Wikipedia

Talk:Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2004/Archive 1

< Talk:Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2004
(Redirected from Talk:Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2004/archive 1)
Archive 1Archive 2

Note that the first few comments on this page refer to the time when it was called "Terrorism against Israel". Since then there has been a war between those wishing to keep it like that and those wanting to include actions by Israel as well. --Zero 07:26, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I protest this page. Even the Hebrew Wikipedia would not put up anything like this. But I am not surprised, and here I am going to be harsh. All you people are doing is promoting a philosophy of victimology, harping on the Jew as the victim, whether it is in the Timeline of Jewish history, the History of Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism, or several dozen other articles of that nature. Is that the basis of your Jewish identity--I'm Jewish cuz everyone kicks the shit out of me? Is this whole attitude the basis of what appears to be a "they did it to us, so we can do it to them" kind of attitude you have toward others, such as, but not only, the Palestinians? Does it really promote or foster a true sense of pride in Jewish heritage and culture. As a professional Jewish educator and an Israeli citizen, I can say whole-heartedly that I am disgusted with the kind of agenda you are promoting on pages like this. It has nothing to do with me or the truly proud Jews I know. Danny 00:09, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am the one who have started History of Anti-Semitism article. Since it's been mentioned here, I respond here. I am strongly against internalizing the victimhood mentality. My original intention was to demonstrate that A-S has nothing to do with actions of today's Israel, and has to be fought, even today, just as any other racial/religious/xenophobic hate crime. Where is this quote came from: "they did it to us, so we can do it to them"? Humus sapiens 00:07, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I came here to see what my friends have been talking about, but I have been very disappointed. I must protest personal attacks against the author of this article. Some people here remove things which don't promote the Arab nationalist cause. This verges on politically motivated censorship. For events of such importance, you should rewrite, but not delete.


If there are inaccuracies of fact, let's fix them. Israel is certainly not defined by victimhood...its success against Arab armies over decades precludes that definition.

I am removing the factual accuracy clause, till someone points out an inaccuracy. OneVoice 04:46, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Echoing Danny's sentiments, I believe that presenting this information in this way without context, that is to say, without a meaningful account of this historical forces at work behind these desperate acts, of the occupation of the Palestinian lands and the crippling of the Palestinian economy, at the lack of autonomy and self-determination among the Palestinian people, is a shameless exercise in propaganda, and as such as no place in this encyclopedia. -- Viajero 17:36, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Viajero, many of the incidents, listed on the Terrorism against Israel in 2004 page, are suicide bombings of people commuting to work on buses, eating with their family in restraunts, or other every day activities by everyday people. Context for these events could have two purposes: one would be to place the events within a series of contemporaneous events, another reason would be to explain or justify the murder of innocents. This second behavior was recently described by Nobel Peace Prize laureate David Trimble as the "great curse" of our time — human rights organizations use context to justify the unjustifiable. This does not diminish the suffering of Palestinians; their plight is horrible indeed. Their plight does not justify a single suicide bombing or other murder of innocents, much less a sustained, deliberate campaign of such atrocities. It is not possible to present such acts neutrally. A simple recitation of the facts is the least condemnatory presentation possible.
Test your conception of the matter. Consider Jews engaged in suicide bombings in Germany for a period of three years after World War II. Context would in any way diminish the moral reprehensibility of such atrocities. OneVoice 02:40, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Viajero...that may well be true....hence a NPOV marker may well be appropriate. No moral person could have a neutral point of view regarding these acts of terrorism. A factual accuracy marker should be based on the page containing factual errors. please point out any factual errors that you find. OneVoice 22:40, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The accuracy of an article may be a cause for concern if:

  • It contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references. ( does not apply...all items are taken from events reported by multiple sources.)
  • It contains information which is particularly difficult to verify. (does not apply...same consideration.)
  • In, for example, a long list, some errors have been found, suggesting that the list as a whole may need further checking. (does not apply. not a single inaccuracy has been identified.)
  • It has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic. (does not apply. a number of poeple have added to the article.)

OneVoice 22:54, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This article can be fixed if 1) it lists all Israeli-Palestinian violence in the conflict, 2) it avoids the use of the word "terrorism". I will do so. The new name is: "Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2004". BL 17:54, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

Title of the Article

I am freezing the title of the article as Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2004. There is a redirect from Terrorism against Israel in 2004. --Uncle Ed 20:19, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think we should have any of this. Wikipedia isn't a primary source document, it's an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias should not be in the habit of making 50-page timelines chronicling each time two people were shot in a conflict, as it is unlikely we can produce such a timeline that is actually accurate and keeps up to date with the latest scholarship (generally we just grab stuff from news article and never revisit it, and certainly don't do any formal studies). We should list major attacks, especially ones that have political influence (like some of the major suicide bombings that have led to cancellations of summits), and summarize the others. --Delirium 03:24, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)

The problem with that "description of the process" is that is almost impossible to make it NPOV. Someone has to select which attacks are spectacular or important enough to be worthy of mention. Wikipedians can't do it so instead we have to rely on newspapers selection which seldom is very NPOV. That way the description would unfairly favourably depict the Israeli side because suicide bombings generate much more media coverage than house demolitions. Now obviously it is a lot of work to catalogise every time a Palestinian killed an Israeli or vice versa but atleast it's doable. BL 03:38, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)

Excellent points here. A couple of comments:

  • Delirium - I feel that Wikipedia is actually in an excellent position for grabbing and cross-checking information of all biases from a variety of sources. Sure it leads to some passionate reversals if not outright vandalism, but it is probably worth the trouble if we can at least keep a reasonably accurate tally of which people died, when, and where (and with which degree of confirmation by independent sources). Surely that is not choosing sides, although I believe and hope that will help give at least a few people pause before judging the other side, whichever that happens to be. These are real people running the risk of becoming just casualty numbers. I would rather not let that happen.
  • BL - so you feel that the media preference for suicidal attempts over house demolitions may hurt Israel's image? Maybe that is true, but I don't think it is clearly the case at all. Suicidal warfare may be seen as either the misguided efforts of fanatical people or the desperate acts of those who have no better course of action available. It sort of balances out - and if you disagree, I see no reason why the house demolitions couldn't be explicitly detailed as well. Maybe even given their own article, if there isn't one yet.

