Talk:Zionist political violence/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 King David bombing 2 Lehi 3 Attack of Thursday August 4 4 Motivation of Zionist Attacks 5 Terrorism, not militancy 6 Marketplace bombings 7 Stuff missing 8 This is page is unusual 9 NPOV tag 10 First sentence 11 Who uses the term? 12 Two Questions 13 Usage again 13.1 Slim's revert 13.2 Terminology of "Zionist Terrorism" 14 Intro question 15 reprisals? 16 "Rant"? 17 Page Split 18 present-day usage (again) 19 Present-day useage continued 20 Well poisoning 20.1 Anyone in the mood for an RfC 21 NPOV review 22 "Campaign of Violence?" 23 The modifier "some" 24 Consistency please 25 Title Change?! 26 Excised commented-out sections 27 redundant article name 28 page rename 29 Caution 30 idea for content organization 31 Neutral language in intoduction

King David bombing

The details of the King David bombing and associated controversies belong on the page devoted to that subject. What was posted here is not correct. The British used to deny that a warning had been given, but that hasn't been true for a couple of decades. During the 1970s the secret British police report on the bombing was leaked, finally proving beyond dispute that a warning had been given. The report described how the telephone message was received by the hotel operator, passed from hand to hand, then reached the officer in charge only shortly before the bomb exploded. So the existence of the warning can be stated as fact; what remains disputed is whether the warning was given early enough for any reasonable reaction to have been made. There is no evidence for the "summarily dismissed the warning" claim, that is just a story spread by the Irgun after the bombing. See Bethel, The Palestinian Triangle, for most of this. Btw, using Bibi as a source for anything is a joke. --Zero 05:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the cogent analysis. --Viriditas | Talk 06:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Sounds to me like the brits making excuses for why they were too incompetant to evacuate the hotel right away. The Irgun intended to warn the british, so that the casualties would be minimized. 91 dead is certainly higher than anything the Irgun intended. Klonimus 01:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

It is often counterproductive to evacuate a building under terrorist threat. Sometimes a warning is given purely to crowd fleeing occupants INTO a killing zone. Furthermore there is no moral excuse for the bombing by claiming there was a warning by Irgun, especially in the light of subsequent Israeli attitudes to terrorism. -TWJ

TWJ, the Zionists were not trying to kill civilians, hence the warning. The warning was not a synical ploy to put more people in a killing field - though some terrorists (not Zionists) have done this before. What is comes down to is the value placed on human life. An attack aimed at killing civilians is a terrorist attack. This is what Israeli attitudes to terrorism are about. Warnings aimed at protecting civilians are if anything in agreement with Israeli attitudes towards terror - namely that civilians should not be killed to make political points.

194.80.32.8 23:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Place a biomb in an Hotel and you're going to kill civillians. To claim that it is unintended is just nonsense. There are very many well documented incidents of the early zionist terrorists deliberately targeting civillian targets with no military element. Dont try to re-write history. In their time they were directly the moral equivalents of the PLO or Hammas today. Some modern commentators (whether rightly or wrongly is for their audience to make up their own minds I guess) draw a direct line from the terrorism of the Palestianians now to that of the Zionists then - the arguement is "the Palestinains have already seen terror work once in that area - why not a second time?" Unbehagen 12:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Lehi

Someone asked for evidence that Lehi described themselves as terrorist. One example is in the essay that is quoted in the section "Quotation" on the Lehi page. That essay uses the word "terror" transliterated into Hebrew and attempts to justify its use. The title of the essay is just "Terror". Another example is Stern's letter to Germany, which describes the group's "Terroraktionen" and "terroristischen Taetigkeit". There are other examples but those should suffice. It suited Lehi's purpose to portray themselves as fanatical and ruthless. Which they were. --Zero 00:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Citation means not merely claiming a quote exists, but clearly explaining where, when and by whom it was made, so that it can be fact-checked for accuracy. The "Quotation" page you refer to does not fulfill the need for accuracy. Doing further research reveals that the supposed quotes were actually taken from a single essay written by Yithak Shamir, who, while he was a member of LEHI, was not its leader. For further explanation see: Reprint of selections from Shamir's essay

Likewise, neither does the claim of "Stern's letter to Germany" -- I find no reference to such a letter written by Avraham Stern, himself. There is a claim that "In 1940 and 1941, Lehi proposed intervening in the Second World War on the side of Nazi Germany to attain their help in expelling Britain from Mandate Palestine..." but there's no mention of the authorship. The image of the supposed letter posted in the article is actually just a coversheet, written by the German Naval attache-- not Stern-- and makes no reference to the contents. German Cover Letter

Further, a section of a book reprinted on a German Marxist web site claims that Irgun Zvai Leumi be-Yisrael- but did not mention Stern, himself-- made the overture to Germany: Fundamental Features of the Proposal of the National Military Organization in Palestine (Irgun Zvai Leumi)

As is the case in dealing with historical scholarship, it's critically important to get as close to the original sources, and not rely on the repetition of material that may be floating around. In this case, it seems that the matter of further study, rather than approaching this with such an absolutist perspective. --LeFlyman 04:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, you can go to a proper source of information such as the book of Heller cited on the Lehi page and find the answers to all your questions. Briefly: the essay was published in the Lehi newspaper and does not have an author stated (normal for that newspaper). I have a photocopy of the original; it is also quoted by Heller. Shamir is most unlikely to have been the author, but in any case this was the official mouthpiece of Lehi not a place for presenting multiple opinions. So it is a definite example of Lehi calling itself terrorist regardless of which individual write it. The approach to the Nazis was led by Stern when he was the undisputed leader. This is very well known and you can check this in Shamir's autobiography, in the book of Heller, in the account of Yellin-Mor published in Brenner's "51 Documents", and in lots of other places. You can find Brenner's sources for this claim here. Your confusion regarding the name "NMO" is due to the fact that Stern's organization at that time was called "Irgun Zvai Leumi be-Yisrael (National Military Organization in Israel)" -- it was Stern's way of saying "we are the true Irgun". --Zero 12:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• My fault for editing late at night, while half-asleep-- I realized my error and had intended to put the full name, but in skimming what I'd written, I missed putting in the full name "Irgun Zvai Leumi be-Yisrael". Thanks for the additional note. I had actually found the section in Lenni Brenner's book, The Iron Wall, after I posted the comment. That book appears to be the well-spring of various articles such as this one. I would suggest that Brenner imposes selective (and prejudicial) reading of the obvious hindsight analysis that the Stern Gang attempted to play on the various regime's anti-Semitism to convince them to relocate the Jewish population to Mandate Palestine. He quotes Shamir (via another source) as saying, "...Stern had good memories of his work in Poland before the war. He had got many Jews to Palestine by exploiting the anti-Semitism of Polish officials. He thought it might work in Italy. At least he felt he had to try." And likewise quotes a later statement by Shamir that, "There was a plan to turn to Italy for help and to make contact with Germany on the assumption that these could bring about a massive Jewish immigration..."

However, Brenner pointedly disbelieves that Shamir was opposed to this plan -- which Brenner twice calls a "lie" with rather shaky evidence-- and makes particularly non-historian-like statements like "Shamir today pretends he was not fully involved in the Stern Gang’s pro-Nazi orientation, but we are fully entitled to conclude that his contemporary attitude towards collusion with the Colonels likewise reflects his thinking then, concerning collaboration with the Nazis."

Such biased writing throws into question the veracity of Brenner's aim itself. As is clear from his further material in that chapter, Brenner isn't writing as a historian; he's laying out an indictment against Shamir (as then Israeli PM), Stern and modern Zionism-- which he contends is Revisionist Zionist, akin to fascism. In short, his work is an Anti-Zionist screed, with such closing statements as "We are, however, witnessing the initial stages of the terminal illness of Zionism..." and "One thing is, however, absolutely certain: the struggle against Zionism will go on, and inevitably it will succeed..." That's why Brenner's work appears on a German Marxist web site-- it's propaganda and selective history, just as Das Kapital. Written twenty years ago, the predictions in "The Iron Wall" have not yet come to pass. Brenner is a Marxist relic and fringe scholar -- not that there's anything wrong with that. But using it as a sole source is disingenuous and fails the NPOV. --LeFlyman 18:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Brenner is an activist and his work has to be treated carefully like with all activists. However, nothing I have written relies on Brenner as a source. --Zero 03:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Now that the article's called militancy, shouldn't it include military organization and warfare against the armies of sovereign governments? Obviously violence against civilians was militant, but wasn't organizing an army and fighting the Egyptian army militant? Wasn't the 6 day war militant, and subsequent land grab militant? Wasn't developting a nuclear program?

Attack of Thursday August 4

A lot of information has been added but without source. The source that I originally added is woefully out of date. Further, the last revision claims that this AWOL soldier is a member of Katch, but the incident is not mentioned in the Katch article. Also, there have been numerous reports of this mans name, have any been confirmed? --Uncle Bungle 22:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

If you want to keep up with Israeli news, I recommend you adopt Haaretz as a regular source. It has a high record of accuracy by newspaper standards. See [1] for example, both your questions are answered. Incidentally, Haaretz articles disappear from the free part of the web site after a while (a week or a month) so they aren't suitable for putting into the article. --Zero 02:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Zero. --Uncle Bungle 19:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Use Jerusalem Post instead, thier links stay good, Klonimus 06:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Motivation of Zionist Attacks

To those who keep changing the sentence about Irghun's terrorist activities by including the part about the attacks' being a reprisal against similar Arab attacks, please stop. Information about Arab attacks is already available on other pages (such as Palestinian terrorism), and if it will be also included here, at least let it be in another sentence, although I would not encourage this. Nevertheless, the way the modifications is being made removes the part about many of the Arab victims' being civilians, and instead complements the sentence with a justification for the attacks. No other article on terrorism has such an appologetic form included so predominantly in the article. I urge you to refrain from making such changes in the future. TSO1D 02:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

You really have no idea on the subject you are editing. They were reprisal attacks against Arab attacks against Jewish civilians and the Yishuv's inability or lack of will to do anything to defend against Beduin and guerrilla attacks.

Guy Montag 22:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism, not militancy

The article should not be moved to zionist militancy. When we the discussion over the proper term took place no consensus was reached to make such a great change. In any case, I believe that it is ridiculous to use the term militancy instead of terrorism. The page about palestinian terrorism is called terrorism. This page fits the description of terrorism perfectly. There is absolutely no reason to change the word to militancy. The destruction of a civilian hotel and murder of politicians is by all means terrorism. TSO1D 13:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The hotel wasn't civilian, it acted as the British military headquarters for the Mandate. Reading upon the subject you are discussing should be done before we start moving things around.

Guy Montag 22:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I am aware of the fact that the hotel served as hq for the British, but included a certain number of civilians, but in any case, the British were not at war with the Jewish populace, therefore this act was an act of terrorism. And there is simply no way you can attempt to state that the other attacks did not represnet acts of terrorism. In any case, I agree that you can use the term militancy in some subsections that describe certain aspects of the warfare. Nonetheless, the article is classified under terrorism, and it is ludicrous to change its title to zionist militancy. TSO1D 22:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing ludicrous about it. The Irgun was at war with the British Mandate, and the British Mandate was at various times at war with the Irgun. The only reason it is classified under terrorism is because an anon troll keeps doing so.

Guy Montag 22:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand your argument, however I continue to insist that this article should keep the current title and classification. This is a sensitive issue and various people have diverging views on the subject. However, while Palestinian terrorism retains this title, I don't think this article should be treated differently.

• ps. Montag, this is not relevant to the article, however when I saw that you persistently made these changes that are contrary to my views, I went to your user page to try to understand why you proceed thus. And the most interesting thing that I discovered is that you are from Chisinau, like me. What are the chances of that happening. LOL Well, despite of our differences, at least we have something in common. TSO1D 22:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The chances are pretty slim actually. Nice to meet you.

