Talk:Palestinian political violence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Palestinian political violence 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.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-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.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-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 is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Palestinian political violence article.
Article policies
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 12 April 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 21 March 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Comments

When PALESTINIANS KILL CIVILIANS THEY ARE TERRORISTS. Unlike the IRA & the Basques Separtist Party both of whom have stayed away from murdering civilians Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Aska Martyrs Brigade and Fatah are ALL PALESTINIAN TERRORIST organizations continually assaulting Israel and MURDERING civilians.

If people were murdering civilians in France, Germany, England or America there would be public outcry. But, since Palestinian Terrorists are murdering Israelis we in the world community believe this is acceptable. When Iraqis set off bombs killing other Iraqis it is called Terrorism, but when Palestinians set off bombs or shoot people it is simply Political violence. We in the world community continually pamper Palestinian Terrorists turning a blind eye to a country that is being born through constant Terrorism. Iranians, Lybians, Lebanese, Syrians, Iraqis, Sudanese and Kurds are oppressed completely in their own countries. We know this and accept this in the world community. Unfortunately, we also accept PALESTINIAN TERRORISM and the innocent blood that PALESTINIAN TERRORISTS spill. This is sad & is truly a grave oversight by us in the "civilized" & "educated" world. User: PalestinianTERRORISM

I agree with most of what you are saying but I am sorry to inform you that the IRA do target civilians, and have been known even to kill children, so please do not presume to call them freedom fighters or not terrorist, while stating that other terrorists are indeed terrorists. I even have a relative that was at the Guildford bombingsand he can tell you that they are indeed terrorists. - Anon

And by your words i assume that what israel does is just self-defence..Just look at the numbers and you'll see the truth. In the current Intifada Israel killed more than 5000 palestinian civilians about 700 of them children on the other hand only 1000 israeli civillians were killed. Just because israel uses High-tech killings doesn't make it self-defence. WHAT ISRAEL DOES IS PURE TERRORISM.62.219.70.253 13:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Palestinians Who Murder Civilians Are Terrorists

Maveric-I'd like to tell you about a good friend of mine who suffered from what you like to call the "asymetric conflict". His daughter was on a bus one day in Israel when a Palestinian boarded the bus. This Palestinian had explosives strapped around his waist and after a few moments of looking at the passengers on the bus he murdered them by detonating his explosives. My friends daughter was killed--part of the "assymetric conflict". This was done by a Palestinian Terrorist.

I wish you could meet my friend. I wish you could know what it's like for him to wake up everyday knowing that the daughter he raised is now DEAD. You're very quick to refer to Israeli Terrorism and you're very slow to realize that Israel should have some right to defend itself from Palestinians who decide to murder civilians. You say you're trying to be fair but in reality after reading your comments it's quite clear to me that your definition of fair is inherent in your belief that Israel should completely fold up it's arms and allow its citizens to be murdered. It is also clear to me that while you may have a great grasp of what real life is like behind your computer, you have no idea what life is like in the Middle East. It is clear to me that you've never been to the Middle East and that you think that you're helping a people when in reality you are helping to perpetuate needless violence. I hope you come to Jerusalem and meet people from both sides of this issue. But, I tend to think you'll stay seated in front of your computer completely abyss to a society where people hope for peace everyday but see it shattered by Palestinian Terrorists in an "assymetric conflict".

I'm sorry to say your friend and your personal subjective views on Palestinians who commit political violence against civilians are irrelevant to this article. Wikipedia has a policy of No Original Research. PS. I have been to the Middle East, and Israel is a great country (the people, not what they do to the Palestinians). 172.144.0.252 04:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Older Discussion

I wholeheartedly agree with maveric149's suggestion of moving much content to Arab-Israeli conflict, and covering the main themes under terrorism, while deleting this article. Quite apart from the terrorism/freedom fighter debates, we risk having entries on "(enter your enemy here) terrorism", each of which will descend into irreconcilable arguments. User:Mswake.

This strikes me as a not-very-NPOV article title. --Robert Merkel

There has been a good deal of discussion on wikipedia about the use of the word "terrorism" and why we should avoid it. Specifically, one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. I suggest the info in this article be rolled into another, such as Arab-Israeli conflict. After ALOT of work is done to make this info NPOV. This article is going on my watch list.--maveric149

Blowing up a Sbarro's pizza parlor makes one a freedom fighter? Running into a banquet hall and machine-gunning everyone in sight makes one a freedom fighter? Shooting a wheelchair bound Leon Klinghoffer, and then dumping his body overboard, makes one a freedom fighter? It seems to me that the entire world has agreed that such actions never make one a freedom fighter, and always mark one as a terrorist. Except, of course, if one decides to mass-murder Jews. In that case only, the dictionary is rewritten to make such criminal potential "freedom fighters". Are you prepared to defend this line of thinking for everyone, or just for Arab terrorist groups. If it is genuinelly true that there is no legitimate use of the word terrorism, and that no action can be labeled as "terrorist", then all of Wikipedia's entries on Hitler, the Nazis and World War II are huge violations of NPOV, because they don't give equal time and stature to describing why the Nazis may legitimately be viewed as heroic freedom fighters, and because Wikipedia fails to explain why the Jews may well be evil sub-humans that deserve to be exterminated. (This, by the way, is precisely what the PLO, Hamas and the Neo-Nazis are hoping Americans will do.) Let us not forget that many of the current Palestinian terrorist organizations literally use the same anti-Semitic tracts that the Nazis themselves used to incute violence against Jews. Why was it anti-Semitic incitement for the Nazis to do this, but "freedom fighting" when the precise same thing is attempted by people of Arab descent? RK
Because most of the Arab world doesn't seem to regard the various Palestinian groups you refer to as terrorists. --Robert Merkel
Of course murdering Jewish civilians is not considered terrorist by some Arabs...and it wasn't considered terrorist by the Nazis. We still have to admit that the examples given above are terrorism, or admit that the Nazis were not murderers, and may have had a legitimate reason to exterminate the Jews. I find it disturbing the even the example of murdering a wheelchair bound senior citizen, and then dumping his body overboard, is something that you refuse to label as a terrorist activity. Why? Do you really think that it may be defendable as a military action? I doubt that you would feel this way if a member of your family (and a civilian at that!) was blown up by someone in a Sbarro's pizza parlor. Look, I understand that many people defend all of these terrorist incidents, but this only exposes them as anti-Semites. It didn't prove that the criminals attacking civilians were "freedom fighters". RK
maveric, I agree that information on Palestinian terrorism should be rolled into a wider article on the conflict. Listing these things, without the context of what else is going on in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is likely to be inherently misleading, IMHO. --Robert Merkel
Hmmm, I wonder what's so NPOV about this, after all the violence committed by various fighters for the "Palestinian cause" is quite unique and distinct. Note that I'm talking here about deliberately killing innocent civilians, which does fall under the definition of terrorism. One could, of course, devise a page about Israeli terrorism, but I don't think it'd be as impressive. --Uriyan
I agree that the terrorism committed by Palestinian groups against Jews and Christians should be put in context. We also have to show how Hamas, Hizbollah, Fatah, Iran, and the PLO are all linked, and all work together. Or are you proposing that we give Fatah an qual opportunity to explain why it is right and just to go into a pizza parlor and mass murder children? Would that satisfy your understanding of NPOV? RK
Well, "Palestinains" fits well enough Fatah, Hamas and PLO. While getting Hizbollah and Iran as well could be nice, but they do a different sort of things (seldom direct attacks on civilians). As far as I'm concerned, I'm all for giving Fatah its opportunity of explaining its profound right to slaughter Israeli civilians - it will look appropriate under this title. --Uriyan

