Talk:Palestinian fedayeen

Terrorists

The second line of the article currently says "...the Israeli government considers them to be "terrorists"." Wouldn't it be better to say "...the Israeli government describes them as "terrorists"., given that is the extent of our knowledge? We know what they call the fedayeen; we can hardly be expected to know what they think.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Changed. By the way, even though its common knowledge, someone should find a reference for that line. --Al Ameer son (talk) 13:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

They are terrorists though, so shouldn’t you spell out the ideology that makes the claim ‘terrorism is armed resistance’? Because most people don’t actually believe this. Most people understand terrorism as defined in the dictionary, and the sentence as it stands makes it sound like Israel thinks they do terrorist acts but they say they don’t. And that’s not the case at all. The case is that their insistence on planning, and indeed incentivising terrorism is effectively saying ‘terrorism is active resistance’. Does anyone disagree with that summary? The importance is clarity and accuracy isn’t it? Donald Trump calls himself a genius but that’s highly contested, and the issue isn’t what he calls himself, it’s whether or not he actually is a genius that is being debated - however in that instance obtaining proof is a different conversation. In regard to the fedayeen planning and conducting acts of terrorism they are quite forthright about this fact so anything that implies otherwise is misleading. 49.183.70.173 (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I’m not telling you how to write it. I’m just saying that as it stands, it’s pretty ambiguous at best. Some quotes may be appropriate in this instance, to contextualise it by how representatives describe things. 49.183.70.173 (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Palestinian fedayeen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • References needed:

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comment

Very good article that passes all criteria except being incomplete. What are these guys doing today. That section is missing. The relation to Hamas should be expanded because of recent events in Gaza. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

They virtually don't exist today, namely because the major organizations have been molded into the Palestinian Authority. However, there are still tiny non-Islamist groups that continue to participate in fighting against Israel. I will start the section now (or very soon, once I gather some sources), but it will mainly discuss how they have been replaced by Islamist groups and the PA. There have been no fedayeen attacks really, in the post-Second Intifada period, mostly replaced by rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza. Also, could you list the points of POV in the article so that I could eliminate them ASAP? --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. It and the Second Intifada subsection could be expanded, but there is little substance for info on fedayeen activities in the 2000s, even the 1990s as they're role has been largely eclipsed by the PNA and Islamists. I think I'm going to merge the sections since they are in the same time frame and technically the second Intifada is not over. --Al Ameer son (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Definitions of the term

I'm at a loss:

-- first it says: "had different meanings to different people at various points" -- true enough

-- then "one who sacrifices himself" is opposed to "self-sacrificer(s)".

I don't see a difference, and indeed there is NO difference of opinion about the original /root meaning of the word.

Just cut the second definition. 85.178.65.247 (talk) 06:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I am rusty at editing Wikipedia articles, so may not be following the proper protocols. (Please excuse.) The following is purely linguistic comment about a lack of clarity in the section titled "Definitions of the Term." In the final paragraph of this section, we read:

"Beverly Milton-Edwards describes the Palestinian fedayeen as "modern revolutionaries fighting for national liberation, not religious salvation," distinguishing them from mujahaddin (i.e. "fighters of the jihad").[2] While the fallen soldiers of both mujahaddin and fedayeen are called shahid (i.e. "martyrs") by Palestinians, Milton nevertheless contends that it would be political and religious blasphemy to call the "leftist fighters" of the fedayeen.[2]"

The final sentence is ungrammatical and its meaning is unclear. I believe the writer's intent was to say the following: . . . Milton nevertheless contends that it would be political and religious blasphemy to characterise the leftist "fighters of the fedayeen" as "members of the mujahaddin."

• • • • • • • • • • • — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Beach (talk • contribs) 18:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Less about providing justification, more about the actual events

While the article following the emergence of Fedayeen groups is good, early sections detailing its emergence seem more interested in talking about Israeli retribution than the fedayeen! Needs to be rewritten to better reflect the article's focus, because right now it is thinly veiled partisan manuevering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.25.100.85 (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

1948 to 1956

(Section formerly titled "Emergence")

This paragraph seems to belong on this Talk page, not in the actual Article:

According to Martin Gilbert, between 1951 and 1955, 967 Israelis were killed in what he terms "Arab terrorist attacks", a figure Benny Morris characterizes as "pure nonsense". Morris explains that Gilbert's fatality figures are "3-5 times higher than the figures given in contemporary Israeli reports" and that they seem to be based on a 1956 speech by David Ben-Gurion in which he uses the word nifga'im to refer to "casualties" in the broad sense of the term (i.e. both dead and wounded). According to the Jewish Agency for Israel between 1951 and 1956, 400 Israelis were killed and 900 wounded in fedayeen attacks.

In the actual article, I have attempted to boil these varied statistics down to a simpler summary. If anyone can provide additional and reliable citations, perhaps the figures for killed and wounded could be expressed as a range.

- Zulu Kane (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

An anonymous editor (from IP address 77.126.249.42) made multiple additions and edits to this section, all which seem to be without citation (or with a dead link to an unreliable source). This includes the following:

However, this initially 'innocent' objective was quickly joined and then totally replaced by raids for economic benefit against Jewish farms (stealing produce, livestock and equipment) during which killing Jews was incidental to avoid capture, and then with raids whose sole deliberate purpose was to kill Jews.

Not only is that strongly worded, but it is without any citation.

A little further down, a similar — and, perhaps, redundant — addition, also without any reference:

Gradually, they developed into violent robbery and deliberate 'terrorist' attacks as Fedayeen replaced the 'innocent' refugees as the perpatrators.

The following was edited and added, with only a dead link citation:

From 1949 through 1956, Palestinians conducted some 11,650 infiltrations into Israel (the vast majority from Jordan). During this period there were also military actions initiated by the Arab armies (mostly the Syrian army) During this period, more than 500 Israelis (of whom at least 264 were civilians) were killed and 900 wounded, though it is difficult to separate between casualties caused by the Palestinian Fedayeen and the Arab armies: the civilian casualties were caused almost exclusively by Fedayeen, whereas the causes of the military casualties were mixed, some Fedayeen (usually from mines or sniping) and probably most in Arab army actions or during Israeli reprisal attacks.

Because the above subsumed and replaced the previous content, and makes multiple claims without any actual citation, I may simply restore the previous (and much simpler) text.

The following was added within the existing reference currently numbered 17:

However, official policy and actual actions were not always consistent - whether due to incompetence or deliberately turning a blind eye to Palestinian actions, both in Jordan and in Egypt. In fact, during this period there were some 7,850 infiltrations and border incidents on the Jordanian border (including incidents in which Jordanian troops sniped into Israeli areas, conducted intelligence forays or, in one case tried to block the Israeli road leading to the southern Israeli town of Eilat) - how many of these actions by Jordanian troops were local initiatives and how many were officially sanctioned is not clear. On the Egyptian border there were in this period approximately 3,000 infiltrations and incidents, the vast majority along the Gaza section of that border. These too were virtually all Palestinian in origin, but also included an undetermined number of shooting incidents initiated by Egyptian troops - usually against Israeli border patrols. Carta's Atlas of Israel, The First Years 1948 - 1961 (Hebrew)

Any of the above passages that remain without citation can probably be deleted.

- Zulu Kane (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I deleted three types of content from the following paragraph:

1. Statistics without a citation.
2. Facts pertaining to a time period later than 1956.
3. Commentary that is about Israel and not about the fedayeen.

