Talk:Yitzhak Shamir

Terrorism?

The first paragraph says he was a leader of Lehi (militant group). The article for that group says it is a terrorist organisation, and the categories of that article say much the same. Would it be unfair to thus call it a terrorist group here on this article, rather than a "militant group"? Calling it a "militant group" sounds like it's being sugarcoated. 675930s (talk) 11:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The article already references the term terrorism with regards to Lehi, and the group itself openly referred to its members as terrorists committing terror acts, so no, it would not be unfair. The Lehi article calls it a 'paramilitary and terrorist organization', which could be contracted to 'paramilitary terrorist group'. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I removed the terrorist phrase. The articles for Michael Collins, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Abu Nidal, Ahmed Yassin, Osama Bin Laden, etc. don't directly use the word "terrorist" to refer to these people, despite them all being responsible for terrorist attacks. I also question the relevance of the Lehi article's description as a terror movement when the pages for ISIL, Hamas, Red Army Faction, IMRO, Hezbollah, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and many more don't follow the same pattern. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 01:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Lehi's rather exceptional situation is that its members referred to themselves as 'terrorists' in addition to being labelled as such. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Terrorism had a different definition in the past. The Jacobins called themselves terrorists, by that standard, should our article on them call them terrorists too? Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 21:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

They are known for presiding over a "Reign of Terror", yes, and some modern sources certainly toy with the idea of whether they could have that label. Obviously the values of connotations of words change with time, though I think in the case of 'terrorist', the meaning has not changed all that much. However, the Jacobins were of a different era of history altogether, the tail end of the early modern period (a full two centuries back) vs our later modern/ contemporary. Lehi were modern, post-WWII and I see little semantic shift since then. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The meaning of "terrorist" at the time of Lehi was practically identical to its meaning now. There is absolutely no doubt that a group today which does the same sort of things as Lehi did would be called terrorist. Zero^talk 03:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes but the Narodnaya Volya secret society also called themselves terrorists, and were such by every definition of the word. Yet the article on Józef Piłsudski, who was himself a member and was sent to Siberia for his involvement. (BTW- It were these Polish and Russian terrorist organizations Lehi was explicitly involved by.)

Yet the article for Piłsudski never calls hims a terrorist, indeed the word "terrorist" only appears once, in a reference to the OUN. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 01:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Dunutubble: Yes, but Piłsudski was only with that organization for two years before his arrest for plotting. Not clear he actually did anything. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Yitzhak Shamir and Poland

@GizzyCatBella Hello again friend!

Yes, Yitzhak Shamir was Prime Minister for over 6 years so of course he said a lot of stuff. However these words were very controversial in Poland in the 90s and are still periodically quoted both in Poland and Israel. You suggest me to create a new article about it, but really it would only be an obscure stub and I don't think that would be helpful. I find this clarification welcome for Polish/Israeli readers as a lot has been distorted around the subject as a whole; the many articles about the history of Polish Jews, Poland during WW2 being protected on here attest to this.

The original interview was far longer, I only picked the most important paragraph in my opinion. Could you please clarify why you don't find this useful to be mentioned? Synotia (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Wow, you removed any mentioned of it! Although in Poland he is largely remembered for this specifically... Synotia (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

This isn’t Polish Wikipedia. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I knew you would say this :) however I fail to see how this is a valid argument for removing an entire section about an event that caused a diplomatic spat between two countries from being covered in the language of diplomacy? Synotia (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

References

I think it is worth 1 sentence. No more, no less. Zero^talk 05:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Zero0000 Adjust please if you think it’s worth it. I’m okay with 1 sentence - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Why? Is there such a lack of space? With one sentence one can make all sorts of hasty conclusions. GizzyCatBella says this is not Polish Wikipedia, I'll say that Wikipedia is not Twitter :-)

Unless you also wish to turn it into a small separate stub or something? Synotia (talk) 08:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Synotia It’s called WP:UNDUE - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think WP:UNDUE applies in this situation.

From what I understand, WP:UNDUE is to prevent viewpoints from having more weight in the article than they have in the actual world.

to prevent half the article about Planet Earth from being about the Flat Earth Society's points of view, as similarly illustrated over there.

