Talk:Violence against Israelis/Archive 4

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.

Zero0000, I appreciate that it is your opinion that this entry is NPOV. Let's fix it. We can go sentence by sentence if necessary. Per the NPOV definition we are not free to label an article and walk away. No discussion has taken place in 6 months.

Lets start with an understanding of what is and what is not terrorism. This does not mean that non-terrorism acts are proper behavior or that the cause espoused by a person committing terrorism is unjust.

General:

  1. Terrorism is a behavior that can be used by individuals committed to either just or reprehensible causes.
  2. Success or failure does not determine whether or not an act is terrorist.

NOT Terrorism (not a complete list):

  1. A attacks B. B defends himself and in doing so kills A. (possible self-defense)
  2. A breaks into B's home. B kills A. (possible justifable homicide)
  3. A is discovered scaling the fence of a gov't installation. A is shot and killed. (attempted trespassing, manslaughter?)
  4. A is seen carrying what is believed to be an explosive device. A is shot and killed. (possible manslaughter? possible murder???)
  5. Attacks on armed soldiers.
  6. Attacks on the leaders of combatant groups (soldiers, officers, leaders of terrorist organizations)
  7. Murder or attempted murder of government ministers.

Terrorism (not a complete list):

  1. detonating explosives against an individual citizen of group of citizens. (we can exclude armed soldiers. we may wish to include bombing of Marine Barracks in Lebanon...off duty soldiers.)
  2. shooting at vehicles moving on the roads.
  3. murder that is part of a campaign to terrorize a population.

OneVoice 12:52, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Nearly every sentence would need to be rewritten to make this page accurate and NPOV. Even if I had the time to write it properly, you would prevent me from doing so. Therefore I am not going to try. Besides, the whole idea of this page is broken. It is impossible to understand violence against one side of a conflict without understanding the violence from the other side that accompanies it. This page is written entirely from the "we are innocent victims, they are evil monsters" point of view and I expect it will always be that way. --Zero 00:48, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Zero0000, we can rewrite every sentence of the page is needed. Prevent you? I am trying to engage you to help me obtain a goal of Wikipedia, presenting accurate, neutral point of view information.

Regarding the idea of the page, we could create a single page that might be titled "Terrorism in the Arab-Israeli Conflict". The page would be rather long. We can break it into manageable sections by date or time period. Violence, I can understand easily. Terrorism, I can not understand. I can recite to myself various "reasons" that people use to explain their terrorist activities, but that does not constitute understanding. Perhaps regarding terrorism as opposed to violence, "we are innocent victims, they are evil monsters" is accurate. There are people that commit evil acts...surely you are familiar with Charles Manson and the Sharon Tate murder. That also, I can not understand. There is much in the behavior of certain people that is beyond my comprehension.

By limiting the page to a dry, listing of terrorist acts, we should be able to achieve a NPOV page easily -- either the event occurred or it did not. We only need to determine a functional definition of terrorism and apply it to each event. Thereby we can arrive at a selection of events that is not biased.

Come, Zero0000, let's improve this article together! OneVoice 12:32, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Zero0000, we do agree that there has been terrorism against Israelis committed by Arabs, yes? I am looking for a yes or no, which can be followed by as much or as little additional material as is appropriate. OneVoice 13:47, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Obviously yes. But I have little time to work on Wikipedia and would prefer to spend it on projects that have a chance of success. --Zero 14:03, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I am glad to hear that we agree. Had to ask, there are those individuals and groups that claim that all actions against Israelis can not be characterized as terrorism. Let's give it a shot, shall we. We can select one paragraph or other modest unit of work. Based upon the results with that unit, we can choose to continue or put the work aside for a while. Clearly, phrases such as "under the thumb of a few" can be replaced with better language.

While working, we need to differentiate, in our own minds and in our text, between the justness or rightness of a group's position or cause and the means chosen by some portion of a population to address the situation in which they find themselves. In other words, some people commit heinous acts in the name of a just cause. This behavior is not unique to any one group. We can condemn the act and the perpetrators without thereby perforce condemning their cause. This is not to say that there are not causes which are in and of themselves heinous, there are. One example, which we might agree on is the enslavment of Africans in the United States.