Blowing up a Sbarro's pizza parlor makes one a freedom fighter? Running into a banquet hall and machine-gunning everyone in sight makes one a freedom fighter? Shooting a wheelchair bound Leon Klinghoffer, and then dumping his body overboard, makes one a freedom fighter? It seems to me that the entire world has agreed that such actions never make one a freedom fighter, and always mark one as a terrorist....

On a strictly personal level I wholeheatedly agree that terrorists are those individuals or groups that exist on the fringe of society and use fear and the targeting of civilians to obtain their goals. This is my personal definition of the word terrorist. However, due to the fact that the word terrorist is so often misused, and the fact that a large part of the Muslim world would be hesitant to call the actions of some Palestinian groups terrorist (some even refer to them as the actions of "freedom fighters"), I don't think that it is appropriate to title an article "Palestinian terrorism" and only list all the bad things Palestinians have done to Israeli's and not mention at all what Israeli's have done to Palestinians (which many Palestinians have in turn called "terrorist"). Because of this rather large minority opinion, the use the term "terrorist" in this context is improper. I prefer more neutral and broader terminology, such as "asymetric conflict", and then mention that some people refer to the subset of asymetric conflict that is directed toward civilians as terrorism. It is too one sided and inherently biased to only state one side of the story. The same goes for Israeli terrorism. --maveric149

Are you prepared to defend this line of thinking for everyone, or just for Arab terrorist groups. If it is genuinelly true that there is no legitimate use of the word terrorism, and that no action can be labeled as "terrorist", then all of Wikipedia's entries on Hitler, the Nazis and World War II are huge violations of NPOV, because they don't give equal time and stature to describing why the Nazis may legitimately be viewed as heroic freedom fighters, and because Wikipedia fails to explain why the Jews may well be evil sub-humans that deserve to be exterminated.

Not even a measurably small minority feel that the actions of Hitler were justifiable (even most skinheads and neo-nazis say that the Holocost didn't happen) -- and that is why the ideas of Hitler are not given equal time. Equal time is only given to majority and widely held minority opinions, not crackpot ones. --maveric149
The views held by German, Austrian and Polish citizens during world war II were majority views, and were widely held. At the very least, tens of thousands of people today still agree. Many of their views have been adopted, in toto, by large elements of the Muslim and Arab world today. For example: Indonesia went so far as to ban the movie "Schindler's List" because it did not give equal time to show the viewpoint of the Nazis. Syria and the Palestinian Authority distribute Nazi tractates (such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion), and they simultaneously deny that the Holocaust took place (effectively creating such a violent hatred of Jews that another Holocaust may well be attempted). The former President of Iran publicly states (last month!) that all Jews in Israel should be exterminated with nuclear weapons. And no one in the Arab community disagrees. The list goes on and on. My point is this: The actions of the Germans during World War II should be labeled as evil not because they were simply done by a man who happened to be named "Hitler", but because they were evil actions. Therefore, if other people try to do the same sorts of things, we should recognize this in the same way. Sure, millions of people widely hold that Hamas, Hizbollah and islamic Jihad are not terrorist organizations. They are also rabid anti-Semites. The fact that many of them exist doesn't change the way that such violence should be labeled and described. If that were so, then can you imagine how during World War II the Nazis would have been described by Wikipedia? Mass murder of civilians doesn't become right just because a large percent of people agree with it. RK

Nobody here suggested that mass murder can ever be considered to be right. The killing of innocent people is murder and should be labled as such. However the use of the term terrorist does not have a well defined meaning -- it is an obscure word that is oftentimes thrown around with wild abandon by one group that is trying to demonize another. (see my personal opinion on this above) And notions that the Jewish people (or any people) should be destroyed by nuclear weapons are of course evil and therefore crackpot (see above). If something is obviously evil (by a reasonable person or community standard), then it is not NPOV and should not be given equal time on wikipedia (either now, or in the hypothetical WWII wikipedia). All I am saying, is that we shouldn't be creating artificial definitions to terms that have no real meaning due to widespread misuse. maveric149

Well, terrorism is an existing phenomenon, and while it's often quite vague, it is much more difficult to express via other means. The Palestinians hijacking American aircraft and killing Israeli civilians is obviously terrorism, no matter how you define it. Of course some people might disagree, but then some people do believe that female circumcision is ethical and we don't, do we? --Uriyan

Why are attacks on soldiers of the Israeli occupying force included in this list? While blowing up US Marines at a bar probably constitutes terrorism, killing soldiers on active duty in an occupying force can't seriously be thus classified. Okay if I remove them? I can add real terrorist attacks to the article to compensate, if anyone is feeling tit for tat.