I would love to hear more of your thoughts in this matter. -- Luis Dantas 15:05, Feb 5 2004 (UCT)

I think we should mention things like house demolitions, but in a way that summarizes the information, like "Israel demolished twenty-seven houses belonging to families of suspected suicide bombers in the latter half of 2003" (number made up). If there are twenty-seven entries in a timeline saying "Israel demolished one house", that's pretty useless—it's more likely to have errors, and harder to read. The same goes for something like "twenty-two Israeli settlers were shot between August and December 2003" (again, made up number), not a list of every single time one of them was shot. Such a mind-numbingly boring chronicle is the place of a primary source, not Wikipedia. You'll note we don't, in any of the WW2 articles, have 300 pages on one battle chronicling every single infantry maneuver and every single company that took casualties in that maneuver—because that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Instead we summarize the battle at a high level, and mention specific incidents that are well-known. Same should go here. --Delirium 09:52, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

Delirium, if this is your position, why are you added incidents to the very list that you say should not be in wikipedia? OneVoice 01:55, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I must revert the last edit - again. Notice that the sources for BL info are broken links to a website of the Palestinian Authority (for example [1]- very non reliable source of POV. As I said before - if you want to create a logbook for the intifada, do it in a new article rather than trashing someone else works. MathKnight 18:50, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Are you claiming the Palestinian Authority is an unreliable source of information? If so, you will have to back up your charges with well-documented proof. The links are working just fine. -- Viajero 19:48, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Of course the Palestinian Authority is an unreliable source of information. Many of their own professors and spokespeople deny the holocaust, for Christ's sake, and they have proven to have made false claims on dozens of occasions. Even pro-Arab newspapers in the west don't believe their all of their statements. You would do well to stop pushing a pro-Palestinian propaganda.
The link I copied to here doesn't work. Here is an example:
January 28: Israeli forces killed 13 Palestinians and wounded dozen others during an invasion of the Alzaytoun area south of Gaza City. [2]
But according to Reuters only 8 people were killed, 5 of them were armed members of the Islamic Jihad (what BL fails to note). Here is your proof. I'm also suspect that he listed other events were militants (and not innocent civilians) were killed. MathKnight 20:59, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Secondly, this page is dedicated to Israeli terror victims. Instead of creating a new article he insists on trashing this one. I think we should set policy on this one, I'm seek of reverting back BL sabotages. MathKnight 20:59, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
"this page is dedicated to Israeli terror victims" -- I'm sorry but I don't understand why you believe this to be so. Surely an article entitled Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2004 should not just be about violence committed against Israelis. That would hardly be NPOV. Maybe I've misunderstood what you mean. -- Ams80 21:58, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The orginal title was Terrorism against Israelis. MathKnight 23:22, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, Luis Dantas. I know the medias preference for suicide bombings over murder by other means, for example missiles, tank shells and rubber bullets does hurt the Palestinian cause. Therefore I completely agree with you. That's why I changed the title in the first place. BL 22:28, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

Why you keep ruining other's articles? MathKnight 23:22, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Articles on Wikipedia don't belong to anyone. Anyone can submit an article but at the same time anyone can edit it -- that is the way the system works, for better or for worse. -- Viajero 10:50, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Because the system enables vandelism is doesn't mean vandelism is an appropiate behaivor, a specially when articles are "hijacked" and their orginal content is twisted. MathKnight 16:31, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

StarOfDavid/MathKnight, what exactly defines you as the victim here? BL did not vandalize the article. You did. Luis Dantas 16:34, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You keep not listeninh. The orginal article was named Terrorism against Israel but BL changed the title as he himself admited:

That's why I changed the title in the first place. BL 22:28, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

So who was the vandelizer? MathKnight 16:47, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Chill. Nobody has vandalized anything. Vandalism is scrawling "POOP POOP POOPETY POOP" or something like that in the middle of the article; nobody has done anything of the sort. What BL did, and MathKnight disliked, was change a one-sided martyrology into a somewhat more neutral and dispassionate recounting of the violence on both sides of the conflict. If you want to dispute that, then dispute it, but don't call it vandalism; explain why you think there should be one page devoted exclusively to violence against Israelis and another devoted to violence against Palestinians. Since each episode of violence is all too often carried out in revenge for a previous attack (and this applies to both sides), I think it makes sense to present them together, rather than in separate articles. Anyway, start discussing; calling each other "vandals" and "cyber-terrorists" is not going to help create a worthy article. --No-One Jones (talk) 17:06, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What User:BL did was to lump together without distinction acts that are legally and morally sanctioned (the killing of terrorists) with those are universally recognized throughout the civilized world as morally reprehensible and illegal (the wanton murder of innocents). It is a one side martyrology because only one side engages in such acts (with the exception of Baruch Goldstein). Only one side incalcates a mythos of suicide bombing in its youth, via television, radio, print, and the naming of soccer teams. This is why "there should be one page devoted exclusively to violence against Israelis and another devoted to violence against Palestinians". Violence is such a nice, neutral word...does not carry any moral content...violence caused the deaths of more than 3000 people on September 11th, they were all victims of violence, the people in the towers and the airplanes and the 19 Arabs that murdered them. OneVoice 18:45, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OneVoice, I just want to make sure I understand your position: are you saying that every Palestinian Israel kills is a terrorist? -- Viajero 19:20, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Many Palestinians that are killed by Israeli forces are specifically, individually targeted either for terrorist activities that there are currently engaged in or terrorist activities that they have prevoiusly committed. At times, not always, additional Palestinians are killed. These additional deaths are horrible. They are additional, unintended consequences. These intended and unintended deaths are fundamentally distinct from acts that indescrimately target either individuals (e.g. shooting attacks on vehicles) or groups (e.g. suicide bombings of bus travellers). To group together the first actions (individually targeted killings) with wanton murder is reprehensible.

A distinct group of Palestinians killed includes young males attempting to break into settlements at night, perhaps for the purpose of theft, are at times shot due a policy of shooting at people breaking in as a result of previous instanaces of such breakins leading to murder.

Another group is young males climbing upon military vehicles or attacking military personnel with stones, firebombs and other items of various lethality. OneVoice 01:12, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't specifically disagree, but I don't see what's wrong with putting them all in one article. We can simply describe all the violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict neutrally and let the reader decide which violence they find unfortunate but justified, and which they find unacceptable and abhorrent. It's just a timeline after all; we should also have a real, non-timeline and less-detailed, description of this violence somewhere else, in prose paragraphs. --Delirium 02:41, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

Can writers be neutral?