What we have here instead is,rather, a controversial quote, with a response by Michnik (editor of a prominent newspaper) illustrating the common feeling among the Polish people regarding this statement coupled with the concept of Western betrayal (recurring in Polish discourse), and a short quote of Shamir clarifying what he said. All this rich, eye-opening assortment would fit within less than one tenth of the article's words. Is it that much? Was the policy established for such cases? I'm not sure about that.

I don't think this is undue weight as it still influences Polish perception on Israel (and by extent Jews). Even more than two decades later a whole Visegrad meeting was canceled all because an Israeli minister repeated that famous string of words, causing again debate around these very words. Going back on your old comment: while Polish is the language of Poland, English is the language of diplomacy, and therefore I absolutely think this matter of diplomacy is worth mentioning on the English Wikipedia. Synotia (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Right now the majority (2 out of 3) say --> 1 sentence. No more, no less. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

What a consensus!

I've moved hands and feet to explain my point of view to you, and what I get in return is a government clerk response! Such reverting without elaboration is absolutely puzzling. What are talk pages for? Synotia (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Without weighing in on the other issues at hand here, a published award receipt speech by a member of the media (the Michnik piece) is a lot more akin to a reprinted opinion piece than anything else - it clearly does not fall under the usual category of editorially vetted secondary analysis. Simple reprinting is also not really reliable coverage. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, could you please show me a guideline that points to this? Synotia (talk) 13:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

It states that it is a reprinted speech, so it's clearly not a normal piece of editorial. I'm not sure what you want a guideline to tell you. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I meant: something about what is relevant secondary analysis and what is not Synotia (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Well if it's not editorial, it's opinion, so it becomes a question of how much weight to give an opinion in someone else's biography. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah now I understand. Well I've already covered that here above. Synotia (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Terror?

Lehi was not a terror organization 2A02:6680:1102:247D:BCFE:500D:BDA0:B213 (talk) 08:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Lehi was a Zionist paramilitary organization that operated in the British Mandate of Palestine between 1940 and 1948. While the group is often accused of carrying out "terrorist" attacks against British and Arab targets during this period, this characterization is not entirely accurate.

For starters, Lehi was founded on the basis of a coherent ideology of Jewish nationalism, rather than on the desire to cause chaos and destruction. Additionally, the violence perpetrated by Lehi was not indiscriminate. The group targeted specific individuals and institutions that they saw as legitimate targets in their struggle for independence, such as British military and government installations. They did not engage in the deliberate targeting of civilians, which is a hallmark of terrorist organizations.

It is also worth noting that Lehi was not the only group in Palestine engaging in violent resistance against the British Mandate. Groups such as the Haganah and Irgun also engaged in attacks against British targets, but are not typically labeled as terrorist organizations. This raises questions about why Lehi specifically is targeted with this label.

Additionally while it is true that members of Lehi referred to themselves as "terrorists," this was not necessarily meant in the same way that the term is commonly used today.During the time that Lehi was active, the term "terrorist" had a different meaning and was often used to describe those who engaged in political violence for a specific cause. In this context, members of Lehi may have referred to themselves as "terrorists" to signify their commitment to the cause of Jewish independence and their willingness to use force to achieve it.

Furthermore, while Lehi did engage in violent attacks against British and Arab targets, they did not necessarily consider these attacks to be acts of terror. The group saw themselves as engaged in a legitimate struggle for Jewish independence and believed that their actions were necessary to achieve their goals.

Overall, while it is true that Lehi engaged in violence during their struggle for Jewish statehood in Palestine, it is not entirely accurate to label them as a terror organization. While their actions may have been controversial they were driven by a complex political context and a strong ideological vision. Thus the Lehi should be classified as a paramilitary group. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Round and round we go. Lehi literally called its own members terrorists and admitted to carrying out terror attacks with the express intention of causing terror. They were engaged in bombings, civilian massacres and the assassination of UN diplomat. This has been discussed many times, but no amount of rhetorical equivocation is going to wipe away the indelible violent history. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing up this point. While it is true that members of Lehi referred to themselves as "terrorists" and engaged in violent attacks against British and Arab targets, it is important to consider the context in which these actions took place.