In general, I agree. In this context, it is more difficult to say. Since 1993 (?), the Palestinian Authority has claimed that it will follow the Oslo peace accords, and will negotiate a political settlement with Israel. While this is going on, if it sends out different branches of its army (such as Fatah) to carry out attacks against soliders who are on patrol, I would call this terrorism. (Fatah is Arafat's personal armed forces; they are not a rogue faction.) If the PA were to publicly state that the peace treaty is null and void, andif they sent uniformed soldiers to attack Israeli soldiers, this would be an act of war, and not terrorism. However, in the past two years, the attacks against soldiers are not acts of war, nor are they isolated incidents; rather, they are part of a broad pattern in which any Israeli Jew is killed. (Of course, Arabs and Druze are killed as well.) The only times that Israeli soldiers die is when it is more convenient. Fatah's latest operation was not against soliders, but against a grandmother in a banquet hall during a Bar Mitvah celebration. (Most of their attacks are against civilians; the same is true for Hamas). I would therefore propose that Fatah should be classified as a terrorist organization, that on occasion kills soldiers. RK
All of the attacks against soldiers (which constitute only about a quarter of the victims) are explicitly marked so. Note that in some of the attacks soldiers died not because they were not targeted explicitly. So better leave as it is, and allow whoever compiles the statistics treat the data as he wishes. And by the way, blowing up 243 American Marines at their base does constitute terrorism. --Uriyan
I feel that certain people have been posting articles in a very pedantic way, staying strictly NPOV in foramt, but tilting the perspective by the data they represent. I wish to follow up this, and insist that the killings of soldiers on active duty in this article be moved to a separate article, "Attacks on Israel" or the equivalent. I'll do the work myself, but I'm open to counter arguments first. -- GayCommunist
First of all, GC, "certain slimy individuals" are responsible for what they do and what they write. Secondly, only about 20 out of the 180 victims were deliberately attacked because they were soldiers. Thirdly, it is difficult to say about most of the attacks whether soldiers were targeted (for example, is shooting a soldier protecting civilian population terrorism by your classification or not?). Also note that work has been moved to Terrorism against Israel. You may add disclaimers, though, that "some people believe that attacks against soldiers are not to be considered terrorism". Of course a database would be better but that's one thing Wikipedia can't do yet. --Uriyan

Let's not get sidetracked into a discussion of which attacks were "terrorist". It's not possible to resolve such an issue, because "terrorism" does not have an undisputable meaning. For supporters of a cause, attacks are seen as battle in a (just) war -- while opponents of that cause call it murder.

It's just like the use of the word "cult" which means "spurious religion" -- it depends on who considers it spurious. To many people, my church is a cult -- perhaps even the primary example of one. To me, it's just a normal church or maybe even "the" church. -- Ed Poor

In spite of powerful retaliatory acts on behalf of Israel (which included, up until 1953, the deliberate targeting of civilians), the infiltrations never stopped.

What does this sentence mean? Who was working on Israel behalf? Who was targeting civilian?

WHY THIS ARTICLE IS NOT MARKED AS A NOT BEING NPOV OR BEING DISPUTED, while it is stated in the Isreali Terrorism article?. I think the whole issue of terrorism is raised here due to the fact that no clear definition of the word terrorism exists. For me, a terrorist is any person who is ready to use any mean to acheive his political goals on the account of civilians. A definition that most certainly applys to Israel since its creation and before.(If not saying that the creation of isreal is itself an act of terror). This article is not neatural in anyway, if kept it should have a root change. May05 08:52, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] My opinion -- keep it, but move out some of the info

I think we need to have an article on this topic. The issue is too much in the news to completely ignore it. However, I do agree that the article should discuss the issue of Palestinian terrorism in an abstract, neutral way, not make specific claims on what is and is not actually terrorism. For example, it could discuss the fact that what most of the world (US, EU, etc.) sees as terrorism on occasion derails peace summits, and is in Israel's view the single most pressing problem in the mideast situation. And so on. But specific lists of violence should be moved elsewhere so we're not stuck saying what is and is not terrorism.

FWIW, I think the same of Israeli terrorism--it should be similarly gutted. --Delirium 08:06, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Votes for Deletion

- In addition to a highly POV title, this article duplicates Violence against Israelis and should be merged there. -- Viajero 11:27, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

    • Merge and redirect -- Graham :) 11:44, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep...maintain separate articles for acts of terrorism vs other acts of violence. We do not have, nor can we maintain a useful compilation of acts of violence. There are often more than a dozen acts of violence each day. We have demonstrated the willingness and ability to maintain a list of terrorist acts. Violence against Israelis is limited to acts of terrorism committed after 1999. Palestinian terrorism includes acts dating to 1920. The article should be expanded to include Palestinian on Palestinian terrorism. OneVoice 22:18, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I cannot accept such a title. Move to a new title or merge with another article or do whatever you want, but remove the word Terrorist from the title. Optim 20:24, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - title is appropriate - These groups claim credit for killing civilians, the very definition of terrorism - Texture 20:33, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Another disturbing attempt, under false pretense of NPOV, to whitewash and justify terrorism and push propagandist agenda. Recently Terrorism against Israelis has been renamed into mere Violence against Israelis and now this important article is VfD. This is encyclopedia, so let's stick with plain documented facts, however grim and uncomfortable they are. Humus sapiens 22:14, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I wonder if the supporters of this page can identify anything at all on it which is not already on Terrorism against Israelis in greater detail. I don't see a single example, except for two statements ("al-Qassem was hanged" and "al-Husayni was deported") which are both false. The article should have been made into a redirect without bothering with VfD listing. --Zero 01:36, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Reading the two pages, one sees that Palestinian terrorism goes back to 1920 and is a very general page with little detail, Terrorism against Israelis begins in 2000 and provided a detailed listing of incidents. OneVoice 02:38, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • You must be looking at the wrong article. Terrorism against Israelis starts in the 1880s and 1920s. --Zero 10:02, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Indeed, "you are lost in a maze of twisty little redirects all appearing the same" OneVoice 14:50, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • As the article stands now, redirect to Violence against Israelis or else create an article that really highlights other acts of terror, such as Black September in Jordan. Danny 02:42, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Danny, could you help by adding other acts of Terrorism against Israelis? OneVoice 14:52, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, and NPOV as necessary. Palestinian terrorism is a phenomenon that's in the news nearly constantly, and I don't think Wikipedia can have no article at all on the subject. There's a number of encyclopedic aspects, including both internal Palestinian aspects and external aspects relating to Israel and the US and other countries' involvement. Furthermore, why is it that this article is requested for deletion, while the much more questionable Israeli terrorism is not mentioned? --Delirium 08:02, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
      • If you read the comments above, you would know that there is already an article covering the same topics in greater depth, so what you mean by "no article at all" is a mystery. As for Israeli terrorism, it is in bad need of a name change. --Zero 10:08, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • What would you suggest? OneVoice 14:50, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. No need for an article other than Terrorism against Israel. It should be clear that the palestinian fight against occupation, only took violent path in the late years(i.e 2000 and later), after suffering for decads from the israeli terrorism, since the begining of occupation in 1948 till this moment.
    • Keep with current title. The systematic usage of terrorism by various Palestinian groups across decades makes this a worthy subject for an article. Also, please note that the article Terrorism against Israel (which several people suggested to redirect to) no longer exists, except as a redirect to Violence against Israelis - an article, which should, by its title, cover acts such as criminally-motivated murder and rape where the victim happens to be Israeli, as well as military attacks on Israel by its neighbors. Unless, of course, that article is intended only for Politically-motivated violence against Israeli civillians, in which case I would suggest renaming it to the more appropriate title Terrorism against Israel (and then I might reconsider my position on this article). -- uriber 22:53, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Palestinian terrorism is a phenomenon that's in the news nearly constantly, and I don't think Wikipedia can have no article at all on the subject.

