Talk:March 1947 martial law in Mandatory Palestine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Civilian deaths[edit]

Icewhiz, when you have time to read the article, please address the redundancy you added. I already mentioned the death of the four-year old Jewish girl. Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And her father which you omitted. It was tucked away. Removed the redundancy.Icewhiz (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of terrorist label[edit]

Per WP:TERRORIST, it is incorrect to call anti-occupation Lehi and Irgun fighters terrorists. British sources do indeed refer to these operations as such (though likewise, non-British sources refer to the British actions as illegal) - and as long as we attribute this to the British it is fine, but use of this term in our voice for Irgun and Lehi military operations against occupying troops violates NPOV.Icewhiz (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may have some ground to stand on for not calling the Irgun "terrorist", however we can certainly call terrorist attacks "terrorist attacks", see eg Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing or 2017 Halamish stabbing attack. I am restoring that label for where it is applied by reliable sources. nableezy - 20:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
British sources using the label is not an indication - as many Jewish sources do not. In this case we are talking about military operations - a military organization attacking the military personnel of a different military organization.Icewhiz (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a "British source". nableezy - 20:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quotations of British reports and lingo within the source - and again - there are sources that do not label the Irgun's activities against the British occupation in 1947 as "terrorist". I'll note that it would be helpful if next to each such label there were a clear inline citation with a quote. Icewhiz (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From my research of the subject, I have yet to find any sources that call the terrorist attacks a "military operation". Engaging in OR to change the meanings of these attacks does not satisfy NPOV. It actually is dangerously POV.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
English language sources, for this particular subject matter (as well as for other former colonies of the UK that do not use English as a primary language), exhibit a systemic bias in regards to adopting the UK POV.Icewhiz (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe, just maybe, you don't like what the sources have to say? A terrorist attack is a terrorist attack, and I am only applying that descriptor with the support of reliable sources. You have yet to counter with any sources of your own related to this subject.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I am actually quite aware of the sources here - and in some of the cases in the article you are using quoted British reports (or British newspapers from the time) for the label, and not the voice of a high quality source. But OK - Imperial Endgame: Britain's Dirty Wars and the End of Empire, Benjamin Grob-Fitzgibbon, pages 79-84 - we have "the British forces were at war with the Jews", "The IZL injured five soldiers and four civilians in three attacks", "The Irgun launched further attacks", "it was not only the IZL that was engaged in this insurgent campaign", "arrest only twenty five insurgents", "On March 31, LEHI bombed the Haifa oil refinery", "meanwhile the Jewish insurgent attacks continued...."...... And guess what? Not a single word use of "terror" - save one use - which describes the British POV "the high commisioner introduced the death penalty as a punishment for terrorist actions". Each and every action (in this article) is described in Grob-Fitzgibbon as an attack/bombing/etc - not as a terrorist action. I will note that a technical perspective that this (the events in 1946-7 vs. the UK) was a military campaign - an insurgency - and a military campaign that achieved its stated objective - causing the UK to retreat from the Mandate. Perhaps, one shouldn't be so keen on attempting to apply a label where plenty of sources do not support it.Icewhiz (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could provide even more sources calling this terrorism, but you do not seem to respect the reliability of English sources. I will note, however, the Jewish Agency in this 1947 report referred to the attacks as "murder", "crime", and "bloodshed", not a "military operation". They even believe the order will be ineffective in deterring terrorism, in reference to the 1 March attacks. I also do not know how you consider it a "military operation" to kill both Jewish and Arab civilians as the Irgun and Lehi did during martial law. But this is my last comment on the issue as it is pointless to dispute multiple reliable sources that support the current description.