Guy Montag 03:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Guy, I don't think you have consensus to move the title to "Zionist militancy". The fact that Kach and Kahane Chai are categorized as terrorist groups by even the US State Department, the Canadian government, and the Israeli government especially legitimizes the idea that such a thing as "Zionist terrorism" does indeed exist. Leave the title, and discuss NPOVing the contents instead. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Please move it back to Zionist terrorism, then.Heraclius 01:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

We really dont have any consensus over a move here - so the original title "zionist terrorism" should remain. 62.253.64.15 01:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I moved the page back to Zionist terrorism, not because I like that title, because I really dislike it, but because there was no agreement for the move, and Zionist militancy sounded just as bad. My preference would be Zionist political violence. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:35, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Would you similarly support "Palestinian Political Violence"? Zionist terrorism in the 1930's was a profoundly important phenomenon and has been argued by many as forming the base pattern around which most modern media centric terrorism operates. It's increadibly important because 1. they won - very rare 2. many of today's Palestinain terrorists look at the early Zionists as role models. Lets not use weasel words and call a spade a spade - contemporaneously they were nearly universally known as terrorists (self admitted in some cases) it's a bit revisionist to call them otherwise now. 62.253.64.15 01:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe the British called the early Zionists terrorists, so I'd be more inclined to agree with you if we were talking only about the early Zionists, but people are adding contemporary criminal acts to the article, like that of Eden Natan-Zada. If I had to use the word "terrorism" anywhere, I'd say it's appropriate for groups who blow up international airliners without cause, warning, or even a claim of responsibility. The further we extend the definition beyond that kind of act, the more we dilute its descriptive meaning and rely on its prescriptive impact, which is POV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:49, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

That actions of various militant Zionist groups, Kach, Lehi, Irgun etc., where classed as terrorist acts by major world governments (the same ones that today call pelestinian crimes terrorism) and saying otherwise is simply dishonest, regardless of if you agree or disagree with that classification. --LouieS 09:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the name "Zionist terrorism" but "Zionist miltancy" doesn't handle the objection. "Miltancy" would include any sort of pre-state military activity such as of the Haganah, including operations that few would call terrorist and are not in the gamut of this page according to its current content. "Militancy" is also not less POV than "terrorism": calling an attack on a military target "terrorism" is not worse than calling a marketplace bombing "miltancy". We need a better idea. --Zero 11:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

What if the article was titled millitancy with a Terrorism subsection. I don't think it can be denied that there have been a few such acts (hotels etc.). --LouieS 19:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

A quick search in Current events for "terrorism" and for "militant" (skipping Iraq) revealed:

• An Israeli settler kills 3 Palestinian civilians in the West Bank. The attack was condemned by Ariel Sharon as a "Jewish Terror act"
• two Qassam rockets fired out of the Gaza Strip by Palestinian militants land near the southern Israeli town of Sderot.
• Five Palestinians, including Islamic Jihad leader Ribhi Amara, are killed in a gun-battle following an Israeli raid on the Palestinian refugee camp of Tulkarm in the West Bank. Israel maintains that all five were militants, while eye witnesses say that three were unarmed teenagers.

I'm wondering why such inconsistentcy in applying the terminology, especially in light of Zionist terrorism and Israeli terrorism. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 21:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see anything inconsistent. The only use of the word "terror" you have listed is in a direct quote from Sharon. The quotation itself is newsworthy as it is so rare for an Israeli politician to apply the word to a Jew. --Zero 00:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with that quote. I am talking about WP: if our policy is to avoid the T-word even for those who fire rockets into civilian areas, why use it here? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

As I've said before, I'd be happy to ban the T-word from Wikipedia altogether. I can't understand why people are so obsessed with labels. It shows a sort of disrespect for the reader if we can't trust them to make their own moral classifications on the basis of the facts that we present. --Zero 09:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Marketplace bombings

Zero, you of all people should know that summarizing actions in bullet points is not going to give all the information. All the historians I read have commented that the Irgun carried out marketplace bombings after the Yishuv snd Hagagah proclaimed their policy of "restraint" against Beduin and Arab raids on Jewish communities. The Irgun believed that they had to take the fight to the Arab side, and committed revenge attacks against villeges who sponsored the attacks.

Guy Montag 19:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

For a historical reference, please see Jabotinsky and the Revisionist movement by Jacob Shavit.

Guy Montag 23:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

All terrorist groups make similar claims. Wopuld you support a similar appology in the article on Palestinian Terrorism? That they were just responding to Israeli violence? Answer honestly now. 62.252.0.7 23:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. If you're going to look at the arguement coming from the transgressors, it'll always look positive from their perspective. Marzyeh 03:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I refuse to discuss anything with you.

Guy Montag 23:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

All in the spirit or working together - nothing likie cooperation! 62.252.0.7 23:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't cooperate with internet trolls.

Guy Montag 23:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Unless there is some sort of private messaging going on here, you are totally out of control and being absolutely unreasonable. You need to shape up and then come back and edit. --LouieS 20:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Stuff missing

(I'm trying to do too many things at once, but..) stuff missing from here includes various Jewish terrorist groups in Israel since 1948. For example there was the group that blew the legs off a couple of Arab mayors, a large number of attacks against Arabs in the West Bank in the early 1980s, various attempts to blow up the buildings on the Temple Mount, etc.. --Zero 15:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

This is page is unusual

Shouldn't this page be called Zionist and Arabic terrorism inside Israel? Hierogre 05:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

No. See Palestinian terrorism and militancy and lots of other articles for terrorism done by Arabs. Since this is your only comment here, I'm removing the tag you inserted. --Zero 09:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag

moved from our talk pages

Hi. The thing is, you just inserted the tag now, so I'm uncertain as to what you are objecting to now (as opposed to when the tag was off). The first item you refer to dates 11

Jun 2005. Please outline your current objections in a new section at the foot of the talk page, as per the requierments of the tag. Ad. For example, you can say, I feel that the

removal of the tag was unwarranted due to (brief summary)). Thanks. Regards, El_C 20:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Simple enough: removal of the tag is unwarranted because,

1. The article is not neutral as it merges pre-Statehood "terrorist" activities by groups that were engaged in fighting for Israeli independence with the few post-Statehood acts of warped individuals committing random acts of violence, based on their extremist feelings.
2. The article is not neutral because it is an attempt to create an anti-Israeli parallel with "Palestinian terrorism and militancy" -- pseudo-balancing is nonsense, although ironically the extensive Terrorism against Israel article (which has been whitewashed to being called "Violence against Israel") still has an NPOV tag.
3. The article is not neutral because I contend, along with many others, that the term "Zionist Terrorism" is itself an inherently biased article title, which is used to near exclusivity by anti-Semitic groups (not merely anti-Zionist groups)
4. The article is not neutral because many others have and continue to point out that it is not neutral, as per the Talk page, and previous VfD, whereas I see no one who has written that it is neutral. quod erat demonstrandum.

LeFlyman 20:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree; this article was designed (versus Israeli terrorism) for the pre-statehod era, instead it has somehow become Clandestine versus State terrorism. See also my (whiney) comment on Jewish Terrorism in Israel (re: טרור יהודי בישראל). El_C 20:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Utter revisionist rubbish. This article is called "Zionist Terrorism". That is what the text is about. It is not called "Pre-statehood Zionist Terrorism". Zionism did not end with the creation of the state of Israel - just ask the likes of the settlers and extreme Rabbis. I suggest the objection comes from a lack of acceptance that there are Jews in Israel today who commit acts of terror. And why should an article about facts be considered "...an attempt to create an anti-Israeli parallel..."? Are we not allowed to talk about Jewish terrorists without being accused of being a racist, biased or unfair? Whether it be the Irgun in 1941 or Kach in 2005, it's all terrorism committed in the name of Israel and Zionism, whether Israelis and Jews like it or not. Indeed, the complainant uses the age old attack: criticism of Israel or Jews is anti-semitism, period. By the way LeFlyman: QED? - You proved nothing at all! You accused people of lack of neutrality yet offered no evidence or justification for your slant! What did you demonstrate, exactly? You claim it is not neutral because some people have said it is not neutral. Great analysis there. 62.25.106.209 12:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

PS International law recognises the right of an occupied people to fight their oppressor. Therefore, please can you change all references to "Palestinian terrorism" to "Palestinian freedom fighting" immediately. 62.25.106.209 13:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you made that last one up. Good job pulling things out of your ass.

Guy Montag 00:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Mr. Anonymous User, the analysis is precisely correct; your oh-so vehement remonstrations point out the kind of warped perceptions that give credence to including an article called "Zionist terrorism" in a supposed encyclopedia: it's yet another means to hold Israel (and its people) up for opprobrium. Where is your outspoken indignity about the truly horrific and despicable inhumanities perpetrated in such countries as North Korea, Turkmenistan, Zimbabwe and the numerous other repressive regimes?

If you actually spent time with inductive reasoning (or learned to read Wikipedia's policy) you might have figured out this:

"Note, however, that there is a strong inductive argument that, if a page is in an NPOV dispute, it very probably is not neutral. The salient point is that one side—who cares enough to be making the point—thinks that the article says something that other people would want to disagree with." Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute#What_is_an_NPOV_dispute

Here's a challenge: there are three supposed post-Statehood terrorist acts listed in the article. Can you point to any that was planned, organized and pulled off by a so-called "Zionist terrorist group?" (And I'm not talking about the stupid squabbles in the US between a single aging Kach member and someone he didn't like.) Before trying to claim that Zionist terrorists killed Itzhak Rabin, take note that the Council on Foreign Relations' terrorism site says:

"Was Kach or Kahane Chai involved in the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin?

Not directly. Yigal Amir, who assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995, was not a member of Kach or Kahane Chai. However, the assassin interacted with many Kahanists within Israel’s radical right and had contacts with a far-right Israeli group that is another offshoot of Kach. Binyamin Kahane would not condemn Rabin’s murder and said that “a person could understand Amir.”[2]

In fact, even the Kach Wikipedia article says, "Although the group has not been directly associated with any major crimes, they have been blamed for a variety of extremist activities and hooliganism."

Will you now argue that "extremist activities and hooliganism" equates to terrorism? If so, add British and Scottish soccer hooligans to that security watchlist. LeFlyman 05:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that the people who perpetrated the acts in question weren't Zionists? Are you not a Zionist if you don't belong to a group? I don't currently belong to any groups at all. Does that mean I don't have any political beliefs? Having said that, I'm not in favour of having pages on this, that and the other terrorism. Given that an NPOV definition of terrorism is just about impossible, I doubt any page of that kind could be NPOV. After all, there are plenty who would argue that the Israeli government are Zionist terrorists (I'm not saying they are, only that some would argue it) but this article doesn't reflect that.

Someone ought to point out though to the guy who wants the tag removed that fighting for a Jewish state and fighting for a Palestinian state can be seen as equivalent (again, I'm not saying they are or suggesting that the methods used in either cause were legitimate), and if an act in one cause is seen as "terrorism" then you have to wonder what permits us not to consider the same act not terrorism when it's perpetrated in the other. Grace Note 03:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

First sentence

I reverted Grace Note's change to "Zionist terrorism is commonly used for ..." back to "refers here to," because it's not in fact clear that it's commonly used by anyone (or anyone credible). If it is, we'd need to supply a source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:42, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Be my guest. Pick the eyes out of that. And please, if Palestinians are "terrorists" when they blow up civilians, so are Zionists. I agree that they are not an "ethnicity" but no one has claimed they are. Grace Note 06:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

You seemed to imply Zionism was an ethnicity here. And it's for you to provide a credible source showing it's commonly used. You're being somewhat obtuse in trying to compare the term to "Palestinian terrorism": if you were randomly to stop people in the street and ask them what that was, most would be able to give an example, and probably even name at least one group, whereas no one would have a clue what "Zionist terrorism" referred to, and possibly not even what the word Zionist meant. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:19, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

It's absolutely outrageous that you use this argument to create an imbalance between Palestinian militants and Zionist militants. I gave you a signpost to 28,000 uses of the term. You really want me to pick one out to illustrate that the term is used? Of course it's not used by the US government or equivalent sources. This approach to sourcing means that those who lack power are not considered "reputable" in Wikipedia. Why is Al Jazeerah not the equivalent of the ADL in your view? Do you not accept that it would be considered more "reputable" in many circles? It seems to me that "reputable" rather means "Western" round here, and is way, way too close to meaning "pro-Zionist".