...acts that are legally and morally sanctioned (the killing of terrorists) with those are universally recognized throughout the civilized world as morally rehensible and illegal (the wanton murder of innocents).

Each of us contributors (and this includes me) has his own opinion about what sorts of acts are morally sanctioned, and how we think laws regarding these acts ought to be interpreted. The hardest thing I've ever done at Wikipedia is to describe someone else's point of view (POV) without immediately saying "but of course he's wrong, as all good people know".

To step back and say that this group believes it is right and that group believes it is wrong is really difficult. So I'm proud to be part of a project which encourages us to do difficult writing.

This doesn't mean I'm giving up my beliefs. I'm not calling badness good, or goodness bad. But I can say that he thinks this way without compromising my integrity. --Uncle Ed 19:29, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, we can relate the views of any individual, group of individuals or society. To do so is to report a fact regarding the people involved. There should not be anything too difficult about this even though it may be rather distasteful of an African-American to write about the predominant views of white Americans in much of the United States before the 1860-1865 war (and for some period of time thereafter, a century?, more?). To relate there views is not establishing a moral equivalence between different acts such as between between the murderer and the victim or between one act of violence (e.g. destruction of property) and another (e.g. murder). Establishing a moral equivalance, treating the acts in the same manner, is objectionable. There is a broad moral consensus on what is acceptable behavior and what is not. The death penalty is NOT agreed upon as acceptable or unacceptable. Murder is universally comdemned in civilized societies. OneVoice 01:12, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think we have reached the point where arbitrage is in order. I am not 100% sure that it was StarOfDavid/MathKnight making this last "update", but the vocabulary sure fits. Either way, it is probably best to decided formally whether it is best to have a general Violence page or a (IMO unfairly POV) "Terrorism victims" page, and leave a clear statement of that decision on the start of the article. Luis Dantas 00:45, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Time for a vote?

It seems that the issue is pretty clear-cut, and there's not a whole lot of room for compromise, so perhaps we should take a vote to gauge opinion on this issue?

If I'm not mistaken, the two positions are currently:

  1. We should have one page containing a timeline of all types of violence on all sides.
  2. We should have multiple, separate pages: one containing a timeline of Palestinian terrorism against Israelis, one containing a timeline of Israeli military activities that resulted in Palestinian deaths, and so on.

Is that an accurate summary of both sides' viewpoints? --Delirium 09:38, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, yes it is. There is probably the issue of defining "terrorism" for the second option, which is one of the reasons why I choose the first. Luis Dantas 15:08, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The crux of the matter is that one group has created and maintained over a period of 5 years a series of pages recounting Palestinian terrorism that has resulted in Israeli deaths. The other group objects to such a page and seeks to include a partial (timewise) list of Palestinian deaths in the same page. Wikipedia could have all three pages: Israel deaths only, Palestinian deaths only, and a combined page. OneVoice 15:32, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

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

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

All of these acts of violence occurred on February 8, 2004. These do not include violence in conjunction with military operations. This list is partial. Such a list will quickly become quite extensive. OneVoice 19:30, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Vote

I'm calling a vote then, since the various positions seem pretty well-established. Please list just your name here, and carry out arguments further below. --Delirium 22:16, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • Option 1: One timeline of violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, containing all the violence by both sides.
    1. Luis Dantas 23:12, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC) (although I do support Soul_kitch's suggestion too)
    2. Uncle Ed 15:54, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    3. Pingveno 06:32, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    4. James F. (talk) 05:41, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    5. Jmabel 08:15, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    6. Wik 12:51, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    7. Zero 23:55, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) (but only as the least unpalatable option)
    8. Ruhrjung 13:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    9. Flockmeal 22:59, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
    10. Dissident 19:42, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    11. Richardchilton 07:27, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    12. Denni 05:04, 2004 May 4 (UTC)
  • Option 2: Multiple, separate timelines. One of Palestinian terrorism against Israel; one of Israeli military action against Palestinians; and possibly others.
    1. User:BLplusplus
    2. MathKnight 18:34, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) (the victims of the terrorist suicide bombing should not be equate to the militants killed by IDF actions or to houses demolished. Doing that will be disgrace to humanity).
    3. User:OneVoice OneVoice 19:08, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    4. Humus sapiens 23:36, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) I concur with MathKnight. It would be immoral to lump together a murder victim and a murder perpetrator killed in police action, or even a bystander, killed by accident in that action. The intention makes the difference in the court of law and also should in a serious encyclopedia.
    5. Ryan_Cable 14:53, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    6. User:Neutrality 9:30, 15 May 2004

A separate vote:


Note that almost the only thing BLplusplus has done is to post messages on the talk pages of people likely to vote the "right" way here. Almost certainly a sock puppet. --Zero 23:55, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Note, I have taken the liberty of moving user:Soul Kitch's comments to his Talk page and removed his votes from above as an anti-troll measure. -- Viajero 23:38, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There is an idea here that has not been stated and is not clear to me. As a hypothetical, if the vote results in a single combined page being created, what effect does this result have on the creation of new pages covering the same material that are not combined. Would such pages be deleted? Would all links to such pages be deleted? Would the content of such pages be changed to match the content of the single combined page? I do not understand what happens after this vote. Can someone clarify this for me please? OneVoice 03:17, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Viajero....did Soul kitch's vote? Did you remove another person's votes (in this case Soul kitch)? If so, on what basis? Will you be removing other people's votes in the future? Do you recognize a basis (the same basis?) by which other people can remove your vote? Please clarify. OneVoice 03:17, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There's a policy somewhere that you cannot register accounts solely to vote, and as far as I can tell, Soul_kitch's very first action on Wikipedia was to vote in this poll, which is suspicious, and suggests that it is an alternate account of an existing user. --Delirium 03:56, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

Delirium, it turns out that that is not the case. Soul_kitch's very first action on Wikipedia was to add comments (three commits) to a Wikipedia article/talk before the vote here. Since he has contributed to at least two other articles/talk pages. OneVoice 19:22, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OneVoice: from what I gather of Wikipedia's general policy and goals (and it just happens that I am new here, so I may well be quite mistaken) there _is_ no such policy set in advance. But it is only natural to catch such pages (in the hypothetical scenario you describe) as they are created, integrate their contents into the combined page and turn them into redirects. Logically the merged page will have an explanation early on to the effect that it was voted that it is best (for the purposes of Wikipedia at least) not to separate the content (if that turns out to be the final decision). So no, such pages would not be deleted, but instead they would point out to the merged contents. Neither would the links be deleted - they would point either to the merge or to a (short?) explanation that would itself link to the merged contents.