After deleting all those items, nothing was left of this paragraph:

From 1949 through 1956, Palestinians conducted some 11,650 infiltrations into Israel (the vast majority from Jordan). During this period there were also military actions initiated by the Arab armies (mostly the Syrian army) During this period, more than 500 Israelis (of whom at least 264 were civilians) were killed and 900 wounded, though it is difficult to separate between casualties caused by the Palestinian Fedayeen and the Arab armies: the civilian casualties were caused almost exclusively by Fedayeen, whereas the causes of the military casualties were mixed, some Fedayeen (usually from mines or sniping) and probably most in Arab army actions or during Israeli reprisal attacks. (These numbers are debated.) Dozens of these attacks are cited by the Israeli government as "Major Arab Terrorist Attacks against Israelis prior to the 1967 Six-Day War". According to the Jewish Virtual Library, while the attacks violated the 1949 Armistice Agreements prohibiting hostilities by paramilitary forces, it was Israel that was condemned by the United Nations Security Council for its counterattacks. United Nations reports indicate that between 1949 and 1956, Israel launched more than 17 raids on Egyptian territory and 31 attacks on Arab towns or military forces.

- Zulu Kane (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for improving the article and putting in the work necessary to maintain the article's GA status. --Al Ameer (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

disciples of Pharaoh

Because President Nasser's rhetorical flourish "the disciples of Pharaoh" is merely a dramatic metaphor, and neither this article nor this section is about nor refers to ancient Egypt, I don't believe this use of the word "Pharoah" (within this quotation) needs a wikilink to that unrelated article. Just as "Islam" (used right afterwards, in the same manner) does not require (nor have) a link. Let's not muddy up this quotation with links which shine no light on the subject of this article.

- Zulu Kane (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

editorial guidelines

Even though I, personally, have no axe to grind in this fight, I know I'm walking into a minefield by choosing to edit any article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But I can't help myself; as a frequent reader of Wikipedia, I want it to be readable to ordinary people. Here are the guidelines I'm trying to follow, and my general thinking, as I edit this page:

• Avoid deleting or changing pre-existing "facts" supported by any kind of vaguely plausible citation.
• Minimize or simplify any "he said she said" back-and-forth debate within the article. (Does not such discussion belong on this Talk page?) Instead, qualify contested facts with phrases like "some believe", without favoring one cited "fact" over an opposing cited "fact".
• Of course, leave the references in place, so readers can judge these sources for themselves.
• Explaining what Israeli or Arab or Palestinian governments or peoples or organizations believed or claimed at the time seems relevant, as a cause of conflict or war.
• This article is, or should be, about the history of the Palestinian fedayeen. It should not be a debate about who was right or wrong, who is good or bad. It should be confined to topic specific facts and events.
• "Facts" apparently included to justify the actions of one side or the other should be given close attention. Do they provide any other insight into the subject of this article?

That's my current thinking, as I proceed into this minefield. I wonder what guidelines other interested editors are applying to their own contributions?

- Zulu Kane (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Black September in Jordan

Is this plug for a novel really appropriate or informative:

The French writer Jean Genet who visited Palestinian fedayeen at their bases in Jordan between 1970 and 1972, "memorialized what he perceived to be their bravery, idealism, flexibility of identity, and heroism" in his novel Prisoner of Love (1986).

I think it could be deleted, without taking anything away from this article.

- Zulu Kane (talk) 07:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. --Al Ameer (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I deleted it. - Zulu Kane (talk) 08:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Missing or stray word

This sentence, as written, does not make sense: "[...] it would be political and religious blasphemy to call the 'leftist fighters' of the fedayeen." I imagine it was intended to say either "[...] it would be political and religious blasphemy to call the 'leftist fighters' fedayeen." or "[...] it would be political and religious blasphemy to call the 'leftist fighters' of the fedayeen 'martyrs'." -sche (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Funding by Arab governments

Probably the most crucial fact there is to know of this entire article - were any Arab governments, particularly Egypt, funding the fedayeen prior to around 1955 when Israel's Operation Black Arrow was undertaken? The justification for that operation, in which dozens of Egyptian soldiers were killed unprovoked, was a fedayeen soldier found with Egyptian military intel. Is there any more evidence? Sources in this article state that prior to the operation, Egypt did not support the Palestinian terrorism. Can anybody with knowledge on this please shed some light.