I'm sorry for the loose use of "ethnicity". I should have said "groups" or similar. Grace Note 06:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Please tone down the rhetoric and stop the serial reverting. You were reverting Guy back to the consensus version, and now you're reverting me to yet another version. I'm asking you for a credible source that indicates this term is in common usage, as your first sentence claims it is. It needn't be a pro-Zionist source or a Western one, just a credible one: a non-Western counter-terrorist expert, for example, or historian. Alternatively, you could just leave it as "refers here to ..." which is why that expression was chosen in the first place, as I recall i.e. because of the lack of sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:53, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I apologise for the rhetoric. It's a British thing. We're prone to the dramatic overreaction ;-) You stop the serial reverting too! It works both ways. You're not actually entitled to bully me because they gave you a mop.

I don't need to find a source that you will find credible, which would need to be pro-Zionist or Western, for saying it is "commonly used". That's a ridiculous demand. I'm not quoting anyone saying so and it is not an opinion. I need only demonstrate that it's a plain fact, and I have. To demand more is in bad faith, Slim. I have discussed with El C below why "refers to here" has been used and why it's unacceptable. Perhaps you could address the POV issue, or are you just not interested in that? Grace Note 07:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I fail to follow the non-emotional content of GN's absolute outrage. When the articles reads, "refer to here", that qualifies it within the context of this article, whereas when it says "commonly used for," the logical next step is by whom? Meaning, it needs further qualifications. The English language, corporate-owned mainstream media dosen't use it too often, the academia of English-speaking countries dosen't use it too often. So it is not commonly used by them, for example. Secondly, the whole "and acts of militancy by Palestinian groups are also described as terrorism," is just poor prose, and seems crudely superimposed thereby damaging the clarity of the sentence. I confess to having some difficulty in following how that's supposed to be read, funcationally, as part of the narrative. So, dispassionately and with utmost modeation in tone... El_C 07:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, the gang's here. I give up. I should know better than to expect evenhandedness from this crowd. El C, on your first point, you are simply restating what I said. It's "commonly used" in some circles, just as "Palestinian terrorism" is in some. The difference is that Ms Virgin believes her circles to be "reputable" and mine not to be. As for the other addition, it's suppose to counterbalance the screeching nonsense about its being "antisemitic" to call Zionist terrorists Zionist terrorists. The exact same argument can be made for Palestinian terrorists. It's absolutely beyond me how people can argue that because Zionists were fighting in the cause of creating their own nation, they weren't terrorists, but Palestinians... well, I think you can see the absurdity. But we're not doing reason here, are we? We're doing who has the bigger gang. Consequently, Palestinians are terrorists, Wikipedia says so, but Zionists are only referred to on this page as terrorists, Wikipedia says so (which has the effect of saying "... but they're not really". Grace Note 07:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

If and/or when you make the decision to adhere to WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:WQT, and WP:AGF, then I will address your other points. Either you choose to deal with the issues substantively, or you can have the aforementioned gang preamble. You can't have it both ways, though. Feel free to rephrase. Thanks. El_C 07:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

What is absolutely outrageous is how supposedly well-meaning, fair-minded individuals have been blinded by the bizarro-world "moral-equivalency" philosophy of pseudo-balancing, which inexplicably demands that in all situations, all parties are equivalent. Instead of trying to fabricate a "balance between Palestinian militants and Zionist militants," try actually checking out that Google search of "Zionist Terrorism" and reading the content and source of the usage: nearly all fringe anti-Semitic material, most of it from conspiratorial/pro-Islamacist sites.

Here's the first five from such a Google search:

• http://www.ummah.com/waragainstislam/terrorism.htm, "Past Zionist - Jewish terrorism - Some historic facts," a copy of an article "from: http://www.rense.com/general21/pastzionist.htm", the original of which includes the pleasant ending, "Could this sort of actions by the Jews be the reason they have been run out of every country on earth, except the United States, and there is not much doubt that one day America will realize just how much the Jews despise and loth them; and they too will rise up and drive them out."
• http://www.ihr.org/books/ztn.html, (the "Institute for Historic Review" which denies the Holocaust happened): "The Zionist Terror Network... This booklet documents the background and criminal activities of Jewish Zionist terrorist groups, and especially the Jewish Defense League. Particular emphasis is given here to terror -- including murder -- against "thought criminals" who question the Holocaust story that six million Jews were systematically killed during the Second World War."
• http://www.angelfire.com/ia/palestinefoever/differnttypesofzionsts.html: "THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF ISRAELI AND ZIONIST TERRORISM" which includes the increasingly wacky claims that, "... the Israeli forces are still closing Palestinian areas, imposing curfews, breaking children's bones, poisoning and sterilizing school girls in the Palestinian cities, injecting the Palestinian babies with AIDS virus, and many other inhuman holocaust types of methods."
• http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/am/publish/zionist_terr_0.shtml, the "Palestinian Information Center" whose main page currently shows a man holding up a sign which reads, "Go to Hell, Israel!" (nicely rhymed, however)
• http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/special-edition/terrorism50/, a special report on "50 Years of Zionist Terrorism", includes this quaint section, "What the Qur'an says about the Zionist state?... Little do the zionists mouthpieces realize that they are contributing to an Islamic build-up and groundswell that will eventually erupt in a total and all-out liberation movement that will pluck this zionist forgery out of its historical gimmicks, its contemporary follies, and its future entrapments. Muslims expect this Israeli menace to become a contemporary Goliath."

Still care to claim that "Zionist Terrorism" is a commonly used term by anyone other than anti-Semitic or anti-Israeli sources? (who are frequently one and the same.) LeFlyman 07:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

It should be "Zionist terrorism," (with the quotes). As an aside, I hope we have a worked out Wikipedia:Google test policy/guideline soon. El_C 08:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Quotes or not, the Google search generates the same lot of material, just in a slightly different order. I've added extra-indents to the section above for clarity. LeFlyman 08:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you about the "bizarro-world 'moral-equivalency' philosophy of pseudo-balancing, LeFlyman, thanks. ;-D

Grace Note, your circles might very well be reputable, but you haven't produced any yet, apart from a link to a Google search from which I was expected to extract my own sources. But the onus is on you. Also, the context in which you added "and acts of militancy by Palestinian groups are also described as 'terrorism'" counts as original research (creating a synthesis of facts to advance a position). As El C says, the English language is such that "commonly used for" raises the question "commonly used by whom?" which will have to be answered if your edit's to stay. Ms. Virgin 08:27, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

That was GN? I'm so confused. Can we please stick to clear indentations and WP:SIG, I'm having difficulty following who said what, and the history is laggy for me at the moment (not to mention, 80% of my reverts result in this lovelynesses). El_C 08:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I would be happier with the "refers to" rather than GN's "commonly used" version, but linking "Zionist" or "Jewish" to "terror" in the context of the pre-independence movements is hardly revisionism, novel or uncommon as section 4 Controversy implies - (which really needs a source for its somewhat unlikely claims) and GN's version is better than an opposite claim. As I have pointed out before, at the time in the English language, "terrorist" was very, probably most, commonly used to refer to these movements - hardly surprising for the English, as they were killing Englishmen. I might note again the title of the probably standard scholarly work on the topic I added to references a while ago, based on interviews with many, many surviving "terrorists", or the titles of books by Geulah Cohen and Doris Katz, calling themselves terrorists etc or Hecht's famous letter to Palestinian terrorists - the problem with "ZT" is not the T but the Z as these people were also, perhaps more often called Jewish Ts or Palestinian T's. As for "Jewish terrorism", there was a Ha'aretz article on an unfortunately prophetic Shin Bet report on what SB called the coming "third wave of Jewish terrorism." One of the likable and praiseworthy things about Israelis is their willingness to call a spade a spade, and I think WIkipedia should respect that. John Z 09:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the name of this article, but it was created in response to similar names of articles about Arabs and we'll have to live with it until they can be all changed. The first sentence should just define what the page is about. It is no place for opinions like "perjorative". --Zero 10:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

On the sentence I removed: It sounds childish. Anyway, how could it be "revisionism" to call these acts terrorist when that was done more in the past than it is today? Just the opposite: at the time, these acts were called terrorist by the mainstream Jewish organizations; it was actually an act of revisionism to start calling them anything else. --Zero 10:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

What will it take to aknowledge that a certain group of people use this term while others don't?

Guy Montag 20:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the term "Zionist terrorism" is indeed only used by a very narrow set of people (including Islamic groups and anti-Semites). This should be noted. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The abuse of the word "terrorism" for political purposes is much more common when the perpetrators are Arabs or Muslims than when they are the victims. This is a fact that reflects very poorly on modern Western culture. We should not be a part of that process. Now, if you'd like to help with a campaign to remove the word "terrorism" from all article titles except those (like terrorism) that absolutely need it, I'll be more than willing. --Zero 10:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to right the wrongs of Western society, but rather the place to accurately provide relevant information. For better or worse, the term "Zionist terrorism" is used by a small set of groups, unlike more broadly used terms. Wikipedia should report that. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

How is this relevent to the fact that Anti semites, anti Zionists, and Islamists overwhelmingly use the term "Zionist terrorism"?

Guy Montag 19:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course I agree with Zero. The same word should be used for the same type of acts. Get rid of it everywhere or have it everywhere. Another type of systematic bias is that the same act committed by non-state actors is much more likely to be called terrorism than if by state actors. By the way, what do other encyclopedias do? My impression is that encyclopedias usually are a bit stuffy and don't use such words in titles. Here is a usage of "ZT" in Ha'aretz, apparently quoting usage in an ancient British government document: [3]. John Z 10:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

See my comment above. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Interesting article. The fear was completely justified as the Irgun was indeed sending teams to England for assassination purposes. Ezer Weizmann, later President of Israel, was a member of such a team but it failed to kill its target. The mainstream Jewish press preferred to call them "Jewish terrorists" rather than "Zionist terrorists" (but that's not a proposal for a change of title...). --Zero 11:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Who was EW's target? - not in his article here. My impression of the frequency of the terms in mainstream discourse is #1 Jewish T (in Palestine) #2 Palestinian T #3 Zionist T. Using #2 could result in an interesting grue or bleen kind of article (or maybe the usual way of thinking is grueish?) though that is not a proposal either. John Z 11:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Evelyn Barker (see King David Hotel bombing). There was a plan to bomb his car. EW was also involved in a plan to kill Raymond Cafferata (mentioned in Riots_in_Palestine_of_1929 but his real "crime" was to be successful in arresting Etzel and Lehi people in the 1940s). This is described in Bethel "Palestinian Triangle" but I was never sure it was the same person until I found it again in a recent book of Tom Segev. Yes, it should be in EW's article. Barker also received a letter bomb (I think from Lehi, but I'm not sure on that point.) --Zero 12:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Who uses the term?

I still didn't recieve an answer. Is anyone going to mention which groups use these terms, or should I mention them in my own way?

