Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 81.91.192.220 (talk) at 16:14, 13 June 2005 (→"Critics" vs "Detractors"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Talk:Israeli terrorism/archive1

NPOV Project

PLEASE: edit changes you do not like an announce them here and in the history log!!! Do not revert to an older file unless it is a case of clear vandalism!!!

I am starting a project to make this article conform to the NPOV standards of Misplaced Pages. this comes at the prompting of people within this talk page and simply the fact that it really obviously need to be done. There are rampant assertions by both sides of the argument and conspicuous editorial statements. On a more contraversial not, I do plan to replace "terrorist" if and alternate term where appropriate. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, we can take out cue on to the truth of that statement from the US revolution, the Algerian Revolution, and numerous others through history. --LouieS 07:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mordechai Vanunu

I changed that sentence because the clause "and they called this a kidnapping" 1. was bad english, 2, looked an attempt to cast doubt on something which was quite clearly, under any definition, a kidnapping and which had been insterted as an afterthought into the sentence as a whole. Either "they" are right (and I think "they" are) in which call it a kidnapping in the article or "they" are wrong in which case leave it out entirely.

Good point. Jayjg 23:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arab leadership of the countries surrounding Israel

You reverted my delete of:

"However, it should be noted that substantial evidence exists that the Arab leadership of the countries surrounding Israel convinced the Arab population of Israel at the time that when those surrounding Arab nations attacked Israel the local populace should leave temporarily, that the Jews would then be slaughtered and that they would then be allowed to return."

I just dont see how this is relevant in an article on Israeli Terrorism. Maybe in an atricle on the deficiencies of the arab leadership, but it doesn't point to any actual action by the Arabs - only alleged propaganda. Doesn't seem to objective to me - and its only purpose can be to cloud the issue discussed int he rest of the paragraph.

The paragraph also describes "forced exile" as part of "Israeli terrorism"; this seems to balance the claim of "forced exile". Jayjg 23:51, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Incidental killing of civillians

You reverted my delete of:

"Opponents of Israel do not recognize a distinction between the admitted deliberate killing of innocent civilians by Arab militant groups and the incidental killing of innocent civilians by Israel in pursuing military action against the militant groups."

"incidental" is not a nuetral word, especially when it is coupled with the word "deliberate" as itr is here. I think it is more to the point that many people feel that when overwhelming force is used by Israel in built up areas of the Occupied Territories which is certain to cause civilain casualties use of the word "incidental" to dismiss a 100% anticipated outcome is a more than a little disingenuous - and a way off being neutral.

While I could see an argument if the word there were "accidental", I'm not sure why "incidental" isn't neutral; the civilians aren't targetted, even if you think that casualties are inevitable. And the Israeli counter-argument, of course, is that targetted force (not overwhelming force) is used, and that the Palestinian militants hide in built up areas precisely to incur civilian casualities. Jayjg 23:55, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Of course the Palestinian counter agruement would be that you have included the word "innocent" in the phrase "deliberate killing of innocent civilians " - when these are in fact invaders. Clearly this is OTT - but incidnetal makes it sound like the killings are not intended - when clearly they are. They may not the the prime motivation but it is very clear from the outset that they will happen.

By suggesting that civilians are not "innocent", you make the generally discredited claim that has been proposed by groups like Hamas that a 1 year old child in Tel Aviv is not an "innocent" civilian because it is an "invader". As for "intended", if one is hoping for 0 civilian deaths (as the Israelis clearly do, if for no other reason than bad P.R.), and there are more deaths than that, then clearly the deaths are not "intended", even if you argue they could be "predicted". Jayjg 16:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You could, of course, remove both the words "deliberate" and "incidental" and not change the primary meaning of the sentance. Guettarda 17:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree Guettarda - I would propose the much less emotive:

"Opponents of Israel do not recognize a distinction between the killing of civilians by Arab militant groups and the killing of civilians by Israel in pursuing military action against the militant groups."

What do you think?