Would you choose a section for us to work on? OneVoice 14:45, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Page was listed on vfd see: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis.

This subject should be treated by an historian or political scientist with expertise in the Middle East or on the subject of terrorism. The resulting article(s) should represent all the differing points of view in this matter. The above article is propangandistic and should be deleted." GCW

I find StarOfDavid's recent changes in this and similar articles abusive, bordering on vandalism. If he is so sure that killing civilians is terrorism (it isn't - terrorism implies a political motivation) then why can't he just let "killings of Israeli civilians" or somesuch stand there? Surely it is clear enough wording. And there is no excuse for arbitrarily removing reports of Palestinian losses as he changes the wording! -- Luis Dantas 15:40 Feb 5, 2004

I just reverted the page to what existed before it was sabotaged by pro-Palestinians cyber-terrorists. The pages originally deals with TERRORISM against Israelis. Palestinian deliberate attacks civilians are terrorism. You can't just come and delete whole pages.

That is a very POV instance of yours at best. Stop calling people who disagree with you "cyber-terrorists" left and right, and please stop being hypocrital. The page did not claim to deal only with Terrorism until you made it so. You want to deny BL (and others) the right to change the article's scope to make it more NPOV, and immediately procceeds to change the article to make it very POV. That is deplorable. Luis Dantas 21:23, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please understand that the original page was titled Terrorism against Israel. Role up this page and see this section for instance:

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)