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I provided a proper secondary source - which covers all or most of the operations in March - and does not use terrorism/terror/terrorist. A conciliatory approach, in a primary report, by the Yishuv to the British who imposed harsh measures on civilians does not amount to much (all the more so given concurrent actions). If you build an article by searching for "terror" and "illegal" - then certainly there are sources (often lower quality ones) which echo the language of the British primary reports (and the British labelled insurgencies in all their colonies as "terrorism") - but that is not how we build NPOV articles. Icewhiz (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz, there being sources that do not use "terrorism" does not negate the sources that do. Is it your position that most sources do not call thebombing of the officers club an act of terrorism? nableezy - 21:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources you're quoting are not calling it terrorism - e.g. this one (which uses terrorist only when describing the British position). All the sources you've presented are describing the British narrative which indeed saw insurgencies in Palestine (and throughout the colonial holdings of British Empire) as terrorism - however describing the British view of the insurgencies is not NPOV. This English source does not call it terrorism, nor does this, this, this, or this. Certainly there are some sources sympathetic to British colonial rule (which are over-represented in English - see Wikipedia:Systemic bias), or that carelessly parrot British language used in British documents. However more neutral sources avoid the use of terrorist/terror - using this term only when describing the British position (as they call it such).Icewhiz (talk) 05:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a question of RS - but NPOV. Certainly we can find sources parroting the British view. One can also find sources parroting the Irgun's view - and plaster various invective phrases towards the occupying British forces, and tie various epitaphs on the Irgun's actions. However, the neutral thing to do is to avoid the narrative of either side and stick to a factual representation (as is done in many sources) - the military officer's club was bombed - which is a simple factual representation.Icewhiz (talk) 05:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, find reliable sources for the Irgun's view and include them, but take care to distinguish what a source describes as the Irgun's view and what they describe as fact. Here, a number of sources describe as fact that these were terrorist acts. It is well-established on Wikipedia that acts can be called "terrorist" when reliable sources do so. I point you again to any number of articles on Palestinian violence against Israel and or Israelis. If your position is that we may not use sources because they are British and or from former colonies of Britain because of their association with a party to the conflict then I would welcome as evidence of good faith your beginning to remove all Israeli and or Hebrew sources from say Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing. You cannot be seriously suggesting that obvious corollary, can you? Or is it your view that if I find one source that does not label something a terrorist act that means we cannot do so in Wikipedia's voice? Cus uh that isnt the case on Wikipedia either. So, just so I am clear on the argument here. What exactly is the standard for calling an act "terrorist"? Cus Id very much see how one can make the argument that only Jewish violence has to avoid sources from an entire language associated with it (this being the English Wikipedia makes that difficult though you have to admit). nableezy - 05:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Icewhiz here, and per WP:TERRORIST removing this label. Attack Ramon (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Icewhiz. ShimonChai (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would either of you care to expand on that? nableezy - 05:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular military conflict (a highly sucessful insurgency, resulting in a full British retreat) - most sources do not use terrorist to describe the wide scale insurgency against (mostly) military targets. In a technical level these were not terrorist operations as they had a clear tangible military goal beyond just terrorizing - a goal that was achieved. As for sources - I did not suggest we reject British sources, I merely mentioned that some of these sources parrot the 1947 British POV, which we should avoid doing in our own voice.Icewhiz (talk) 05:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So your position is that this view on not including what reliable sources say about an attack being a terrorist attack extends only to the Jewish violence in Palestine, and not Palestinian violence against Israel? Am I correct in that understanding? nableezy - 06:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All of the attacks listed seemed to be against members of the British military specifically, this was obviously a coordinated attempt by a paramilitary (Irgun / Lehi) to fight the British military occupying the land at that time. It wasn't targeting civilians for the sake of inflicting terror for political gain or otherwise. This was part of the greater conflict of the Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine. This is nothing like the rockets from Gaza or lone wolf attacks against soldiers, and shouldn't be compared to it, since the people firing the rockets aren't specifically firing against Israeli military positions, they are firing against civilian areas, and don't care if civilians are killed in the process. ShimonChai (talk) 07:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC) (also sorry I mistagged this edit as "minor" that was an accident)[reply]