Also, there would be no need to change their contents, since they would effectivelly be aliases of the merged page instead of having their own content. It stands to reason that occasionally someone would create some new page to cover the same sort of information (hopefully out of lack of knowledge about this vote), but that would be corrected easily by just transfering the content and creating a new redirect.

Redirects are fairly commonplace here at Wikipedia, but if you want an example, take a look at PDF, Sensitivity and Helena Blavatsky for a few variations on the idea.

Best, Luis Dantas 04:56, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A number of issues here:

  1. I have asked an admin regarding a person that I suspect of having multiple accounts. Their response is that Wikipedia does not prohibit multiple accounts. One's right to vote seems to be limited by the number of accounts one is willing to create. This makes the concept of voting at Wikipedia problematic. Soul kitch may be an extreme example, or may be a "valid user".
  • I see this as something of a gray zone, to be sure, but hardly to such a troubling degree. For one thing, User:Soul_Kitch never even edited his own user page, so his validity as a user is suspect. Having multiple accounts is not forbidden, but using them to twist the voting totals is clearly fraudulent practice. Then again, we are practically on a first name basis here, so I can hardly see the problem. Luis Dantas
  1. Who decides which votes count and which to not? It is easy to find places in Wikipedia that one can make minor edits as a "new user" and then vote. Wikipedia has a number of places where, for instance, one could search out acronyms and replace the first instance in each article with the full name followed by the acronym (standard practice in professional writing) and then vote. Who will decide which votes count? It should not be someone that is emmeshed in the issue such as User:Viajero in the current case.
  • IMO it will not really be an issue, but there is always the possibility of calling for external arbitration. Luis Dantas 14:29, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  1. Redirects are not an issue at all. In the hypothetical case, we will delete or redirect any and all pages that are created that are partial lists?
  • I would like to think so, yes, unless they actually have some significant content of their own (e.g. they might detail some specific incident), in which case they would ideally lose redundant material (but keep their own content) and link to the merged article. I understand that you would rather not do things that way? May you please elaborate? Luis Dantas
  1. One recommendation is to record all acts of violence in a combined list. This is of questionable practicality...wikipedians will be hard pressed do so. One person added the clearing of land for the fence as an act of violence, what of car theft from Israel to the PA, a thriving industry there. Such a list will be partial, both in terms of failing to record numerous events and in terms of bias. Let us try to do so for one week and see if we can maintain such a list.
  • Surely if people can't be troubled to report violent acts to the article it is an indication that they aren't all that moved by them. I am sure that article will fail to indicate people spanking their own children, but that is not really a problem. We are supposed to respect each other's texts and to have reasonable care about sources, not to become Amnesty International investigators or something. Car theft may or may not be violent, and such be included on the article when it _is_ violent and on an "as noticed" basis, just like all other occurrences. Luis Dantas
  1. Basing a list, on acts that are clearly terrorism (such as suicide bombings) and acts that are not terrorism (such as firefights between armed groups) is easier and much less prone to disagreement regarding the individual entries.

Therefore, before a vote, there are a couple of points to clarify as well as the need to demonstrate that we can maintain a list of "violent acts" as opposed to a list of those killed. OneVoice 13:21, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Suicide bombings are _not_ clearly terrorism IMO. And many firefights between armed groups _are_. Non-suicidal bombings probably would be, but even then there would be significant room for argument. The definition of terrorism, as indicated by its article, is far less than crystal-clear and unanimous. And again, it we fail to record a violent act it can only be because it is not all that important (or perhaps not well-documented) after all. There is not much of a reason why we must try very hard to cover all stances. In fact, we have little choice in the matter - we rely on external sources anyway. I certainly am not there in the Middle East watching things first hand, at least. Luis Dantas 14:29, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Luis Dantas said "Suicide bombings are _not_ clearly terrorism IMO." Surely, I am not reading this correctly. As a hypothetical, if a person were to come to your daughter's wedding, commit a suicide bombing, killing and wounding dozens of people, this would not be terrorism? The same act performed by radio controlled transmitter (like those found in RC cars) probably would be, but even then there would be significant room for argument? Surely you are trolling ??? OneVoice 15:04, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I warrant you that I am serious, not a troll and in fact I take offense from your comments. Suicide bombings are rather obviously an extreme act and bring to question whether there isn't some sort of desperation present. Radio-controlled bombings of civilian targets (which are a very specific sort of action and not at all what I mentioned) _are_ terrorism under _most_ (not all) definitions. Please avoid calling me a troll just because I don't promptly accept the definition of "terrorism" that you feel to be "obviously" correct. Luis Dantas 16:40, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Luis Dantas, did it not occur to you that preferring to believe you are trolling rather and serious indicates that I considered you may be playing with statements that you do not take seriously rather than deliberately, with malice aforethought engaging in reprehenisable behavior? OneVoice 19:22, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It did, but that is not much better at all. I will let the matter rest at that for now. Luis Dantas 19:58, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Violence and Terrorism

We can agree on what "violence" is, but not on what "terrorism" is -- because the latter depends on the purpose of the act. Avenging an injustice, reclaiming stolen land, defence of one's nation, etc. -- whether these are "terrorist" acts depends on what side you are on.

But blowing up a car (by firing missile from the safety of a helicopter or by detonating explosives strapped to your body) is certainly "violent" -- we can all agree on this, right? --Uncle Ed 16:02, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Attacking unarmed civilians can not be justified. Present or past grievances, well-founded or not, do not change this. Terrorism and Massacres are acts that certain individuals and groups use. These people aware of the unacceptability of their acts attempt to portray the reprensible nature of their acts as relative...that massacres are okay and it depends on what side you are on. This position is morally bankrupt and rejected by all civilized societies. Furthermore this position is no different, in essence, from race based massacres or genocide.