Are you watching the Mars News Channel??? What about the dozens of palestinians killed everyday?? If this is not covered in western madia, then this is another moral problem! The blood of thounds of palastinian innocents is on the edge. You have no right to manipulate the truth. I am from a village that suffered a horrible massacre when jewish gangs came to my land south of lebanon in 1948, and I know clearly who started the terror shit. STOP THIS FILTHY PROPAGANDA.

Sorry for my aggrissiveness but zionists planted hatered in my heart :( May05 18:24, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Dozens killed everyday" ??? can you support that statement? Which village? South of Lebanon? In the Galilee? OneVoice 18:53, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Voice... it needs no proof, very simple, here is what to do:

If you are in front of a TV hold the remote, turn off the TV, get your ass off and go down the streets of Gaza and West bank!!! GOT IT?! May05 11:34, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, and my grandfather's from a Greek village that was wiped out by Turks, but that doesn't mean I'm going to delete all Turkish pages and start a bunch of Massacres committed by Turkey and so on and insist anything that portrays Turks as the victims in any situation is propaganda. --Delirium 21:29, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

I'd actually support a merger of sorts, Arab-Israeli terrorism, that discusses the history of terrorism and alleged on both sides in the conflict. But, I think all these articles should stay as redirects at the very least, and their contents should be merged. If someone types Palestinian terrorism into the search box, they should get something. --Delirium 21:31, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

Delirium, kindly note the following:

  • I did not say that I would delete pages about Israel nor I ever did before. ( Actually I can't).
  • YES -if you are not- I am certainly willing to write an article about massacres committed by israel because they actually happened and i'm doing no harm by writing it and I vowed to remember the innocents, the article would -and should- be factual, giving knowledge about historic events.
  • I did not say that I refuse any situation that victimize the israelis, you got it wrong. Even more, I think that the jews are victimized the moment they were nourished with myths like "a land without people for people without land!!". I even did not say that Israelis are not victims of suicide bombers. What I said and beileve in is that the mere creation of Israel is terrorism in itself and the suffering it brought to palestinians was the spark of violence and humilation for millions. Thus, the palestinians can't be blamed alone and one CAN'T refuse that the palestinians are victims. What would your response be if an article is titled the "Greeks Terrorism against Turks"??!!
  • Please note the distinction between the Greek-Turky issue and the Arab-Israeli issue. They are almost uncomparable.
  • Finally, I would agree with your merge suggestion, especially that it could contain the edit war to one article :) Redirection could be the magic solution.

Regards, May05 11:34, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

FWIW, I disagree that the Greece-Turkey issue is incomparable with the Arab-Israeli issue. In both, there are a group of people with a national identity who were displaced and forced to integrate into another country. The difference is that the Pontian Greeks have since been assimilated into Greece, while the Palestinian Arabs stay in refugee camps. Perhaps the main difference is that the Pontians have given up hope of getting back Constantinople, while the Palestinians still hope to get back Jerusalem, but the aspirations for both are similar. --Delirium 11:47, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps the main difference is that the other Greeks did not confine their refugees to camps for generations. OneVoice 17:26, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A merger seems good. Although I do think the word "terrorism" ought to be avoided. (There will always be quite numerous groups who will claim than any definition of "terrorism" or content under "terrorism"is not a NPOV.) Falcone 04:27, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I can agree with that. We could have a page on Palestinian militants or something that discusses all militant activity, and mention that some of it is considered terrorism by many (e.g., suicide bombings in shopping malls), some of it is considered not-terrorism by many (e.g., shooting at military checkpoints), and there's lots of disagreement in between. It avoids us having to decide what to put on the "terrorism" page and what to leave off as "not terrorism". --Delirium 04:29, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] This is not a debate forum!

Why does an ENCYCLOPEDIA (which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be, in case you forgot) need an article about Violence against Israelis, an article about Palestinian terrorism, and an article about Israeli terrorism? Encyclopedia articles should not depend on other articles to balance out bias. If a person were to read the Violence against Israelis article and no other article, they would be presented with a one sided argument. Violence against Israelis, Palestinian terrorism, and Israeli terrorism should be part of the Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article. --NoPetrol 21:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

   I wholeheartedly agree. Perhaps if we want an article separate from the broader text on the Israeli
   Palesntinian conflict, an article dealing with the violence on both sides would be appropriate. 
   However, in the case that this doesn't happen, i should like to point out several problems with the 
   current consturction of the article. First, while the article on Israeli state terrorism gives the 
   numbers of Israelis killed by Palestinian extremists, there is no such information in this article.
   Now, while i hate to risk portraying one death as legitimating another, i think it is also 
   appropriate to put actions in their proper context. Furthermore, unless i missed it, no one has
   mentioned the State Department definition of terrorism "Politically motivated acts of violence 
   against civilian or non-combatant military targets." I think this is fair, as, for example it   
   allows both incidents such as the Beersheba bus bombings and the massacre at Qibya to be included.
   I reiterate that i hope we can move part this obscenely partican debate and create a useful and
   educational ecyclopedia. --Zinnling 4:57, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PLO Charter

I removed the discussion, reverting to Jayjg's first March 24 edit because it was (a) not really relevant to the section and (b) wrong. Whatever one thinks of how well the PLO followed its own amendment procedures, Israel, during Netanyahu's Likud government formally accepted the PLO's actions at the meeting in Gaza in December 1998 as revocation of the charter (see [1] [2] for background), and Israel and the Likud have not changed their position on it or complained that the charter was not revoked since then - it has disappeared from statements like "Major Palestinian Violations of Agreements: October 2000" [3] where it earlier had been. (As noted, the issue of revocation and its acceptance had gone back and forth several times during the 90's). For clear and unequivocal official Israeli and Likud statements from Netanyahu, Sharon, Sharansky and Mordechai etc at the time, see: [4] (Long, scroll to PLO Charter section) [5] [6] [7]. Will put this info in its proper page eventually if no one else does.--John Z 23:57, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV dispute

This article is heavily POV with much unsourced information. Therefore the tag should stand.Heraclius 16:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong about my claim. I read through the entire article and did not see one single source. Unless you're telling me that all those stats and accusations are "common knowledge".Heraclius 17:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
That's not a POV dispute, that a complaint that the article is not sourced. Jayjg (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