Is there anything besides WP:OR that justifies that position? But you are agreeing that only Jewish violence in Palestine should not be described as "terrorist attacks" regardless of what reliable sources say? And that Palestinian attacks should not benefit from that treatment? Am I accurately stating your position? nableezy - 07:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And for the record, police officers are generally treated as civilians, and yall have certainly gained an appreciation for the use of "occupation". nableezy - 07:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first claim that the attacks were against the British military were from this article. Both the pages about the Irgun and Lehi classify them as paramilitaries. My claim that it wasn't targeting civilians is based on this article which cites Levenberg 1993, p. 83. Which expressly states that they were targeting military personal. This is the citation for my claim that they don't target military positions, but civilian ones. Do you also happen to what citations about lone wolf attacks against civilians now? Also, no you aren't accurately stating my position. My position is that context matters here when talking about what is and isn't a terrorist attack, and that a paramilitary attacking a specific military position during an insurgency isn't a terrorist attack. Also, stop trying to bring up the Arabs. They have nothing to due to the topic at hand, we are talking about if the Jewish insurgencies specifically are to be considered terrorist attacks. The Morning Bulletin which is used to cite that it was a terrorist attack is a tabloid in Australia. Which may be fine for referencing the attack but their language specifically, I think fails to meet WP:TERRORIST. I will concede if there is a citation like the UN, Associated Press, etc. But the criteria for "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term." I don't think is met by a tabloid citation alone.ShimonChai (talk) 07:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are obliged to be neutral, for Chrissake, whatever out POV. I, and I' m far from alone, have no problem in calling a spade a spade when it comes to Palestinian terrorism, like blowing up people with bombs, or shooting unarmed people, civilians or otherwise. No one in her right mind would object, except for editors who persist in editing here in terms of 'but Israel is an exception to the rule applied to everyone else' logic. Most long term editors are familiar with J. Bowyer Bell's classic inside account,Terror Out of Zion: The Fight for Israeli Independence, 1996, where he never lets his sympathy get in the way of objectively saying what something is. When Jewish terrorists introduced into the Middle East the 'tactics' of putting bombs into buses, or throwing them into market crowds (List of Irgun operations) in 1938, they were deliberately choosing terrorism, and it was successful. Those acts were branded terroristic not only by the Breitish authorities, but by the major Jewish leaders and institutions, and this usage is repeated in numerous modern historical accounts, The attrition of terror wore down the British. That doesn't mean that, since a large part of the modern Israeli governing elite descends from people who militated as terrorists, and then went on to distinguished public careers, we have to whitewash the past. Idem with the Palestinians, Hamas. They adopted terror tactics, but in their case, didn't manage to wear Israel down, since terrorism only works generally against states that don't mirror strategies of indiscriminate killing. Nishidani (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The OR is that It wasn't targeting civilians for the sake of inflicting terror for political gain or otherwise means that it isnt terrorism. The books presented in this section. But it does have to do with the topic at hand, if Wikipedia has a policy that allows for Palestinian attacks to be called terror attacks because reliable sources say they are then that policy likewise applies here. You cannot have it both ways. nableezy - 08:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was using the dictionary definition, which in all fairness I shouldn't have since WP:NOTADICTIONARY. I will check the books though, also, the policy is based on WP:TERRORIST which to my understanding is judged on a case by case basis. If legitimately neutral sources say that something was done by a terrorist or was a terrorist attack, it is considered to be regardless of what I, or any other editor specifically thinks. I need to go read those sources, I just noticed that the ISBNs at the bottom of the page, under where the normal citations are (I couldn't find them earlier since usually whenever I see books cited the ISBN is cited as a citation and not a Source. (Not mentioning it as a critique it's just why I didn't check those earlier) ShimonChai (talk) 08:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are breaking a rule. We don't second guess acceptable academic secondary or tertiary sources (except when they are cited for a known error)'s use of primary materials. That is WP:OR. Secondly, as repeatedly shown, it was not a British judgement, but the judgement of the contemporary Jewish institutions and leaders that Irgun/Lehi were engaged in terrorism. Nishidani (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is bad faith argufying, Icewhiz. You know that we have numerous cats, covering scores of articles which rightly brand Palestinian 'military' acts as terrorism, entitled:
Secondly, the Irgun and Lehi were called terrorist organizations not only by the British, but by Jewish organizations, beginning with David Ben-Gurion, by his supporters, the Jewish Agency the Haganah, and Histadrut (see here, as you cannot but know). Henry Laurens (Henry Laurens, La Question de Palestine, vol.2 Fayard 2002 p.576-7) quotes at great length Ben-Gurion's denunciation of the Irgun/Lehi terrorist attacks as terrorism. If you believed what you assert above:-