Luis Dantas, the position taken in your statements is reprehensible. OneVoice 16:55, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Let's please try and avoid degenerating this talk into personal attacks. Please explain what do you find wrong with my stance, and why. It sure isn't obvious to me. And I know what the word means too, no need for an external (as opposed to Wikipedia policy) link. Luis Dantas 17:10, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Luis Dantas, despising you would be a personal attack. Despising a point of view that you are advocating is not. Dicatorships do not differentiate between these two, chosing to imprision or murder their critics. Civilized socities are built in part on people recognizing the difference. Democracies are built on people recognizing the difference and upholding your right to your point of view. OneVoice 19:22, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Point taken, but I am still in the dark. Why do you call my position reprehemsible? I have no clue, and I still maintain that there are lots of good reasons to avoid deciding what shall be called terrorism or not and hardly any for doing so. What is so wrong with spelling out that there was "violence suspected (or proven as the case may be) to be directed against civilian targets" or somesuch? That would pass the point across without implying motives that may not be there. BTW, calling me a troll was a personal attack even if saying my position is reprehemsible wasn't. Luis Dantas 19:58, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OneVoice, may I assume that Attacking unarmed civilians can not be justified includes bombing cities? And that both the German attacks on Coventry and the Allied attacks on Dresden were unacceptable, morally bankrupt, etc.? Same with US nuking Hiroshima & Nagasaki? Same with Communists starving and/or executing millions of their own citizens?

The firebombing campaign led by General Curtis LeMay (If memory serves...its been a long time) was a deliberate policy of inflicting casualties on the civilian population of Japan. I can not justify it. I dont know if I truly understand the reasons for it. (Did racism or revenge for American dead play a role? if so to what extent?) Regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I believe that I do understand, at least some of, the reasons Harry Truman authorized these first, and God willing last, atomic bombings...and am pained to say that the acts were immoral.
In preparation for the invasion of Japan, an act obviated by the surrender of Japan following the atomic bombings, the United States minted a over one million Purple Heart medals. We are still using those medals today. It has not been necessary to mint additional medals. Had the invasion of Japan taken place, the number of Japanese civilian dead would have been many times larger than those killed in the atomic bombings. There are times in history and situations in which one is left with only bad choices and one must choose among them. This is what Harry Truman did. For having the courage and steadfastness to choose, knowing full well that all choices had deep if not fatal flaws, he is honored by the American public as few other presidents have been. It is no coincidence that the popular song says "Harry you know what to do"[3].
The more difficult question is how to handle military installations placed inside civilian population centers, in part for disguise and in part for the purpose of holding the civilian population "hostage", in the hope that these military installations will not be attacked. Laser-guided munitions help greatly in this situation as does direct fire artillery. (Do you know the difference between direct fire and indirect fire? If not please ask.) This is not to say that there will be no civilian casualties, there most assuredly will be. But civilian casualties are not the purpose of the attack. This is in direct contradiction to terrorism.
Terrorists seek to maximize the number of civilian casualties. This is a fundamental difference between terrorism and other acts of violence. This is the reason that terrorism is reprehensible.
Some individuals will willfully choose to ignore this difference.
Does the behavior of the Communists need discussing? Hannah Arendt correctly characterized the two regimes in Europe as both being totalitarian. The names by which they chose to call themselves is immaterial regarding this point. OneVoice 19:22, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The reason I ask is this:

If you have a particular point of view (POV), it often helps to be open about that POV in your discussions with other contributors. The hardest thing around here is to distinguish between my point of view and objective fact or universal principles.

At my age its much easier. That is one of the advantages of having a "long term" point of view. Regarding points of view: one becomes less attached to the ideologies that propel youth into such frenzy...the effects that actually obtain become the important considerations. Regarding objective fact: I do not add material here based upon my personal knowledge of facts but rather based upon the writings of academics, scholars, quotes from the parties involved, and the immediate reports of various news sources. Regarding universal principles: there is a rather clear example in my comments (several paragraphs) above. OneVoice 19:22, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've got more to say on this, but would you please answer my inquiry first? I think it'll help all of us. :-) --Uncle Ed 17:23, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OneVoice, you carefully avoided answering Ed's question; he wasn't interested in your "universal principles". -- Viajero 19:26, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OneVoice wrote above:

In preparation for the invasion of Japan, an act obviated by the surrender of Japan following the atomic bombings, the United States minted a over one million Purple Heart medals. We are still using those medals today. It has not been necessary to mint additional medals. Had the invasion of Japan taken place, the number of Japanese civilian dead would have been many times larger than those killed in the atomic bombings.

A wonderful example of OneVoice's "logic", for the lack of better term. Purple Heart's were awarded to wounded US serviceman. It is a complete non sequitur to suggest Japanese civilian casualties had anything to do with the deliberation as to whether to drop the bomb. US military causalities might have been higher if the US had invaded Japan by land, but Japanese civilian causalities would have been far lower. The most charitable reading is that the US dropped the bomb because it wanted to avoid high military causalities among its own; a more somber reading is that the US did so primarily to scare the bejeezus out of the USSR. As far as the topic at hand is concerned, it is clear that for OneVoice Japanese civilians and Palestinian civilians are basically dispensable. -- Viajero 20:23, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Viajero writes: "US had invaded Japan by land, but Japanese civilian causalities would have been far lower." Source for this please. The historians that I have read disagree.
Viajero please reconcile your statement "Japanese civilians and Palestinian civilians are basically dispensable." with my statement above "The firebombing campaign led by General Curtis LeMay (If memory serves...its been a long time) was a deliberate policy of inflicting casualties on the civilian population of Japan. I can not justify it." OneVoice 21:10, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My main problem is that we cannot take these sorts of moral positions. We are here to report the facts, not to claim that certain actions can or cannot be justified. There are plenty of reputable historians who believe the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified, and some who even believe the firebombing of Dresden was justified. Whether they're right or not isn't the issue. The issue is that as an encyclopedia, we cannot say they are not right, as our only job is to report, not to make moral claims or do original research. Deciding what constitutes "terrorism" is, IMHO, a similarly thorny issue. Is attacking civilians terrorism if these "civilians" happen to be off-duty army officers? What if they're reservists (as all Israeli males of certain ages are)? Some argue it is not terrorism; most argue it is. But this isn't really the sort of thing we should be deciding as an encyclopedia. We should just report. --Delirium 02:43, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

That is one reason why I do not edit based upon my personal opinion. We can report events as terrorism based upon them being labelled as such in The New York Times.