The killing of civilians by Arab groups is deliberate. They walk into a disco full of kids and blow themselves up. The other is not deliberate. Jayjg 21:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Granted, this page should not exist because the title is POV/politically motivated (the contents is another matter, but I can't agree with the name). It's unreasonable to equate the killing of Israeli civilians by Palestinian suicide bombers with the killing of Palestinians by the IDF. I am in no position to judge the motives behind the killing of Palestinians by individuals within the IDF (so I am not in a position to determine whether these killings are "incidental" or "deliberate"). I dislike the use of the word "incidental" because it trivialises the deaths, and no death is trivial. There is no such thing as "collateral damage" or "friendly fire". "Incidental killing" might be appropriate for by-catch in a fishing fleet, but not for humans (not even for dolphins in a tuna net).

My aim was simply to point out that the removal of both words did not change the meaning of the sentance. Of course the killing of Israelis by Palestinian suicide bombers is deliberate. I sincerely hope that the killings of Palestinian civilians by the Israeli army are terrible tragic mistakes. But introducing the word "incidental" not only requires that we know something about the motivation of individual commanders and soldiers in the field, it also cheapens many tragic losses of life. Try interpreting this as human beings. Every killing is a terrible tragedy, even that of a mass murderer. Start there, extrapolate up to the first innocent death, and retch in horror at what the "good" people (whatever side you support) are involved in. Guettarda 22:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"The killing of civilians by Arab groups is deliberate. They walk into a disco full of kids and blow themselves up. The other is not deliberate. Jayjg (talk) 21:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)"

Says you. You fire rockets from a helecopter gunship into a building full of people - that's just as deliberate.

Um, I don't fire rockets at anyone. I think you need to get some perspective here. Jayjg 00:10, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Guettarda - I share your concern over "incidental" - makes it all sound like an accident. While I agree that there is a moral difference I'm not sure that it is down to an atricle like to try to shade this by its use of language.

I'm sory - I'm from the UK - we tend to regard use of the word "one" as being a bit of an afectation, But if you prefer "when one shoots rockets...". Appologies _if_ you misunderstood.

Oh, I see; I view the usage as essential for clarity. Apology accepted _if_ that was your true original intent. Now what was your point? Jayjg 00:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<G> - I think we understand each other. It really wasn't my intention to target you personally. UK usage <> US usage of English unfortunately. Clearly there is a moral difference between a bunch of murderers blowing up kids to make a point and people who kill kids (even knowingly) whilst on some other purpose. BUT that doesn't really matter to the kids (of either faith) does it?

"Opponents of Israel do not recognize a distinction between the killing of civilians by Arab militant groups and the killing of civilians by Israel in pursuing military action against the militant groups."

I really do think this is neutral - no slant to either side. More importantly it doesn't have either you or I passing moral judgement on the basis of a guess as to someone's motives.

When a child is hit by a car, it doesn't really matter to that child either. Yet that is not the same thing as deliberately blowing him up with a bomb. Jayjg 15:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually that line might be a bit too neutral. The point of the statement is to say that, by calling it terrorism, many seek to make the suicide bombings morally equivalent with the killings by the IDF. In an article with the title "Israeli terrorism" (surely there must be a more neutral title for this?) people feel a need to point out that there is a difference. Both groups are acting unacceptably - killing is never acceptable - but there is a difference. Deliberate might actually belong there - something to say that, by and large, the Palestinian suicide bombers are acting differently from either the IDF attacking militants or Palestinian militants attacking IDF checkpoints. When Hamas attacks an IDF checkpoint in Gaza it's tragic, but it's war. When the IDF bombs a Hamas training ground, likewise. When the IDF assassinates a Hamas leader in a public place and kills by-standers, that's beyond tragic, it's terribly wrong. But when a Hamas suicide bomber blows himself up at a bus stop or a disco in Israel, that's beyond despicable. Neither the IDF killing of civilians, nor the Hamas killing of civilians are acceptable, but when the civilians are killed deliberately, it's far worse. There is no comparison.

Nonetheless, the killing of Palestinian civilians is not "incidental" either. It's tragic, and it's all the more tragic because the western press ignores it...we tacitly agree that Palestinian life is worth less than Israeli life (and Israeli life is worth less than American or British life, of course).