British sources using the label is not an indication (counterfactual-since many US historical sources called them thus)- as many Jewish sources do not (counter-factual since contemporary Jewish sources called them that). In this case we are talking about military operations - a military organization attacking the military personnel of a different military organization.

it would mean operatively on Wikipedia that you would embark on a huge cleansing review of the hundreds of articles where Palestinian military organization members killed Jews/Israelis, beginning with the Munich Massacre. If you do so, one can believe you. Since you don't . . . Nishidani (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ahem, categories. nableezy - 08:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am discussing the article at hand, describing an insurgency by a Jewish military organization against the UK military (and not civilians), and per the sources available here, many of which do not call this military action terrorist. Please do not turn this into a POINTy discourse - more modern events have different circumstances (e.g. massacring civilians with no military effect other than terrorizing) and sources.Icewhiz (talk) 09:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No you are not. You are consistently asserting known falsehoods to remove a label applied to Irgun, widely endorsed by historical sources, saying it does not apply to the Jewish case outlined here, which however covers numerous cases of the Irgun killing, not just military men, but 'British personnel' and civilians. If an organization hits, as Irgun did numerous times 'in that period (List of Irgun operations), Arab civilians, and then in this incident, killed British military men,(worse still, since the Irgun murdered many police men, they were killing a civilian force, not a military force) part of whose job was to protect all citizens, even Arabs, of Mandatory Palestine, we do not say, waahhl, the former were acts of terrorism, but the latter was just a military engagement. POV manipulation in the extreme, so please desist from wasting our time.Nishidani (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Police are very often considered a military target, and in the mandate they were active in the war against the Irgun (a term used by one of the sources presented above). Also note that British women, children, and non essential personnel had departed prior to March, leaving those involved in the British occupation. Plenty of sources do not call this insurgency, as well as other insurgencies throughout lands occupied by the British empire, terror.Icewhiz (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz, you are very clearly seeking to adopt a different standard for Jewish attacks in Palestine as opposed to Palestinian attacks in or against Israel. You are inventing requirements here that apparently dont apply to other areas that you edit, ones that dont actually appear in any policy. I think an RFC is the only way to get around this filibustering what reliable sources report. nableezy - 18:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the article at hand, and also please do not put words in my mouth. This article is about 1947, and Israel (did not exist) is not relevant. The relevant policy is NPOV and WP:TERRORIST, and ample sourcing from secondary expert reliable sources in this thread has been presented showing non-terrorist terminology for these military actions.Icewhiz (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Killing police in any state is a criminal act, whatever the motivation, and in international law the distinction is made between the military and the police. Stop opinionizing.Nishidani (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The status of armed police as combatant or non-combatant is actually quite complex under current int. Law (and even when not, it is possible to declare them as targets following notification). However, in this particular case it actually is quite simple, as the British police was, for many years, actively fighting the Irgun and hence was clearly part of the non-civilian conflict, just as the Royal Ulster Constabulary was a side to The Troubles. However - going back to the sources - we have several good RSes who simply call these actions attacks.Icewhiz (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Listen. You are prevaricating about sources, and citing them without even reading them. You wrote:

Oh, I am actually quite aware of the sources here - and in some of the cases in the article you are using quoted British reports (or British newspapers from the time) for the label, and not the voice of a high quality source. But OK - Imperial Endgame: Britain's Dirty Wars and the End of Empire, Benjamin Grob-Fitzgibbon, pages 79-84 - we have "the British forces were at war with the Jews", "The IZL injured five soldiers and four civilians in three attacks", "The Irgun launched further attacks", "it was not only the IZL that was engaged in this insurgent campaign", "arrest only twenty five insurgents", "On March 31, LEHI bombed the Haifa oil refinery", "meanwhile the Jewish insurgent attacks continued...."...... 'And guess what? Not a single word use of "terror" - save one use - which describes the British POV "the high commisioner introduced the death penalty as a punishment for terrorist actions".

The link you gave led to the index, and you just checked 'Hippo'. If you had read the full introductory chapter you would have realized that your key source, Grob-Fitzgibbon, has no qualms about calling all acts by IOrgun and Lehi as instances of terrorism.

'Finally, on February 1 –just three months after taking command-Begin published a declaration of revolt against the British, proclaiming that the armistice between the IZL and British forces was over. On February 12, less than two weeks after this declaration the IZL began its campaign of terror, simultaneously bombing immigration offices in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa.(pp.12-13) ...On April 2 . .the (Jewish) Agency articulated an official policy of opposition to the terror campaign. . . Despite this opposition, the terror campaign continued. (p.13)

I.e. Grob-Fitzgibbon's narrative voice, not that of Great Britain.
The second prevarication, outright source manipulation, is the quotation,

"the British forces were at war with the Jews",

So you read two pages, and made a generalization and jumped on the POV this was all well, anti-Semitic by the British. The actual quotation in full runs:-

By all accounts, The British security forces were at war with the Jews, or at least, with those Jews involved in the insurgency.’p.80, and insurgency he throughout describes as adopting terrorist tactics.

