Talk:Palestinian political violence

RFC on Terminology

Should the lead of the article mention that some of the political violence has been considered terrorism? Dovidroth (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Survey (1)

• Yes. Political violence is WP:EUPHEMISM. Censoring the word "terrorism" from the lead, despite being used extensively in reliable sources is a violation of WP:DUE and WP:NOTCENSORED. Many articles such as Terrorism in India, Terrorism in Europe, and Israel and state-sponsored terrorism use "terrorism". Furthermore, Google Trends and other ngrams show the much more common use of "terrorism" compared with "Palestinian political violence" and it's widespread usage in academic literature. Dovidroth (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. I was going to bring up too that Israel clearly commits state terrorism but if sources in general bring up both sides it'd seem to me that we're being approrpiately neutral. Regardless, even if one doesn't agree with it, the fact is that many sources consider Palestinian political violence to be terrorism, even if it does so with the aim of supporting Israeli actions and condemning Palestinian ones (and contrariwise for Palestine). But that's up to them, we're only here to report what sources say. FelipeFritschF (talk) 12:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: This RFC is redundant. The lead already says of acts re: political violence: some of which are considered acts of terror, so this is an RFC to mandate what is already in effect. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for pointing this out. I will reformulate the question. Dovidroth (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, but it is already included in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• No Terrorism is non-neutral. We should exclude such WP:WEASEL language from article ledes. The characterization of Palestinian resistance as Terrorism can be discussed further down the article. Simonm223 (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, but as u:My very best wishes noted, it's already mentioned in the lede, so it's not clear what the proposed change is. Alaexis_¿question? 21:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Revised RFC on Terminology

Should the lead begin Palestinian political violence including Palestinian terrorism? Dovidroth (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Survey (2)

• Yes. Political violence is WP:EUPHEMISM. Censoring the term "Palestinian terrorism" from the lead, despite being used extensively in reliable sources is a violation of WP:DUE and WP:NOTCENSORED. Many articles such as Terrorism in India, Terrorism in Europe, and Israel and state-sponsored terrorism, Jewish religious terrorism and Islamic Terrorism use "terrorism". Furthermore, ngrams and Google Scholar (Palestinian terrorism (4,540 results) vs. Palestinian Political violence (124 results)) show the much more common use of "terrorism" compared with "Palestinian political violence" and it's widespread usage in academic literature. Dovidroth (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
• No The usual POV push in line with request to change the title to Palestinian terrorism, see see April 2023 discussion here, unanimously opposed. Use the redirect Palestinian terrorism for a new article if desired, a likely fail due to MOS:TERRORISM. Jewish political violence redirects to Zionist political violence for which there is a plethora of sourcing sufficient to override the manual of style. Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
• No: Not all acts of political violence are terrorism; and there are no sources for this claim. This move will paint everything -including stone throwing, even blocking a road- as terrorism. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Any examples in the current article of such case? TaBaZzz (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• Yes Points well raised, indeed we should not censore information, and due to weight of issue it is indeed very normal to consider and in fact it ought to be in the opening sentence of the article so as to make clear that numerous such activities have indeed been classified as terrorism by various countries and organizations. Furthermore, these groups and organizations have performed actions defined by numerous countries and entities as terrorism. Furthermore, it appears that the word Palestinian terrorism according to data as presented above is widely used and therefore should be mentioned prominently in the Lead. Furthermore, there is a great amount of scholarly information regarding groups defined as Palestinian terror groups and therefore if article wishes to deal with said organisations (example; Hamas, PIJ etc.) then it should make it clear to the readers that the following content is being presemted. Therefore as presented above, I think that WP:NOTCENSORED applies here well, as well as WP:DUE and we must attempt to be as precise as possible in order to ensure we do not accidentally misinform or confuse the reader. homerethegreat (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
• No that makes no sense. We bold alternate names, what is happening here is people are unable to impose a POV title on this article so they are trying to present it as though it were an alternate name. Terrorism is a subset of the political violence, and the article, and the lead, discuss it at great depth. The first sentence ends with some of which are considered acts of terror, the second paragraph has Several of these groups are considered terrorist organizations. But the political violence includes both terrorism and attacks on government and military targets. Terrorism is a subset, not the equivalent, of political violence, and the proposed changes attempts to equate the two. We also shouldnt say Palestinian political violence including violent resistance either. And as far as scholar, "Palestinian resistance" 14k. nableezy - 16:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
• NoGood reasons for this are given above.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
• Yes - The page Zionist political violence very appropriately begins with, "Zionist political violence refers to politically motivated violence or terrorism." It is surprising that the page Palestinian political violence does not include the word 'terrorism' anywhere in the lead, with or without attribution, despite the term being used extensively in reliable sources. This omission might give the impression that Palestinians have never committed an act of terror. Anyone invoking the policy MOS:TERRORIST in this context likely hasn't read the policy thoroughly, or might be under the impression that Wikipedia is censored. Marokwitz (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Um, have you read the lead? nableezy - 18:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  My apologies, I assumed this RFC referred to this version [1] as opposed to this version [2]. I was confused by the amount of reverts. Everyone - please stop edit warring while this RFC is going on !