Usage of Fedayeen concept for modern groups

The article says that Fedayeen groups united under the umbrella of PLO, while still using this concept also later on. In any case, no one is using the name "fedayeen" any more. My question is when has the term become obsolete - is it 1964, 1967, 1970 or 1982?GreyShark (dibra) 13:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

For sure it was still used by USA in 1975 (see [1]) and for events until 1982 in a Harvard monograph [2] (it is explained why on its page 2). Wykx 14:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The fedayeen as a real movement seems to have largely died out before or immediately after Israel's invasion of Lebanon. However, occasional fedayeen-style attacks continued to occur at least until 2001 as the article mentions. But these later attacks were pretty-much one-off events. I don't know when the term became obsolete though. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Palestinian fedayeen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120920134719/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380626879&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380626879&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Palestinian fedayeen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/6b189672cac9e58a85256d9f006554b8!OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130605014133/http://www.aisisraelstudies.org/2006papers/Gelber%20Yoav%202006.pdf to http://www.aisisraelstudies.org/2006papers/Gelber%20Yoav%202006.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090623224146/http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/maps/fed.html to http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/maps/fed.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090122095501/http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/war_on_gaza/2009/01/200911915455957756.html to http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/war_on_gaza/2009/01/200911915455957756.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121033709/http://www.al-bab.com/arab//countries/palestine/orgs2.htm to http://www.al-bab.com/arab/countries/palestine/orgs2.htm#DFLP

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Palestinian fedayeen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080118193127/http://www.un.int/palestine/PLO/PNA1.html to http://www.un.int/palestine/PLO/docone.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Fedayeen position on Jews ability to enter Zion

@Nableezy: Please clarify what you believe is "misleading". The Fedayeen position according to the source is that any Jew who refuses to renounce Zionism is to be refused from any ostensible Palestinian state. You have inverted that logic and reworded it to read that Prior to 1974, the fedayeen position was that any Jew who renounced Zionism could remain in the Palestinian state to be created. This misleadingly suggests it is an inclusionary policy, while in fact it is exclusionary according to the source. It is the former wording that is correct and true to the source, not the latter; this was a weak revert. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Now I have the source. The exact wording is "There has been inconsistency on the question of which Jews could remain in the new Palestinian state. Although the pre-1974 position of the fedayeen was that any Jew renouncing Zionism could stay, there have been suggestions that only those who were there before 1917 or, alternatively, 1947, could do so." So the wording preferred by Nableezy is almost an exact quotation. Nableezy's version also matches the source regarding which Palestinian state is being referred to—it is the state which the fedayeen sought to create. There is no support in the source for Wikieditor19920's version and I invite Wikieditor19920 to assure us that his/her misrepresentation of the source was accidental. Zero^talk 06:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I have found that all the references to Freedman are actually references to an article of Bard O'Neill in a book editted by Freedman. O'Neill has no wiki article but seems qualified on this topic. I'll fix it. Zero^talk 07:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Zero, but yes, it is misleading to claim that I have inverted the logic of the source by following it. Please do not pretend that you have seen a source that you oh so clearly have not. We have library cards. That something does not exist in google books does not mean you are allowed to lie about its contents. Thanks in advance for taking more care in the future. nableezy - 12:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The source is in fact available online, through a Kindle sample and Google Scholar. Congratulations on owning a library card, but you're not the only one with access to sources. The quote above is actually from a footnote that begins There has been a question of which Jews could remain in the new Palestinian state. [Emphasis added.] While the most recent position of the fedayeen has been that any Jew renouncing Zionism could stay, there have been suggestions that only those who were there prior to 197, or alternatively, 1947, could do so... Since the "Zionist invasion" is generally understood to date to 1917, the conclusion is obvious. This provides direct support for my earlier, correct characterization of the text, and frankly, Zero's omission of that first line seems far too convenient. The source clearly describes the policy as excluding Jews who did not renounce Zionism and allowing only those Jews (apparently, not even all Jews that renounce Zionism) into a potential Palestinian state. If you believe otherwise, please feel free to get out your library card and provide the evidence. Until then, the line in the article should be edited to reflect the fact that this was in fact an exclusionary policy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The 1917/1947 part of the source is already in the article. The text you tried to change was almost a verbatim copy of the source. Nobody here cares that you want to reword it to emphasise something that the source does not emphasise. You aren't even making sense; the words "could remain" in the sentence you imagine supports you is precisely what Nableezy's text says. Zero^talk 01:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