This is sheer obfuscating gaming of sources, and filibustering, and on the form here, I don't think any serious editor is obliged to respond any further.Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say anything here was anti-Semitic - don't put words in my mouth - I quoted short snippets from each attack - including the description as war. As for your quotes from pp 12-13 they are irrelevant, as they describe 1944. Events in 44 were not the same as 47.Icewhiz (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Drop it. You just lost your credibility. Quoting short snippets that don't use the word 'terror' for actions the overall narrative historian calls terroristic, part of a terror campaign, is text manipulation. Asserting that we need sources on every occasion to describe each incident in 1947 undertaken by the Irgun as terroristic, when the very books that mention them define the Irgun as a terroristic organization is patent filibustering. Even strongly pro-Zionist historians like Walter Laqueur, one of the world's foremost experts on terrorism, states unequivocally that the Irgun was a terrorist organization (Walter Laqueur, History of Terrorism, Routledge, 2017 p.103). What you are asking is a bit like saying the each section of the Bible isn't illustrative of Jewish or Christian traditions unless each specific verse is prefaced by the word 'Jewish'/'Christian'. Nishidani (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You misrepresented a source above - seemingly referring to 1947 we were discussing, while the source was discussing 1944. As for the matter at hand, the Irgun in 1939 was not the same in 1944 and futhermore not the same in 1947-8. By 48, this was a full fledged miitary organization - which is quite different from what this was earlier. So yes - we should use sources specific to the period and events in the article.Icewhiz (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am discussing the article at hand - the favored phrase of the classic POV pusher. One set of rules here, another set there, but Im only discussing this article now. Classic. nableezy - 21:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nish, I think at a certain point one has to recognize there is no point in continuing discussing with those not open to discussion. Please provide a list of sources supporting the wording as is and we can move on to DR processes with the wider community. And we can see whether or not one standard applies to Jewish violence and another to Palestinian violence as Icewhiz is arguing. nableezy - 21:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I will respond in regards to other articles, but as an example 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict does not contain a single use of terror in Wiki's voice - all uses of the word are clearly attributed and most are in direct quotations. So if there is a double standard here, it is not mine.Icewhiz (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If someone cares to put up an RfC template, I will outline with evidence why in historical scholarship, 'terrorist' is overwhelmingly the default term for the Irgun for that period.Nishidani (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done, see below, please proceed with a source dump as only you can. nableezy - 17:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear[edit]

Already mentioned below. With this change, the same thing was being said twice in the same paragraph. At least you could have deleted one of the two, but since you did not, I am restoring the text to a version that makes sense. Thanks

What on earth are you doing? ‘Jewish sabbath’ is one thing, 'Saturday another. Do you really think Sabbath and Saturday have the same connotations? Stating ‘It was the first terrorist attack on as Saturday’ doesn’t make sense. You haven’t corrected my oversight in not at the same time removing the later 'Saturday' so much as restored the nonsensical ‘Saturday’ which will only leave the non-Jewish reader, the majority, pausing to wonder why editors think there’s something special about Saturday.Nishidani (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I just don't appreciate careless edits. I have nothing against your proposal but if you are going to do the Saturday thinghy in a foreign language, at least have the courtesy of deleting the English version at the same time. XavierItzm (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have 68,000 edits. You are the third person to note that I was careless. Have a fucken sense of proportion. I screwed up, you screwed up. It's called either humility or commonsense, and one fixes one's mistakes, when pointed out, or when one notices them. Your edit was careless of the point I made. I might as well complain you don't care to format your useful contributions to maintain the uniform template quality of a page. I don't. When I get the time I fix things like that without whingeing.This petty squabbling is ridiculous.Nishidani (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Youre both looking to improve the article. @XavierItzm: with this article having a revert restriction, would you care to make an edit that implements your suggestion on including the Sabbath as requested? nableezy - 18:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFC[edit]

