reverted your edit because of concerns about a few of the sections, particularly (a) that public opinion in Israel concluded the defendants were guilty and that they'd had a fair trial, and (b) that there's evidence that agent-provocateur and false-flag Israeli operations continue to this day. Do you have sources for these claims? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:52, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Also, do you have a source showing that the intention was that the bombings be attributed to the Muslim Brotherhood? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:58, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. Comments below. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:45, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

The source of the Muslim Brotherhood change and the 'public opinion in Israel against Ben-Gurion' change came from Hirst, "The Gun and the Olive Branch" (2003.)

Thanks, we should probably attribute it to Hirst in the article, as others say differently. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:45, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

The false flag continuing to this day came from:

Ostrovsky, "By Way of Deception" (1990,1991), specifically, the claim that the US bombed Libya due to a Mossad operation which planted a transmitter in Libya which broadcast information incriminating Libya in the bombing of a Berlin disco.

It's a long time since I read this. Does Ostrovsky say he believes this, or is he reporting gossip, and in what sense is he saying it was a false-flag, as opposed to a simple covert, operation? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:45, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Ostrovsky believes this. A simple covert operation does not try to place blame on a different party, a false flag covert operation does. More on Ostrovsky's "By Way of Deception": Muskingum College (8/5/05)

The agent provocateur came from:

http://antiwar.com/hacohen/?articleid=5796

Is this credible? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:45, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Ran HaCohen was born in the Netherlands in 1964 and grew up in Israel. He has a B.A. in Computer Science, an M.A. in Comparative Literature, and his PhD is in Jewish Studies. He is a university teacher in Israel. He also works as a literary translator (from German, English and Dutch), and as a literary critic for the Israeli daily Yedioth Achronoth. Mr. HaCohen's work has been published widely in Israel. (8/5/05)

In today's climate concerning Israel, anyone not supporting the Government of Israel is branded as anti-Semitic or a 'self-hating' Jew by many Israeli supporters. This kind of name calling should not be allowed to discredit critics of Israel, and their arguments should be debated on their merits. (8/5/05)

The Palestinian Gandhi by Ran HaCohen

[snip]

On Thursday, April 28, about 1,000 Palestinians and some 200 Israeli guests, invited by the people of Bil'in, participated in a demonstration against the wall. All the participants undertook in advance to avoid all violence, no matter whether they had seen the Gandhi film or not. But even before the demo could reach the site of the fence, it was savagely attacked by the Israeli security forces, which bombarded it with tear-gas bombs without the slightest provocation. Among the demonstrators were the Palestinian minister Fares Kadduri, presidential candidate Mustafa Barghouti, Uri Avnery, and Israeli Knesset member Muhammad Barakeh, who was wounded during the attack. The peaceful demonstration was a welcome occasion for Israeli special units to wound several demonstrators with the latest innovation, introduced here for the first time: especially painful plastic bullets covered with salt. Indeed, the so-called Jewish Genius is never exhausted.

Israeli Army Incriminates Itself

So far, you may say, there's nothing new. Gandhi never promised the British wouldn't use violence: he propagated nonviolent uprising in spite of British violence. Indeed, the army's provocation did not work and the demonstration remained nonviolent. So here is what happened next, as reported in Ha'aretz, April 29, 2005:

"During the clashes, undercover security forces mingled with the demonstrators and began to throw stones at the soldiers and police, demonstrators said. The undercover security forces had provoked the police and soldiers into opening fire with rubber bullets and tear gas. The demonstrators said they had not thrown stones at the soldiers and police."

The "undercover forces" mentioned are Israeli soldiers dressed as Palestinians who mingle in the crowd. Such forces – well-trained in Arabic language and customs – have been employed by Israel since the First Intifada in the late 1980s, often used also as death squads for the summary killing of "wanted" – i.e., unwanted – Palestinians. Now we hear that these undercover Israeli soldiers threw stones.

Well, you may argue, "demonstrators said." Demonstrators always say such things. Who said such undercover soldiers were present in Bil'in at all? After all, they were dressed as Arabs, so how can you tell? Even if the undercover soldiers were present, why should I trust the demonstrators' accusations?

Okay, good points. But listen to what the officer in charge had to say to Ha'aretz about the event:

"Military sources … added that the undercover forces had only started throwing stones after Palestinian youths had adopted such tactics. 'Stone-throwing by the undercover forces is part of the way in which they operate in such instances,' the sources said."

Oh, so undercover units definitely were present in Bil'in – the army itself admits that (in fact, it's very easy to spot undercover soldiers when they start making arrests). And not only did they throw stones on this occasion: stone-throwing is part of their job as a rule – again, the army itself says that! The only disputed point is whether they started throwing stones before or after demonstrators did so. Now think for yourself: why on earth should an undercover agent provocateur throw stones after some demonstrators do so? Give me one reason. Obviously, the Israeli officer (identified in Ha'aretz's Hebrew edition as "Lieutenant Colonel Tzahi") is lying on this point.