For the article to say that "any A who does B can enter C" (I'm now using variables, to show the logic to you perhaps more clearly) does not imply that "Any A who does not do B cannot enter C." However, that's what the source says about the fedayeen position on Jews in Palestine re: "renouncing Zionism." That's why "Only Jews who renounce Zionism were permitted in Palestine, according to fedayeen" better captures what the source says. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Except the article says remains, not can enter, as does the cited source. What the source says (the pre-1974 position of the fedayeen was that any Jew renouncing Zionism could stay) is exactly what the article says. nableezy - 03:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

With the implication that Jews who did not renounce Zionism could not remain. Because that's what the source says. And that's why this article should use the language "only" instead of "any" and indicate that this was a policy meant to keep certain people out. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The word "any" comes directly from the source. On Wikipedia we report what sources say, not what editors think is implied by what they say. It is long past time for you to drop the stick. Zero^talk 13:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so. Using wording from the source while selectively omitting other portions in a way that fundamentally alters its meaning is not a proper use of any source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

It does not alter the meaning, fundamentally or otherwise. That's what you are trying to do here. Luckily, we can look at the source ourselves and see that it is in fact you that is attempting to manipulate the clear meaning of the source. The source says any and you say we should use only. Funny how it is that you keep saying others are distorting the source. Absolutely nothing is left out of the source, the line you complained about being missing is literally the next sentence in our article. Stop wasting our time, the article follows the source, as it should. Your edit distorted it and was reverted, and will be again with a report for tendentious editing if it is repeated. nableezy - 15:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Spare me. It is unfortunate and telling that neither of you have responded substantively to my argument other than repeating "No it's not." The article does not currently describe the exclusionary dimension of the policy described in the source. That is what I've attempted to remedy, and your WP:STONEWALLING and edit-warring is what's disruptive. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

It is unfortunate and telling that you continue to claim that when the article content is near verbatim copy of the source that it somehow misrepresents the source. The source says that prior to 1974 any Jew who renounced Zionism could stay in a Palestinian state. The article says exactly that. Saying that is quite different than "no it's not". Your apparent insistence that we say what the source does not say, including by repeatedly misrepresenting what our article says, is not something that really matters. The source directly supports the content. Sorry you dislike what the source says, but that is not an excuse to make things up in our article. nableezy - 18:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The problem is not that you did not sufficiently copy-paste the language from the source. It is that it does not include all the relevant information. The source suggests that Jews who did not renounce Zionism were not permitted to remain in the Palestinian state. Do you disagree with this? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