  To correct my statement, I suggest some common ground: It is undisputed among mainstream reliable sources that terrorist attacks have been carried out by both Jews against Palestinians and Palestinians against Jews.

  Therefore, I retract my answer and suggest a New proposal: that both Palestinian political violence and Zionist political violence articles start with identical wording: "Zionist political violence refers to politically motivated violence or terrorism." and "Palestinian political violence refers to politically motivated violence or terrorism." Marokwitz (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  As a compromise this appears reasonable. I support this particular phrasing in this case as proposed by @Marokwitz. Homerethegreat (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to amend this article. Selfstudier (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  This is a relatively minor change compared to the existing text. I urge all participants to embrace constructive consensus-building. Marokwitz (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  I am ok with this compromise. Dovidroth (talk) 09:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• No - I agree with Makeandtoss. If you want an article about terrorism in Palestine, create that article, but not every act of political violence committed by a person who has brown skin is terrorism. --Orgullomoore (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Also, FWIW, I just read the lead and did not find it to be at all euphemistic. Even if I read it with my "is this otherist enough" lenses, you have the boogeyman right there in the first photo to the right of the first paragraph, complete with ski masks, red kuffiyehs, and headbands with Arabic letters. The phrase "acts of terror" is in the first sentence, destruction of Israel is in the third sentence, Liberation of Palestine is in scare quotes. The end of the second paragraph lists terrorist designations. I'm struggling to see the argument that we are censoring the subject matter or failing to give sufficient weight to the POV some are advocating we emphasize here. --Orgullomoore (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  And the most iconic images of Palestinian political violence, eg File:Faris odeh03a.jpg, arent used. nableezy - 02:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  Obviously a terrorist. --Orgullomoore (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  Should make it an acceptable image then? nableezy - 22:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  Sarcasm aside and assuming copyright is not an impediment, I would support including it somewhere. It demonstrates the spectrum of political violence, beginning with kids throwing rocks at tanks and ending with suicide attacks on civilians and October 7-style massacres. --Orgullomoore (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• yes. Terrorism it is. The attempt to paint it as "Political", and hint that some leaders, some coalition could have solved it or prevented it - contradicts the truth. Killing of Jews by local Arabs in Jerusalem and in the Holy Land in general is documented well into the 19th century (I didn't check earlier), when no politics was involved. Only Terrorism was the act. TaBaZzz (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  I don't get it. It was terrorism every time a "local Arab" killed a Jew? What about just regular murder? What is the defining characteristic? --Orgullomoore (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  yes. Terrorism. TaBaZzz (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  Wow. What an extremist opinion. --Orgullomoore (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  WP:NOTAFORUM. TaBaZzz (talk) 08:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  @טבעת-זרם: This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read if there was no politics involved it literally couldn't be terrorism, if there are no political ends it isn't terrorism. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. This is a poorly framed RfC. The lead already mention terrorism. Should it necessarily say "Palestinian terrorism"? This depends on context. One must suggest a specific change in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. This article's first sentence is slightly more neutral than that of Zionist political violence. Senorangel (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, we do have a page Jewish terrorism, and such title seems to be rather problematic, potentially antisemitic. It should be renamed to something like Zionist terrorism and possibly merged with page Zionist political violence. My very best wishes (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