He erased the orginal article and made a re-direction to his own article. How you define such a behaivor? MathKnight 23:58, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I call it "balancing" an article. In Wikispeak it seems to be called "striving for NPOV". So far you have been disrespectful and failed to so much as try to explain why would "Terrorism against Israel" be a better title - or for that matter, a better page - than the more impartial articles that BL (and me, for that matter) favor. I told you before, if killing Israelis is so obviously terrorism that surely it is no big deal to use other words. All that you have been doing is passionately insisting on characterizing the violence as "Terrorism" without hearing anyone else and removing the record of Palestinian killings. That I strongly object to. I think you are even hurting the Israeli cause with your stubborness. Sorry for being so candid. Luis Dantas 00:38, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What would you see if I would add to this article a list of people killed in road accidents? This page was orginally listed people who got killed in a terrorist attack (i.e. an deliberate attack against CIVILIANS in pursuit of political\religional goal). We can all agree that deliberately blowing up crowded buses in a middle of a city is terrorism. Palestinian militants who get killed in battle don't die in a "terrorist attack" as same as you don't call military loses during war victims of terror (for the same reason the orginal list didn't include names of soldier who got killed while fighting militants); As same as "YadVashem" only comemorated Holocaust victims and not other casualties of WWII. Contradictionary to your accusation, I suggested him to put his article in a new page than rather overruning the orginal article. MathKnight 16:27, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What about the Palestinians who get buried under the rubble of houses destroyed by Israeli bulldozers? Are they all "militants" too? -- Viajero 17:59, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
If these people are civilians, and the driver knew they were in and still kept bulldozing the house - it is a war crime. However, most of cases I heard of people been buried under the rubbles - it turn out they were terrorists (i.e. people who engage in terrorist activity - such as suicide bombings). MathKnight 21:59, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I now understand that you do support the idea of separate articles. However, I still think that it is misleading and undesirable to plainly label some of the killings as "Terrorism". That is really not a clear-cut call to make at all. And if it were, odds are that you would have little reason to feel troubled. To use your example, I might find it odd if there were road accidents victims included in the article, but I would not feel offended if that happened. And let's not be naive, worst of all when there are actual human lives being lost: Israel has proven time and again to be willing and able of effectivelly fighting its enemies. Much of its current territory it acquired by turning the tide on the war that was declared shortly after its creation. Israelis are indeed victims of cruel violence, including Terrorism, but helpless victims they are not, and it is suspicious at least that you would rather not let palestinian killings be reported in the same article. Returning to your road accidents example, just how many people die that way? And if they are many, well, isn't that something worth reporting and, yes, investigating? Luis Dantas 18:43, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The little 2-month old baby thay was salughtered in Maxim restaurant was helpless. What could she do? Israel, as a country, is not helpless, but its plain civilians, (mostly) can't do anything, a specialy when the terrorist blow himself in a middle of a bus. Or do you suggest Israeli civilians should take out guns and start shooting Palestinians until quiet is achieved?
The mass murder of Israeli civilians in suicide bombings is constitute of terrorism. MathKnight 21:59, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is not misleading to label terrorist acts as such. It is misleading to label them as anything else. Shooting people driving in cars, when they come to door of their homes or on city buses is terrorism. OneVoice 01:24, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is very POV however, IMO unnacceptably so. The very fact that you and StarOfDavid/MathKnight make such a deal of calling that violence "Terrorism" is evidence that it is not really all that clear cut. I think the page should be reverted to the "Violence" heading and protected. Luis Dantas 01:35, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There is no civilized society in world that considers these acts to be anything other than terrorism. Please find a society in which either one of us can shoot and kill people driving in their cars, or place bombs on city buses and the acts not be regarded as heinous. Please note, it is not my view or your that matters here, it the accepted view of societies and the billions of individuals within them. OneVoice 02:07, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That is simply not true, OneVoice. "Heinous" acts are not automatically terrorism. Quite a few people see those specific acts as the result of pushing people too far. Even if I accepted your argument, that would be no reason to insist on keeping Palestinian killings out of the article. I don't think your appeal to "societies" and "billions of individuals" holds much water either. You are trying to paint the killings as acts of non-"civilized" people who do not belong to "societies" and are no true part of the "billions of individuals". I find that both offensive and unfounded. Luis Dantas 02:16, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Terrorism by definition is a deliberate killing of civilians in pursuit of political\religional\national goal. By this definition, accepted by merely everyone, the act of murdering Israeli civilians in buses, cafes, cars and buildings is terrorism. Wikipedia is not about advocating mass-murder and terrorism in the name of NPOV. MathKnight 21:50, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Not sure what you are trying to say, if anything. Are you trying to imply that I am not part of "everyone"? Or that the definition of terrorism is very clear and unanimous, but must still be enforced rigorously to avoid confusion? Or perhaps that not using that specific word is "advocating mass murder in the name of NPOV"? Either way, I stand unconvinced. Luis Dantas 23:58, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Suicide bombs are clearly terrorism. Saying they are not is taking a POV. Georgw W Bush:

"I condemn unequivocally the vicious act of terrorism committed today in Haifa. This murderous action, aimed at families gathered to enjoy a Sabbath lunch, killed and injured dozens of men, women, and children. This despicable attack underscores once again the responsibility of Palestinian authorities to fight terror, which remains the foremost obstacle to achieving the vision of two states living side by side in peace and security."

Come one, even some Arab nations are condamning suicide bombing against Israel. So Hamas disagree to call it terror. I don't understand why you passionately taking Hamas POV. MathKnight 07:27, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Basically, I think it is a dangerous and unfair oversimplification to ignore it. I advise you to give up on trying to convince me to adopt your (IMO dangerously naive) definition of terrorism, much less agreeing with your insistence on using it whenever possible. I see that as counter-productive and incendiary behavior, that is all. You simply lack the means of convincing me. Luis Dantas 10:40, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Luis. "Terrorism" is not a technical term; it is a label with strong negative connotations and implies passing a moral judgement. In Wikipedia, we have no business passing moral judgements; we are here simply to describe in as neutral a possible way the world around us. If you feel obliged to condemn acts of violence as "terrorism" please do so elswhere. -- Viajero 13:10, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
So got to the article on September 11 terrorist attack and change the title. There is nothing terrorist in massacring 3000 civilians by crashing an airplane into the twin towers. MathKnight 22:09, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I personally wouldn't mind, but you are comparing a specific short series of events with a continued situation that is often considered actual warfare between sovereign nations (that would by some definitions make the "terrorism" label invalid). But that depends so much on opinion... I understand that you have strong and possibly very well-founded feelings on these matters, but please don't forget that there is more to terrorism (a heavily biased word) than just having civilian victims or perpetrators "known" to be terrorists. At the very least understand that calling people terrorists is not the best way of arriving at bloodless solutions. Luis Dantas 23:11, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Article title