Guy Montag 19:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Why do you think you deserve an answer? You should have been banned months ago. How many Palestinian terrorists have you moved to lone wolf terrorism? There are plenty who acted on theor own. You are just trying to censor this page in accordance with your obnoxious politics. --Zero 01:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I deserve an answer because I asked a reasonable question. There are no Palestinian terrorists that I am aware off, that acted without the logistical support and training of their terrorist organizations. Only 3 come to my mind. One was the ass who drove over 3 Israelis, another who killed his former 90 year old employer because she wouldn't lend her 10,000 shekels, and there are others. But I have not seen them added on the lone wolf terrorist page by anyone. On a side note, if you continue to make personal attacks against me, I will have you reported for violating wikipedia policy. I tired of your constant disrespect toward me. Guy Montag 07:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Hang on, Zero, he deserves an answer because he's an editor in good standing and he's asking a reasonable question. WP:NPA SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:59, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

See the sources provided by Zero and myself here, for example. El_C 07:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

If he's an "editor in good standing", I shudder to think who would count as one with poor standing. Feel free to "report me". Grace Note 04:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

How does this relate to the fact that the term has in the present been co-opted by anti semites, Islamists, and anti Zionists? I don't think you would deny that it has, no matter the dubious validity of its historical use. Guy Montag 07:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

El C, I've seen sources for who used to use the term, but I think Guy's asking who uses it now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:40, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Oh. See: here, here, and here, for ex. Lots of Islamic sites running questionable scripts that crash my browser, that's for sure! El_C 08:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, El C. The second two talk about Zionist terrorism in the 40s. The first one, I can't find any examples of it, though my search function may not be working as I'm using Preview, which is rubbish (Adobe doesn't seem to work with my operating system). But I'm wondering who uses the term now, rather than to refer only to what the early Zionists did. We should note, I think, who uses it and for what, given that it's not in widespread use. A Google search seems to bring up only Islamist and Nazi websites. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:43, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

As does the first one, in html tinyurl. com / 9fn5z here. Anyway, you seem to be mistaking me for someone compotent, with answers no less! El_C 08:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, I was, my apologies. ;-D My view is that we should say the term is used with reference to the British Mandate, and otherwise has been appropriated by Islamists and Nazis, unless someone can produce sources showing that others use it. As things stand, when you check Google, you find either those kinds of websites or Wikipedia, so we should probably fix that by distancing ourselves a little. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:08, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Better. Just don't let it happen again. Anyway, though it isn't very good, tinyurl. com/ a7ddr google.co.il produces very few entries for the term, pre-Statehood and otherwise. El_C 09:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Heraclius, if you disagree with the sentence I added, are you able to find sources showing the term is in use now by groups other than Islamists and neo-Nazis? See discussion above. Here's the sentence you deleted: "Although used by mainstream sources to refer to acts committed during the British Mandate of Palestine, the term "Zionist terrorism" has fallen into disrepute, and now appears to be used largely by Islamist and neo-Nazi sources." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:25, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

He didn't delete it, he moved it down to its own section entitled "controversy". Ramallite ^(talk) 03:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Ramallite. Sorry, Heraclius, I didn't see you'd moved it. I don't think it should be buried, though: when you do a Google search for the term, most of the references (that I've found) are to neo-Nazi or Islamist websites, plus Wikipedia, so we ought to distance ourselves a little from the anti-Semitism, and it's best to do that at the start of the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:41, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Two Questions

As of now, I have two questions:

• What qualifies attacks by individuals who have their own personal agendas to be in this page instead of lone wolf terrorism?

• Although the historical evidence of prominent individuals calling Irgun and Lehi members, "terrorists" for whatever reason, has been cited, mentioning that the term has been co-opted by fringe groups and individuals today is either censored, ignored, or deliberately removed despite a mountain of evidence backing up such information. Why?

I think these are legitimate questions that deserve an honest answer. We're all people here, so lets not go on another run around.

Guy Montag 07:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm too busy in the next week or two, but I'll be preparing an RfA case against you on the grounds of persistent flagrant disregard of the NPOV policy over many months soon after that. These "lone wolves", as you know perfectly well, self-identified themselves as soldiers for the Zionist cause. Whether you agree with them doesn't matter. Like all terrorists, they represent the extreme of a much larger group of people with similar opinions. All of them got support after the fact, if not before, by people of like mind. They belong on this page, no matter what it is called. As for the phrase "Zionist terrorism", it is simply not true that it has been co-opted by fringe groups. There are just as many anti-Arab racists who use the phrase "Palestinian terrorist". The difference is that mainstream groups avoid the phrases "Zionist terrorist" and "Jewish terrorist" while embracing "Arab terrorist" and "Muslim terrorist" in accordance with the anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment that saturates western society. That's an entirely different story. --Zero 09:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Who self identified them as soldiers for the Zionist cause, and why does this matter? Lone wolf terrorism "takes place outside a command structure and may be unaccountable to the claimed collective cause of a group. Lone-wolf terrorists may be motivated by personal gain or vendetta" ect... What group were these individuals part of? Where were they trained? What was their support structure? Where did they recieve their money and logistics from? How are they any different from Eric Robert Rudolph or John Allan Muhammed? They fit the lone wolf terrorist catagory perfectly.

Actually, notwithstanding your Arabism, mainstream media refer to Muslim/Arab terrorism not because of some alleged biases, but from the fact that Arab/Muslim terrorism is the most prevalent form of terrorism around the world.

As for the RFA case, I'd happily add about a dozen WP:NPA to your imagined list, but I don't want to waste my time. Guy Montag 23:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Be that as it may, it appears that mainstream sources do not use the term, and this is certainly notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 09:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I wish for Guy to refrain from using the word hell in edit summaries so as not to offend those editors with a theistic orientation. El_C 10:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Zero, it's wrong to imply that only anti-Arab racists use the term "Palestinian terrorism." It's in widespread, mainstream use, rightly or wrongly. "Zionist terrorism" isn't, and is used largely, other than to describe what happened during the British Mandade, by Islamists and Nazis. If you have sources that say otherwise, please let us know. We have to go by what the English-language credible sources say. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:02, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Zero gave me an idea: why don't we focus on these two communinites over time: Arab/Palestinian and Jewish/Israeli and compare relative numbers of those who supported those "lone wolf in question" terrorists. Let's take into account polls, public statements in English/Hebrew/Arabic, demonstrations of support/protest, schools named after them, etc. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

What do you envision being accomplished from such an undertaking? El_C 10:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

It would not be right to call someone whose actions are supported by overwhelming majority (say 70%) of his community a lone wolf. OTOH, if almost entire community speaks out and acts against someone, we can safely call him a lone wolf and it would be wrong for us to portray him as representing this community. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Would it still be considered "lone wolf" if the community is against it, but the government is not? Does the community nessecarily determine the disparity of the actions? The Vietnam War was very well protested, but the government was supporting it. Would a lone soldier fighting for that cause be considered a lone wolf? Marzyeh 03:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Usage again

Stevertigo, I don't see what your edits are adding that isn't already there and more succinctly. My edit: "Although used by mainstream sources to refer to acts committed during the British Mandate of Palestine, the term "Zionist terrorism" has fallen into disrepute, and now appears to be used largely by Islamist and neo-Nazi sources."

Yours: "The term "Zionist terrorism" is still used by mainstream sources to refer to the historical acts of violence, however, the term is generally not used in reference to contemporary "Jewish" religious violence or "Israeli" state violence —both terms being likewise controversial."

(But that's what my version said.)

And more of yours: "Almost any current application of the term "terrorism" is controversial, while historical references are less so. Aside from its reference to violence during the British Mandate period, the term now appears to be limited to use by proponents of Islamist and neo-Nazi views."

Why would current applications be more controversial than earlier ones? That would need to be fleshed out. It introduces complications that have nothing to do with this page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

You're right that Stevertigo's is wordy, but the other edit could be read as suggesting Britannica is Islamist or neoNazi for still using the term. Without the "still", "used" is ambiguous and it's not clear enough that usage referring to the Mandate era is not terribly controversial, and really never was. Maybe "other uses of" could be added to your edit before the disrepute clause. John Z 23:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it's clear enough that using the term with reference to acts carried out during the British Mandate usage isn't controversial: I say "mainstream sources" use it that way. What does Britannica say about it, apart from with reference to that period? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't think Britannica uses it for outside that period, but the sentence really is unclear, tending towards misleading in its present state. It says mainstream sources used the term, not use the term for the Mandate era; coupled with "fallen into disrepute", it suggests something you clearly do not mean, that people who still use the term referring to the Mandate era are probably Islamists or neoNazis, so I think it needs minor change, and that seems to be what bothered Stevertigo too. Otherwise, I generally think brevity is the soul of wit. John Z 00:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Neo Nazis, antisemites, Indian communists. I call Baruch Goldstein a "Zionist terrorist". I call Asher Weisgan a "Zionist terrorist". Ditto Ariel Sharon. They're Zionists and they use terror methods. If that's a crime, prepare my cell. Grace Note 05:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your POV. I think you either have a basic misunderstanding of what "Zionist" and "terrorist" means, or else you're intentionally replacing "Zionist" for "Jewish" and using "terrorist" to indicate your wacked pseudo-balancing beliefs. LeFlyman 01:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome to the clarification. I think you meant to say that it's apparent that I don't share your understanding of what "Zionist" and "terrorist" mean. I certainly do not use "Zionist" for "Jewish" -- it's very naughty of you to make a personal attack on me in such an underhand way. My understanding of "Zionist" more or less reflects that expressed in the Wikipedia article of the same name and is absolutely not synonymous with "Jewish". If you don't think that Baruch Goldstein is correctly described as a terrorist, LeFlyman, then certainly one of us has "wacked" beliefs. I generally think it's of limited use as a term for those who use violence against (primarily) civilians with the aim of influencing a political or social process. Perhaps you feel it only applies to those who are violent to "your side". I don't have a side in this particular dispute. Hey, perhaps you feel it's a bit "wacked" to disapprove of violence against civilians on the whole, whichever ethnicity, religion or grouping the perpetrators belong to? Well, if it is, colour me "wacked", because that's my view, honestly held. Grace Note 04:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

What is quite clear is that you don't quite understand either term. "Zionists" were those in the 19th and 20th century who pursued the goal of establishing a Jewish State, and aimed to relocate the Diaspora Jewish populations from Europe (and elsewhere) there. Its impetus was escape from the continuous persection and anti-Semitism which was fermenting in places such as France and Germany. Such a state was founded-- too late for millions of Jews-- and thus any reference to modern day Zionism now has to do with support of Israel, and continued promotion of Jewish emigration there. There's where your misusage begins: What Goldstein and Weisgan did had nothing to do with Zionism. It had everything to do with insanity (temporary or otherwise.) Their goal in killing Arabs was not about the establishment or support of Israel, nor, in fact, did it have to do with terrorism; it had to do with murdering people for the sake of killing them, out of frustration, anger or mental illness. These individuals acted alone, and were not part of any group aiming to perpetrate murderous (terrorist) acts unless their objectives were met. I put it to you: what exactly was Goldstein's purpose in shooting Muslim worshippers? Your shallow notion that Goldstein, Weisgan (and as you wackily claim, Ariel Sharon) were terrorists fails, because the point of terrorism itself-- as noted in the academic consesus definition by the United Nation-- is to send a message, usually political in nature, akin to extortion, a vile but well-used tactic by weaker "sub-state" agents against established, more powerful political entities. No, they were no more terrorists than was 1986's Patrick Sherrill, the first postal worker to shoot up his workplace. But Goldstein was a Jewish mass-murderer, and he killed non-Jews, which apparently in your book is enough to make him a "Zionist Terrorist." The most that might be claimed of Weisgan (and Natan-Zada) is that he may have believed that shooting Arabs might somehow stop the Sharon government from dismantling Gaza settlements; but again, not terrorism, just stupidity and sickness. LeFlyman 07:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Leflyman, I believe that there have been several statements made by high raking Zionists that have been terrorist in nature:

"We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel...Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours."-Rafael Eitan, chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, quoted in Yediot Ahronot, April 13, 1983, and The New York Times, April 14, 1983.

"[The Palestinians] are beasts walking on two legs."-Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the 'Beasts,"' New Statesman, June 25,1982.

"We must do everything to ensure they [the Palestinian refugees] never do return."-David Ben-Gurion, in his diary, July 18, 1948, quoted in Michael Bar Zohar's "Ben-Gurion: the Armed Prophet," Prentice-Hall, 1967, p. 157.

"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population."-Israel Koenig, "The Koenig Memorandum."

"We shall reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and waiters."-Uri Lubrani, Israeli Prime Minister Ben-Gurion's special adviser on Arab Affairs. Source: "The Arabs in Israel" by Sabri Jiryas.

"...the need to sustain the character of the state which will henceforth be Jewish...with a non-Jewish minority limited to 15 percent. I had already reached this fundamental position as early as 1940 [and] it is entered in my diary."-Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency's Colonization Department. From "Israel: an Apartheid State" by Uri Davis, p. 5.

"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many (Palestinian) hilltops as they can to enlarge the (Jewish) settlements because everything we take now will stay ours...Everything we don't grab will go to them."-Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of the Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, Nov. 15, 1998.

"Spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."-Theodore Herzl, founder of the World Zionist Organization, speaking of the Arabs of Palestine, "Complete Diaries," June 12, 1895 entry.