We've now got a clear confirmation of what Palestinian and Israeli peace activists have been saying all along: the Israeli army would not tolerate a Gandhi-style resistance. Someone up there in the occupation echelons must have studied Ben Kingsley's film long before "the Gandhi Project" got started and reached the conclusion that nonviolent resistance is not in Israel's interest. To thwart this threat, Israel employs soldiers whose task is to turn a peaceful demonstration into a violent one, by infiltrating it undercover and throwing stones at Israeli soldiers. During the demonstration, the army uses these stones as a pretext to break the demonstration by force, using tear gas, salt, or rubber-coated bullets and live ammunition. In the aftermath, this stone-throwing –pictured by army photographers who surely don't miss the stones thrown by their own comrades – enters the world media as propaganda, depicting the peaceful demonstrators as dangerous stone-throwers.

I've lost track of who's saying what here. Is this your post or are you quoting someone? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:45, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I posted an article by Ran HaCohen. In Ran HaCohen's article, he refers a story from the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz. The Ha'aretz story quotes an Israeli military spokeman admit to the use of undercover operatives during anti-wall protests. HaCohen calls these undercover operatives agent-provocateurs against peaceful demonstrators, since the protestors remained non-violent, and the IDF attacked the protestors only after the undercover agents started throwing stones at IDF forces. (8/5/05)

I googled the Ostrovsky false-flag claim (horrible website but it has an extract [3] and the claim is that Israel planted a transmitter in Tripoli, then transmitted what seemed to be messages from Libya confirming Libya had bombed the Berlin nightclub so that Reagan would attack. I thought that Reagan had bombed Libya after the interception of telexes from the Libyan embassy in East Berlin, but we're not supposed to second-guess credible sources. The question is whether Ostrovsky is credible, and I'd say he is, notwithstanding that some people think he's made most of it up. The second question is whether a reference to Israel's alleged continuing false-flag ops is out of place here. Does anyone have a view? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:28, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

The Israeli government tried to prevent the publication of "By Way of Deception," but failed. The publicity Ostrovsky's book received by the Israeli attempt at censorship helped make the book a best seller. Israel's attempt to prevent publication tends to indicate that he was a Mossad agent, and that Israel was afraid of his revelations. Perhaps the most damaging claim by Ostrovsky was that Mossad did not need many agents, since Jews in foreign countries (Sayanim) would volunteer to assist Mossad. One example given is a Jewish hotel employee providing a Mossad agent with keys to the hotel guest rooms. (8/5/05)

This is off-topic, but the publicity did make the book a bestseller, which led many journalists to wonder whether that was done deliberately i.e. whether there was information in the book that was helpful to Israel. Mossad isn't necessarily harmed by being represented as omniscient and omnipresent, because it keeps Israel's opponents on their toes, sometimes unnecessarily, leading to time-wasting and paranoia on their side. If you type four tildes after your posts, like this ~~~~ it will produce your sig and a timestamp, which makes the page easier to read. See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:46, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Since the link had nothing to do with The Lavon Affair, it was obviously irrelevant POV pushing. Jayjg (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
The link was provided because the article already said that reports concerning current Israeli use of false flag operations were 'conspiracy theories.' Since current Israeli intelligence operations have nothing to do with The Lavon Affair, 'conspiracy theories,' which has a negative connotation, should be removed. Blindjustice 01:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the article says nothing of the sort. Jayjg (talk) 03:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The question is whether Israel is still using false-flag operations, or whether those claims are 'conspiracy theories.' Since there is credible evidence that these methods are still being used, the term 'conspiracy theories' is biased. (8/5/05)

It is a question, but its relevance to this article is minimal. You seem to wish to use this article as a vehicle to present an overall view of Israeli Intelligence based on a few fringe sources. That is not a proper use of it. Ostrowsky's short term in the Mossad came 30 years after the Lavon affair, which was not a Mossad operation anyway. There is no particular hreason to believe his story and it certainly should not be presented as fact. As for false-flag operations, of course they are standard practice in the intelligence game. Everyone does it, big deal. --Zero 10:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Well then, the words 'conspiracy theories' should be removed. Blindjustice 01:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Hirst is a left-wing journalist who is very good on recent issues but is no particular authority on earlier ones. The first edition of his book had quite a few errors in it, but I haven't looked at the second edition. Ostrovsky is someone with real inside knowledge and the will to expose it, but then he kept making more and wilder claims years after he left the Mossad (and remember that this page is about an operation that the Mossad didn't even know about at the time). I wouldn't quote him without corroboration from a more mainstream source. ANYWAY...the claim that it was a "false flag" operation is somewhat doubtful since no particular effort was made to attribute the operation to a specific other party. The sentence in which this unnecessary label appears also says that it was supposed to appear like an Egyptian government operation; this is a claim without evidence as far as I know. According to historian Shabtai Teveth who wrote one of the more detailed accounts (Ben-Gurion's Spy, Columbia University Press, 1996) the assignment was "To undermine Western confidence in the existing [Egyptian] regime by generating public insecurity and actions to bring about arrests, demonstrations, and acts of revenge, while totally concealing the Israeli factor. The team was accordingly urged to avoid detection, so that suspicion would fall on the Muslim Brotherhood, the Communists, 'unspecified malcontents' or 'local nationalists'." (p81) This undermined confidence was suppose to have helped the opponents of British withdrawal to get the upper hand. I can't think of any plausible reason why Israel would want to convince the US that Egyptian agents were responsible and I'm pretty sure I never read that claim in a history book. --Zero 10:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