“Terrorism against Israelis” is apparently the same article as "Violence against Israelis", although I haven't done a diff. Anyway, one article is enough, and "violence" seems a less controversial title than "terrorism". So I support the redirect from Terrorism against Israelis to Violence against Israelis. --Uncle Ed 16:37, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I’m also protecting the page, since there were 6 reversions! (Now I realize this looks unfair, but can we talk about it before you take me before the committee? : ) --Uncle Ed 16:37, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is not the "warfare between sovereign nations", AKA "the cycle of violence". While the Arab terrorists purposely murder as many Israeli civilians as possible, the Israelis try to avoid killing civilians. Would you play dead if your local schoolbusses and discos were bombed? It is only natural for Israel to carry out some limited defensive measures to save lives. Renaming terrorism into "violence against the Israelis" is factually wrong and only demonstrates bias. If we decide to get rid of the term altogether, fine. But why start with the Jews?? I find it disturbing, with articles such as Terrorism against Lebanon still standing. Humus sapiens 11:05, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Humus, everyone has bias. It is my understanding that as Wikipedians we promise to try and leave it out of the articles. I wish I knew how you can be so sure on your statement about the intents of Arabs and Israeli, for instance. I think there is a very good argument to be made to the effect that by demolishing Palestinian houses Israel is locking the Palestinians into a corner and thereby feeding violence against its own people. You probably disagree. Neither of us have proof, only belief. And there are always anomalous events, to be sure. Let me state one more time: I don't think we Wikipedians have any business deciding what is or not terrorism. Please tell me, exactly why is violence a factually wrong word? I am not asking the word to be forbidden inside the article, only to avoid using it as a catch-all term for violence that may involve other causes and situations. As for the other articles, yes, I think it would be a good idea to rename them as well. Although on a purely personal level I doubt many of them have such a strong POV problem as this one. Luis Dantas 11:45, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)


An anti-Arab argument

The 106-word essay by Humus Sapiens is mostly an argument that the Arabs are wrong and/or have been behaving badly. It doesn't say much about how we Wikipedians can work together to improve the Violence against Israelis article.

It is not the "warfare between sovereign nations", AKA "the cycle of violence".

I don't know what this means, and I have no idea what it has to do with improving the article.

While the Arab terrorists purposely murder as many Israeli civilians as possible, the Israelis try to avoid killing civilians.


This is apparently an argument that:

  • Arabs are terrorists, i.e., indiscriminate murderers (and therefore are bad).
  • The Israelis are not terrorists, but carefully avoid killing innocent people (and therefore are good).

Okay, but what does this have to do with improving the article? Do you want Wikipedia to endorse your viewpoint, which is apparently that Arabs are bad and Israelis are good? If so, you're at the wrong website. Wikipedia only describes what the various viewpoints are: it doesn't endorse or condemn any point of view (POV).

I might agree with you, in whole or in part, but neither my POV nor your POV belongs in the article. Don't you understand that?

Would you play dead if your local schoolbusses and discos were bombed? It is only natural for Israel to carry out some limited defensive measures to save lives.

No, I'd probably move to a safer place; or post guards at entrances, but -- again -- whether you and I agree or not is immaterial. The question is how this issue should be described in the article. There is no objective standard to evaluate violence. For any given act, some advocates will endorse it while others will condemn it. Wikipedia cannot take sides.

Renaming terrorism into "violence against the Israelis" is factually wrong and only demonstrates bias.