This does not exonerate the terrorist statments made by other people of other nations, but I don't think we should color Zionist officials with a golden crayon. Sharon is documented in several quotes as being very militarisic with regard to civilians, you could say he has promoted terrorism towards the Palestinians. A similar case being that just because Osama bin Lauden didn't participate in the 9/11 bombings doesn't mean that he wasn't being very militarisic with regard to civilians, and you could say he has promoted terrorism towards the Americans. Marzyeh 03:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

See, you are among friends.Guy Montag 05:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

John, thanks. I think Guy's edit has made it clearer that mainstream historians still use it for that period: "Mainstream historians sometimes use the term "Zionist terrorism" to refer to acts committed during the British Mandate of Palestine, but outside that context the term has fallen into disrepute because of its use by Islamist and neo-Nazi sources to deprecate Israel." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The whole sentence serves only to smear anyone who thinks that there are "Zionist terrorists". Grace Note 05:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

We couldn't find credible sources who use it to refer to anything other than the early Zionists, and several editors were involved in looking; hence the current formulation. Also, a Google search turned up largely Islamist and neo-Nazi websites using it, plus Wikipedia, so it was important to qualify our usage a little in the intro so as to distance ourselves. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we've already established that "credible" is synonymous with "agrees with my POV" but thanks for the clarification. Grace Note 06:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Please don't try to score cheap political and thus non-NPOV points through the obscene use of guilt by association by mentioning that Islamists and neo-Nazis use the term (which arguably also touches on the original research issue). Unless one wants to restart the whole anti-Semitism versus anti-Zionism debate, just say that the term in contemporary context is mostly used as an anti-Israeli epiphet and leave it at that (except possibly referring to other Wikipedia articles). -- Dissident (Talk) 19:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Its not that they use this term, it is that they have overwhelmingly adopted this term.Guy Montag 20:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I must be a bit thick. How does that answer Dissident's point? Actually, can I ask SlimVirgin for a "credible source" for the assertion that it is used by the groups you've listed to "deprecate Israel"? It looks a lot like you guys did a google search and are using that to base your assertion on. You argue above that you will not accept that and edits must be sourced, but apparently, that standard only applies to "the other side". Grace Note 23:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Lack of a source noted. Clearly double standards are permitted when we have the numbers and the rollback button. -- GN

Yes, both that they overwhelmingly use the term, and that use by any other sources is extremely rare. This is certainly notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for both conclusive evidence for this (which includes the appropriateness of the aforementioned labels) AS WELL AS proof that is NOT original research. Simple reassertions don't count. -- Dissident (Talk) 16:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Slim's revert

I appreciate as much as anyone the desire for brevity (a problem on T:ITN), but Slim, youre missing the basic fact that even though the term isnt generally used in reference to the other State and Ethnic kinds of violence, those other forms need referencing. (Ive also suggested that state terrorism and ethnic terrorism be moved to violence -there's no need to segregate terrorism as a special type of violence.) For the above reasons, I will shortly restore the below text. Any edits to the below would be appreciated.

While the term "Zionist terrorism" is still used by mainstream sources to refer to the historical acts of violence, however, the term is generally not used in reference to contemporary "Jewish" religious violence or "Israeli" state violence —both terms being likewise controversial.

Almost any current application of the term "terrorism" is controversial, while historical references are less so.

Aside from its reference to violence during the British Mandate period, the term now appears to be limited to use by proponents of Islamist and neo-Nazi views.

--St|eve 16:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The first sentence is both inaccurate (e.g. Jewish religious violence does not cover nationalism) and refers to terms that haven't been specified, and the second sentence is boilerplate that adds nothing specific to this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes I wish you'd try a slightly more subtle approach. One presumes you meant to say that Jewish religious violence and Jewish nationalist violence are not always the same thing, but they sometimes are. How could it be otherwise when religion and ethnicity are so closely intertwined? Grace Note 02:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

What's Jewish religious violence, and what does it have to do with this article? I hope you don't change the intro, Steve, as a few editors have worked on it, and it was pretty accurate when I last checked it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm taking a wild stab in the dark here, but I'm thinking "Jewish religious violence" would be violence committed by Jews for religious reasons. I don't know whether there is any such thing exactly. The intro might be accurate in your view, but much of it is completely unsourced. Still, you outnumber Stevertigo, so his views are going to be smothered, whether you source the smothering or not. -- Grace Note

Well, it's just that I've seen the same incidents called Israeli terrorism, Jewish terrorism, Zionist terrorism, and Israeli state terrorism, and so now I'm a little bewildered by the introduction of Jewish religious terrorism, wondering whether this is yet another category, or just another label for the same set of incidents so they can be reproduced on yet another page. Forgive me for being unable to keep up. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, it might surprise you to learn that I deplore that too. I'm sure I said one time that I don't like any of these "terrorism" pages (largely convinced by your discussion of the issue, which makes it rather mystifying that you're taking the stance you have here) and each proliferation seems to make things worse. I think both sides have indulged in an ugly conflict here in Wikipedia, where each tries to vilify the other (sometimes openly, sometimes more carefully), and proliferating articles and terms that portray "the other side" negatively is a major means in that conflict (partly, I think, because the Americocentrism and Anglophonism of Wikipedia means that one side is overrepresented and can smother the other side's voice -- there is no hope of the pro-Palestinian side being fairly represented when pro-Zionist editors not only outnumber them but have disproportionate capabilities). It does have to be kept in mind though that sometimes the same thing 'does get labelled two different ways (heck, that's half of our problem here -- he says "Samaria", I say "the West Bank", he says "perhaps justifiable action in an attempt to create a nation", I say "Palestinian terrorism"). Grace Note 04:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, do you have any concrete suggestions for imporving the lead, aside from Jewish religious violence? El_C 04:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your snide tone. I think the article would be greatly improved by not existing, frankly. There's no hope of its ever being NPOV. Any attempt to improve it, concrete or otherwise, is probably doomed because we simply wouldn't agree what an "improvement" would actually be. I think an article on violence in Israel/Palestine would be best, with subarticles as needed. It would certainly better for this article not to begin by smearing everyone who uses the term to describe the likes of Baruch Goldstein factually -- a Zionist who committed an act of terror is surely a "Zionist terrorist" -- just as it would probably be better if no one used the term to describe the likes of Baruch Goldstein. It would be better for the intro to match the one on "Palestinian terrorism and militancy and acts of naughtiness" or whatever it's called now, regardless that the papers Slim reads more often describe the Palestinians "terrorists" than they do the Israelis or the likes of Goldstein. Grace Note 04:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Your appreciation or lack thereof aside, that innuendo-filled response failed to actually address my question regarding the lead for this article in any concrete way (aside from the vague matching). El_C 04:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I "addressed" your question. You just didn't like the answer. I've expressed what I think the lead should say, and why. You're just wasting my time. I'd rather spend it at least bickering with someone who can rise above "that wasn't an answer". It's like being flamed by a primary schooler. Grace Note 04:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, I'm not really interested in your endless provocations. Do you have any concrete suggestions on how to word the lead, without all the verbosity and offtopic digressions, that is? El_C 05:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Hang on, though, Grace Note, I see nothing in what I'm doing here that contradicts my position on the word "terrorism," which is that it should be avoided where possible (but that it's still better than "militant," which is just silly). I've several times suggested we use "political violence" instead of "terrorism" in titles, suggestions invariably met with resounding silence. My position here is that this article shouldn't exist, or shouldn't be called what it is with the contents that it has. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Back to GN's point above, which I was sorta hoping he'd follow through (oh well), how should the lead account for non-Islamic-influenced, expressedly secular and anti-racist leftists who use the term? El_C 06:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

We're about to run out of page. ;-) If you were asking me, I couldn't find any of the above, except when talking about the early Zionists; hence the current intro. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, I believe it is usually prefixed with imperialism rather than terrorism; more cites of such usage is probably warranted. El_C 06:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

You are yet to find a source that says it is used only by neo-Nazis and antisemites either, so maybe you need to look a bit harder? I gave El C a suggestion: remove the smear. I will entirely support any move you make to have all articles using the POV term "terrorism" renamed and/or merged. But I can't get behind one murderer of civilians being a "terrorist" and the next being a "militant" or whatever term you want to use and I can't believe you really consider that poisoning the well in the first paragraph or two lends itself to making a properly neutral article. Grace Note 06:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Considering that Grace Note had no problem inserting a claim that the term "Islamofascism" has evolved "into an epithet used by mostly right-wing journalists to describe Islamic enemies"[4], it's hard to see what he's complaining about here. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, Jay, you certainly can't criticise it on the grounds of its not being true! It began pace Ruthven as a description of the states of the Muslim world, such as Pakistan and Morocco, and now it's bandied about by the Coulters of this world. It's hardly used in serious discourse, not even by your side. Grace Note 05:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

First, we can't pay attention here to what other articles are saying: we should work to make this one right, and the other editors on those other pages can do the same there. Second, I don't see the intro as poisoning the well. I see it as rightly distancing ourselves from some of the dodgy sources who use the term "Zionist terrorism" i.e. recognizing that the well has been poisoned by others, if you want to see it in those terms.

Regarding removing "terrorism" from all titles, would you support "political violence," or do have another suggestion? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

And my question (to GN) was how, concretely? Do you have an actual passage in mind? The the word Zionist is used in a very mainstream way in Israel. It is fair to say that the majority of the Jewish population considers itself Zionist, while calling these acts Jewish terrorism. That was my suggestion: Jewish terrorism in Israel and the Palestinian territories, leaving ZT for pre-1948 period. El_C 06:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, El C, I do understand that "Zionist" has that much more mainstream meaning. I suppose that its currency as a word for a particular strand of thought in politics (which is not restricted to Nazis and antisemites but is commonly enough used on the left -- if you are called a "Zionist" by a commentator, it will be rarely that he or she means you simply support a Jewish state, and perhaps you and your cohort here ought not to pretend that the word is not widely understood differently; you surely know that most "antiZionists" are not opposed in principle to Israel but rather to Israeli expansionism). I also understand that you wish to distinguish the pre-state Zionist terrorists from the more recent ones. I'm not sure you've made a convincing case, although it's easy enough to understand what you're suggesting.

My concern is in any case that terrorism, whatever we call it, is presented in the same way regardless of its perpetrators. I'm uncomfortable with it as a label, as I've explained. Do I think Goldstein and Begin can be paralleled? Not really, although I think that if you do not wholly approve of the latter's aims or at least if you don't think the means were appropriate to them, you're more likely to find that parallel. Do I think Sharon and Weisgan can? Not really. Both are terrorists, in a sense, but the sense has to be stretched to incorporate both. I disagree wholeheartedly with Slim that there should be no parallel between articles. The whole encyclopaedia should be neutral and articles do not exist in vacuo. I do agree with her that "Zionist terrorist" is used as an insult by antisemites, but I disagree that calling Baruch Goldstein a "Zionist terrorist" is antisemitic, and I thoroughly disagree with the notion that the article should imply that.

I very much feel the unsourced suggestion that the term is only used by Nazis should be removed (or sourced at the very least -- I note that it still is not. I haven't bothered because, despite my rather undeserved reputation as an edit-warrior, I think of the revert as a tactical tool, useful only as a means to bring the obstinate to the negotiating table, as it were, or as a demonstration that you haven't agreed just because you're not editing the article to your version.

I think that the lead could more usefully describe the title as "acts of violence with a political end, carried out by nonstate actors who identified themselves as, or were associated with, the Zionist cause before the end of the Mandate (whatever wording we're using for 1948) and with the expansionist ideology that has come to be known as "Zionism" afterwards (and you qualify the second term appropriately: "in circles critical of Israeli policy", something like that.