Delirium, what of the children on the buses? OneVoice 02:49, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I agree personally it's terrorism, and there's some cases where it's nearly impossible to argue otherwise. But I'm not sure we want to be in the business of deciding what's terrorism and what isn't. For example, much Israeli media, and some US media, calls suicide-bomb attacks on roadblocks "terrorism", while some people argue that they are not, since some people argue that checkpoints staffed by the IDF are legitimate military targets. There's lots of other borderline cases. --Delirium 02:53, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)
I think we should aspire to higher standards of neutrality than The New York Times -- a notoriously pro-Israel newspaper. -- Viajero 12:59, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I don't read the NYT, so have no comment myself, but someone once told me that I shouldn't trust the NYT because it was notoriously anti-Israel, especially with its new editor ("new" as of a year or two ago). I suppose it's all relative. --Delirium 13:03, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)
I would put it this way: all media has its biases; it is just plain naive to think the NYT doesn't as well. I don't believe journalistic "objectivity" is ever absolute. -- Viajero 13:21, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Justification Issue

Based even on just the short interchange among me, Delirium, Viajero, who I think I know pretty well by now -- plus OneVoice :-) ...

I would say that the key issue is whether a given act is "justified" or should be "condemned". Some people use the word "racism" to mean unjustifiable race discrimination (as when an evil majority exploits an innocent minority) -- as opposed to justifiable race discrimination (as when an exploited innocent minority gets extra goodies like preference in being hired for a job or admitted to a college (see affirmative action). Likewise, some people used the word "terrorism" to mean unjustifiable violence against civilians -- as opposed to justifiable violence against a "legitimate military target".

For the racism issue, it hinges on whether the discrimination is justified. For terrorisim, it hinges on whether the violence is justified.

We Wikipedians need to step back far enough from these articles and discussions to be able to identify and distinguish our own opinions and judgments from those of others. In particular, we'll have to avoid assuming that any one of us is in touch with the Universal Standard of Judgment. (Okay, everyone but me, heh, heh :-)

No, even I have to do this: it's the promise we all make when we click that "Save page" button! --Uncle Ed 14:45, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Definitions: An idea

I have an idea re the definition of "terrorism", which I'll explain on after I put it down.
Terrorism: Attacks by non-state actors upon civilian targets with the purpose of intimidating or terrorizing the population.
OK. What I mean by this definition:
1. Non-state actors: If you aren't a state, you do not have the right to use force. If you are, you do. This is a fundamental qualification of [sovereignty]: Does the entity/group in question have a monopoly on the use of violence?
2. civilian targets: A checkpoint would not, per se, be a civilian target. A bus, however, or a restruant, or a discotheque, however, would be. If you attack even ONE civilian target, you're a terrorist. If you restrict yourself to military targets, however, you're a guerrila or insurgent.
3. purpose of intimidating or terrorizing: I was trying not to make the definition itself clunky, so this will require explanation. I am not, despite the temptation, calling La Cosa Nostra or similar terrorists. Generally, the activity should be for (broadly) political reasons.
But where's the line, then?
Good question. What defines a civilian target (or a civilian)? Well, common sense helps. A reservist not called up would be a civilian. An off-duty soldier, out of uniform, would be a civilian. In short, if (knowing all the facts) you cannot figure it to be military, it's civilian. Some cases that may help in explanation:
Sherman's burning of Atlanta - A war crime, perhaps. NOT terrorism. This is where the definition of "war crimes" gets sticky, but it's not terrorism.
The bombings of Dresden - NOT terrorism. A terrorizing act, yes, and MAYBE a war crime, but not terrorism.
The bombing of the King David Hotel - Maybe. On one hand, yes, a hotel is civilian. On the other hand, an entire wing of the hotel was used by the British as a military headquarters, an obvious target. You could argue either way, but it seems clear that the target was that HQ. Problem is, the possibility of accuracy wasn't there.
Bus bombings - If this is not terrorism, what is?
Bombing of Iraq by US forces - No. That's called collateral damage.
-Penta 00:10, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, Penta, but that definition is not really useful. Leaving the ethical issues aside (and they are major), there are still the reliance on a consensus on what is a "state" (does the Palestinian Authority qualify, for instance?) and what is an uncalled reservist (cloudy issue with many Israelis - or for that matter, many Arabs). I don't think collateral damage is a good name for Iraq's bombing either, since it was such an evitable conflict (not that anyone here asked, sorry). Making state acts automatically non-terrorist is a major handicap: it makes the whole morality of such acts as Hiroshima's bombing automatically "terrorist" for whoever doesn't recognize the USA's sovereignity, at the same times that it makes whatever bombings IRA or the PA might conceivably conceive "not terrorism" if you only recognize them as true governments. I don't think any of us want to go there. I certainly don't. Luis Dantas 01:23, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is this stupid protection done soon? Has OneVoice heard the other voice? BL 05:56, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

By general agreement on this talk page I'm now going to revert. Goodbye, and good luck. BL 01:45, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