According to Hirst, the Egyptian Jews who placed the bombs also left incriminating evidence which would implicate the Muslim Brotherhood. This is a textbook example of a false flag operation: committing a terrorist act and leaving evidence suggesting others were responsible.

My original wording said pretty much that, in not so many words. Jayjg (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Two things not in the article that should be: "Unit 131" was the MI subgroup responsible; they should be named. Mossad chief Isser Harel claimed in 1980 (Teveth says "publically proved") that Avraham Seidenberg (Elad) had managed to escape because at the time he was working for Egyptian intelligence, and that the Egyptians had been watching the operation from the beginning. Elad was sentenced to 10 years prison in Israel in 1960 for spying for the Egyptians in an unrelated matter, so this is plausible. --Zero 10:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hebrew spelling

Someone changed HaEsek HaBish into "Esek HaBish" ("Ha" being the definite article). I wonder if this is correct, as the Hebrew wikipedia uses both articles and so do many other Hebrew pages such as this Israeli government page. --Zero 13:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks like the recent change is wrong to me; you could ask User:El C. Jayjg (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
You're both correct, it is incorrect: "העסק הביש". El_C 02:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

To elaborate, the extra ha is used to signify it being a title. So, in that sense, one could say (from left -to- right): העסק הביש -was an- עסק ביש.

Incidentally, the main reference for the .he article is (quotes in the original):

חגי אשד, מי נתן את ההוראה - "העסק הביש" פרשת לבון והתפטרות בן-גוריון, הוצאת ידיעות אחרונות, 1979

El_C 03:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Is "The Unfortunate Affair" really a good translation? Offhand I would have said "The Embarrassing/Shameful Endeavour" would be better. Jayjg (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
It's good enough — whereas shameful, embarrassing, etc., would be inaccurate. It simply means unlucky ordeal (or bad fortune, if you will, etc.), not puroprting to account for the way in which it is so (i.e. credibly or lack thereof). El_C 23:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, "bish" = unlucky/bad. I was basing it on "booshah". I would have thought "ordeal" = "masah", "nisayon", whereas "eysek" would be "endeavour", "effort", "occupation", "concern" etc. Jayjg (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

In Teveth's book about it, he translates it as "The Mishap". --Zero 01:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Right, it's bish (bad in Aramaic), not boosh — the confusion stems, I think, from בִּיֵּשׁ (to shame/humiliate). Yes, the mishap also works. El_C 02:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling: Pinhas/Pinchas

I've found both spellings here in Wikipedia and elsewhere of Lavon's name. I've changed all references in Wikipedia to Pinhas Lavon. I chose Pinhas because it showed up in four articles and "Pinchas" was in three. At least now it's consistent. They all link to a blank article entitled "Pinhas Lavon". I don't know which is more correct, I'll let someone else more knowledgeable sort that out.

[edit] USS Liberty

I don't see how this article is remotely related to the USS Liberty incident. --Leifern 01:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Both are examples of false flag tactic used by Israel - in lavon affair, it is a clear cut case, while in uss liberty attack it is one of the explanations of those who claim it was deliberate.

[edit] A media profile says this article is going to save the world

Yep. That's what it says.

[edit] Missing information

There is some information missing here, and that is the official Israeli story. When the story broke in 1954, Moshe Sharett had some very public and very official denial. Does anybody know when the story changed? I see the Reuters, March 30, 2005 reference; was that the first public admission? In any case; the official Israeli response should also be noted. Regards, Huldra 19:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume, without ever seeing it, that the official government position is that this was a plot to discredit Israel in the eyes of the world. How close did I come?
Well, you're way off, unsurprisingly. It is typical policy of all nations to deny any knowledge of such operations. If you read the article, you'll see that the surviving participants were recently acknowledged. There is enough libel about Israel to around already. --Leifern 18:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


Hold on, if it is typical policy then I guessed right. Fifty years later sounds like historical revision to me - an example for the revision article I suppose. By the way there is nowhere near enough written about Israel's little faults - libels they aren't, just the facts mame, no libel needed, the truth hurts enough.

Without reading the discussion page you would get little real information about the affair. Any way to relabel/switch the article and discussion page - why have all the relevant info on the wrong page. What's the Israel tourist ads doing on the article - I would think that Israel would want to get as far away from this as they tried to for 50 years.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/a/v/Talk%7ELavon_Affair_ff34.html"