This is a good point, but I disgree in part. Changing the title of an article to something non-controversial does not constitute an endorsement of a POV. Rather, it avoids endorsing a POV. It is in the articles, rather than in their titles, that the POVs of various advocates must be described. If Al Assan says an act of anti-Israel violence is "legitimate", that's his POV and he's entitled to it. The article should say that Al Assan, leader of the Cafe Au Lait Alliance, said that the disco was a legitimate military target of the intifadah, part of its quest for justice, made necessary because of blah blah blah. If Hyram Firam says the same act of anti-Israeil violence is "illegitimate", that's his POV and he's entitled to it. The article should that that Hyram Firam, leader of the Potato Pancake Guild, said that the disco bombings are the insane acts of deranged lunatics who misinterpret the sacred scriptures for political purposes, as evidenced by blah blah blah or whatever prominent spokesmen are really saying. You get the idea, right?

If we decide to get rid of the term altogether, fine. But why start with the Jews?? I find it disturbing, with articles such as Terrorism against Lebanon still standing.

Here's a place where I completely agree with you. A better title than "Terrorism against Lebanon" might be "Terrorism in Lebanon" -- if it's not clear that the target is the government (I hear variously that Lebanon is suffering from either anarchy or Syrian occupation). Or maybe "Violence in Lebanon" would just be simpler.

I hope I've addressed your concerns and that we can all work together to make accurate and neutral Wikipedia articles. --Uncle Ed 15:44, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I haven't joined in this bunfight over the name of this article because I think it is an unsolvable question. There is no name for an article like this that will satisfy nearly everyone. The problem is that the content of the article is fundamentally unbalanced. You can't extract the actions of one side in a conflict and hope to present them in an NPOV fashion. It is impossible! The only proper way is to list the actions of both sides in a single article. Some people started to make Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict already, which is the right idea, but I would suggest making a more formal set of house rules that limit the contents to strict statement of facts without emotive words. --Zero 07:28, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Indeed there is sense in what you say. Being neutral is reflected just as much in what you don't say as in what you say. Unfortunately, the later is easy to detect, the former is much more subtle. The only way to balance it is to present them on the same page, and hope the ommmisions cancel out. ShaneKing 07:36, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Violence includes acts that result in wounded and property damage. Neither version of the article includes any violence other than deaths. Creating and maintaining a timeline of violence is probably beyond the abilities of Wikipedia. Terrorism is defined for us on the Terrorism page which includes the statement:

Acts of revolutionary or guerrilla warfare usually are not considered to constitute terrorism, unless the revolutionaries or guerrillas they deliberately and specifically select civilians as targets of violence in the pursuit of political or religious ends.

One can substitute militants for revolutionaries or guerrillas without doing violence to the quote above.

This page is one of 5 pages covering years of activity. All five should be treated similarly. This will require one group to review 5 years of newspaper articles to verify each occurance to be added, just as each occurance added to date has been based upon newspaper accounts. This work could be undertaken immediately.

The crux of the matter is that one group has created and maintained over a period of 5 years a series of pages recounting Palestinian terrorism that has resulted in Israeli deaths. The other group objects to such a page and seeks to include a partial (timewise) list of Palestinian deaths in the same page. Wikipedia could have all three pages: Israel deaths only, Palestinian deaths only, and a combined page.

Here is some detail on the non-fatal level of violence that could be recorded in Wikipedia, should we chose articles on violence rather than focusing on deaths:

  1. rocks were thrown at vehicles near Eli Zahav
  2. soldiers on guard duty fired at suspicious images near Kibbutz Nahal Oz
  3. firebomb attacks against vehicles near Peduel
  4. rock throwing attacks in Hawarah
  5. undetonated warhead of a Kassam rocket found in Gan-Or
  6. bus was hit by gunfire in the near the community of Shilo

All of these acts of violence occurred on February 8, 2004, not an unusual day. These do not include violence in conjunction with military operations. This list is partial. Such a list will quickly become quite extensive.

A list of "Violence" is too broad, we will not be able to maintain (add incidents within a reasonable time of their occurrance). the list. A list of "Deaths" is considerably smaller and easier to maintain. OneVoice 15:27, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Working together

I agree with Zero and Shane, and (due to an edit conflict) haven't had time to read and digest OneVoice's remarks.

