Talk:Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles. |
| NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload. | |
| B | This article has been rated as b-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project's importance scale. |
 |
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. |
 |
||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
This statement from the previous objector: There are basically two sides on the legality of Israel (so far as international law goes). The first is that the 1947 partition recommendation, if ratified in the UN, would establish a legal "State of Israel" within the partition lines. The other is that Israel, in going to war in 1948 and declaring it's independance, actually lost it's charter, and doesn't exist legally. A third, Zionist version, exists, in which Israel exists legally in a way comparable to something like France. This is the position that gets the media-time and such, but has no standing in International Law.
Aside from it not making grammatical sense, postulates that Israel should not exist because of its participation in the war of 1948. I encourage all readers to go to the Wikipedia information on this war and examine this for themselves. I think all historically accurate information on this war shows how the land that is now considered Israel was split up by the UN in 1947 to contain both Arab land sections and Israeli land sections, and that Jerusalem was to be a UN protectorate. Immediately after this happened, the Israeli land sections were attacked on all sides by several Arab countries. Israeli lands responded to this attack, and in the end, the Israeli fighters won 200 percent of their original land sections and created much of what we know as Israel today. I don't know of many who dispute this history with any real credibility. Since this land mass was originally partioned by the UN after British disengagement and then fought over in a war, it does seem that the victors were the Israelis. Also, I feel it is important to mention that when the Palestinians were offered 97 percent of the land mass back that they wanted to form an independent state, they denied the offer, and denied it more than once.
please do not delete the poster refrence, this is no joke. this is very important to understand the full context of the conflict. On one hand, we have israeli soldiers with mandatory recruitment post senior year (turning the army into basically a college dorm), on the other hand we have palestinian soldiers (also same age) doing LOTS i mean LOTS of self promotional posters with cheesy photoshop "cloud" skies, giant view camera angles, and lens flare suns or lens flares on the dome of the rock. These things may be funny, but they are certainly a perspective which we do not hear about much when this conflict is discussed. I was in Bethlehem during the Israeli elections, and it was complete under lock down during the day, which made it look like a giant ghost town. All over almost every boarded shut store front however, were these faded promotional posters of like various small groups of men, in the exact same style as rap album covers.
Yesterday I removed the following phrase "the civilian status of Israelis is desputed internationally." What does it mean? I am pro-Palestinian, I support the right of Palestinians to carry out guerrilla warfare against the Israeli security forces for as long as the occupation continues (hence my changing of "terrorist" to "militant" in this article), as do many people worldwide. But I've never heard many non-Palestians (excluding Islamic extremists) claim that unarmed men, women and going about their everyday lives are not civilians. Even many who support the murder of civilians, or carry it out, still acknowledge that the civilian status of their victims. Just because a country has conscription does not mean unarmed civilians not on military service are legitimate targets. Children and babies are definently not legitimate targets. Using the logic implied in the statement I removed, the Israeli government could argue that there is no such thing as a Palestinian civilian because any one of them could be a non-uniformed guerrilla. Kingal86 17:04, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
There are basically two sides on the legality of Israel (so far as international law goes). The first is that the 1947 partition recommendation, if ratified in the UN, would establish a legal "State of Israel" within the partition lines. The other is that Israel, in going to war in 1948 and declaring it's independance, actually lost it's charter, and doesn't exist legally. A third, Zionist version, exists, in which Israel exists legally in a way comparable to something like France. This is the position that gets the media-time and such, but has no standing in International Law. The General Assembly is generally understood to have taken the second position (revocation of charter) when it voted to re-assert the right of the Palestinian people to pursue the return of their land by "any means at their disposal". On these grounds, no such thing as an Israeli civilian exists. The UN has also staunchly refused to give into Israel and the USA's demand that Palestinian actions be labelled "terrorist", as according to international law, they are not. All this serves to demonstrate, really, is how little power international law has. According to international law, for example, the United States is required to return all 48% of the Continental US that it itself has deemed un-ceded land, along with the 3% it claims by "right of conquest" from Indigenous Peoples. That doesn't really mean it's anywhere near about to happen. In practical terms, some sort of an idea of who is civilian in "Israeli" society would focus on those who have forced citizenship: Syrians in the Golan Heights, who Israel illegally stripped of Syrian citizenship, and anyone who was living in Palestine before the 1948 war and loss of charter. But these wouldn't actually be Israeli civilians anyway, but would be Syrian and Palestinian (the statehood of Palestine having been recognized by the UN some time ago as is evident in the "by any means" resolution.) A similar situation was proposed in international law for South Africa during Apartheid, but wasn't as strong a case because the State of South Africa was not a creation of the UN, uniquely beholden to it's charter, as Israel was.