A complaint that the article is not sourced brings into doubt the factual accuracy of the article in question. I'm re-tagging it. Jeus 18:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. There are tags for lack of citations. If you have any specific items that you think are POV or non-factual, please list them here. Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I can deal with nutrality dispute tags for now for the sake of argument, but I would still like some proof. --LouieS 03:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
This article is highly POV. It includes no frame of reference for Palestinian attacks that may be used to justify them. It paints all Palestinian terrorists in one brush Palestinian terrorists have also exploited children in the aid of terror and uses unsourced POV claims Until 1956, Israel had suffered hundreds of attacks from the West Bank.. Until this is fixed, the tag will stand. Removing it is a sign of bad faith.Heraclius 16:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, adding it without specific objections is a sign of bad faith. Jayjg (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the tag had been present for a long time until you decided to remove it, sparking an edit war. Please be more reasonable next time, thank you.Heraclius 16:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The tag says that the POV is disputed. This dont look like no consensus to me. So the tag is an accurate one 62.253.64.14 01:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

POV tag added, POV of the article is one-sided. NPOV dictates that both perspectives should be added, till such time Tag should stay. --Irishpunktom\talk 09:43, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tags indicate that specific issues will be raised in Talk:. Which specific issues do you consider POV, aside from broad generalizations like "one-sided"? Jayjg (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The intro

How pedantic can you get? How 'bout instead of indulging in how terrorism is a "legitimate strategy" we call Palestinian "acts of violence" for what they are (terrorism, as in attacks on civilians, the definition) and then explain that Hamas and whoever else thinks that such terrorism is justified when used against the "Little Satan." J. Parker Stone 07:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

This is becasue we are not here to judge what is right and wrong. While we all have a stong moral compass, myself included; we do not push a POV. Calling Palestinian acts of violence terrorism is pushing a POV, and therefore is not allowed here. Editors from boths sides of the argument came to a consensus on that intro, and it will stand untill a new consensus comes along and unseats it. --LouieS 15:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List merged here

I think moving the list, which is filled with errors, here is a bad idea, and it should be moved back. It dominates the article now, and should just be replaced by an internal link. In the meantime I'll get started on correcting and neutralizing it.John Z 21:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Before it was moved here, the list existed in 3 different places. If I moved them all back, how could they each be kept consistent despite edits? When I found them they were each missing at least some of the information the others carried. If you were to suggest that we move the list back to List of Palestinian militant groups I would point out that that page was barely linked to. It is a crucial point, because if a list of Pal-mils isn't easily findable, people just seem to create lists within (multiple) other articles! It makes sense to keep it here I think, and it is very nicely formatted, summarised and linked to all the right articles. --afterword 17:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Name change

I noticed that this article was moved to a more accurate title, but immediately moved back (without explanation, so far as I can see). I've moved it again; if anyone thinks that the new title is inaccurate, or that there's a better title, it can always be moved again of course. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it was me who moved it, because I couldn't see the point of "and militancy." Are there different categories of acts described here? The term "terrorism" is difficult, but "militancy" seems even worse. It makes me think of women in dungarees carrying clipboards. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:16, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Is anything but terrorism discussed in this article? Jayjg (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
You understand that there is a point of view that it is not terrorism? I am not expressing that point of view, and I do not necessarily share it, but it does exist. Grace Note 23:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Although I do agree with Slim! The title is monstrous. Perhaps Palestinian violent acts against civilians? No, only kidding! We wouldn't want to start having anything that resembled a neutral title round here. Grace Note 23:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it was Guy Montag (talk · contribs) who moved it, in fact. I thought that it was more accurate in large part because it refflected the division of the article into sections on terrorism and militancy. The new title also opened the route to saying more about non-terrorist militancy. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Does it actually discuss anything but terrorism? Should we be changing the topic of the article? Jayjg (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Palestinian political violence

As this title keeps being moved between Pal terrorism, Pal militancy, and Pal terrorism and militancy, would anyone object if I moved it to Palestinian political violence? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Although I consider all such articles inherently un-encyclopedic and posted only for propaganda purposes, and do my best to refrain from touching them, I like your suggestion ! Ramallite (talk) 05:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Sigh. It's a fine idea, but what about the dozens of other "terrorism" articles? Jayjg (talk) 05:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't like to see "terrorism" in any title. It would be hard to change State terrorism, because "state political violence" would actually mean something different from "state terrorism." State political violence could include sending the police in to beat up strikers or something, which isn't terrorism. But apart from that one, I don't see that it would cause a problem elsewhere, and it would put a lot of disputes to rest. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
If we did change this title, would it mean we'd have to start including (or others might want to, for propaganda purposes) incidents of violence between Palestinian groups (violent in-fighting), which would count as Palestinian political violence — and would that be a good or a bad thing? Although thinking about it, we do call Abu Nidal's assassination of Abu Iyad "terrorism," and that was an example of violence between factions. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
"Terrorism" in its current usage is certainly not a neutral term. I think it should be avoided. "Political violence" is a more neutral description. I don't see how including violence between Palestinians in "Palestinian political violence" would be good or bad. If written well, it could even give more context about the reasons behind the violence, which is often (if not usually), about competing factions and their sponsors. --Yodakii 06:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Slippery slope. I know what I'm about to suggest will probably not happen, but why don't we just get rid of all these articles (Palestinian terror, Zionist terror, Israeli terror, Uncle's Mordechi ben Ahmed's terror, etc) ?? I've never really started a VfD page and don't want to start with such a controversial thing, and like I said I'm sure a lot of people will object in any case, but I feel that a lot of the stuff described in these articles are already discussed in more "dignified" articles without having to resort to tirade-like "bashing pages". Ramallite (talk) 06:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree, and I'd vote for it, but we might end being the only two votes. ;-D SlimVirgin (talk) 06:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I've been bold. If anyone strongly disagrees, feel free to revert me. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I believe some (many? all?) have already been put up on AfD, and the AfDs failed. Jayjg (talk) 07:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


What is the of meaning of the name "Palestinian political violence" but a clean name for Palestinian terrorism and insurgency? The ways of operation and methods involved, e.g. suicide bombing, rocket attacks etc., would be clearly regarded anywhere else as terrorism. The Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian factions are recognized by the U.S., E.U. and other major players in the global stage as terrorist-groups and have affirmed and proven ties to other terror groups around the Middle East such as Hizbullah. I cannot understand how violence toward children and civilians could be called "political", therefore I suggest that the name of this article would be changed to a more nuetral term, like "Palastinian Militancy". The corrent as a concept is not widely recognized and used, as demonstrated by a google quarry of the phrase: [Palestinian political violence] (289). A google quarry of the phrase "Palestinian militancy" comes up with 4 times as much results (952)!: "Palestinian Militancy". Marom 06:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnicities/Nationalities in article titles like this