I think something like that would be thoroughly neutral, with no attempt to "poison the well" by claiming only antisemites use the phrase, which is just a variation on the common refrain among pro-expansionists (if you will accept that term) that anyone who criticises Israeli policy does so because they hate Jews. It remains true, though, that I'd support any move to move this page and all others similar to a neutral title that did not use the entirely nonneutral word "terrorism" and I certainly in this instance would urge "democratic centralism", although not by decree but by agreement among the interested editors, which would not amount to instruction creep but would be the spirit of the wiki moving on the troubled waters. Grace Note 02:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Trouble is, as I alluded to below (threading gone slightly mad here) that while those you describe might claim the label "Zionist", they wouldn't (I at least assume, and certainly not as a rule...) self-characterise as "terrorists". So to end up with a description of them per the article title, we have to combine the two points of view in an awkward composite. Something either more neutral, or with at least a more clearly defined POV (what they call themselves; or what a specified set of their critics would call them), would I think be more readily defensible. Alai 07:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm failing to see your point. What difference does it make whether you "self-characterise" as a terrorist? We do not only describe people as they describe themselves. I don't think David Irving describes himself as a proponent of Holocaust denial, for instance. But our article says he is one. In any case, our article on Zionism clearly discusses the difference between Zionism pre-1948 and Zionism today. Furthermore, if you were to read my suggestion for changing the lead, you can clearly see that I seek to alleviate exactly the problem you're mentioning here: that Zionism sensu Stern Gang and Zionism sensu critics of Israeli expansionism are not necessarily the same thing. I would be perfectly happy, as I said, to have the article moved to "Zionist nonstate political violence". Grace Note 09:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Clearly I'm not suggesting we 'only' describe people as they describe themselves; I've already said that explicitly. The problem is the mix of the two. A move to "Zionist nonstate political violence" would be probably be reasonable, if a bit of a mouthful, in that it would in principle allow a re-couching in terms of claimed Zionist motivation, which the current formulation seems to imply is established editorial fact. Alai 15:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, I am always in favour of more democratic centralism! El_C 23:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Does that mean you agree with me? Or that you disagree with me? ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Terminology of "Zionist Terrorism"

I think that this article has somewhat have the look of an ad hoc list at the moment; I don't think any of the content as such is particularly bad, but there are definite issues with the organisation, and some of the juxtapositions. While I'd agree with SV that "terrorism" is rarely going to be the most useful or objective terminology for any given article, it's for the reasons already alluded to going to be impractical to argue that on an article-by-article basis; some "democratic centralism" would be required (aka, instruction creep). There's also the aspect of documenting the use (and self-application) of the terminology, regardless of its actual merits, but I think we're between those two stools at present. (Some people doubtless apply either descriptor to any of the incidents on this list, but not necessarily the same people in each case, and not necessarily both "Zionist" and "terrorist".) So I suggest that the context and scope of the article be clarified, and that it then be refactored accordingly. Alai 23:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. If this page must exist with this title, it should refer to acts of political violence committed by the early Zionist movement, because that's what mainstream academics and textbooks use the term "Zionist terrorism" to refer to. When we include incidents like Eden Natan-Zada, we're starting to use the term to mean any act of violence committed by an Israeli Jew, which is how neo-Nazis, Islamists, and other anti-Semites use it i.e. they use it as an insult, rather than in a descriptive sense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I use "Zionist" to describe an adherent of Israeli expansionism, as do many who don't fit any of your groupings (I note that you again cannot help yourself from smearing those who oppose Israel's expansionist policies by implying that they are either of those three things). That reading is largely borne out by our article on the subject. It's arguable that Natan-Zada fits the bill. He opposed the expulsion of the settlers. Why do you think that was, Slim? He did not like the diminishment of Israel. Okay, you could argue that critics should not use the word "Zionist" for that strand of thought in Israel, but they tend to see the expansionism of Sharon in the same light as the nationalism of the early Zionist terrorists, who can be seen as fighting to expand Israel's territory. Grace Note 09:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

You're using your own unique definition based on some anti-imperialism ideology. Zionism doesn't equated with your so-called "Israeli expansionism." And yes, the only places that make such a claim are the same places that use "Zionist terrorism." Natan Zada's motivation in shooting up a bus had more to do with his mental instability than any sort of political reasoning. Thank you for continuing to reveal your true self. Once again, your blanket misusage of "Zionist" demonstrating your anti-Israel bias, in contrast with your continued claim that you're trying to be neutral. LeFlyman 17:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's hardly unique to me, LeFlyman. And Israeli nationalists and their supporters accusing everyone who criticises Israeli policy of being "anti-Israel" (you should have just plumped for "anti-Semitic" and cut the middleman, it's equally as hollow and meaningless) is nothing new either. I was unaware though that you are a psychologist. Did you examine Natan-Zada? He made his reasoning fairly clear.

The reading I make of "Zionism" as it exists today is simply that "Zionists" are those Israeli nationalists who tend to believe that the borders of the State and Land of Israel should be the same. This involves an expansionist policy in the area that is under dispute and a refusal to recognise Palestinian claims. Clearly, a Zionist by this reading might not support the surrender of the Gaza Strip.

I think that there are plenty of Jews who share that reading of "Zionism", as it happens. Among them, the people who we are describing here as "Zionists", by a curious and rather satisfactory quirk.

As with so many things, LeFlyman, in the world as it is, there is a spectrum of thought involved, and ready labels do not really describe it. I've several times stated my view that this page is unsatisfactory. I think that there is some merit to the view that because a "Zionist" might be anywhere on that spectrum, from someone who believes only that there should be a "Jewish homeland" in the area of Palestine, through those (and we have several here) who believe that Israel's claim to all of the territory of the Mandate is legitimate, to those who believe that Israel should extend to the full limits promised by God, it's not a helpful label. However, it's one that is used, and not just by the groups with whom you want to smear critics of Israeli policy by association. I wonder here, for instance, Chomsky would fit in your worldview. Perhaps you'd like to yell your opinion about that at me next? Grace Note 05:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

You created your own reading of modern Zionism, to be exclusively Jabotinsky-era Revisionist Zionism and equate it to "Israeli nationalists" to fit your anti-Israel perspective. I put it to you, if you brand the elected leader of the State of Israel as a "Zionist terrorist" and ascribe to that definition beliefs which you dub "Israeli expansionism"-- rather paradoxically, considering the country is pulling out of areas-- how are you not "anti-Israel?" Why don't you lay your cards on the table and tell us truthfully: do you believe that Israel should even exist?

Your claims that mainstream Zionists aim to control "Greater Israel" (aka Eretz Yisrael) is a debunked conspiracy-theorist canard, particularly promoted by Islamicists:

"— The notion of Eretz Yisrael subsequently shrank, to the point that today it includes just the territory of Mandatory Palestine. As proof, note that Revisionists in recent decades viewed the Sinai, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, and southern Lebanon in strategic terms only, not historic ones. This confirms that they now see these areas outside of Eretz Yisrael.

— No Israeli political party today (not even Meir Kahane's Kach) aspires to Israeli rule over all Eretz Yisrael; rather, Revisionists only demand now that Israel not give up any part of Eretz Yisrael already under its control." [5]

As for my psychology degree, I needn't put it to use, as Natan Zada's mental health had already examined. As per the Wikipedia article about him: "an army psychiatrist warned that he wasn't fit for weapons or uniform, but his professional judgment was awaiting approval by a panel of medical experts that was not very swift in assembling" and a "former chief of staff of the IDF" "speculated that the killer's parents might have a chance to win damages in court for neglect by the army of the welfare of their son." (from The New Republic.)

As for Chomsky, he's a well-established Ivory Tower intellectual, and a (self-professed) anarcho-socialist relic, who has very little in the way of practical experience with real people, apart from fawning grad students and the few critics who are willing to take on his often wacky (and frequently elitist) utterances. One can find a Chomsky quote to fit any ideology, and he lends himself well to being made fun of, as this amusing comicstrip amply demonstrates.

Incidentally, do you just like repeating my moniker, or does it help you remember to whom you're replying? Here's another reminder: LeFlyman 09:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Leflyman, I believe Israel does exist. Whether it should have been created is moot, given its existing now. I support its continued existence, although I do not in principle support any state's being constituted on ethnic or religious lines. I hope that's clear enough for you.

I stated clearly that there is a range of views on what Israel should be and I delineated that range. I didn't say that any political party supported the ultra view. I didn't say anything about what political parties support at all.

Sharon is clearly on a spectrum of views that can be described as "Zionist", regardless who is doing the labelling. He clearly is a Zionist in a narrow sense, and he is one in the broader sense. Please, you are not writing in the press, pretending to the uneducated masses that pulling out of Gaza makes Sharon no longer interested in expanding Israel's territory and diminishing that of the Palestinians. It was a tactical withdrawal. At the same time, he is having built a wall that includes some of the territory of the West Bank, and encouraging the expansion of Jewish settlements into the areas that would, were Israel ever to accept that it must allow a Palestinian state, be part of the latter.

Natan-Zada professed to be an adherent of a cause. Whether he killed in its name or because he was a nutter is not the issue. He was a Zionist and a terrorist. The page on Islamist terror does not claim that the Palestinian suicide bombers or the 9/11 attackers were deranged and consequently not Islamists.

I am not interested in your views on Chomsky.

And I use your name because it is polite to do so. If I was talking to you, I would do it and I write conversational English on these pages. Perhaps neither politeness nor English usage are familiar to you, I do not know. If you don't want me to do it, Leflyman, say so and I will stop. Grace Note 02:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Uh-oh. Let me try to pare down to some material issues here. Firstly, I don't think Grace Note is asserting that Zionism is equivalent to Ultra-Greater-Eretz-Israelism; or at any rate, if he is, I disagree with such usage. The somewhat subtler questions are: can such view be properly/objectively included in "Zionism" in the round; and do people holding such views describe themselves as Zionist? Surely those are respectively, "highly disputed", and "entirely true". The article would I think be improved by being clearer about the distinctions between violence "by Zionists"; violence with a motivation generally agreed to be "Zionist"; violence with a motivation asserted to be Zionist (by the perpetrators, by their apologists, or by their detractors, etc), but not universally accepted as such. Alai 15:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your attempt to destinguish the nuances of motivations for violence; there are those who would ascribe all violence act committed by Jews in Israel under the rubric of "Zionist terrorism". I would suggest a re-examination of what Grace Note has written previously of his/her view: "I use "Zionist" to describe an adherent of Israeli expansionism..." and, "The reading I make of "Zionism" as it exists today is simply that "Zionists" are those Israeli nationalists who tend to believe that the borders of the State and Land of Israel should be the same. This involves an expansionist policy in the area that is under dispute and a refusal to recognise Palestinian claims." (Emphasis mine) LeFlyman 22:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the purpose is of trying to pin down what's meant by Zionism (though I think we should take seriously what El C says above and use the word the way Israelis and people who are Zionists use it i.e. supporters of a Jewish state), but it seems that one purpose may be to allow us to call individual criminal actors "Zionist terrorists" if they happen to be identified with Zionism. But this is surely nonsense. If a mentally ill man in London were randomly to kill a bunch of people, we wouldn't call him an "Islamist terrorist" just because we discovered he was a Muslim, or even an Islamist. So I see this attempt at trying to explore what Zionism is as a prelude to (or rather, as an attempt to justify) well poisoning. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand that you want the word to be defined in the way one side of the conflict -- your side, as it happens -- defines it, and at that a narrow definition, but pretending that there is no one who thinks "Zionism" means something more than "supports a Jewish homeland" is preposterous. Suggesting only Nazis use it that way is flat out poisoning the well.

And Slim, I have cause, once more, to note your inconsistency. You do not argue on the Islamist terrorism page that we ought not to label "Islamist" terrorists as Islamists on either of the following counts: 1/ that "Islamism" has a much broader meaning than "extremist pro-Caliphate nutter" and 2/ we do not know the motivations or political philosophy of many of the people involved in the acts of violence mentioned on that page, nor do you on other pages that connect "Islamism" with "terrorist" in the same way. In fact, what we do know about those involved is generally not much more than that they were Muslims. Grace Note 02:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed not. We'd need to ask two further questions: firstly were his motivations even related to his Islamicness/Islamism, if only in his own mind (if not, there's no reason to juxtapose the one fact with the other at all); and secondly, if so, are his "Islamicism" motivations in line with what would be generally described as such (setting aside the matter of approval methods). If not the latter, which I think is the more general issue here, then one might want to mention his Islamism, but caveated in some sense to th extent of its "non-standardness". (In this example, I suspect in practice people are even less precise in their application of "Islamicist" then they are with "Zionist", regretably. And/or, it's an even broader term, which perhaps amounts to much the same thing.) Alai 02:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Very much true but I just don't see the same standards being applied to pages about our enemies that are applied to those about our side. Grace Note 02:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Intro question

Does anyone know how many "Zionists" committed "acts of terrorism" against the British military after Israel's establishment? :DGuy Montag 07:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

reprisals?

Firstly: all contested inf. should be sourced, -if it isn´t: don´t be suprised if it is removed. Secondly; as far as I have understood, this article should be a "summing-up", and there is hardly room for causes (or "justifications") for the attacs in a summary. Thirdly: it was official policy that all attacs were to be "reprisals". See M. Begin: "The Haganah [ ]..was belatedly indoctrinated in the `forties -with the spirit of "reprisal". The internal literature of the Haganah abounded with articles explaining that operations must always be "reprisals for attacs". (p.213, The Revolt). Is it far-fetched to think that other groups adopted the same approach? Huldra 00:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I dont see any evidence (noe has EVER been provided during this long debate) that usage of the term is restricted in this way.