The following was removed until a proper citation will be provided: However Israel has completely refused to allow this documents to be scrutinized by independent observers, raising doubts as to their authenticity. MathKnight 21:34, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Moving article to different name
After Arafat died, the Al-Aqsa Brigades renamed themselves to: Brigrades of Martyr Yasser Arafat or Al-Shaid Yasser Arafat Brigades. What do you think about renaming the page's name as well? (the al-aqsa brigadeds will be a redirect to the new page). MathKnight 11:21, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- If this is official, there is no question that it should be moved to the correct name. As a mention is already made in the first paragraph, I'll just move the page now. --Ardonik.talk()* 04:51, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
It's Al-Shaheed Yasir Arafat Brigades, not Al-Shaid, though i'm not sure if it's a rename of Al-Aqsa, please correct spelling. HussaynKhariq 19:08, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Alan Harry Goodman
Isn't the name of Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades somewhat connected to goodman's shooting in 1981?
- I don't know about that shooting but the Al-Aqsa Brigades were formed on 2000. It might be that the Fatah\PLO - mother organiations for the Brigades, were involved. MathKnight 17:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Why not terrorist?
If (some consider) HAMAS is a terrorist group, why none objected that this group called militant rather than terrorist? I think yhis group done the same thing that HAMAS done.202.69.101.170 07:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Marwan Barghouti
Admittedly my understanding of this subject is not thorough, but is it NPOV to list Barghouti here as the high commander of Al-Aqsa Brigades without any qualifying statements, given that he categorically denies involvement with Al-Aqsa? From what I've gathered he was the leader of Fatah, Al-Aqsa's parent body, in the West Bank, and his conviction on murder charges as leader of Al-Aqsa is widely contested. It's plenty true that he was convicted, but it seems that if there is a vocalized contention that he was not in fact the organization's leader or even a participant, the negating claim deserves mention anyplace that the connection is asserted. Here is a reference for context: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1473585.stm I am adding a clarifying sentence to the section that mentions him.Brrryan 21:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I Interviewed the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade 2 Weeks Ago . . .
. . . and this article, like most articles on Zionistpedia, is wrong, Wrong, WRONG! I was at ground zero when the Israelis attacked Ramallah on January 4, 2007, and members of the Al Aqsa Brigade were the only persons who protected my life while the Israelis came in with both guns a blazin', illegally using military force in the middle of a civilian vegetable market in complete disregard of both human life and international law. Stop posting pro-zionist propaganda about a cause you know nothing about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.88.70.156 (talk • contribs).
- This is certainly not our intention. We are trying to create a neutral unbiased encyclopedia here. If you can point us to where you think we are going wrong, please do, it would be appreciated. AndrewRT(Talk) 20:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The al-Aqsa Intifada
I think this is one of the odd effects you get when you mix languages, but it is common usage to have a double article. al-Aqsa is the Palestinian term for Jerusalem, or more specifically, the al-Aqsa Mosque - literally the furthest mosque. However the 2nd intifada is generally known as The al-Aqsa Intifada. (see [1] and [2]). Other examples of this double article is seen in the article Smithy code which refers to "the The Da Vinci Code copyright case" and phrases such as "the El Niño weather system" and "the Le Mans circuit". AndrewRT(Talk) 20:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] creation
according to this clip, they were started by marwan barghuthi at the orders of yasser arafat.
i may incorperate this into the article in the future.
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/999.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaakobou (talk • contribs) 18:30:48, August 19, 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Islamicjihadjeep.JPG
Image:Islamicjihadjeep.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