Wouldn't it be better to classify terrorism and similar violence according to political aims rather than the ethnicity/nationality of perpetrators? Would anyone support an "African American political violence" article? Wouldn't anything that is included in this article be just as well put in an "Anti-Zionist political violence/terrorism" article? And if there are Palestinians committing terrorist acts in the name of some other cause, wouldn't that be best narrated under the heading of the other cause? Is there any real reason to tag an entire ethnic group/nationality with the violence of some of its members? Marsden 19:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV edits reverted

I have reverted this article back to the way it was before the anonymous edits of Dec. 15. These edits were clearly POV in nature. They also introduced two glaring "technical" problems into the article. They were as follows:

  • The title of the article is "Palestinian political violence," which (before the edits) also were the first three words of the article (in bold at the beginning of the first paragraph. That is how it is supposed to be (regardless of the fact that I think the title should be "Palestinian terrorism," but that is for another day.) The anonymous editor changed the beginning of the first paragraph so that the "bolded" subject was "Palestinian resistance." Apart from being POV when applied to an article about terrorism (for which "political violence" is used as a euphemism), "resistence" is not the subject of the article as indicated in the title.
  • The anonymous editor changed the name of the source file for the bus-bombing picture (to replace the accurate term "suicide bombing" with the POV and ridiculous term "martyr bombing"), but of course the actual name of the source file did not magically change, so the link to the photo was broken.
  • Apart from these problems, the editor carefully deleted all references to "terrorism" and also deleted the fact that the victims of Palestinian terrorism are civilians, among other edits.

Since all of the edits were objectionable and improper, I simply reverted to the previous version rather than picking and choosing. What really should happen with this article, at the very least, is a rewriting of the first sentence to at least mention that many people regard "Palestinian political violence" against civilians to be "Palestinian terrorism." But I will save that edit for another time. 6SJ7 19:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] First sentence

Now I am making the additional changes discussed above. The term "Palestinian terrorism" at least needs to be acknowledged at the beginning of this article, otherwise the whole thing is ridiculous. 6SJ7 23:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it should be placed at the relevant spot that discusses calling it terrorism, or otherwise it would have a pro-Israel POV. "Political Violence" is a NPOV term. How is it rediculous to mention "terrorism" later?--Faz90 20:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Faz, the manual of style suggests that all synonyms and alternate phrases be listed otherwise. You're relatively new to wikipedia, please stop to read policy before blindly reverting other users. Speaking of reverting, please revert yourself before you get reported for breaking the 3 revert rule(which would result in a 24 hour block for you). Just a suggestion.--Urthogie 20:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

Don't do this to wikipedia...

"Palestinian political violence" as a title implies bias, to start with. The page itself is even worse, look at the first sentence: "Palestinian Terrorism refers to acts of violence committed for political reasons by Palestinian individuals or groups." If that's a credible definition of "terrorism", let's slap the terrorist tag on every army in the world... it's violence for a political purpose by a group, after all.

...and that's just the first paragraph. The rest of the article is, I'm sorry to say for anyone who's written it, also absolute crap. The list of organizations is riddled with inaccuracies, and the historical part is more one-sided than ... I don't know what.

I suggest deleting the page, after transferring any relevant material to the appropriate articles (al-Aqsa Intifada, PFLP etc), and replacing the idea behind it with a simple category or list instead. Arre 11:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I have removed some of the most egregious factual errors but there are plenty more still there. The beginning of the 1920-1949 section is horrifically POV as well as inaccurate; the stuff about organizations is wildly inaccurate. Deletion might be the best thing. Palmiro | Talk 20:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] comment/question on this page

I happened across this page today. My question is, what percent of palestinian violence is against soldiers instead of civillians? This is a vital statistic for this article. It not being there makes it hard to decide what the article name should be, as well. Thanks!--Urthogie 21:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry, but this is rubbish

If the result of the previous discussion on the 12 April was to keep this article, I don't know who would have voted to keep this. It is not so much an encyclopedia article as a slightly toned down expression by one person. NPOV is, and I shouldn't have to remind you, vital in wikipedia, and if this article can't be cleaned up after an agreement from a general concensus, I cannot see any reason to keep it whatsoever. Remember what you're doing, people turn to this website in faith that the content is at least partially verifiable. -Nick

