Talk:Violence against Israelis/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

I think it looks better categorized by years (plus there are other subjects to cover - origins, history etc., and that page already looked crowded). --Uriyan

Some studies give a considerably brighter picture, although stereotyping of Jews and Israel remains a problem. Further, Arabs still appear in some negative contexts in Israeli school textbooks, thereby enforcing negative stereotypes.

The atmosphere of intolerance and incitement predominant in Palestinian schools and media is very well known and documented. This begins with their textbooks and maps of Palestine, and ends with the recent wave of suicide bombings, carried out by 16-year-olds. I would like to see a very serious, objective, verifiable report that would actually classify this atmosphere as "tolerable", and explain why, before I return this sentence back. As to the second part, show me a single Israeli textbook that would display Arabs negatively, because I haven't stumbled on any in my 10 years in Israeli schools. --Uriyan

Further, some claim that Arabs tend to appear mainly in negative contexts in Israeli school textbooks, thereby enforcing negative stereotypes. This conclusion was reached by Professor Daniel Bar-Tal of Tel Aviv University as well as other scholars (see [1]).

First of all, this subject is irrelevant to the subject Terrorism against Israel, which is caused by Palestinian incitement, not Israeli. As to the matter itself, the data pointed at by this report seems very obscure to me. Indeed, 30 year old books might contain some questionable material. But - trust my word on that - all books that are 10 years old or less treat Arabs with remarkable respect. The only serious claim that I'd read so far is that they do not give a proper overview of political questions. I find it quite debatable whether political questions should find their way to school books. This I find fundamentally different from labeling the whole of Israel as Palestine in the Palestinian books, even if it is not accompanied by calls for violence. --Uriyan

I have never heard anything about these inflammatory Palestinian textbooks anywhere. As it is today Palestine/Israel is a warzone and I find it very reasonable to doubt that they are anything but war propaganda. The links seemed to provide more doubt as PLO had their version of the story and USA/Israel their. --[[user::BL|BL]]

The site I pointed out contains a list of questionable textbooks. What's so unreal about them? --Uri

It is true that some textbooks, though only a minority, are full of bigotry. For instance, here is a quote from an Israeli textbook according to the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace:

"The Holy One, Blessed Be He, came to the Ishmaelites and asked them: 'Do you want to receive the Torah?' They said: 'What is written in it?' He said to them: 'Thou shalt not steal'. They said to Him: 'We cannot accept the Torah, it is difficult for us not to steal.' And so, the Holy One, Blessed Be He, went from nation to nation, and not one of them wanted to receive the Torah. When He went to the Jewish people, they immediately said: 'We will do and we will hear.'" (45, Everything in its Time, first-grade reader, 1995, pp. 233-234

Uh so what? The problem with the Palestinian books is not that they say that the Palestinian people is better (just about any nation's books state that this nation the paragon of creation), but that it also declares the whole of Israel as "Palestine", i.e. territories to be taken over from the inferior Jews. That's inacceptible. --Uri
This is sad. What is the point of combing through tens of volumes of Midrash books to find this one sentence, other than to slander Jews? Frankly, this out-of-context quote is a lie. Unlike all the other faiths, Judaism is more pluralistic and open to other peoples than anyone else. The one sentence expressed here is not a majority view, and in the real world it is not taught by Jews to their children as a way of promoting hatred towards gentiles. In fact, religious schools in all the Jewish denominations go out of their way to teach that Jews can and should live in peace with gentile peoples. In stark contrast, Islamic religious texts do have many such hateful quotes specifically about Jews (and sometimes Christians). Worse, in practice we find that many Muslim schools do teach such texts in their public and private schools as a way to breed hatred and terrorism towards Jews. Apparently, using mainstream Islamic quotes to breed hatred is Ok by the person who posted this one out of context snippet? And it is Jews who cause hatred? I am disgusted by the lack of academic integrity here.

So let me get this straight - "Terrorism Against Israel" consists of this page and multiple sub-pages, broken down by date and individually named people. "Terrorism Against Palestinians" is covered as a single paragraph under "Terrorism Against Arabs". And this is defined as a "Neutral Point of View" by characterising any attack on an Israeli as terrorism, while characterising any attack on a Palestinian as...what? An unfortunate accident? Collateral damage?

Terrorism against Palestinians has an article in its own right.