lol, what relevant information is not included? Earlier you said it was the bit about 1917. You notice the next sentence in our article says After 1974, the issue became less clear and there were suggestions that only those Jews who were in Palestine prior to "the Zionist invasion", alternatively placed at 1947 or 1917, would be able to remain.? The article says exactly what the source says, that prior to 1974 the fedayeen position was that Jews who renounced Zionism may stay in Palestine. Full stop. It says exactly what the source says, and if you want to continue to claim that somehow saying exactly what the source says means that it does not say what the source says you can do that. I will however start ignoring you. Multiple editors disagree with you, you are welcome to attempt any of the options at WP:DR to seek a change. But as it stands the long-standing text will, uh, stand. nableezy - 23:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's what the source says: There has been a question of which Jews could remain in the new Palestinian state. [Emphasis added.] While the most recent position of the fedayeen has been that any Jew renouncing Zionism could stay, there have been suggestions that only those who were there prior to 197, or alternatively, 1947, could do so... Since the "Zionist invasion" is generally understood to date to 1917, the conclusion is obvious. I'll ask again, and this is the last time I will make this point: Do you believe that does or does not say that Jews who did not renounce Zionism may not remain in Palestine, according to the fedayeen? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

You're actually quoting from a paper from the Journal of International Affairs in 1978, not the chapter from the book in 1991, but they appear largely the same with some minor differences so no matter. Either way, what this is a footnote to in that article is as follows:

Since the fedayeen considered the attitude of the international community to be important in the liberation struggle against Israel, they made a concentrated attempt to transform their pre-1967 image as a group that merely wished to "throw the Jews into the sea" by stressing two points. First, non-Zionist Jews would be allowed to remain in the new Palestine and second, the new nation would be a "secular, democratic, non-sectarian state."

That is it both in the body and in the footnote uses the phrasing that those Jews who were not Zionist would be allowed to remain. Yes, that necessarily means that those Jews who are Zionists would not be allowed to remain. I dont quite get why that matters. What the source supports is what our article says. nableezy - 00:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Nab, you are more observant than me and I didn't realise that 19920 was quoting from a different source from what he/she claimed to be quoting from. But as you say, the article matches both sources anyway. Looking back at 19920's edits in the article, it is clear that 19920 didn't understand what the source was discussing (the word "ostensible" and the edit summary "an official Palestinian state (does one exist? disputed)" simply don't make any sense with regard to a planned future state). Whether 19920 understands now, I don't know or care, but I do know that someone who endlessly argues after being decisively proven wrong is being disruptive. Zero^talk 02:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Zero0000:, I'm curious if you ever make a point that doesn't begin with a(n incorrect) bad-faith accusation. Also @Nableezy: I believe you are mistaken. I am quoting from the exact same source as the two of you and the one that's cited in the article, the Bard O'Neil book. Apparently we share an understanding that the book describes a fedayeen policy that was ultimately exclusionary in nature, which some qualified exceptions. My issue with the article is that it describes the exceptions, but not the general policy as a whole. That would seem misleading to readers. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The source is not a Bard O'Neill book and the phrase "While the most recent position" does not appear there. So you are not looking at the source. But this is very boring since the 1978 version that does contain "While the most recent position" also supports the article perfectly. Zero^talk 09:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

No, the book says Although the pre-1974 position of the fedayeen was that any Jew renouncing Zionism could stay, the paper says While the most recent position of the fedayeen has been that any Jew renouncing Zionism could stay. Either way, moot point, as both support the text as written. nableezy - 15:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Misleading quote

The following quote from the article:

The ideology of the Palestinian fedayeen was mainly left-wing nationalist, socialist or communist, and their proclaimed purpose was to defeat Zionism, claim Palestine and establish it as "a secular, democratic, nonsectarian state".[4]

Should be changed to:

The ideology of the Palestinian fedayeen was mainly left-wing nationalist, socialist or communist, and their proclaimed purpose was to defeat Zionism and claim Palestine.

The linked book is not a source for the quote. The linked book mentions the quote in passing to dismiss it, stating:

Disagreement on the meaning of a "secular, democratic, nonsectarian state" has been clearly evident within fedayeen ranks, with some groups striving to give the concept a meaningful content and others choosing to use it merely as a slogan for assuaging world opinion.

I could not find the origin of the quote, only places talking about it. Furthermore, all original fedayeen material is rather contradictory to the idea expressed in the quote, for instance while searching for the origin of the above quote I see in a Fatah pamphlet of the period:

The liberation action is not only the memoval of an armed imperialist base, but, more important - it is the destruction of a society. Armed violence will be expressed in many ways.