As we do Islamic terrorism. The idea that it is antisemitic to refer to Jewish terrorism is one of the many personal opinions that we would all be better off not needing to read. WP:NOTFORUM and all that. nableezy - 00:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

And quite a few others, including Christian, Sikh, and Hindu: Category:Religious terrorism --Orgullomoore (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, exactly: Islamic and Christian are related to religion, not ethnicity. Usually, the terrorism is related to specific ideology or a cause. Category:Terrorism by country is fine. But Category:Terrorism by ethnic group would not be OK. Sikh terrorism is a redirect page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Judaism is a religion? nableezy - 02:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes? Zionism and Judaism are not the same though they do overlap. Senorangel (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Assuming without conceding you are correct that "[ethnic group] terrorism" is inherently anti-[ethnic group], "Palestinian terrorism" is inherently anti-Palestinian, no? Palestinian is not a religion. --Orgullomoore (talk) 04:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• No, per MOS:TERRORIST and WP:NPOV. The mention of "terror" is sufficient. For anyone attempting a Tu quoque, I would support the same change at Zionist political violence, which I think is a POV violation at present. Yr Enw (talk) 07:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
• No, This RFC seems to be the spillover of a previous unsuccessful attempt to use "terrorism" somewhere in the article title. The current proposal likewise aims to include it in the first line to pretend it is an alternate title. Not only does not the proposal aligns with MOS:BOLDALTNAMES but also it is trying to add redundency to the first line. --Mhhossein ^talk 21:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
• No, no case is really made for why this is necessary or beneficial, and whilst I think the NPOV arguments above are somewhat overstated, this does appear to be an attempt at 'back-door' renaming/eqivalence. The opening sentence is already over-loaded with sub-clauses and this is unnec as the topic is adequately covered. Terrorism is a subset, not the equivalent, of political violence per nableezy. Pincrete (talk) 08:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• No. The RM specifically decided that terrorism isn't the primary subject of this article and therefore shouldn't be included as an alternate title (which is the way this proposal to bold it would functionally structure the lead); neither are the two terms identical. We already mention that it includes acts of terror in the first sentence, and of course it is already and should continue to be discussed further down the lead and in the article body, but there isn't a valid reason to bold it as if it were an alternate title, and the current wording conveys the necessary meaning in a more neutral tone anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
• No per MOS:TERRORIST. Graham (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
• No per MOS:TERRORIST and WP:NPOV. JDiala (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Jut a note that all terrorism is political violence, but not all political violence is terrorism. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

dismantling of the State of Israel

Why was the statement Some perpetrators of these acts support the dismantling of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Arab state removed? This was the explicit goal of the PLO and Hamas in the past, and in case of Hamas many scholars believe this is still the case. It was indeed an example of WP:OVERCITE and not all references were relevant but the statement itself is hardly controversial. Alaexis_¿question? 08:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a casualty of the sock editing. Anyway,in the past and Hamas currently says (and have indicated similarly in the past, could be true, who knows) that they will settle for a two state solution on 67 borders. So presenting it as a current true statement without any qualification seems POV.

Perhaps focus on the body first instead of fixating on the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Khaled Mashal said a few months ago that Hamas would not accept a permanent two-state solution [3]. But that doesn't really matter. The sentence only says that *some* of the perpetrators want to destroy the state of Israel and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad have always rejected the two-state solution and called for the destruction of Israel. Alaexis_¿question? 12:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The claim that "some" want to "destroy" Israel is not necessarily leadworthy (some means >= 1). Rejecting a two-state solution is not calling for "destruction" of Israel. The word choice "perpetrators" is pov. DMH223344 (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The goals are mentioned in the Groups section already. Obviously the article needs some work, but this is an important aspect of the Palestinian violence that should be mentioned in the lede. Alaexis_¿question? 12:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

"This was the explicit goal of the PLO"

Please don't just throw out claims that have no basis in facts. From Slater:

Even before Arafat came to power, the PLO was primarily secular, had sought to separate religion from politics, and had called for the creation in Palestine of a democratic and secular state. Indeed, many PLO leaders specifically denounced anti-Semitism and emphasized their intention to accept Jews as equal citizens in a new Palestine.