But I do agree that violence is a broad category.

Also, the chronologies have seemed to focus on lethal violence.

The point we perhaps all agree on is that context is essential. Its omission can be misleading, and the Wikipedia isn't supposed to "lead" readers to any specific conclusion, legitimately or not. We're just supposed to report the facts.

So, how about we start working on a sort of violence timeline? For a start, let's propose what sorts of incidents should go into it, and how they should be reported.

One idea comes to mind (although I'm not set on it; it's just my the first thing I thought of!)

A chronology, with the most recent events first. If it gets too long, use links to separate it into pages, say by years.

Each incident should begin by saying WHO did WHAT. For example, IDF shot rockets into Gaza, hitting a vehicle. X died, Y injured.

Then give statements by any side describing possible motives for the action. For example, Israel refused to comment or Israel said they were trying to assassinate suspected terrorist mastermind Abdel Akbar. Don't forget to give opposing statements, for example, PA Authority leader Rajah Akhmed said "this is a typical example of Zionist brutality, the men were just minding their own business when they were murdered by those genocidal maniacs" or whatever.

(Please don't read anything into these examples. I'm not saying one side is "better" than the other; just trying to create a framework or schema for reporting incidents and comments.)

Those folks that object to these pages recitation of Terrorism against Israelis as not suitable for Wikipedia may wish to VfD pages such as List_of_destroyed_villages_during_the_1948_Arab-Israeli_war due to their being lists and not encyclopedic articles. OneVoice 17:04, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Alhough I know how this article is named, I still want to warn strenuously against portraying this conflict too much in terms of violence only, as it unfairly puts the Palestinians in an unfavorable light. It ignores the fact that the occupation, land annexation, the economic dependency and hardship, etc. predates the violence. Ironically, because there were only relatively minor incidents in the area before the first intifada, the Palestinians, when they finally did rise up, were seen as the aggressors towards the sacred Status Quo, although the status quo WAS and STILL IS occupation. -- Dissident 16:33, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