Can we please do something about this silly so-called "BLplusplus" character? His behavior is abusive. I would have reverted the article back if I knew how to (I suspect I would need admin privileges or editing by hand). Luis Dantas 13:26, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Anyone can revert a page. See: Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version. -- Viajero 14:15, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Voice, please try to be civil. Is there any point in creating yet another edit (actually reverse) war? Please readWikipedia:NPOV_dispute and this very talk. Luis Dantas 17:56, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please show me where it has been decided that Wikipedia will not use the term terrorism to describe suicide bombings. These acts are ones that could be used in the definition of the term terrorism. Replace Israelis with Russians and these acts are called terrorims as can be seen on the List of terrorist incidents page. Are we going to remove terrorism from all of Wikipedia? What acts would you, Luis Dantas, call terrorism? Yes, LuisDantas, let us be civil; let us be honest; let us be consistent; let us be fair. OneVoice 18:15, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This very discussion page pretty much reached a consensus (except for you and MathKnight) that calling recent, possibly poorly-understood events "terrorism" is both unneeded (since the events should be clear for themselves) and quite possibly harmful. You don't have to take my word for it - it is all written a few paragraphs above. I will avoid answering your provocations. To the best of my knowledge everyone is being fair except you. Luis Dantas 18:53, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is not an answer...its is a refusal to confront the question. The bombings of the World Trade Center are recent events, perhaps some would call them poorly-understood, yet there is not trouble identifying them as what they are: Terrorism The questions remain unanswered: Are we going to remove terrorism from all of Wikipedia? What acts would you, Luis Dantas, call terrorism? Will we limit the no-terrorism policy to acts of Palestinian terrorism? OneVoice 19:10, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I actually contest your point about the absence of trouble in naming the WTC event, but that surely is quite besides the matter. The question is _meant_ to be kept in a NPOV form at least as far as it remains a Wikipedia article. If you want to consider that "refusal to confront" the matter, fine with me. But it is still the rule established here. And in case you are wondering, yes, I do indeed feel that the Palestine-Israel situation _is_ far too complex to be fairly described in the terms you insist in using. Your attempt to equate this situation with each and every other possible use of the word terrorism is a clear diversion tactic that does not change the inapropriateness of its use in this article a bit. Just to answer your question (irrelevantly so, since no one is advancing that _my_ POV should be exerced), terrorism IMO is any violent act (including those commited by recognized states with demolition tools and tractors) that could be avoided - e.g. by diplomatic means. It is not a completely clear-cut definition, but then again I don't believe there _is_ a clear-cut and respectable definition for that word. That is exactly why its use should be avoided here in Wikipedia. You know, at times you and MathKnight sound like Terrorism is some sort of sacred word that must be used in order not to disrespect the Israeli people. Luis Dantas 19:28, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
So Baruch Goldstein's shooting in the mosque in Hebron killing 29(?) Muslims during prayers was not an act of terrorism?! My opinion is that it was terrorism . If you disagree, I'll remove it from the Israeli terrorism page and describe it as an act of violence instead (terrorism being a subset of violence, just as larceny is a subset of crime.) (! its not listed there...well, based upon the outcome here we will know whether or not it belongs there.) People use more specific words because they are more informative than the more general term. There is a substantial difference between the person that steals a loaf of bread off a window ledge without violence and the person that steals money from another person using the threat of violence. They have committed different sets of crimes and are indicted for different crimes and if convicted face substantially different penalties. One of the most famous novels of all time, Les Miserables, is centered around a person, Jean Valjean, that committed the first crime and is treated as if the committed the second or worse. Failing to distinguish between the severity of actions forms the basis of Victor Hugo's books and the great character flaw of Inspector Javert. Do you wish to emulate Javert? Fail to distinguish between crimes of different magnitudes? OneVoice 22:24, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Baruch Goldstein's killings, as I am sure you will agree, was a specific case, which we now see with the benefits of nine years of hindsight _and_ a clear statement from the Israeli government. Even then there are some who think he is a hero (at least according to the current version of the article about him). Maybe the PA announced that it activelly disapproves of those bus killings, and in that case it is probably fair (by some definitions, not all) to call them acts of terrorism. I truly believe there is no benefit in waiting until it becomes clear and uncontroversial that most people agree on specific acts being terrorism before including them, and I trust you will concur on that at least. With such explosive subject matter it is paramount to leave the least possible room for misinterpretations and be as factual as possible. A challenge to be sure, but we are talking about actual human lives here. Best, Luis Dantas 23:10, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Luis Dantas, even Noam Chomsky calls suicide bombings of buses terrorist attacks: Few would question Israel's right to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks like the one yesterday, even to build a security wall if that were an appropriate means.[4]. Baruch Goldstein's killings were specific in being perhaps the only Israeli action of the kind. It was clear at the time that it was a terrorist act. It is clear today. It is clear to Noam Chomsky that suicide bombings of buses are terrorist attacks. You seem to condition calling them terrorist attacks based upon the perperator agreeing to that name. That is ridiculous there are many who will never accept the correct naming of the acts. OneVoice 12:30, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Some would say (and you are having great success in convincing me to join that POV) that Goldstein's killings were instead the only incident to make it past the bias and tricky political realities of the Middle East so that it is recognized as terrorism. I don't know why you expect me to agree that Noam Chomsky must be right on this specific matter. He is probably a respected authority, but authorities have been wrong before. Besides, he is not writing for Wikipedia AFAIK, nor does he define policy here. Once more: terrorism is much too incendiary and politically loaded a word for me to agree on its use except in the most extreme circunstances. Preferably not even then. Why do you feel it cripples you so much I can't guess, unless the emotional impact of the word is somehow important for you. Luis Dantas 14:24, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

my 2 cents

I'd like to comment on several issues brought up in the discussion above.

First - the procedural issue. Renaming an existing article to a title which is substantially different than its original title, and then re-writing the article to fit the new title, amounts to deleting the original article. Therefore, this should not be done without listing the original title on VfD and achieving a consensus. What was done with this article was, IMO, an abuse of the "move" functionality.

That said, I do believe there is a place for a Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict series of articles (by year), which will include all significant events, whether they involve diplomacy, terrorism, military action, or other kinds of violence. Such a series of articles does not necessarily need to replace the "Terrorism against Israel" series.

On "terrorism": I do not agree that Wikipedia should avoid using certain words. I do think that we should reach an agreed definition, and I think Penta's one is very reasonable. I certainly do not accept that the question whether an act was "justified" or not has anything to do with whether it is terrorism or not. While the former question is a matter of POV, the latter is pretty much a factual one (given Penta's definition, for example). I certainly reject the absurd notion that "terrorism is any violent act that could be avoided - e.g. by diplomatic means." If we start re-inventing the English language this way it will very quickly become useless as a tool for communication.

-- uriber 20:12, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I really don't think Penta's definition is any more reasonable (or clear) than mine, although it is certainly more technical. But I agree that "justified terrorism" is a contradiction of terms. My point is that there _is_ no real consensus on what constitutes terrorism, despite the sincere desire of many people to prove otherwise. Just take a look that the article by that name. It is just too loaded a word - and too dependend on POV factors such as which governments should be recognized as "legitimate". I really don't see why Wikipedia must effectivelly choose a side on the matter of the idea of a Palestinian state (just to mention a technical factor) to be objective about the killings. Best.Luis Dantas 20:50, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"More technical" means "less POV-based", which, to me, means "better for our needs".

That _would_ be true with the definition were not so political. As it stands, I respectfully offer that the opposite is true. Luis Dantas 22:14, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree that "justified terrorism" is a contradiction of terms - I'm not sure who you agree with. Certainly not with me - read again what I wrote above.

My mistake. Still, I do maintain that it is contradictory to talk about justified terrorism. Luis Dantas


If we absolutely can not reach an agreement on a definition of "terrorism", we might need to use more explicit terms. Then I would rename "Terrorism against Israel" to something like "Politically-motivated violence against Israeli civillians by non-state organizations". That's quite verbose, but maybe it's the best we can do when we have to strike certain words from our vocabulary. In any event, just replacing "terrorism" by "violence" is a terrible solution. It's somewhat like replacing the word "rape" by the word "crime", just because you can't agree on an exact definition of "rape".