I think I should leave this discussion now. I have said too much. As the grandson of a Nazi I have less right than the average person to criticise Israel. Guettarda 00:56, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You make a number of good points. Jayjg 15:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"When Hamas attacks an IDF checkpoint in Gaza it's tragic, but it's war. When the IDF bombs a Hamas training ground, likewise. When the IDF assassinates a Hamas leader in a public place and kills by-standers, that's beyond tragic, it's terribly wrong. But when a Hamas suicide bomber blows himself up at a bus stop or a disco in Israel, that's beyond despicable. "

Problem here is that we are engaging in some obscene calculus of evil here - which is exactly what thet sentence invites. I wont, but I could, run a justification of the Palestinian side that would tear at your heart. Nop one is right here - none of the actions are those of reasonable people. It's part of the reason why I dislike the sentence as is - it's value laden.

If we can't agree that walking into a disco full of kids and blowing yourself up is an act which is morally wrong on a scale not approached by a shootout between the IDF and Hamas, then I don't see where we can come to a compromise here. Jayjg 15:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You have to understand that it is not morally wrong to Islamists to kill innocents and children. The end justifies the means. Their morals come from the pit of hell. RossNixon 11:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

rossnixon, erhm .. ookay. the numbers of dead civilians is clearly higher on the palestinian camp than it is the israeli one, 4 times higher at last count. for anyone to argue that bombing an apartment complex filled to the brim with families is somehow more incidental and humane than a palestinian blowing up a disco is mindless stupidity. there is absolutely no difference between the two. well actually, there is a difference; the israelis have fine tuned their art with wmds, literally. while the palestinians are left to scratch iron with egyptian smuggled kalashnikovs and stones, really sharp ones too. the suggestion that the palestinian operations are more barbaric and primordial is sheer inanity. killing is killing, the israeli argument that they dont look their victims in the eye while reducing them to pink mist is somehow more humanitarian is purely undergraduate. frantz fanon

The Fourth Geneva Convention forbids the use of any civilian as a shield. (Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3516, 75 U.N.T.S. 287, art. 28), therefore your blame is misapplied. Your concerns may come from a good heart but the terrorists count on "humanitarians" such as you, because for some reason you fail to see the difference between an arsonist and a firefighter. Let's just hope when you learn to see it, it won't be too late.

"Restricting the freedom of movement of entire communities is immoral. Refraining from these restrictions when there is unequivocal proof that this will lead to the murder of innocents is worse, because movement restricted can later be granted, while dead will never live again. Demolishing the homes of civilians merely because a family member has committed a crime is immoral. If, however,... potential suicide murderers... will refrain from killing out of fear that their mothers will become homeless, it would be immoral to leave the Palestinian mothers untouched in their homes while Israeli children die on their school buses. Accidentally killing noncombatants in the cross fire of battles being fought in the middle of cities is immoral, unless... refraining from fighting in the Palestinian cities inevitably means the Palestinians will use the safe havens of their cities to plan, prepare and launch ever more murderous attacks on Jewish noncombatants. These concrete examples and others like them demonstrate the moral considerations that Israelis... have been dealing with since the Palestinans proudly decided to use suicide murder as their primary weapon." ("Right to Exist: A Moral Defense of Israel's Wars", p.260) ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Honest Reporting

Just because of the name of the link - needs a description of what it is. (ie not "honest (implying impartial) reporting" but very significantly biased.

In your view. And your intepretation of the name of the site does not match its own. Regardless, putting a POV description on a site is also bias. Jayjg 23:56, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yet you feelo comfortable with - "Israeli Left-wing human rights organization: Human rights in Israel and the territories" - why is that different? Honest Reporting shoudl at leasty have inverted commas to show it's a name and not a wikipedia endorced description.

And you seem comfortable with "Zionist Terrorism" and "Palestine: the assault on health and other war crimes". Honest Reporting is the name of the group; does Misplaced Pages endorse these other descriptions? Jayjg 16:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actuaslly I'm not. The "assault on health" article (with the buyline from the BMJ) looks to point to a broken link. The "Zionist Terrorism" link is clearly slanted by POV but could probably do with a buyline - as many of the other links have.