I am therefore removing it as original research. I will be happy to see it added again if we can source it according to WP policy. Unbehagen 07:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Unbehagen, you removed the text: "Outside that context, the term has fallen into disrepute and is now used largely by Islamist and neo-Nazi sources to deprecate Israel." [6]. Do you insist for WP to advertize "Islamist and neo-Nazi sources to deprecate Israel"? All it takes is one Google search. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes - but doing a google search and then drawing your own conclusions is Original Research isn't it? Unbehagen 08:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

"Rant"?

It's one thing to revert without justifying it, it's another to use the edit line to convey a personal attack in order to avoid addressing the issue. -- Dissident (Talk) 04:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong. There was nothing personal in my comment. In your edit [7], you took the side of "Islamist and neo-Nazi sources". Next time you are in a glass castle, be careful throwing rocks. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Firstly: I think most people would agree that calling another users edit for "rant" is a personal attack. And while personal attacks in general are frowned upon, a personal attack in an edit line is an absolute no-no. Secondly: claiming that another user has taken "the side of "Islamist and neo-Nazi sources"." (because he edited out such references) is an overstatement (to put it very, very diplomaticly) Huldra 15:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Page Split

Any support for splitting this page into 2.

1. to describe pre 1949 historical terrorism 2. to describe the actions of the current spate of ultra-nationalist right wing terrorists which are currently lumped into the second half of the article.

1940's zionist terrorism is an interesting subject where there are few open controversies. There does need to be a place for the current guys - but is it here?

What would be a good name for the second page? "Israeli ultra-nationalists"? Unbehagen 08:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

hmm, before we decide on this: could we "fill in" the second half of the article? As it stands now, there were no "militant incidents" (as it is euphemistically called) between 1948 and 1994.... For a start, what about the Kafr Qasim massacre? Huldra 04:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually; thinking about it: it is not obvious to me wether "incidents" like the Kafr Qasim massacre should go here, or in the Israeli terrorism -category (which is then redir to State terrorism. (The Israeli terrorism was originally an "offspin" of this article (in June -05) see: [8] It was then decided to merge Israeli terrorism into State terrorism a few weeks ago. )

Also, there are many other "incidents" not mentioned in either category. To list (some of) them in cronological (a favorite of mine!) order: Arab al-Mawasi massacre (Nov. 1948), Kafr Qasim massacre (Oct. 1956), Ahmed Bouchiki (July 1973), Abbas al-Musawi (Feb. 1992), Khaled Mashal (Sept. 1997) Should they be inserted into one of these two articles? If no: why not? If yes: which article? Does anybody have an opinion about this? Huldra 03:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

present-day usage (again)

As has been repeatedly pointed out, and repeatedly ignored, saying that the term "is now used largely by Islamist and neo-Nazi sources to deprecate Israel" is a textbook case of original research: the only evidence presented is Wikipedia editors' interpretation of search engine results. Furthermore, it is not entirely accurate; numerous non-Islamist, non–neo-Nazi sources (mainly fringe leftist and Arab, especially Palestinian, media) use the term as well. I thought the edits by Dissident and myself took care of at least the latter issue, though the former is still a problem. Apparently Humus sapiens and Leflyman disagree (rather rudely I might add). Would they care to explain why? —Charles P. (Mirv) 05:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and I thought we were done with that issue, though I seem to have forgotten about it and never followed through. Perhpas we need a terminology section, though, in order to better qualify some of these present-day usage tendencies. El_C 05:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I dont mean to nit-pick but "Palestinian" does not equal "Islamist" - there are plenty of disposessed Christian (and I daresay athiest) Palestinians as well. You can be pro-Palestinain without being pro-Islam. Unbehagen 10:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Exactly what is "rather rude" about directing people who have never edited the article before to bring up their proposed changes in the Talk page-- where there has been an ongoing and extensive discussion-- before getting into a revert war? It's appropriate to examine the preceeding conversation and offer alternative wording/options before deleting what one disagrees with. LeFlyman 19:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

You'll notice how I did offer an alternative wording based on a careful reading of the talk page, which was reverted, and explained why I chose the new wording in the edit summary and the talk page. There's still no response to the substantive issues of original research and accuracy, I see. —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Looking at Google results doesn't constitute original research, Mirv; it's just using Google as a source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Although, thinking about it, I see what you're saying: the interpreting of the results without Google explicitly saying: "This term is used mainly by Islamists and neo-Nazis." Still, I feel this is stretching the idea of original research a little, because we do always interpret sources, except when we're quoting them, and even then quotes are used out of context, and it's up to editors to interpret whether they've been lifted in a way that is fair, so interpretation is always present, if only minimally. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, precisely. Search engines are not publications; Google has indexed a number of neo-Nazi and Islamist websites using the term "Zionist terrorism", but it has made no claim about what these results mean. The claim that the use is largely by neo-Nazis and Islamists is an interpretation of the data which originates with editors here. How is this not "data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication"?

On the other hand, if someone outside Wikipedia were to take the data from the Google results, analyze it, determine who uses the term most, and publish that conclusion somewhere reliable—then I would have no problem making the claim and citing it to its source. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Right; point taken, though I wonder if there's another way of expressing it so that it's not OR. The problem for me is that, when I last looked on Google for this, the overwhelming number of sites that came up were neo-Nazi or Islamist, and then Wikipedia and its mirrors, which was embarrassing, so I feel it's important that we distance ourselves a little from those sites by acknowledging that the term is often used disreputably. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, but you don't ALSO feel the need to distance them with those who merely go overboard in their anti-Israel rhetoric as well? It's exactly inconsiderate stuff like this that made you and Jayjg give the impression that you're trying to push a pro-Israel and pro-Zionist view on Wikipedia. -- Dissident (Talk) 16:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought my formulation made it clear that in contemporary use, it's mainly a poorly-defined catchall smear for actions of the Israeli government. Apparently several users disagree, but won't bother to explain why. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem with your edit as I see it is that it doesn't make clear how far into disrepute the term has fallen (whereas mention of neo-Nazis and Islamists makes that clear), and I don't recall that they restrict their use to military actions taken by the state of Israel, though I don't currently have time to check on that again. Perhaps some wording between the current version and yours could be found. Yours is below. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, Mirv's edit's give the impression that this is yet another politically correct insult with offends overly sensitive people. The fact is that contemporary usage of the term "Zionist terrorism" is limited to Neo-Nazi's, Islamists, and their allies on the political left. Klonimus 09:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Outside that context, the term has fallen into disrepute as it is now often used as a pejorative epithet for (military) actions taken by the state of Israel.

I'm getting a bit sick of the whole insist on tertiary sources thing - which I note is a favourite tactic with Israel/Palestine articles. Basically you insist ont he form of words "X is used to refer to" - then insit on examples not of X refering to but of X being used to refer to. A classic is the Occupied Territories article. It's eeasy to find references to the phrase "Occupied Territories" and it's clear from what this refers to. It's very hard to fund references to "occupied territories is used to refer to" (which is a meta search searching for a secondard source showing uage not a secondary source of the fact). Fortunately this is a pattern I've now recognised and will be trying to ensure doesn't proliferate. "No Original Research" relies on secondard sources not secondary sources showing evidence of other secondary sources. What then happens is that the definition comes under attack - clouding the subject of the article entirely. Unbehagen 22:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually what you are referring to are secondary sources, not tertiary sources. In any event modern day uses have been well documented on this talk page, please stop deleting them. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

And I'm "getting a bit sick" of silly strawman arguments when someone aims to present an indefensible position, against all evidence to the contrary. I'll reiterate: there are no legitimate sources that use the term "Zionist Terrorism" to refer to present-day events. The only such references to be found from anti-Israel Arabic/Islamic media, and anti-Semitic/political (left- and right-wing) extremists. This is not Original Research, any more than it would be original research to note that only extremists refer to the United States as a terrorist state. Further, use of Google is an established resource for such declarations, and has a proposed guideline under Wikipedia:Google test. The issue has been discussed here, and apart from the couple of holdouts, no one else contends that it's a mainstream term. — LeFlyman 04:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

LeFlyman - before you burst a blood vessel - does the article refer to modern day events? I dont see it. So why the well poisoning on an article about the historical phenomenon of Zionist Terrorism? Feel less sick now? Unbehagen 19:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Unbehagen - before you become even less civil, try looking up what the term "Well poisoning" actually means. Wikipedia is not a history site, but an encylopedia. Description of present day usage is valid, and it would be white washing to exclude the context for a term that has such a loaded meaning in the modern world. LeFlyman 15:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Present-day useage continued

Here's the point, and why I contend the article title is inherently POV: while there has been historical references to "Zionist terrorism" in regards to militant groups which existed prior to establishment of Israel, there is no neutral usage of "Zionist terrorism" (or its derivative "Zionist terrorist") in modern mainstream scholarship or media. All uses are by extremists (of various flavours and obnoxiousness) and/or anti-Israeli sources -- which itself is an indication that it is not merely "in disrepute" but a term that is exclusively used to disparage Israel, its government and people. It is, in a very real sense, a "code word" to refer to the Jews of Israel in the same fashion as Islamic media uses "the Zionist Entity" as a euphemism for Israel, and "Zionazi" is used by political extremists as a wacky epithet. Here, is one such example from Indymedia.com, which caters to the "alternative" groups:

"Zionist Jewish Terror, Zionist Violence, Zionist Perversion, Zionist Criminality, Zionist Gangsterism, Zionist Gang/Terror Stalking, Zionist Thought Police, Zionist Control of "Crime" (Law) Enforcement, Zionist Control (Monopoly) of Media, and other Zionazism in the Pittsburgh Region.

The violent, criminal, terrorist, hateful, zionist, extremist, smear-mongering, neoconservative, lobbyists for Israel's Likud Party, frame-up artists at the AntiDefamation League field office in Pittsburgh and their fascist gang stalking/terror stalking membership are at it again." [9]

Now, Google is not the only source to use to check such references -- but it is the most convenient and most pervasive. But even a scouring of library resources fails to turn up any mainstream usage that refers to any modern-day groups or individuals as "Zionist terrorists." A search of the Library of Congress' index for "Zionist terrorism" pulls up only these Arabic originated works (out of "approximately 14 million records"):

Title: The black paper on the Jewish agency and Zionist terrorism;
Published: New York, 1948.
LC Call No.: JX1977.A2 S/740 al-Hay®ah al-°Arab¯iyah al-°Uly¯ali-Filasòt¯in.

Title: Who are the terrorists? Aspects of Zionist and Israeli terrorism.
Published: Beirut, Institute for Palestine Studies, 1972.
LC Call No.: DS119.7.W48

Author: Hadawi, Sami.
Title: Crime and no punishment; Zionist Israeli terrorism, 1939-1972.
Published: Beirut, Palestine Research Center [1972]
LC Call No.: DS119.7.H3195

Author: Hijazi, Arafat.
Title: Zionist terrorism : targetting the U.N. and the international resolutions / Arafat Hijazi.
Published: Amman, Jordan : Dar al-Sabah, 1987.
LC Call No.: DS119.7.H482 1987

There were no entries for "Zionist terrorist."

The closest one can come to mainstream media using the term is when one print publication refers to the bizarro allegations made in the Islamic world, such as was the case last year in the LA Times (as referenced by about.com):

"Crown Prince Abdullah gave a speech to Saudi dignitaries blaming "Zionists" for the anti-government insurgency. "It became clear to us now that Zionism is behind terrorist attacks in the Kingdom," the state-run Saudi Press Agency quoted him as saying. ..."

