Talk:Israel and state-sponsored terrorism

Neutral point of view

This article is a long list of everything Israel has ever been accused of, mashed together in a big list that reads as a piece that is supposed to outline why Israel is bad.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 19:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Amberrock: The type of this article isn't rare. you can see similar articles such as USA, Qatar, Soviet Union, Pakistan, Iran and Russia. Also, I didn't speak about facts I just gathered a list of existing accusations in another articles.Homiho (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Meh, the intro needs to be paraphrased. But there's nothing here that is not a neutral point of view Makeandtoss (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: Why should the intro be paraphrased?Homiho (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Uses an unprofessional tone. Also lead should summarize the info in article in accordance with their level of coverage and importance.Makeandtoss (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I should have used "rewritten" instead of "paraphrased" my bad..Makeandtoss (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This needs a thorough rewrite. In places it is not coherent. If we are to have such an article, the standard needs to be MUCH higher than this. Edwardx (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

This article consists mainly of someone copying parts of the lead from various existing articles about various incidents Israel may or may not have been involved in. There is no source connecting all the incidents to each other or saying they consist of state sponsored terrorism. The lead is just a bunch of OR and doesn't even pretend to summarize the body of the article. This article should be deleted. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the other articles that Homiho mentioned about state-sponsored terrorism in the USA, Qatar, Soviet Union, Pakistan, Iran and Russia. The difference between this and the other articles is the tone. This article is riddled with "proofs" garnered from hints, theories, unnamed sources, and accusations by Israel's enemies. It is a dumping ground for every anti-Israel accusation ever printed. If this isn't taken to AFD, it is a candidate for blow it up and start over. Yoninah (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Ding! I'm deleting the "X alleges". --Monochrome_Monitor 16:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I cut out all of the stuff that was a dumping ground for every dictator that has called israel a terrorist state.Those are accusations of state terrorism, not state-sponsored terrorism. @No More Mr Nice Guy: @Yoninah: please check this out.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Why in the world would you remove the passage concerning the illegal massacre perpetrated by Israel on the Gaza flotilla raid? This fits the precise criteria for a terrorist attack. From a precursory glance, it seems to me that your primary intent was to whitewash Israel's acts of terrorism. I may be wrong, but could a neutral observer please double check if this user was justified in concealing a plethora of apparently relevant convictions? 173.80.216.66 (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor: I reverted your edits. Please explain about your edits step by step to reach an agreement.Homiho (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong annony. The UN ruled the blockade is legal. It's a fringe position to call its enforcement "terrorism". My explanation is that this article includes tons of examples that aren't of state-sponsored terrorism, they are of state terrorism, which is too marginal for wikipedia. The tone is terrible, and overall this article was and now is a huge disaster. I'm not the only one who pointed this out. @No More Mr Nice Guy: @Amberrock: @Yoninah: They did too... but they haven't heard my pings. UGH.--Monochrome_Monitor 06:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with MM. Moreover, per ONUS it's the responsibility of those who want to include to gain consensus. I see now that most of this horrible article is the work of one person, the same person who is now objecting to the removal. The lead is an essay unrelated to the body of the article. Most of the rest is OR. This article should be deleted. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed - this article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Either trim it right back or delete it altogether. Edwardx (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, this article is in line with the other articles on state terrorism. The only difference I can ascertain is the religion of the accused and accusers. It seems that popular opinion unfairly dictates that terrorism accusations made by heads of states who are not American or Christian (e.g. Saudi, Turkish, Jordanian) carry far less weight than those coming from American Christians. On the other hand, I concede that the article could use some copyediting for grammar as well as some responses by the Israeli government to each of these incidents in order to balance the neutrality. 173.80.216.66 (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

"This article is in line with the other articles on state terrorism". Thats exactly the probably. It's not state terrorism. It's called state-sponsored terrorism, and yes, there is a difference. Pretty much every nation that's been around the block has sponsored terrorists, including Israel, notably against Iran. State terrorism is different. Examples of state terrorism should be removed from this page. That's what I did.--Monochrome_Monitor 01:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• The lead is decidedly non-neutral in that a small group of Arab and Muslim states are presented as something more than that. We should state specific countries (and when), and not use weasel words. Furthermore, we are presenting various FRINGE or minority views regarding the Baghdad bombings (made by tue Iraqi regime) or the Sunni rebels in Syria (whom most of the world do not regard as "terrorist", the Baathist regime in Syria being the exception to the rule along with Iran). Icewhiz (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a bit of a tangent but Al-Nusra Front/Tahrir al-Sham are generally considered to be much more terrorist than rebel, and are designated as such by pretty much every country and international body. The statement "the Sunni rebels in Syria (whom most of the world do not regard as "terrorist", the Baathist regime in Syria being the exception to the rule along with Iran” is wrong on multiple levels, in addition to making a mockery of Neutral point of view. Yikes level 100. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

even if they are, providing medical aid to persons injured on the battlefield is not only NOT support for terrorism, but is an obligation under the laws of war. Attack Ramon (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

This is the weirdest argument I’ve ever heard here... Of course medical support is support, its in the name. Israel is not an official party to the conflict and thus has no obligation under the laws of war. UN says they’re some of the worst terrorists on the planet right now, see: www.un.org/press/en/2018/sc13365.doc.htm, www.csis.org/programs/transnational-threats-project/terrorism-backgrounders/hayat-tahrir-al-sham-hts, and www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2018/05/282880.htm. I have zero patience for terrorist apologists no matter what their persuasion is so cut it out. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