DMH223344 (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

How does it contradict the statement in question? Even taking Slater at face value (the word "some" does a lot of work there), the "creation in Palestine of a democratic and secular state" necessarily implies the dismantling of the state of Israel.

Anyway, we need RS that explicitly state that this was one of the goals of the political violence to include it, I'm going to look for such sources. Alaexis_¿question? 19:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It was very much a casualty of sock editing. Keeping that in mind I think the wise course of action is to discuss these edits here, determine appropriate inclusion, and then put up something that is acceptable to consensus after. Simonm223 (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Galamore please engage here to discuss this edit. Simonm223 (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

1. This text has been long-standing on this article, so WP:BRD stands here with the former version, not the removal of the content...
2. The calls for destroying Israel has been prominent in the ideologies of Palestinian militant groups, including the two most prominent nowadays, Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Removing this text is ignoring a major aspect of Palestinian violence

Galamore (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

QUO only lasts until material is challenged. How long was the material present and what consensus did it have when it was added? Selfstudier (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The text has been in the entry at least from September 3, 2022 to February 19, 2024. SigTif (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused now, I cannot find the text "Some perpetrators of these acts..." in that Sep 3 2022 revision.

Can we be specific about which text is claimed as having been in the article since then (or some other date). Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

You said the explicit goal of the PLO was at some point "to destroy the state of Israel". In what world is the establishment of a secular democratic state equivalent to "destroying" a state? With word choice like "destroy", you better have strong evidence to back it up. Do not just throw out claims. DMH223344 (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it's unclear who "you" is in this case. Regardless we should try to avoid personalizing this discussion and, instead, focus on neutral reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Even if it were true, isn't it also true that the other side has not only said it (if not in so many words) but also demonstrated a clear intent to destroy Palestine? This sort of rhetoric is I think not unusual in the given circumstances. In between times, the sides have negotiations about two states ie not destroying either. Selfstudier (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

This article is about Palestinian political violence, not Israeli, so this comment is irrelevant. WP:NOTAFORUM. Galamore (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

How does recognizing Israel and entering into negotiations for a 2 state solution based on 67 borders count as a call for the destruction of Israel? Selfstudier (talk) 10:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I've tried to come up with a compromise. If we consider the 3 most powerful Palestinian factions (Fatah/PLO/PNA, Hamas and the Islamic Jihad), one of them had the destruction of Israel as its goal prior to the Oslo agreements and one (PIJ) clearly still has it as the goal. Regarding Hamas, different observers have different opinions, but many of them think that the whole of the Mandate Palestine remains the long-term goal (see the Atlantic article linked here and more scholarly sources in the Hamas article). Considering that this discussion is about the lede, I think that "Some factions have called for the destruction of Israel" is a fair summary of the situation. Alaexis_¿question? 11:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Yezid Sayight's book

What's wrong with it? Why was it [4]? Alaexis_¿question? 11:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

change government involvement to Palestinian Authority involvement

Reasons for this change:

• 1. Palestine doesn't have a central government, Fatah is charge of the West Bank and Hamas is in charge of Gaza
• 2. Most of the content is directed towards Fatah/PLO/Palestinian Authority figures
• 3. This selection is a bit problematic, as seems like accusation of incitement or glorifying people means that they are involved in political violence. Also the timeframe, as whole article mentions events since 1948, while this selection talks about incidents since 2000. Also which government? (there is a mention of Iraq) During the conflict, many countries governments or military groups were involved in Palestinian Political violence at various points in time