well Dissident depending upon ones point of view the aggressors could be those Jews that moved from Europe to Israel before 1900. This lack of agreement on legitimacy of any Jewish settlement is a fundamental issue. There are the Six-Day War Arab refugees, the 1948 Arab refugees, those that claim they were Arab refugess before 1948, etc. To some, Tel-Aviv is a city of occupation built on the ruins of Jaffa. Please see the article List_of_destroyed_villages_during_the_1948_Arab-Israeli_war. OneVoice 17:02, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Let's not debate the issue. If there are scholars or politicians who justify violence against Israelis on grounds such as economic hardship, etc., then that's a point of view (POV). And POV should be attributed to its advocate(s) and included in the article. If other advocates say that the violence is not justified, that's another POV and should likewise be attributed and included. Agreed? --Uncle Ed 17:56, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hold it right there. Nobody was talking about justifying violence against innocent civilians, I was talking about EXPLAINING why these acts occur. Too often these are the only thing people get to see in the media about the conflict and consequently the entire Palestinian people are painted with a bad brush, like they were somehow intrinsically evil and that any (collective) punishment they receive are well-deserved. What I'm saying is that if you accompany these acts of violence with facts related to the occupation that are not even disputed, people can get a better understanding why these extremist groups flourish and why they receive so significant support from the mainstream. -- Dissident 20:09, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dissident, those facts should include that the majority of Palestinian refugees are kept in poor living conditions by the Arab countries in which they reside? Per UNRWA Jordan: 1,718,767, Syria: 409,662, Lebanon: 391,679, Gaza: 907,221 and West Bank: 654,971. Yet, there is little to no violence directed against the governments of Jordan, Syria or Lebanon by the refugees. The PLO has attacked the governments of Jordan and Lebanon, but not Syria (as far as I know) OneVoice 20:29, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Dissident: the occupation, land annexation, the economic dependency and hardship, etc. predates the violence - excuse me, but it doesn't look very convicing to justify Arab terrorism againt the Jews by the "occupation" in the context of the article that includes incidents way before 1967 or even 1948. Humus sapiens 22:12, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Are we all in agreement to stick to the rules and operate with proven facts? If it is terrorism, call it such. I still cannot understand why it is not terrorism if directed against the Jews. I also find frequently implied here "good people" vs "bad people" argument primitive if not racist. Facts and numbers please, not emotions or (counter-)propaganda. Humus sapiens 22:12, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If the only thing you can do is resort to abusive straw man rhetoric like "I still cannot understand why it is not terrorism if directed against the Jews.", then you might as well leave, because I will certainly not cower in compliance as a result. -- Dissident 23:36, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I see nothing abusive about the statement. Well-received texts describe the violence as terrorism, international bodies recognize the concept of terrorism, and Wikipedians have developed an inclusive description of violence people call terrorism. Rather than debating motivations related both to the subject and to contributors, Wikipedians could work toward agreement on a standard template for managing inclusive lists of politically motivated violence at various times and places. SoCal 20:54, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I address the issue and in return get attacked ad-hom. Terrorism does not simply equal violence, check a dictionary for definitions. As MathKnight suggested above, why not start this renaming campaign with September 11? Singling out the Jews puts you in a bad company. Humus sapiens 03:04, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Humus sapiens: we are dedicated here to developing an inclusive, non-partisan encyclopedia which doesn't take any one single point of view but simply describes it in non-tendentious terms. That means acknowledging not only the Jewish reality but that of the Palestinians and everyone else on this planet. If you can't accept this, please go away. Dismissing serious criticism as a personal attack or anti-Semitism is completely counterproductive. Your kind of political activism will be fiercely resisted on this website because it undermines everything we stand for. -- Viajero 11:22, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
If intentionally targeting civilians, the more the merrier, and blowing up busses, cafes and discos are not acts of terrorism, then what is? Please point me exactly which was "serious criticism", I must have missed it. So far all my comments on the matter were met only by emotions and personal attacks. So much for "inclusive, non-partisan encyclopedia". Humus sapiens 22:18, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think Zero0000 summarized the main body of criticism on Jan. 24 when he wrote: "It is impossible to understand violence against one side of a conflict without understanding the violence from the other side that accompanies it."
There has also been discussion of whether the the topic should address violence broadly or specifically terroristic violence. If addressing violence, discusison has considered whether it should address only lethal violence or a more broad category of violence. There was also a suggestion of seperate and combined lists of deaths among various national groups, including an suggestion for an article "Terrorism in the Arab-Israeli Conflict" SoCal 23:40, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Someone requested comments on this page but I don't maintain a user name at this Wiki and probably lack standing in some people’s eyes to speak.

The trouble I find with the topic is that violence within the internationally recognized borders of Israel during the years mentioned has targeted Arab and Jew alike. The violence and terrorism has been against anyone within blast range of a suicide bomber, and some targets have been selected from among the most popular multi-ethnic businesses in the area.

So, the topic has already moved past where I would recommend "Terrorism (verb) Israel." The terroristic acts, as symbolic constructs, are usually directed against the state of Israel, taking lives of all sorts to make a symbolic point, so "Israel" was a more accurate title than "Israelis". Then I would have a problem with the verb. It’s not that terrorism is not directed against Israel, but some people are raising neutrality issues. Terrorism in Israel would leave out all speculation about human motivation and would restrict the topic to an easily identifiable geographic region.

Then, since it is a list, I would prefer to study a list of "Terrorism in the Israel/Palestine Conflict". That would allow entries that can be considered terrorism against both parties of the conflict. It would come up against international scholarly debate about what is terrorism, but Wikipedians have made some progress in that area. Another lists describes incidents "that can be described as terrorism." Such a header tends to avoid debate because it does not put Wikipedia in the position of declaring what is terrorism, but rather allows Wikipedia to include all analysis that rationally complies with the generous description, under a wide range of rationales. People can and have described Israel’s attacks against occupied buildings and missile attacks against specific persons on busy streets to be terrorism. There is certainly debate about whether those tactics should be considered terroristic, but plainly some substantial intellectual camps can consider those acts comparable with other civilian killings in asymmetrical warfare.

