Talk:Lehi (militant group)

Biased Lead

The term terrorist is not WP:NPOV. Lehi also didn't call themselves terrorist. They said the "true terrorists were the British." It is in the sources some of which are falsely represented and some are simply a guy's opinion. No lead for Hamas, Hizballah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Al Qaeda, ISIS, the IRA or anyone else start with "was a terrorist organization." A responsible editor (other than racist warriors who commented on this before) should remove the biased racist lead. Words that are commonly used are "designated by" as terrorist. But all these groups are called radical or paramilitary or militant etc. Unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:9F04:FCC0:56E:BD73:4CBA:A1F7 (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. According to a long standing policy here, Wikipedia does not directly label individuals or groups as terrorists. Fixed. Tombah (talk) 08:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

This topic has been raised twice recently in other discussions: [1] and [2] - including one talk thread by a very similar IP address - and many more times in the discussion archive. The reasons for this have been explained in detail, but the short answer is that not only was Lehi called a terrorist group by the relevant authorities of the day, but its operatives called themselves terrorists and produced literature justifying their use of terrorism as a legitimate strategy. WP:NPOV means balance with respect to sources, and there is agreement between the sources on this. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Given that Lehi was not only designated as a terrorist group, they self-identified as such, it seems like NPOV to call them a "militant group" instead. — Red XIV ^(talk) 05:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:MISSION

I can't help but feel that the section entitled "18 Principles of Rebirth" is currently something of a violation of WP:MISSION in its reproduction of Levi's pamphlet in full rather than in summary form. This needs condensing somehow. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Anti-British sentiment

@KiKz Nightwing : In this edit you added the following citation to the "Anti-British sentiment" line in the infobox:

<ref>The Stern Gang: Ideology, Politics and Terror, 1940-1949 Joseph Heller page 114 "Above all, in the summer of 1943 Lehi had still not broken free from the doctrine of persecutor and enemy'. Even after the extent of the Holocaust was revealed, Lehi refused to depict Hitler rather than England as the main foe."</ref>

However when the term anti-British sentiment is usually used , it's commonly a reference to prejudice against British people rather than the British government. In this case the reference only shows a strong opposition to British Imperial rule on the part of Lehi, not against ordinary Britons.

Could this be clarified in the text? Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree with you about the common meaning of "anti-British sentiment", especially in a historical context. Note that the great majority of examples in Anti-British sentiment refer to the British government or officials. Suggest a wording and we can discuss it. Zero^talk 01:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Revisionist Zionism?

Hello. Would like to contest the description of the Lehi as revisionists. Laqueur, who is cited word-for-word at many points in this article points out in his History of Zionism that the Lehi rejected revisionism.

"The split in Irgun occurred in the first half of 1940. It d id not come altogether as a surprise, for the attitude towards Britain was not the only issue at stake. For several years previously Stern had pursued a policy assigned to detach Irgun from revisionism."

I think it would be better to describe them as just "Zionists" rather than Revisionist Zionists. Horarum (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Like many political movements, Zionism is a broad church with numerous variations with it. 2A0A:EF40:387:5F01:C07F:7134:EC17:AAEF (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

'National Bolshevism'

Whilst surely the Lehi adopted both socialistic and nationalistic stances I'd contest: 1. It had clear enough political views to be defined in that way 2. It was in any way 'bolshevik' And even if I were wrong about both of these things, the label is still anachronistic. If someone wants to contest it they can bring it back but I feel fairly confident in removing the label. Mooneylupin (talk) 09:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok apparently I can't edit it, but it should definitely be edited!!! Mooneylupin (talk) 09:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2024

Please add English translations so that those who cannot read Hebrew may understand. For Example: Hamaas = "The Action"; HaKhazit = "The Front"; Mivrak = "Telegram"; BaMahteret = "Underground"; ComeAndHear (talk) 04:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done thanks. Zero^talk 14:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)