Consensus for Yes, as supported by sources. Besides the clear supermajority of participant opinions, and the extensive list of sources, we have the guideline (as cited by the opposers, ironically enough) WP:TERRORIST, which states "Value-laden labels—such as ... terrorist ... are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." The long list of sources given by Nishidani is pretty clear for "widely used", but we must cite at least one of those specific reliable sources using the term in the specific case. --GRuban (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the attacks listed in this article be described as "terrorist"? Nableezy 17:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • Yes - sources are what are supposed to count on Wikipedia, and it is well established that even if people or groups are not called "terrorist" in Wikipedia's voice, within reason, acts certainly are. Eg June 2017 Jerusalem attack, 2017 Jerusalem truck attack, both attacks on police and or soldiers, are both repeatedly called "terrorist" in Wikipedia's voice. The sources provided above, and Im sure soon to be provided by User:Nishidani below show that it is common in scholarship to describe these attacks as "terrorist". There is an effort here to apply one set of standard to violence by Jews in Palestine and or Israel and an entirely different set of standards to Palestinian violence against and or in Israel. That violates the very core of WP:NPOV. As far as claims that English sources showing a pro-British systemic bias and that makes it so we should not call Jewish attacks "terrorist", I cant imagine a much more blatant example of systemic bias as violence by brown people can be called terrorist acts but by white people not so much. Reliable sources, specifically discussing this violence, regularly refer to it as terrorist. Eg [1], [2], [3], [4]. nableezy - 17:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Per NPOV and WP:TERRORIST. These attacks were all against military and occupation personnel. While British period sources refer to insurgencies throughout the British Empire as terrorist, serious secondary sources avoid such labels for military insurgencies. Thus events in 1947 are described in Imperial Endgame: Britain's Dirty Wars and the End of Empire, Benjamin Grob-Fitzgibbon, pages 79-84 - we have "the British forces were at war with the Jews", "The IZL injured five soldiers and four civilians in three attacks", "The Irgun launched further attacks", "it was not only the IZL that was engaged in this insurgent campaign", "arrest only twenty five insurgents", "On March 31, LEHI bombed the Haifa oil refinery", "meanwhile the Jewish insurgent attacks continued...."...... And guess what? Not a single word use of "terror" - save one use - which describes the British POV "the high commisioner introduced the death penalty as a punishment for terrorist actions". Likewise this English source does not call it terrorism, nor does this, this, this, or this. Certainly there are some sources sympathetic to British colonial rule (which are over-represented in English - see Wikipedia:Systemic bias), or that carelessly parrot British language used in British documents. However more neutral sources avoid the use of terrorist/terror - using this term only when describing the British position (as they call it such).Icewhiz (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Terrorism is neutral. It is what they specialized in, and a huge number of standard historical works, Israeli or otherwise, call a spade a spade. Terrorism may be a problem for contemporary politicized conflict description. In historical writing, no such worry obtains. See the references below, just a short sample.Nishidani (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No' - That's why we have a policy called WP:TERRORIST. That's why clear cut terrorist actions such as this - terrorsts hijack a civilian bus and murder its occupants as well as passers-by is called an "attack", or something like this - 17 people massacred on a bus - is described as a "suicide bombing", not terror. This, despite the facts that dozed of reliable sources call these actions terrorism. Attack Ramon (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Coastal_Road_massacre: The terrorists landed on a beach near the kibbutz Ma'agan Michael, north of Tel Aviv., in the template Template:Terrorist_attacks_against_Israelis_in_the_1970s, in the category Category:Palestinian terrorism, Category:Terrorist incidents in 1978 ... nableezy - 21:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Black September Organization

The Black September Organization (BSO) (Arabic: منظمة أيلول الأسود‎, Munaẓẓamat Aylūl al-aswad) was a Palestinian terrorist organization[1] founded in 1970.

Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine

The Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine (Arabic: حركة الجهاد الإسلامي في فلسطين‎, Harakat al-Jihād al-Islāmi fi Filastīn) known in the West as simply Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), is a Palestinian Islamist terrorist organization formed in 1981 whose objective is the destruction of the State of Israel and the establishment of a sovereign, Islamic Palestinian state

There are scores of articles that use terrorist of Palestinians, and I, like most editors, have no problem with that.Nishidani (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No' - There are more neutral ways to describe these attacks against British authorities without using problematic WP:labels.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes If this article described a Palestinian terror attack, this would not even be considered for discussion. That is not an opinion, that is just the sad hypocritical stance some editors hold. Terrorism is terrorism; reliable sources are reliable sources. NPOV is not being enshrouded when numerous reliable sources use the term for these terrorist attacks. No one has disputed this because they simply can't.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - Why should they be described otherwise, when there are reliable sources supporting it (See sources provided by Nishidani). --Mhhossein talk 05:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Broadly yes though I would infinitely prefer to be answering a more specific question (about when to use the term). This is the classic "my freedom fighter is your terrorist" question. Some editors seem to want to make a 'special pleading' that these were legitimate "military organization(s) attacking the military personnel of a different military organization". The IRA would make the same case for many of their actions, with the same justification - that the UK had no right to be in NI. I am persuaded that RS support the use of the term as a neutral description of the methodology used to displace the existing political order - not as a value-laden descriptor of the 'rightness' of the cause. Pincrete (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, as supported by sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes (Summoned by bot) Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for the Irgun as terrorist[edit]

(1) Policy. WP:Terrorist reads:-

Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

‘their deserved reputation as a terrorist group’.