Would it be a good idea to alphabetise the list?

Incidentally I am surprised that your responce to my "you seem happy with" comment is couched in the form of a comment on what I am happy with.

I am not the admin here. You are. You presumably represent Misplaced Pages editorial policy. I do not. Lets focus on the article - I appologise unreservedly if my comment was taken as a personal remark - I was refering to you in your official capacity and should have made this clear.

I'm just an editor like any other, though I do my best to ensure that Misplaced Pages policy is met. Jayjg 21:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - thought that would seem slightly disingenuous given the contexct of your earlier rebuke.

Not sure what you're getting at. Jayjg 00:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So - getting abck to the labels - do you honestly feel it is apporiate for a link labeled "Honest Reporting" to point to a lobbying site without comment?

It's a media watchdog, not a "lobbying site". Given that other sites appear to have labels, I'm sure some sort of reasonable label could be worked out. Jayjg 00:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - I have used the description of the site from their own home page. This seem reasonable to you?

It didn't tell you anything about the site; I've used "Pro-Israel media watchdog" instead. What do you think? Jayjg 00:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good call - now "zionist terrorism" - do we want to change that too? I'm really not comfotable with it either.

Actually, on reflection, I removed the link altogether, and the next one as well. They are media watchdog sites, not specifically on the topic of this article. If they have specific sub-pages on them dealing with the topic on this page, those subpages can be linked. Regarding the "Zionist terrorism" link, it's a poor quality propaganda site which hasn't been updated in months. I think you should just delete it. Jayjg 14:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NPOV - When is a terrorist?...

Contrast the start of the article on Israeli Terrorism:

"This article is about militant actions, which critics have termed terrorist, against Palestinians and others, by Jewish groups within the British Mandate of Palestine, and later, by Israelis. "

with that on Palestinian Terrorism:

"The term Palestinian terrorism is commonly used for terrorist acts committed by Palestinian citizens and Palestinian organizations against Israeli Jews, and occasionally against nationals of other countries."

Why is one "Militant Actions" only called terrorism by critics - whilst the other is "commonly used" seemingly by all and sundry for "terrorist acts"?

If we're trying to be a NPOV encyclopedia then this seem more than a little baised to me. Am I the only one who sees a difference in nuance here?

I suspect the difference has to do with deliberate targetting of civilians. Jayjg 23:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But I notice that the wikipedia definition of terrorism specifically includes: "The targets of terrorist acts can be government officials, military personnel, people serving the interests of governments, or civilians".

So I'd very much like to change this to reflect some internal consistency. Seems to me that we're imposing a bogus POV that "terrorism only means deliberate killing civillians" here. And we should be internally consistent please.

The Misplaced Pages terrorism article specifically states "It can also more specifically mean the calculated or threatened use of violence against civilian targets exclusively." Jayjg 17:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since the actions at Deir Yassin and those of Irgun both fall within the ambit of both the more specific and more general definition of terrorism (being deliberately targeted against civillians) are you happy that we now change the opening sentence to the more neutral:

"This article is about terrorist acts against Palestinians and others, by Jewish groups within the British Mandate of Palestine, and later, by Israelis."

Since we have agreed that acts described in the article are clearly terrorism according to both definitions.

Hi 62.252.0.9, I reverted your edit because, looking through the history, I see this intro has been stable for quite some time, meaning it has been agreed by a number of editors (with different POVs), and it's therefore best not to change it without reaching consensus on the talk page. On the whole, Misplaced Pages articles try not to make direct reference to the word "terrorism", and especially not in the introduction: usually the view is attributed to someone, as in "a terrorist act according to xxx." The exception would be where there was no ambiguity e.g. the clear and deliberate targeting of civilians. I see you've mentioned the Misplaced Pages definition of terrorism. We're not supposed to use Misplaced Pages articles as sources, simply because they might change at any minute. It's best to look elsewhere for definitions of terrorism e.g. the UN. Hope this helps. SlimVirgin 21:37, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry - looks like out edits overlappede - feel free to "revert" or chip in with an opinion. My appologies here.