As "Violence against Israelis" this topic raises that perennial news editor's question "why didn't they say what they really meant?" Why would Wikipedia define violence against members of a specific national group as only politically motivated violence? Is there no common crime or domestic violence committed against Israelis? But since this topic has already moved here from elsewhere, unless some direction emerges that satisfies more people, such as a list that tallies all politically motivated attacks against civilians during the Israel/Palestine conflict, (preferably supported by an analysis article that describes perceptions and motivations of various factions on all sides), I have no other interest in the outcome, except to observe how these concepts emerge and grow.

-Don Knopff, Feb. 13, 2004
Violence can be justified, terrorism cannot. Unless you take the POV of HAMAS. Humus sapiens 06:43, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Humus, are you really telling us that anyone who doesn't agree with your POV about what is "justifiable" or not should joing Hamas? Luis Dantas 13:53, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Justification (or unjustifiability) is an element of the definition of terrorism that presumes terrorism to be illegal political violence against civilians. Others hold that no political violence against civilians is justifiable, regardless the color of law. Both positions are supported in literature and thus need to be represented in Wikipedia. The contrast between predominate concepts of terrorism is described in the article terrorism. The article has stood with no debate since September, and prior to that there was some diverse and useful discussion that moved toward an inclusive but not endorsive article about what various groups consider to be terrorism.
I wonder what specific objections anyone might have to the following titles, to use of in as the conventional verb when classifying articles about terrorism, and to the use of political boundaries to delineate localized accounts of terrorism:
Prose:
Terrorism in Isreal
Terrorism in the Arab-Israeli Conflict
Terrorism in Lebanon
Terrorism in the United States of America
Terrorism in World War II
Lists:
List of terrorist incidents in Israel
List of terrorist incidents in Lebanon
List of terrorist incidents in the United States of America
List of terrorist incidents
SoCal 22:24, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
At least when it comes to the Israel/Palestinian conflict the political boundaries are much too blurry to be useful. For instance, I am told that demolishing Palestinian houses is acceptable under applicable war rules, while some Wikipedians seem to be completely certain that killing Israeli civilians is Terrorism by definition. I really think it is best to just report the incidents in as much detail as is available and let the reader decide what to call them. Luis Dantas 01:07, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
As virtual slaves of the world's vocabulary, we encyclopedia authors are stuck with the term terrorism, and with reporting how people use the term. The instance cited above as you describe it does seem to confound efforts to describe terrorism. But proponants of a narrow definition of terrorism and of a broad definition of terrorism each have cited the Israeli-Palestenian conflict as evidence of their position, in debates I have followed in other places.
The value of listing incidents is that it describes events in better detail as they unfold across time, allowing readers the oppurtunity to focus on finer details. If I were carefully analyzing that Israeli-Palenstenian conflict in detail, I might review various lists of incidents of various types both seperately and collated, to understand how tactics developed in the context of one side's campaign, in the context of the other side's tactics and in the context of the overall conflict.
The header on the master terrorism list resolves conflict over whether the events actually were "terrorism" by describing the incidents as those that can be consdered terrorism. (I would prefer have.) The passive voice still leaves us with the question of "who" did the considering, but someone will probably come up with some more precise language soon enough.
The occupied territories present a difficult distinction but the boundaries are very well-defined lines. If Israel claims them as part of Isreal, and some people can call demolishing houses there terrorism, it would seem appropriate to report those detils. Most of the residential demolition has occured in refugee camps outside the occupied territories, as best my vague knowledge can tell. Advocates of the position that military actions against Palestenian civilians are terrorism would need to consider whether they want to treat the occupied territories as part of Isreal by reporting incidents there on a list about terrorism in Isreal. Otherwise, those could be listed in an Israeli-Arab or in a Israeli-Palestentian conflict list. Politically motivated vigilante actions against Arabs in Israel have been considered terrorism by some, so they would certainly be interesting to me on a list of terrorist incidents in Israel.
SoCal 05:07, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)