If you want to be "neutral" then name these pages "Violence against Israelis" and "Violence against Palestinians" and include *all* violence EVEN THE VIOLENCE PERPETRATED BY THE IDF AND ISRAELI SETTLERS AGAINST PALESTINIANS. There are plenty of sources for violence on both sides - see [2] for what a more balanced approach can look like. Compare and contrast that with the Israeli propaganda which masquerades as neutral POV throughout this site.

B'tselem a neutral source? LOL. It has a huge bias against the establihsment and in favor of the Palestinian anarchy. They might be even thinking that it's peace now since no war has been declared. --Uri

Please, people, drop this pretense of neutrality - it's insulting.

Palestinians retort that it is legitimate to point out that Palestinians were expelled, their property confiscated and their villages razed or changed names in a manner designed to erase them from history.

Nobody is challenging that (as long as facts are set straight). It is illegitimate, however, to mark the whole Israel as "Palestine", to speak of Israelis in the past tense or to yearn for an Israeli-less Israel. --Uri

It might be useful to create a separate article on Israeli and PA schoolbooks. How Arabs and Israelis view each other, and what the teach their children about each other, are important. But this article is about terrorism, whereas depictions in schoolbooks are not terrorist acts.

Let's come up with a good article title, move the text on schoolbooks there, and link from here to there. --Ed Poor

agreed. maybe not an article about schoolbooks in particular, but more generally on the role of propaganda in the conflict. --Elian

Let's not fight here. There's enough fighting in the Middle East. --Uncle Ed

Page unprotected. But why no comments? Surely if it was important enough to revert one another's changes, it was important enough to explain why, eh?

Can we move this page to Terrorism against Israelis? Terrorism is against individuals, terrorism against countries is a more philosophical, POV interpretation. Also, the other article is called Terrorism against Arabs. --Eloquence 01:57 Dec 7, 2002 (UTC)

Since nobody replied to my above question, I have now moved the article. --Eloquence 00:48 Jan 6, 2003 (UTC)

The PA's current position is that the documents never existed, that they are fabrications -- and that they are the property of the Palestine Authority and must be returned.

LOL, does this really mean that non-existent documents can be considered property? Hey, give me back my $20 million winning lottery ticket -- that's a non-existent document, too!

Congratulations - you have won the "I believed the Israeli propaganda" ticket!
Enlighten us. Why would the PA want non-existant and/or fabricated documents returned to them?

Would it be a good idea to separate this page in decades or epochs? Palestinian terrorism is different from the terrorism in the 40's which is different from the 60's also different from the 2000's. And the term terrorism is so stupid and inherentely biased... Btw, is blowing up soldiers really terrorism? If they are occupying your land? Then it also should be terrorism if soldiers kill Palestinians trying to blow them up. user:BL

I don't think that we should have a seperate article on, say, Israeli terrorism. It would be better to have, say, violence in the British Mandate of Palestine (linked from British Mandate of Palestine) that would treat violence by Palestinians, Israelis, and British in a single article. Similarly, perhaps guerilla actions in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War which would describe both Israeli and Palestinian guerilla actions. Martin
Bl, this page already is separated chronologically. I don't understand how you missed this. And please don't rehash the old arguments about how we shoudn't label any of these mass-murders of people in cafes and pizza parlors as terrorism. Many of us have discussed these points already in many related articles, we already have reached a working consensus. As an aside, I find this attack against Israelis abhorrent. As you well know, the vast majority of Palestinaian terrorist attacks have been against people in pizza parlors, riding buses, walking in a shopping mall, parents merely sitting in their houses, etc. The Palestinians themselves admit this. To claim that murdering people in such situations in not terrorism, and is a valid military attack, is very troubling. RK 13:54 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
January 9, 2002: "4 Israeli soldiers belonging to a Bedouin patrol battalion are killed by two armed Palestinian attackers." This is legitimate resistance, not terrorism. It has to be defined that way, because otherwise every military action could be called terrorism, terrorism becomes indistinguishable from combat, and therefore no more objectionable than any other military operation. So even though there are disputed definitions of terrorism, attacks on soldiers are never going to make the cut, and this article and its subarticles are mistaken in characterizing such attacks as terrorism. Stan 17:27 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Because neither side commits violence in vacuum I think it would be better to have both sides on the same page. Violence 1919-1948, violence 1948-1967 and so on. Cause its really easy to think that the Palestinians are the Devil's own when you read this article and reversed when you read Terrorism against Palestinians. --BL