www.dictionary.com

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm) n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

No disctinction between civillians and military targets. Clearly we are talking about terrorism here. (posted by 62.252.0.9)

Here's the definition I use, because it was worked out by two academics over many years and is used by the UN; it also distinguishes between the direct targets (message generators) and the main targets (the audience), which I see as a vital component of any act we might call "terrorist":

Terrorism is an anxiety inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by clandestine individual, group or state actors for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from the target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion or propaganda is primarily sought. (Schmid & Jongman, Political Terrorism, 1988) SlimVirgin 21:54, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

There are 100 definitions of terrorism; I prefer narrower ones, the broader ones tend to be meaningless. Jayjg 21:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This one's quite a good one, though, and is being increasingly used by academics and the United Nations. It rules out acts committed by governments, unless there's a clandestine aspect; and it has the importance element of publicity-seeking in it, where the actual victims are not the intended victims, but the audience is. SlimVirgin 22:01, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I was responding more to the dictionary.com version. Yours is excellent. Jayjg 22:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the point is that the terrorist could be targetting a strictly military turget and would still be titled as terrorism in the mainstream. I've always approached the definition of terrorism as Jayjg does (targetting of civilians), but I'm not entirely sure to what extent that counts as original reserach on my/our part. Intuitively, it sounds correct. El_C 22:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, as in Ireland with the IRA attacking British soldiers. To use a definition that involved only the targeting of civilians would mean those IRA acts would have to be called something else. Now, you might want to call them something else for other reasons, but that shouldn't be forced on you by a definition. The key, in my view, is the direct target/main target distinction, with victims as message generators, regardless of whether the target population is civilian or military; plus the element of clandestinism if that's a word. SlimVirgin 22:16, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

So - getting back to thye article - do any of us believe that the actions of Irgun pre 1948 do not consitiute "terrorism"?

As such is the weasel phrase "which critics have termed terrorist" justified in the opening to the article?

All of us - critics or not - would seem to agree that these actrions are terrorist. No?

The issue is not with the pre-1948 actions, but with the post-1948 actions. Jayjg 00:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See the post earlier about this should not become an Arab / Israeli debating forum. Do you think we should split it into two articles?

Not sure what you mean about "debating forum". I think the issue is with the post 1948 actions, not the pre-1948 actions, which (from a cursory glance) are clearly terrorism. I think it would be better to rename this Zionist terrorism, and delete the post 1948 stuff. Jayjg 00:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In the archive of this debate page there is a section "This is not a debate forum!" - makes some gfood points.

But to use that weasel phrase because some of the article does not comply with your "narrow" definition of terrorism whislt some parts of it clearly do I would venture to sugest is a decision you need to consider in the light of NPOV.

I am a bit concerned however that you seem to be controlling edits to a page on the basis of a "cursory glance" - can I ask you to read the whole page carefully please before reverting changes?

What exactly are you proposing, Anon? Also, do you mind signing your comment with anything identifiable (such as the letter "A") ? Jayjg makes a perfectly valid historical observation. Since the State of Israel did not exist pre-1948, it should be titled Zionist not Israeli terrorism.

Slim, the question is not whether an organization such as the IRA is called terrorist, but I was looking at it more situationally, as per the actual act. Should bombing of a British military outpost viz. a train station be considered terroist act? Arguably, yes, but I think myself and Jayjg, at the very least, are arguing is that it isn't the same yes. El_C 01:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What I am proposing is that we drop the phrase "which critics have termed terrorist" from the opening sentence. I actually agree that this would be better as two atricles. "Zionist terrorism" and "Israeli military actions involving civillians" - but if we keep it as one article inclusion of that phrase (which I would guess was inserted as an attempt cast doubt on whether the article about Israeli Terrorism actually talks about terrorism) does not seem appropriate since we all seem to agree that (at least in good part) we are definitely talking about what all people (critics or no) would call terrorism.