Could you name one specific thing wrong with it? Thanks, --Urthogie 07:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
There are so many things wrong with this article that it would be pointless to start with just one. Palmiro | Talk 10:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Whats the biggest problem with it(its existence doesn't count as a negative, per AFD consensus).--Urthogie 10:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, its existence does count, actually, regardless of AFD consensus which in my view was very ill-judged. Wikipedia does not need, and should not have, articles whose entire purpose is propagandistic. This is such an article. See Arre's comments above and on my talk page for a succinct summary of the problems with it. Palmiro | Talk 10:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Your case would be a lot more credible if you were working on NPOV'ing this with edits.--Urthogie 10:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Urthogie, please don't tell me what to do. I am perfectly free to ignore rubbish such as this if I so choose. I doubt if you will find any knowledgable editor willing to work on an article which is starting from these premises, but you are welcome to look for one. As far as I am concerned, it is not worth my time, and that is my choice. In the meantime, it is not only my right but my duty to point out that it contains many factual errors, appalling bias, and from beginning to end serves a propagandistic purpose. Palmiro | Talk 10:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Palmiro, are you suggesting that Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on Palestinian political violence/terrorism? SlimVirgin (talk) 10:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I am suggesting that Wikipedia should not have any articles intended to serve a propagandistic purpose. Articles like this one and its almost equally evil twin Zionist political violence are prime examples. As Arre said on my talk page, would anyone create an article on Russian political violence starting with the Decembrists and going on to the Chechen war? This article associates events of one class throughout various periods of history, thereby I suppose creating a synthesis of facts designed to promote particular position, i.e. original research. It is also largely context-free. What on earth is the point of talking about violence from one side outside the context of the wider conflict? We don't, as far as I know, have an article on "American violence in Iraq", to take one obvious example. Palmiro | Talk 10:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not OR at all. Palestinian terrorism is a well-known and much-discussed phenomenon. Why would Zionist political violence be only it's "almost" equally evil twin? SlimVirgin (talk) 11:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that it is an established fact that the Buraq riots, the Great Uprising, the PFLP's airplane hijackings, Abu Nidal's attack on the Semiramis Hotel in Damascus, the guerrilla warfare of the fedayeen, stonethrowing in the First Intifada, Hamas suicide bombs, etc, etc, are all part of the same phenomenon? As for the Zionist political violence article, it is less stretched over time and between different phenomena than this one, and as a result less OR-ish and propagandistic, but it still looks to me like it exists to serve a propagandistic agenda. Palmiro | Talk 11:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
If you want to argue for the exclusion of any particular incident, do so, but that doesn't affect the legitimacy of the page. As I said, Palestinian terrorism is a much-debated phenomenon, and has been for decades (which, indeed, was part of the point of it), so it would be somewhat obtuse of us to pretend it doesn't exist. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you think that the page concerns a legitimate concept, maybe you might like try and hone it down to deal with that, and get rid of the OR-ish elements. This is a comment made in good faith; as it stands, the page really is rubbish. If you feel something can be made of it, by all means go for it. Palmiro | Talk 11:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Palmiro that as constituted the page is OR: it creates a synthesis that no historian makes. Obviously it could be re-written to make it encyclopedic. Many of the specific accounts are complete tripe, not suprisingly given that we have Frontpagemag cited as a source. --Ian Pitchford 11:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Listen. This is nobody's pet article. Noone cares if you modify it within reason. If you're just going to complain and not nominate it for deletion, nothing will happen.--Urthogie 11:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd have no problem giving up Frontpagemag as a source in general, but the same people who most often object to it insist on using Counterpunch, so if we have to have that, we may as well have the other. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Urthogie, the problem is, lots of us have other things we would, and should, rather be doing with our time, and if you wanted to get to a good article, well, as the man said, I wouldn't start from here. I don't feel under any obligation to create an almost entirely new article from scratch about this topic, which is what would be required. If someone else, like you or SlimVirgin, wants to do so, go ahead.
SV, I am probably one of the strongest opponents of using things like both Frontpagemag and Counterpunch as a source, though of course articles in either of them by respected writers is another matter. I haven't noticed the strong opponents of using FPM who want to use counterpunch, personally, though maybe there are such editors. Palmiro | Talk 11:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I see it all the time: those most strongly opposed to FPM happily use Counterpunch, arguing it's not the same thing, bizarrely. The problem with saying we'll use only respected writers is that it becomes a matter of deciding who counts as that, so my preference would be not to use either publication. But I sense there would be no support for that proposal. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
This is of course true, though I suppose academics writing about their field of expertise and just possibly recognised journalists who normally write for more standard sources could qualify. I don't see a problem with using either of them where they are simply reprinting something from a non-problematic source, but that's not really the same thing, I suppose. Palmiro | Talk 12:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Just one example of how bad this article is: by coincidence I was reading a paper on the "border wars" last night. According to that paper, and the well-known book by Morris with which I am also familiar, the Arab states did everything possible to prevent "infiltration" across the border by Palestinians out of fear of provoking Israel. Most of the border crossings that took place were by people looking for work or by refugees trying to get back to their families in Palestine. According to Morris about 3000-5000 mostly unarmed Palestinians were shot dead by the IDF during this period. The IDF also booby-trapped some of these bodies with explosives in order to kill those who attempted to retrieve them for burial. Egypt did nothing to retaliate until Israel's massive Gaza Raid in February 1955. Our article says "According to David Meir-Levi, "From 1949 to 1956, Egypt waged a terror war against Israel, launching c. 9,000 attacks from terrorist cells set up in the refugee camps of the Gaza Strip." Even if this were accurate, which clearly it isn't, how do Egypt's actions constitute "palestinian political violence"?--Ian Pitchford 12:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Certainly that section can be expanded. The reason that this relates to Palestinians is that is because they WERE palestinians used by the arab armies. I want to point out that what David Meir Levi says is not disputed. Anyone who has lived in Israel lived in fear of the fedadun in these years and the fedayun is one of the main reasons for the Kadeh operation in 1956. This is something that was hurting israeli civiliand deeply and is undeniable and well documented. What you're actually referring to with morris is the first stage. until 1950 indeed their main purpose was to infilitrate israel for reasons of families and property, but since 1950 it became much more violent and included killing israeli civilians on a regular basis. these actions climax was massacres performed by the fedayen in Rehovot which the IDF responded with operation black arrow. Amoruso 06:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Certainly, on an ideology-plagued section of Wikipedia, this article still manages to stand out in terms of sheer outrageousness. Palmiro | Talk 13:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we should all stop talking so much and just try to consider Nick's fist comment again. Right now, the existence of this article is a violation of NPOV, because there isn't a separate article on Israeli Terrorism (that I could find). All I found was a short paragraph on a page about 'state terrorism' which can be found [Israeli Terrorism | here]. Until a decent page is made giving the other side of the story I vote this page to be deleted and inserted into the main page I mentioned above. Take a look at it for yourself and you should see what I'm saying; not a mention is made about the original Israeli Terrorist Groups which committed acts of terrorism during the British colonial period of Palestine. The other possibility is to create an equally detailed page about Israeli Terrorism (which currently redirects to [State Terrorism]. 82.29.70.34 18:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Over 25% of the palestinian casualties is the fact of other palestinians

Most of the time during exchange of fire with israeli troops. Thus, about 40% of the people killed during the last intifada was the fact of palestinians. Moreover one can notice that over 70% of the israeli victims were aimed as civilians. Thus, the palestinian leaders and terrorist groups used warcrimes against israelis when say reached their political limits.

[edit] removing tags

this is not disputed - it's simply lists the differnet organizations and the incidents, the page is not even called "terrorism" and only says so when designated or when someone else called it terrorism. page should be expanded for every decade and the differnet incidents. it's a good well written article. Amoruso 05:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This is disputed per the comments above. --Ian Pitchford 11:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The comments above are months old and no longer relevant. If you want to put tags, propose changes here or so on. There is nothing non factual on the article anyway. Again, if the discussion of proposal does not re-emerge the neutral tag has to go too. Tags aren't supposed to be in articles forever - I suspect it's a matter of uncomfort of the material that makes you want to put the tags, but alas that's not their purpose. Amoruso 15:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
At a minimum "Palestinian political violence" should refer to actions by Palestinians; not those of the Egyptian government. --Ian Pitchford 16:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
That is true. but I believe that part refers as a background. it should be noted like it is that it's the egyptians so i don't think it's a problem. if the article expands, it will be a smaller part. Amoruso 17:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
None of the problems raised in the comments have been seriously addressed, so they remain relevant. Save your alases. Palmiro | Talk 19:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The only problems you seem to have raised are that this is all rubbish, pov and OR . These kind of general comments are not enough. Ian has disputed the egyptian attacks as not related to palestinian - are you saying something else here was done by non palestinian groups ? This seems the only disputed matter. Amoruso 06:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
It has been clearly stated that this article "creates a synthesis that no historian makes" and that "many of the specific accounts are complete tripe". I don't think the latter issue has been addressed; the former certainly hasn't. In addition, the historical narrative is hopelessly biassed, highlighting attacks on civilians to make the Palestinian resistance appear in the worst possible light while completely ignoring military actions and popular resistance. Fix this or stop removing the tags. Palmiro | Talk 11:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
This just bothers you on some political level - "many are complete tripe" - which ? If something bothers you , address it specifically or change it. You can't just tag for conveinence. nothing here is OR etc. Amoruso 00:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Palmiro, you have another chance to explain what's bothering you. The egyptian-palestinian issue reaised by Ian Pitchford was dealt with. If there's anything else, mention it here in specifics or tag it specifically/edit it specifically in the article. The current tag is used by you in "laziness" simply because you dislike the content which is disturbing for you. Such behaviour is not acceptable. So here you have another chance now. If you don't address it, the neutrality tag will be removed. The OR tag will be removed anyway too. Amoruso 02:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see my comment above dated 17 September 2006, and either fix the problems or stop removing the tag. Palmiro | Talk 00:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
your comments only address NPOV issue. We don't add multiple tags for fun. Amoruso 00:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:OR