It is true that Lehi carried out attacks that resulted in the deaths of civilians and diplomatic personnel. However, it is important to consider the political and social context in which these actions took place, as well as the motivations and ideologies of the individuals involved.

It is worth noting that the group was founded on a specific ideology of Jewish nationalism and was engaged in a struggle for independence in a highly contested and politically charged region. Additionally, it is worth considering the fact that other groups, such as the Haganah and Irgun, also engaged in violent actions against British targets, but are not typically labeled as terrorist organizations.

In any case, it is important to approach this topic with sensitivity and an understanding of the complex historical and political factors at play. While the actions of Lehi are certainly controversial, it is important to avoid demonizing or oversimplifying the issue. Thus calling them a terrorist organisation is inappropriate. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The same sort of stuff can be written about lots of historical terrorists groups. They engaged in terrorism so they were terrorists, no amount of playing with words can change that basic fact. Zero^talk 12:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

It is illogical to insist on labeling groups like Lehi as terrorists simply because of their violent actions. Such simplistic and one-dimensional thinking ignores the complex historical and political context in which these actions took place. Lehi was founded on a specific ideology of Jewish nationalism and was engaged in a struggle for independence in a highly contested region. Moreover, other groups like the Haganah and Irgun also engaged in violent actions against British targets, yet they are not typically labeled as terrorist organizations.

The label "terrorism" is often contested and lacks a clear definition, with political ideology and cultural bias playing a major role in its usage. Simply branding the Lehi as a "terrorist organization" based solely on their actions ignores the bigger picture and risks oversimplifying and misunderstanding complex historical and political realities. I still maintain that calling them a terrorist organisation is inappropriate. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

To those who allege that I am "playing with words" or my arguments are "rhetorical equivocation":

As an active participant in discussions surrounding the contentious topic of classifying a group as a "terrorist organization," I recognize the importance of approaching such debates with a nuanced and historically-informed perspective. It is essential that we pay careful attention to the language and phrasing used in these discussions, as they are a fundamental aspect of accurately conveying the complexity of the matter at hand.

It is therefore misguided and unconstructive to dismiss my contributions as mere "playing with words," as such a statement not only diminishes the thoughtfulness and care with which I approach these discussions, but also belies the complex nature of the subject matter at hand. As a conscientious contributor to this page, I take great pains to ensure that my contributions are factually accurate and objectively representative of the historical and political realities of the topic being discussed.

Moreover, the use of the term "terrorism" is not a straightforward or universally accepted label, as it is influenced by a myriad of subjective political, cultural, and historical factors. As such, to trivialize the importance of carefully considering language and phrasing when discussing issues related to terrorism is to overlook the vital role that language plays in accurately conveying the nuances and complexities of these matters.

To approach discussions regarding the classification of a group as a "terrorist organization" with sensitivity and historical context is crucial, as doing so allows for a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the historical events and political realities at play. It is only through an objective and thoughtful analysis of such issues that we can arrive at a more accurate and informed understanding of the Lehi and its activities.

As an aside, the phrase "rhetorical equivocation" is engaging in its own form of rhetorical equivocation by playing with words and meaning! Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Additionally It is crucial to maintain consistency in the language used to describe organizations on Wikipedia. This ensures that readers can trust the accuracy and impartiality of the information provided. To achieve this consistency, we must look to the lead section of relevant pages as a guide for the appropriate terminology.

In the case of Lehi, it is worth noting that the lead section of its Wikipedia page does not explicitly refer to the group as a terrorist organization. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to refer to Lehi as a terrorist organization on this page or any other page on Wikipedia.

Maintaining consistency in our language choices is essential to uphold the integrity of the information we provide on Wikipedia. By avoiding potentially inflammatory terms and using neutral language, we can ensure that our content remains objective and unbiased. Calling them a terrorist organisation is inappropriate ! Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Irgun is also routinely called a terrorist organisation. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

In fact, both Lehi and Irgun were routinely called terrorist by the mainstream Yishuv organizations. Zero^talk 03:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Zero0000

It behooves us to acknowledge that the perception of the Irgun and Lehi as terrorist organizations was not all-encompassing within the Yishuv. While it may be accurate that certain groups within the Yishuv rebuked their tactics, others regarded them as legitimate resistance movements, contending for Jewish self-determination.