And you still didn't sign your comment, tsk tsk tsk. Well, we have to follow what the critical scholarship as well as the mainstream has to say on this or that, whether we agree with it or not (and, this article and general topic aside, I, myself, disagree with much of what they do say -- as uncritical and poor scholarship). I'm pleased you agree with Jayjg's proposal, which I support, for splitting the article. I don't find anything particularly problematic with the titles you suggest for the two articles, though I do think there is an article/s which already discuss the post-1948 period on that front. I'm going to drop Luke a note, I think this discussion can benefit from his participation. El_C 09:10, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you get yourself a login, so we can distinguish you from all the other people using that Guildford NTL IP address? It's easy, quick, and free. Jayjg 15:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

El C asked for my comment on this, and I generally concur with what's discussed above. Elements of violence by Israel tend not to have all or any of the characteristics commonly associated with terrorism. I think the biggest shortcoming of the article is that it doesn't cover the controversy and political evolution of the term "Israeli terrorism"; if the article is not about this, this list should be at "Israeli military actions involving civillians" as suggested above. I agree that pre-1948 violence should be under "Zionist terrorism". Cool Hand Luke 07:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So are we coming to a consensus here? Jayjg 17:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that we are. El_C 15:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Should there not be some mention of post-statehood terrorist groups not related to the Israeli state? Such as http://cfrterrorism.org/groups/kkc.html , for example. The "pre-statehood" and "state terrorism" sections give the impression the pre-statehood terrorists morphed into the state of israel, which isn't the case. Or, if this article is splitting into "Zionist terrorism" and "Israeli military actions involving civilians" (not sure if I understand the above consensus entirely), more modern Zionist groups should be included in the former.

Furthermore, "opponents of Israel do not recognize a distinction between the admitted deliberate killing of innocent civilians by Arab militant groups and the incidental killing of innocent civilians by Israel in pursuing military action against the militant groups." is still certainly not NPOV in any way. The entire sentence drips with disdain for "opponents of Israel", whether unintentionally or not. I'm an opponent of Israel (for the most part), and I certainly recognize a distinction and I expect many if not most "opponents of Israel" recognize at least some distinction. Condemning both as evil acts in their own way is not refusing to recognize a distinction. At least insert a "some" at the start of the sentence, or better yet, scrap the sentence altogether; I don't think it's even necessary at that point. --Jamieli 13:41, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mossad Operations

I am removing the modifier "alleged" wrt to Mossad operations as Mossad openly admits (and boasts about) its capture of so-called opponents of Israel such as Vanunu. Moreover, I am removing the modifier "militant" as Vanunu is again not a militant. Also, you don't need to be an "Opponent of Israel" to consider the kidnapping of Vanunu as a kidnapping.

I am reverting your changes, Anon, and will continue to do so until you provide a verifiable source for the passage's claim that what is depicted as an allegation is an historical fact. El_C 08:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not difficult to check the Mordechai Vanunu article. These are not "allegations", but well-known facts. - Mustafaa 08:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not disputing nor commenting on that, I just think that such open boasting can and should be sourced. No? El_C 09:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How's this for a start? . - Mustafaa 09:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

""we managed to track him down, establish contact with him, and bring him to Israel in the end," a former top Mossad official who was involved in Mordechai Vanunu's capture, recalled this week... After they flew to Rome, and entered the apartment, two Mossad agents pounced on Vanunu, tied his hands, and injected him with a drug. He was then brought back to Israel by boat."

It's fine, for a start, I suppose, except the link does not work, and I don't know if that qualifies as boasting, which was my contention – not your abovecited passage whose contents I was already familliar with. El_C 09:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Boasting" isn't mentioned in the article, fortunately, so we don't need to argue the word's semantics. The Haaretz link works for me, oddly; it's from the bottom of the Vanunu article. - Mustafaa 09:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh! That's right. I mistook the comment on talk with the edit made in the article. Sorry about that. Of course, I have no intention of arguing the semantics now that I realize it was limited to talk. Yes, that works for me, too, except the link dosen't seem to work correctly at the moment. El_C 10:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) Correction: Hmm, it does works in IE for me but not FF. Strange. El_C 10:23, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)