I haven't been following this closely. Palmiro, please list the original syntheses that you feel are in this article so that they can be reviewed to see if they are original and not listed in the sources, and then corrected if necessary. Remember, uncited statements are not ipso fact original research, although they may be. The tag you placed claims definite incidents of WP:OR, so that needs to be identified. Thank you. -- Avi 00:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asbat al-Ansar

Does anyone have any info on the group "Asbat al-Ansar"? Am I mispelling the name of this group? It's banned in Russia and Kazakhstan as a terrorist organization. See: [8], it's #4. I'd also just like to say I think it's a shame what's happened to the pages on religious terrorism. KazakhPol 01:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] change title

I strongly suggest that to make this aticle better, change this title from Palesitnian political violence to Palestinian terrorism. Palesitnian terrorists intend to kill as many innocent civilians as possible and have the goal of eliminating Israel and having a Palestinian state replace Israel. I must say that I would support a peaceful Palestinians that lives next to Israel but not one used by Palestinian terrorists to complete their goal which what I said before was driving the Israelis into the sea. The point is change the title. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dendoi (talk • contribs) 11:23 PM, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

I strongly agree with the first two posts in this discussion. change the title or else I would write anoter accurate biased article. Screw everyone who considers Palesitnian terrorists to not be terrorists. By definition, they are terrorists. But Israel get's condemned whenever the israleis respond to these killers. The UN condemned the Israeli rescue raid on entebbe where the Israelis rescued innocent Jewish hostages who were there for being Jews. Israle did a great, and historically great rescue raid instead of listing to the terrorist's demand of releasing more terrorists ao more innocnent people would die. Rename the title to Palesitnian terrorism. they're not regular old politicla militant organzations like the IRA, ETA or the African National Congress. Unlike those three organizations, Palesitnian terrorists intend to kill as many innocent civilians as possible. The Palestinian terrorist's goal is to destroy the Jewish state of Israel. Pakestinian terrorists are all killers. Rename the title or else.-Dendoi Teusday December 15, 2006

[edit] Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process template

I find the template of the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process extremely misleading and Orwellian. It suggests that Palestinian political violence is a part of the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process. It seems more like tactics of violent conlict rather than peaceful compromise. The template should be removed. --GHcool 21:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Elizmr 00:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removing pov tag

i don't see any discussion on the issue of the pov tag for months, and i can't see a good reason for the tag. one user (Palmiro) seemed to object to this article existing at all. but this isn't the purpose of a pov tag; a pov tag is there to indicate that the info in an article has pov, and needs to indicate which info and what pov. Benwing 06:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read this talk page, where the problems with the POV in the article have been discussed on several occasions. Palmiro | Talk 01:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] political violence or terrorism?

someone asked in the context of a discussion on the Islamist Terrorism page why "terrorism" is used there but "political violence" is used in Zionist Political Violence. this page wasn't mentioned but the same issues apply. "terrorism" as commonly defined refers specifically to targeting civilians (and more specifically, people who are being targetted just because they belong to a generally-defined group, rather than that person themself targetted for a specific reason). political violence does not have the same specificness. if group A assassinates a political leader who denounced that group, that is political violence but probably not terrorism. most or all of what's on this page fits this definition of "terrorism" so why not name the page according to what it describes? otherwise it seems that the term "political violence" is being used as a euphemism. some may not like "terrorism" and claim it's a POV epithet, but it does have a standard (even UN-endorsed) definition, and its common usage seems to agree with this definition. Similar arguments apply to "Zionist Political Violence" -> "Zionist Terrorism". Benwing 06:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think political violence should be the bigger article and there should be a sub article on the terrorism. Same goes for Zionist political violence. I support you if this is your aim by the way.--Urthogie 02:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why no mention of attacks against Israeli military targets?

I therefore think that this article is propaganda because it suggests that all Palestinian attacks are terror attacks. Count Iblis 16:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Because it was at first the article titled "palestinian terrorism", I guess - then someone changed it into "political violence". Which is silly. How about changing terrorism into "political violence"? No? --HanzoHattori 10:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More wikipedia horseshit

Congratulations. Let's stop "hashing laboriously" because people are so tired of "hashing". Sorry, but just because people are tired doesn't make their conclusion right or wrong, it just picks one due to exhaustion. Don't forget that "political violence" means nothing. Terrorism is a tactic employed in a conflict, and the Palestinians have employed that tactic, as is discussed in this article. Calling terrorism "political violence" does violence to English, and I am disappointed that another article on Wikipedia has turned into a weaselly mess instead of an article of genuine usefulness. This entire "encyclopedia" endeavor is more suited to articles about entertainment properties with rabid fanbases than for the organization of knowledge useful to humanity. Good luck.63.88.58.254 19:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with the title

There is quite a problem with the title of this article if it is to cover historical events all the way back to the time before the creation of Israel, simply because both Jews and Arabs were referred to as "Palestinians" at the time. Funkynusayri 13:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a major problem, for the same reason that anti-Semitism doesn't cover the Third Punic War. "Palestinian" in this context is understood to refer to the Arabic-speaking nation which emerged from the 19th century through '48. Human language always has this kind of ambiguity. <eleland/talkedits> 20:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I too have a question: when the title says "Palestinian", does it refer to the ethnic group? Or does it refer to "Palestinian nationalists" when it says "Palestinian". Does this article focus on a particular ideology (e.g. "Palestinian nationalism")?Bless sins (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of balance ...

Given that this article purports to deal with political stretching back to pre-1948, I find it surprising that there is not one mention of Zionist terrorism. Clearly, the role of people like David Ben Gurion and others, who blew up the King David Hotel, should be discussed here. None of the context is provided, either of proto-Israeli violence or of British colonial oppression in Palestine.

AWAyyad (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)