Comment. Bowyer Bell was an admirer of the Irgun, and this is an authoritative inside account. Notwithstanding his sympathies through, he uses the word 'terrorist' as the default term for their activities.

’In Palestine, the Irgun Zvai Leumni and LEHI (Fighters for the Freedom of Israel) opted for individual terrorism . . .External dangers apart, terrorist groups have always been threatened by internal dissension. Most terrorist groups came into being in the first place as the result of a split between the moderate and the more extreme wing of an already-existing organization, and almost all of them later underwent further fission. This is true of the Narodnaya Volya, the Social Revolutuionaries, the Fenians, the Spanish, Italian and American Anarchists, Irgun, the Palestinian Arab terrorists and, of course, the terrorists of the 1960s and 1970s.’

Comment. Laqueur is ranked as one of the foremost world historians of terrorism. He is a resolute Zionist. He was in Palestine and directly knew of the events recounted. In his memoir he also writes of his first encounter with an Irgun operation:

The internationalization of Palestinian Arab terrorism that occurred in the 1960s and 1970s would also appear to owe something to the quest for international attention and recognition that the Irgun’s own terrorist campaign pioneered a quarter of a century earlier.’

As a consciously adopted strategy, OAS terrorism was no more horrific than the atrocities committed by the FLN and the Irgun (Weizmann denounced the group’s tactics as a “tragic, futile, un-Jewish resort to terrorism’ ..'the victims of Irgun terrorism.'

so far as the Etzel (Irgun) were concerrned, the only way to deal with attack perpetrated by Palestinian terrorist networks against the Jewish population was to pay them back in kind.This meant that they would terrorize Palestinian citizens ub the attempt to sow fear in their communities and weaken their support for the Arab Revolt ..By the time the Arab Revolt began to flag in 1939, Etzel had become highly skilled in executing acts of terrorism. Over the years, the group carried out sixty operations that took the lives of mnore than 120 Palestinans and injured hundrreds smore . .(Then)Irgun commasnders directed the substantial experience their men had accumulated in guerilla acts and terorism towards a new target: the British Mandate authorities.

'Finally, on February 1 –just three months after taking command-Begin published a declaration of revolt against the British, proclaiming that the armistice between the IZL and British forces was over. On February 12, less than two weeks after this declaration the IZL (Irgun) began its campaign of terror, simultaneously bombing immigration offices in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa.(pp.12-13) ...On April 2 . .the (Jewish) Agency articulated an official policy of opposition to the terror campaign. . . Despite this opposition, the terror campaign continued

Comment Icewhiz above has disingenuously misrepresented this text as evidence against calling the Irgun a terrorist group notwithstanding my disproof earlier on the talk page. The historian in his narrative voice calls them a terrorist group.Nishidani (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The passage in question refers to 1944. The same author referring to 1947 does not use "terrorist". The nature of the Irgun evolved over the years - from initially a terrorist organization to a full fledged military force in 1947-8.Icewhiz (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're repeating the weak argument you made higher up. The book outlines from the outset that Irgun's tactics were those of a terroristic group, and thereonin there is no need for a good writer to repeat that every time he cites, what, several dozen instances of Irgun's operations. That would be a stylistic pleonasm or bludgeoning. It's a non-argument.Nishidani (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It actually is a very strong arguement - Grob-Fitzgibbon consistently uses terrorist, all over the place, for early operations. In his extensive covearge of March 1947 he chooses not to use this term - this is a deliberate change of terms for the later phase.Icewhiz (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A museum tells the story of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, the organization led by Menachem Begin, which used terrorist methods in its fight against the rule of the British.

Comment. Again this book is the third piece of counter evidence, and again, Icerwhiz has not examined it, omitting what is clearly stated about the Irgun.Nishidani (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

British policy was undoubtedly affected by underground terrorism p.15

Bernadotte decided he wanted to take a closer look at the house. He was warned by the Israeli governor too, that the area was notorious for the activities of the Jewish terrorist organizations.p.163

Comment Icewhiz again cites above this source as proof the Irgun's activities at the time were not described by the author as terroristic. He didn't check the book.

Martha Crenshaw, in her study of Algerian revolutionary terrorism in the 1950s has defined the concept as a systematic method designed to seize political power, characterized by acts of extraordinary violence, and with symbolic targeting designed to have a psychological effect on specific groups of people with an aim of changing political behaviour. The Irgun campaign undoubtedly fits this category.’