Dotancohen (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 October 2023

Change: "Most Palestinians consider the fedayeen to be "freedom fighters",[3] while most Israelis consider them to be "terrorists" " To: "Most Palestinians consider the fedayeen to be "freedom fighters",[3] while most Israelis consider them to be "terrorists" due to their attacks on uninvolved civilians" McGullivan (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Remove claim about Israel faking evidence to justify invasion of Sinai in 1956

Remove the claim "Others argue that Israel "engineered eve-of-war lies and deceptions.... to give Israel the excuse needed to launch its strike", such as presenting a group of "captured fedayeen" to journalists, who were in fact Israeli soldiers" citing footnote 35. The source cited references another secondary source which cannot be found when searching google either in English or in Hebrew. Searching google for evidence of the claim that Israel presented IDF soldiers as captured Fedayeen terrorists also turns up no results. Whilst it is possible it could be true, there is no evidence to be found for the claim, and if it was true, it is likely there would be evidence that could be found as it is quite damning claim on the subject.

The source cited: https://www.kulturkaufhaus.de/en/detail/ISBN-9780791455852/Eisenberg-Laura-Zittrain/Traditions-and-Transitions-in-Israel-Studies-Books-on-Israel-Volume-VI

The source references the following for its claim: "See, for example, Eyal Kafkafi’s treatment of the episode in An Optional War: To Sinai and Back, 1956–1957 (Tel Aviv: Yad Tabenkin, in association with the Society to Commemorate Moshe Sharett, 1994), 99–101 (in Hebrew)."

Googling for this source yields 0 results, when googled in either English or Hebrew. Wesoifguhqeopia (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Information on the late historian Eyal Kafkafi is here and note the mention of this book מלחמת ברירה. Full bibliographic details of the book are here. As always it would be nice to read exactly what the original source says on the topic, but the intermediate source is highly reliable by our standards. The claim is not extraordinary; after all the whole war was the result of a secret conspiracy. Zero^talk 01:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I am rusty at editing Wikipedia articles, so may not be following the proper protocols. (Please excuse.) The following is purely linguistic comment about a lack of clarity in the section titled "Definitions of the Term." In the final paragraph of this section, we read:

"Beverly Milton-Edwards describes the Palestinian fedayeen as "modern revolutionaries fighting for national liberation, not religious salvation," distinguishing them from mujahaddin (i.e. "fighters of the jihad").[2] While the fallen soldiers of both mujahaddin and fedayeen are called shahid (i.e. "martyrs") by Palestinians, Milton nevertheless contends that it would be political and religious blasphemy to call the "leftist fighters" of the fedayeen.[2]"

The final sentence is ungrammatical and its meaning is unclear. I believe the writer's intent was to say the following: . . . Milton nevertheless contends that it would be political and religious blasphemy to characterise the leftist "fighters of the fedayeen" as "members of the mujahaddin." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Beach (talk • contribs) 18:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 July 2024

In this phrase:

Most Palestinians consider the fedayeen to be "freedom fighters",[3] while most Israelis consider them to be "terrorists".

Please remove the quotation marks, resulting in the below phrase:

Most Palestinians consider the fedayeen to be freedom fighters,[3] while most Israelis consider them to be terrorists.

The sentence is talking about the ways that different people view them; it's not primarily talking about the terminology. Of course the terms are being discussed, but only to the extent of their meanings; the point is that they're celebrated by most Palestinians and abhorred by most Israelis, not that most Palestinians refer to them with two words and most Israelis with one. (Most people in both groups don't routinely use English anyway, so a words-as-words approach doesn't make much sense.) And it's not giving a specific quotation from a specific source, unlike the phrase "a secular, democratic, nonsectarian state" in the next paragraph. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)