It's not Original Research to point out something which is obvious: the usage of the term in reference to modern-day acts or peoples is restricted to a select group-- those who have an anti-Israel agenda. And thus, this Wikipedia article which contends the homicidal actions of individuals can be called "Zionist terrorism" is itself Original Research -- because there is nowhere in any scholarship (outside of the aforementioned extremists) which make that claim. LeFlyman 06:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

while there has been historical references to "Zionist terrorism" in regards to militant groups which existed prior to establishment of Israel, there is no neutral usage of "Zionist terrorism" (or its derivative "Zionist terrorist") in modern mainstream scholarship or media. All uses are by extremists—I agree. Entirely. Everything you've written here is broadly correct. What I disputed, and still dispute, is that the term is "used largely by Islamist and neo-Nazi sources to deprecate Israel". I have no problem with explaining that the term is no more than a vague slur. —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your position and agree that stating as fact that it is "used largely by Islamist and neo-Nazi sources" is inaccurate. I didn't generate that statement, but it does come out of a discussion I participated in (if not incited) much earlier on this Talk page. However, as noted above, more generally, it is anti-Israel extremists-- as well as Arab and Islamic media, which may not be extremist by their own standards-- who use the term in reference to present day events. As I consistently pointed out, "Zionist terrorism" can be seen as a historical term, in reference to those past, acknowledged Zionist militant groups, but has no place in modern discourse in describing current activities in (or outside, as extremists content) Israel. There are no Zionist terrorist groups in the modern world, as much as those who want to believe that Kach and Kahane Chai are actively doing naughty things like planning death, destruction and mayhem. I don't believe that "Zionist terrorism" is used as a "vague slur," however -- it's a very specific usage to deprecate Israel. To be repetitive, inclusion of violent acts by individuals post-1945 should not be part of this article, as they fail the Verifiability policy by having no Reliable Sources which reference them as such. This article thus becomes a basis of legitimising the claims-- whereas there is no basis to make the claim. LeFlyman 15:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The current version is clearly incorrect, as it is used to describe all sorts of things that have not been done by Israel as well, as the example from Saudi Arabia (above) shows, as well as actions by groups such as the JDL and Tagar/Betar (not even Israeli), and various alleged attacks by individuals on Holocaust Deniers, their bookshops, etc.[10] Jayjg ^(talk) 00:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh lord, spare us. Your side makes out that it's just a slur aimed at the Israeli government, and then you complain that it's also used for other Zionists! Lots of people call expansionists "Zionists", not just neo-Nazis and "Islamists", although they are well represented as doing so on Google. And few people would use the phrase "Zionist terrorists" who aren't so describing the government and armed forces of Israel (and it's true that the combination is unlikely to be much seen in mainstream work, because it's rare that governments of any kind are described as "terrorists" in mainstream publications). But the phrase is used, and it is used by people outside those mentioned. And it's not necessarily true that it has "fallen into disrepute" (more original research -- you simply will not source any of this stuff, will you?) so much as it has never been much used. I don't doubt that. There are relatively few "Zionist terrorists". Given the nature of terrorism, that's hardly a surprise. There aren't many American terrorists either. Grace Note 07:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

We have plenty of evidence that the term is not used by mainstream sources, and is only used by Islamists, Neo-nazi's and their leftist friends. Look at the bibliography search above. Klonimus 09:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

LeFlyman made an important point above that he can find no instance of Zionist terrorism being used by reputable sources to describe post-statehood acts of violence, and that if we use it like that, it's original research. I've therefore commented out the post-statehood material until we decide how to proceed. Would those who want that material to remain please produce a source showing that these acts have been called Zionist terrorism by some credible source e.g. an academic, an institution, or credible newspaper, and where it's not only used as an insult against Israel or Jews in general. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Reasonable to remove the post statehood references. But then the intro is totally wrong so have reverted (the IP address edit was me) - historians DO refer to the 1940's violence as zionist terrorism and the term when used in this context is NOT a slight on modern day Israel. Unbehagen 11:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that historical usage has its place; however it should still make clear that outside of that context, usage by non-historians is now a epithet against Israel -- the intro was correct in that assertion, and in identifying just who uses the term in the present day. That's what this ongoing discussion has been about, and it's inappropriate to whitewash over that. LeFlyman 23:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

An editorial at "Aljazeerah.info" - uses the zerm zionist terrorism to describe actions up to the present day. Al Jazeerah is a reputable source - albeit one which does not conform to the current US/Israeli view of the world. What do we propose to do with the later incidents? 167.203.48.180 20:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The anonymous user has confused Al Jazeera the newsource based in Qatar, whose Web site (English version) is http://english.aljazeera.net with the above site, which are not connected. Notice the address at the bottom? "Aljazeerah Information Center, P. O. Box 724, Dalton, GA 30720, USA." That one is hardly credible, and vehemently anti-Israel-- which makes my point for me, with phrases like "Zionist hatemonger militants", "Zionist supremacists" and "Zionist atrocities." Thanks for validating the issue. - LeFlyman 23:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Well poisoning

Since the article now deals only with historical "zionist terrorism" I have removed the paragraph on modern day usage as it is a clear attempt at well poisoning.

jayg - thanks for your note on my talk page - I would remind you however that it is only your opinion that I am edit warring here whilst you have been censured for it in the past. Please stop it - assume good faith on my part since I have no history in this regard. The presumption is a lot less strong on yours given your problematic past. Lets keep historical articles accurate and to the point. Unbehagen 13:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It is hardly an "opinion" that you are edit-warring, because you do have a history of it; specifically, you have now reverted this article 16 times in the past 3 weeks, including 3 times in the past day, removing an insertion whose content has, in one form or another, been supported by at least 8 other editors (and that includes, by the way, Mirv, who you recently appealed to using a personal attack against me). Please desist from edit-warring; as you have mentioned yourself, the Arbitration Committee has stated that edit-warring is harmful. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Amusing how you've latched onto yet another phrase which you apparently do not understand. "Well poisoning" is an anti-Semitic accusation, related to the blood libel, that Jews caused illness and death by contaminating food and water-- still a popular claim, even in the present, see, for example, Al Jazerra: "Settlers poison Palestinian well". Perhaps you are attempting to refer to the logical fallacy "poisoning the well" (derived from the anti-Semitic origin) which is an attempt to discredit an argument through false claim or ridicule of the presenter. That's more akin to what you're doing now by terming "well poisoning" the statement that "modern-day usage of Zionist terrorism is a political epithet." There is no false claim or discreditation in the statement-- it's verifiable, as has been repeatedly been shown. Now that you've switched to a new tact in attempts to remove the encyclopedically-valid statement on modern usage, what exactly is the problem with differentiating the present day with the historical context of a term? Is there a fear that anti-Israel/anti-Jewish extremists will take offence at having their usage of the term labeled for what it is? LeFlyman 15:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Please see: http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacies.htm#Poisoning%20the%20Well . So clearly this is well poisoning. Please keep atricles on topic. Unbehagen 17:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You first reverted the inclusion of this material based on the claim that is was "original research", insisting that the word "exclusively" made it original research. When the word "exclusively" was removed, you reverted the material based on the claim that it was "not cited". When the citations on the Talk: page were pointed out to you, you reverted the material based on the claim that it was WP:POINT. Now you are reverting the material based on the claim that it is "well-poisoning". As to your last claim, including the current use of the term "Zionist terrorism" is hardly "off-topic" for an article on "Zionist terrorism", and indeed, is crucial in understanding why the article only deals with 1949 and earlier events. Your edits are becoming increasingly disruptive, and no longer appear to be in good faith. Please desist. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Please not - as I have pointed out above. The rest of the article has changed since the original inclusion of thwe term. Clearly it is now (since it is the only reference to modern day usage) well poisoning. As an aside the compromise (which is not trying to make WP:POINT is a lot less objectionable on these grounds -almost has a place in an historical article. Unbehagen 20:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You made all these claims after the "rest of the article changed", so clearly you have made 4 different claims as to why the information shouldn't be in the current article. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

When it was Original Research it needed to be excluded on those grounds. When it became fatuous Well Popisoning due to lack of a context it need excluding on those grounds. Is that clear now? If you want to put back in the psot 1949 stuff and keep the non Original Research point - that would be good with me - provided you use suitable wording and avoid obvious WP:POINT phraseology. Unbehagen 18:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You removed essentially the identical information from the identical article for four reputed reasons. At other times you removed formulations that were pretty much the same as the current one. I'm afraid your excuses won't wash. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Anyone in the mood for an RfC

Unbehagen's behavior has gotten to the point where wikipedia dispute resolution may be needed. Klonimus 03:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Klonimus, I just looked at a couple of your comments above, and you seem to be in a glass house on this one. Marsden 16:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

OK - I'd be happy with an objective look st this. At no point have I breached policy. I have always been polite. So go ahead. I dont think it's very co-operative and as jayg found out these things can go against you as well as for - but if you feel it is necessary please do so - just be aware that you are under scrutiny too. Unbehagen 12:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

As you have noted, the Arbitration Committee has made it clear that edit-warring is harmful to Wikipedia, and it appears that you use this userid for almost nothing else - that's certainly grounds for RfC, and perhaps RfAR. As an aside, I've never brought an action which as "gone against me". Jayjg ^(talk) 18:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You note that I have not in fact modified what I see as a compromise version? and that I commented on this as being a good solution BEFORE there was talk of an RcF. If you fee you will get anywhere then go ahead. But people in glass houses should not therow stones. I would remind you that the most recent edit war was instigated by your making WP:POINT on the occupied territories article. Unbehagen 18:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You certainly can't "remind me" of something that never happened, since I never made a WP:POINT on that article (or this one). On the contrary, WP:POINT is what your deletions have been, as various editors have pointed out to you. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

It is good for you, us and the whole wikipedia project if you at least try to maintain a connection with the truth. Thanks. Unbehagen 21:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You really wouldn't have any idea what is good for the Wikipedia project (much less the truth), would you? After all, you're just a userid created for the purpose of edit-warring. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate that Unbehagen has not modified the latest version, which omits references to the groups that use the term "Zionist terrorism" as a present day epithet. I would prefer to see us state explicitly who these groups are, rather than weaseling in nebulous passive voice— however, I will not oppose the current language, if the other editors feel it is sufficient. LeFlyman 20:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally I dont see that it is necessary in an historical article (and note above I always wanted to keep this article focused on the historical pre 1949 phenominon) but it's not a bad compromise - I'd already decided to let it stand. For an historical article to start with a whole rant about modern day hate groups just seems like it's an attempt to detract from a sensible discussion of the historical facts. We dont do it anywhere else. Why here? Unbehagen 22:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, there's no such thing as an exclusively "historical article" on Wikipedia. The presentation of historic content certainly doesn't preclude mention of modern context. This is intended to be an encyclopedia, and thus should include full relevant and accurate information. So long as such an article title as "Zionist terrorism" exists, exclusion of the very notable present day usage of the term by extremists would be a contrary to WP. The rhetorical statement, "We dont do it anywhere else" is merely "proof by assertion." LeFlyman 03:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

My first post, (sorry if something is wrong), Everyone keeps speaking of "Zionist Terrorism", saying that the term is currently used by Islamists/Pro-Nazi groups only. I agree that "terrorists" is a term used for political reasons and should be avoided. However, to use the term with Palestinians only creates a double-standard. Every instance where Americans or Israelis or British kill thousands of innocent men, women, and children in an etempt of good faith, these countries are labeled as Anti-terrorists organizations where innocent bystanders are harmed. I currently do not have the time to get the data, but if someone would like to, I am sure that the innocent lives taken by these three countries alone out-number all of the palestinian terrorists acts. I am sick of the term "terrorists" and everyone should realize that murder is murder and all of these groups should share the same title. I want to also note that "Islamists" are not all bad. It seems that "Islamists" are being associated with "Neo-Nazi's" by many of the editors. Take note, there are many Islamists that are very non-violent people who want peace(Just as there are good and bad Christians and Jews). I believe a new article should be stemmed off from the current article that incorporates modern Israeli Terrorists(eliminate "Zionists" firstly, and use "terrorists" solely because of its use everywhere else on WP) seperately from historic Zionist Terrorism.

ps.

The people at war will always make their enemies look and sound bad. However, the people in power(ie. America, Israel, Britian, Japan), will push their views of their enemies onto as many people as possible, blinding many with a curtain of deception.

-Gavin (anti-religious USA citizen) February 17, 2006 17:11  :)

NPOV review

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

"Campaign of Violence?"

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

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

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

The modifier "some"

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

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

Terrorists or Underground?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consistency please

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

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

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

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

Title Change?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excised commented-out sections

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

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

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

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

redundant article name

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

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

page rename

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Caution

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

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

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

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

idea for content organization

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

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

Neutral language in intoduction

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

It appears as though its only the mainstream press of countries that have fought Israel that even use the phrase "Zionist terrorism".[11]--21:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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