Comment. Icewhiz agaion cites this as a key piece of evidence. And again, he failed to read beyond the page he googled, which is preceded three pages earleierby the author's clarification that the Irgun fits a standard analytical category of terrorism.

Terrorists have become conventional political leaders: Israeli Prime Minister Begin at one time a leader of the Zionist terrorist group Irgun

The government, could have ruthlessly and indiscriminately cracked the Irgun's terrorist campaign, as it did during the Arab revolt in the 1930's. However it refrained from doing so.

the terrorist campaign launched by Irgun in Palestine on 14 November 1937 was not in any way authorized by the commander-in-chief

we can think of only two campaigns of strategic terrorism to have prompted the fundamental political change envisaged by the insurgents. One is the Irgun's campaign to end the British Mandate in Palestine in favour of a Jewish homeland. The other is the FLN’s campaign for Algerian independence.’.

Eight British soldiers die in a bomb attack by Jewish Irgun terrorists on a police station in Jerusalem (6 uses of that word for six episodes in the chronology for this period)

Stern and Irgun terrorism convinced the British to abandon Palestine.

in 1945, the Irgun began a campaign of all-out terrorism.

Beginning in February 1944 , the Irgun and Lehi worked in concert to conduct a terrorist campaign aimed at dislodging the British mandatory government in Palestine.'

  • Daniel Levine,The Birth of the Irgun Zvai Leumi: A Jewish Liberation Movement, Gefen Publishing House, 1991 p88

The terrorist campaign took the form of isolated murder and attempted murder, of sporadic cases of armed attacks on military police and civilian road transports

In retaliation for Arab attacks on Jewish civilians, Irgun terrorists killed over seventy Arabs in a series of explosions . . The Irgun's bloody terrorist campaign against civilians appalled Zionist leaders in Palestine

  • James M. Poland,Understanding Terrorism: Groups, Strategies, and Responses, Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004 p.86

The Irgun and Stern gang launched a series of terrorist attacks against British soldiers and the British Mandate government

  • Akorlie A. Nyatepe-Coo, ‎Dorothy Zeisler-Vralsted, Understanding Terrorism: Threats in an Uncertain World, Pearson Prentice Hall 2004 p. 35

Irgun would launch a terrorist campaign and utilize the urban landscape of Palestine to blend in until the time was right to strike

I've more coming, but am busy at the moment.Nishidani (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these sources are irrelevant, as they do not refer to March 1947. The Irgun's early operations have been referred to as terrorist by several sources, however the nature of the organization changed towards 1947-8 when it became a full fledged military force. As I presented in my !vote a significant amount of sources for March 1947 do not use the terrorist label to describe the widespread insurgency.Icewhiz (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources I cite, covering the period of its inception 1937 to 1948, state that the Irgun was a terrorist organization, conducting hundreds of terror attacks against Jews, Arabs, civilians, police, military officers, robbing banks, and extorting money from businesses through blackmail rackets. One does not annotate the obvious and wriggle out by grasping 'Hello, on March 2 1947, the authors of some sources who elsewhere in their texts call Irgun a terrorist group, don't use the epithet terrorist to describe the killings the Irgun did that day, ergo it wasn't on that day engaged in terrorist operations'. That logic is, excuse me, extremely puerile.Nishidani (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The nature of organizations change. The National Liberation Front (Algeria) was a terrrorist org in its early phases, and later not. Likewise, labelling the Irgun as terrorist is quite different for 1937-9 (reprisal attacks against Arabs - widely described as terrorist), 1944 (early anti British operations), or 1947 (a full scale military insurgency) - as the nature of the organization and its operations changed significantly.Icewhiz (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki is based on sources, not personal opinions, which not only hold no weight, but are pointless to debate if one of the two interlocutors doesn't appear familiar with the topic, and rewrites the topic according to ideas that are not grounded in wide reading.Nishidani (talk) 07:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources relevant to the article - which in this case is the Irgun in 1947 (as opposed to earlier dates).Icewhiz (talk) 07:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As just noted above, the very source you cite in defense of your position, by Caoimhe Nic Dhaibheid, states that both the Algerian Liberation Front and the Irgun fits Crenshaw's terrorist category. Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

May offensive[edit]

Hello, @Zero0000, @Nishidani

I think that you didn't notice the arrival of some banned trolls from wp:fr : [5], [6], ...

Covid, Independence Day, ... They have nothing better to do.

Good luck 2A02:2788:925:F87E:64C2:BBBA:BB98:7061 (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:March_1947_martial_law_in_Mandatory_Palestine&oldid=1201537908"