Furthermore, the tagging of the Irgun and Lehi as "terrorist" was frequently influenced by political interests, as various factions within the Yishuv had distinct views on the most effective ways to accomplish their goals. While some believed armed resistance to be a necessary means, others preferred diplomatic and negotiation tactics. Therefore, it is imperative that we recognize the multifaceted nature of the political landscape at that time and refrain from relying solely on labels that were affixed by particular groups or individuals. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 03:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323

While some people view the Irgun as a terrorist organization, it is not accurate to say that this view is held by the majority. Most scholars and historians view the Irgun as a paramilitary organization that engaged in violent acts in pursuit of its political goals. They argue that the group's actions were consistent with the tactics employed by other nationalist and anti-colonial movements of the time. In this view, the Irgun's activities were part of a larger struggle for independence and self-determination.

Furthermore, the Irgun was not officially designated as a terrorist organization by any government or international organization during its existence. While some individuals and groups may have condemned the group's actions as terrorism, this does not necessarily reflect the views of the wider public or the academic community.

Note that the lead paragraph of the Irgun's wikipedia page mentions it to be a "Zionist paramilitary organization", and the view that it was a terror organization, although mentioned, is not included in the primary description of the organization. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 03:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Most scholars and historians view the Irgun as a paramilitary organization that engaged in violent acts in pursuit of its political goals What are the sources reviewed in order to reach this conclusion? Selfstudier (talk) 09:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

There are many:

1. Britannica: "Irgun Zvai Leumi" (n.d.). In Encyclopædia Britannica online. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Irgun-Zvai-Leumi
2. World Affairs Council of Houston: "The Israel-Palestine Conflict" (n.d.). In Educator Resources. Retrieved from https://wachouston.org/educator-resources/the-israel-palestine-conflict/
3. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum: "Portrait of Zev Jabotinsky" (n.d.). In Collections Search. Retrieved from https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa1044273
4. Israel Hayom: "Former MK Geula Cohen, right-wing icon, dies" (2019, December 19). In News. Retrieved from https://www.israelhayom.com/2019/12/19/former-mk-geula-cohen-right-wing-icon-dies/
5. The Jerusalem Post: "Opinion: The odd couple – America and the Middle East" (2021, January 27). In Opinion. Retrieved from https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-731154
6. Jewish Virtual Library: "Background and Overview of the Irgun (Etzel)" (n.d.). In Jewish Virtual Library. Retrieved from https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/background-and-overview-of-the-irgun-etzel

Note that the cited sources are a diverse group of websites and organiztions that provide reliable information on the topic. Encyclopædia Britannica is a well-known and respected encyclopedia that provides factual and scholarly information. The World Affairs Council of Houston is a non-profit organization that aims to educate the public on global issues, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is a respected institution dedicated to remembering the Holocaust and educating the public about its history. Israel Hayom is a popular Israeli newspaper that provides news and opinion pieces on current events. The Jerusalem Post is another respected Israeli newspaper that provides news and opinion pieces on current events. Finally, the Jewish Virtual Library is a reputable online encyclopedia that provides information on Jewish history and culture. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Britannica: "Irgun committed acts of terrorism"; WAC: "Terrorist attacks against the British were carried out by both Palestinian and Jewish nationalists; most famous among these was the 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel by Irgun"; USHMM: that page is not about this Irgun; Newspaper opinion columns don't count; JVL is a partisan unreliable source. Overall it is hard to see your point. Committing "violent acts in pursuit of its political goals" is what terrorist groups do. Zero^talk 05:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Here are (1) public statement by the Jewish Provisional Government 6 months before independence; (2) Declaration of Lehi as a terrorist organization by the Israeli government 4 months after independence. Zero^talk 05:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

BTW, Geulah Cohen' autobiography is called: Woman of Violence: Memoirs of a Young Terrorist, 1943-1948, cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)