Two problems here - how do we _know_ that such violence has political motivation, and what difference does it make to the victims anyway? Also, I must point out that there is nothing to prevent detailing consensual information about specific events inside the article. It is naming all the entries by the bucketload that I find unfair and misleading. Luis Dantas
How do we know that violence has political motivation? We take the words of those who commit the violence. They're not hiding their responsibility or their motives. Really - is anybody suggesting any other motivation? And while it might not make any difference to the victims (when you're dead, nothing makes much of a difference, really) - it still makes a lot of difference for us, and for the readers of Wikipedia. The article was about terrirism. If there are any events in it which are not "terrorism", they should simply be removed from the article. -- uriber 17:19, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Luis Dantas, earlier today, I labeled the suicide bombings of city buses the work of terrorists. You deleted those additions. Could you reconcile that behavior with your more statement Also, I must point out that there is nothing to prevent detailing consensual information about specific events inside the article. It is naming all the entries by the bucketload that I find unfair and misleading. Do you consider suicide bombings of city buses to be acts of terrorism or not? If not please give at least one example of what you do consider terrorism so that I can understand what you would consent to labelling terrorism as you said: ...detailing consensual information about specific events inside the article.OneVoice 22:30, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The keyword here is "detailing". You did not supply much information. If you know for a fact that the suicidals called themselves terrorists, or some group that does assumed responsibility for the doing, please feel free to say so - mentioning sources if at all possible. I suspect that just doesn't happen, but one never knows. I suppose you might also offer evidence for each occurrence that the targets were civilians, that the killers did not consider themselves agents of a sovereign state, and so on, but that would be impractical to say the least - and I don't think the plight of the Israelis is any less or more terrible just for using that word. But if there is good, uncontroversial evidence that it is indeed terrorism (unlikely in such a complex political situation such as that of Israel, even more so for recent happenings that may turn out in the future to be not quite what we currently believe them to be) you may of course include it. But all too often one side's terrorists are the other side's freedom fighters, famished and oppressed minority, or whatever. No one calls himself a terrorist. Luis Dantas 22:48, 22 Feb 2004

(UTC)

Thereby by your criteria there are no terrorists in the world because No one calls himself a terrorist. OneVoice 12:30, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
That is not what I said. Once more, I _do_ find the word tricky to use at best. If we must use it (and sincerely can't think of a reason to) then we better have some historical perspective. There is an obvious danger of creating hostility by using that word in all but the most extreme circunstances - and there is nothing magical in the word that makes it unavoidable in describing whatever injustice may happen. Luis Dantas 14:24, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)


I'm not sure what you're referring to by "the matter of the idea of a Palestinian state". Are you saying that some people hold the view that a Palestinian state actually exists, and is fully responsible for the acts described in this article, and therefore they can not be regarded as "terrorism"? This sounds pretty far-fetched to me. But perhaps I'm just misunderstanding your intention.

Nope, that is pretty much what I meant. And since you propose that there is a political motivation behind terrorism, I don't see why it is at all a stretch to recognize that there is a palestinian political movement. I know for a fact that there is a Palestinian Authority, and I am pretty sure that they are not part of the Israeli government. As a matter of fact the Palestines are in pretty much the same situation that the Israelis have been for much of their history. Why one group deserves their own territory and the other doesn't is quite beyond me. Exactly why should Israel demolishing houses be called an "act of war" while suicide bombings are "terrorism"? Luis Dantas
A Palestinian state is an idea, not an actual state. The Palestinian Authority, is, officially, an authority within the state of Israel. Anyway, that's a moot point, because the PA never claimed responsibility for the acts described in this article, and those who did claim responsibility never said they did it on behalf of the PA.
I have trouble following you here. I understand that the PA desires to establish itself as a state, and pretty much the only thing stopping them is Israel's claim to the same territory. That is clearly a political motivation. Here you seem to be telling me that you don't find evidence of such a political motivation necessary for labeling an act as terrorism. But just a few paragraphs below you seem to take the opposite stance. Luis Dantas 20:32, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Why one group deserves their own territory and the other doesn't is quite beyond me. - I'm tempted to answer this with my personal opinion. However, since this is way off-topic, and since Wikipedia is not a debate forum, I won't.
Actually, to the best of my understanding there is no reason not to. Talk pages are free territory. We certainly have lots of personal opinion on them already. Luis Dantas
Exactly why should Israel demolishing houses be called an "act of war" while suicide bombings are "terrorism"? - for several resons. I'll name two: 1. When your house is demolished, you either rebuild it, or find another place to live. When you're blown up by a suicide bomber, you're either dead (not too many options going from there), or spending much of the rest of your life dealing with the injuries. Nothing to rebuild, nowhere to go.
You are effectivelly telling me that the demolitions don't ever or hurt kill civilians, and that the situation of those people is not desperate enough to make them resort to violent action. For all I know you may be right, but those are bold assumptions. Luis Dantas


2. House demolishing by the IDF is never done in order to harm random innocent civillians.
Denying real flesh-and-bone people a place to live does harm them, even when they are not physically hurt in the proccess. Luis Dantas
It is done either when the house in question is being used to launch attacks (against Israeli civillians or the IDF), or as a punishment against those who committed such attacks.
Not much of a higher moral ground if you ask me. Suicide bombers at least decide to inflict themselves with the same punishment they are dealing. One would expect defenders of the Zionist cause, of all people, to understand how cruel it can be to have no place to live, but maybe that is just me. Luis Dantas 20:32, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Suicide bombings, on the other hand, are usually not directed at specific targets. Instead, they target random civillian population. For the few cases where suicide bombings were performed against Israeli military targets - I agree that they do not constitute "terrorism". In fact, If you look at the history of some of the "Terrorism agains Israel" articles (when they were still called that), you'll see that I personally removed several such attacks. -- uriber 17:19, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

-- uriber 21:35, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't doubt you, but I have a hard time believing the suicide bombers are not politically motivated. Few people develop such violent tendencies, and even less accept to end their own lives without hoping to leave a political message. Besides, if they _were_ choosing random victims just for the heck of it that would make them psychotic killers, not true terrorists. Luis Dantas 20:32, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Violence_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict_2004/Archive_1&oldid=96261985"