So, just to make this crystal clear: You're of the opinion that if a terrorist chops off the head of, say, 2 British civilians, is then shot by UK police and is hospitalized, then the UK can be reasonably said to be a state supporter of terrorism? What you wrote above is idiotic nonsense, and a personal attack, to boot. Attack Ramon (talk)

Israel is not part of the war in Syria and it's hospitalizing terrorists to go kill innocent civilians and children in Syria. The example you gave is ridiculous.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The example I gave is one where the UK is hospitalizing a terrorist. According to what you wrote above, if it's Israel doing that, then it is state support for terrorism. I'm glad my example has shown you how ridiculous your line of thinking is. Attack Ramon (talk)

It is not only medical care Israel provides terrorists but also weaponry. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

And you will note I left the part about weapons transfer in the article. What I object to is the nonsense that providing medial help to injured people, who may or may not be terrorists, is "state support for terrorism". Attack Ramon (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is all very nice. But this article isn't about "Israel and terror groups". It is about "Israel and state-sponsored terrorism". Please provide sources that explicitly call aid to Syrian civilians and local militia "state-sponsored terrorism". Combining two separate statements (Nusra is terror + Israel may have aided Nusra) - is SYNTH in this regard. Icewhiz (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

al-Nusra being a terrorist group is a well-known fact Israel may aided al-Nusra is reported in the sources and also there is mention of the groups being terrorist groups the discussions above seems like white washing to me--SharabSalam (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

A quote please. A quote from a RS explicitly calling Israeli aid to Syrians "state-sponsored terrorism". Icewhiz (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

If the British government transported members of a UN listed terrorist organization injured in combat agains the Syrian government to Manchester for treatment before transporting them back to Syria then yes that would be state support for that terror origination. There is no contention that these terrorists were injured in combat with IDF forces, if you wish to assert so please provide a source. WP:RS for Israeli support of Al-Nusra is easy to find, see “Israel is helping terrorist groups in Syria including al-Qaida splinter group al-Nusra, Syrian Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Council Hussam Edin Aala charged in Geneva on Monday as he condemned the Israeli Air Force strike last Friday against military targets in his country." www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Syrian-UNHRC-envoy-Israel-aiding-al-Qaida-linked-terrorists-484676, here is some in-depth coverage warontherocks.com/2018/02/israels-deepening-involvement-syrias-rebels/, and heres the WSJ just to round things out www.wsj.com/articles/israel-gives-secret-aid-to-syrian-rebels-1497813430. Not all rebel groups Israel supports in Syria are terrorists, but Al-Nusra/Hayat Tahrir al-Sham most certainly is, neither that or the fact that Israel has provided direct material support to Al-Nusra/Hayat Tahrir al-Sham appears to be under contention in any of the sources that have been provided so far. If you feel that these sources present a distorted view of the situation please feel free to include a few you find authoritative. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that Israel transported them from Syria into Israel for treatment? Attack Ramon (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you being serious? Israel has the best border security of any nation on earth bar none, terrorists cant teleport, and everyone agrees that the treatment happens *inside* Israel. Besides the sources already included in the text and this discussion theres the assertions of Efraim Halevy www.aljazeera.com/programmes/upfront/2016/05/mossad-head-israel-medical-aid-al-nusra-front-160531081744269.html. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't understand what the word "transport" means. These people showed up at the Israeli border, on their own power, Israel did not transport them from Syria. Attack Ramon (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

If Israel didn't transport them how did they get from the Syrian side of the border to the hospitals in Israel? You appear to be arguing absurd semantics rather than addressing the WP:RS. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Helping a group is not sponsoring actions, and this is an allegation by a Syrian Ambassador. At best, we can attribute this claim to the Syrian regime. Some of the sources you are citing - e.g. warontherocks - don't even contain the word "terror" or "terrorism" - describing rebels instead. Icewhiz (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

All the groups are rebel groups, but not all the rebel groups are terror groups. Many journalists choose not to use the word terrorist because its subjective, as has been addressed ad nauseam in Wikipedia talk sections. As we continue our conversation lets avoid the the word “regime,” it sets of NPV radars no matter what government its being used to refer to. I think as editors we should use the UN’s terror group list however imperfect it is (for all security council members can agree a group is a terror group it has to be incredibly violent). On what basis do you consider Al-Nusra/Hayat Tahrir al-Sham to not be a terror group? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Also seems we have a question about what “sponsor” means... A sponsor is someone/some group that pays for part or all of the costs of something, any material support (including medical and non-combat support) counts as sponsorship. They don’t have to be footing the whole bill, by your argument Iran doesn't sponsor Hezbollah because less than half of Hezbollah’s funds come from Iran. Thats ridiculous, sponsorship is sponsorship. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Mainstream RSes routinely refer to the Syrian regime in the civil war. My personal opinion of al-Nusra (and which local Golan militia was assocciated with them) doesn't matter - that would be WP:OR - as is your wall of text above. Please provide RSes saying Israel sponsored terrorism in this regard (most sources I see refer to a civil war and ethnic cleansing by the Syrian regime - not terrorism). To date - you have presented a single source which can be used for an attributed stmy by the Syrian ambassador to a UN body. Sources please.Icewhiz (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thats not how this works, those claims have been properly sourced on the page this whole time. If you have an issue with the WSJ article or the Haaretz article or the IB Times article (as much as I dislike the IBT...) you need to say so. So far there has been no factual challenge to those sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Those sources support poasible aid to Syrian rebels - not support for terrorism. Use here (other than background) - is SYNTH.Icewhiz (talk) 05:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

All three pieces specify that Al-Nusra is among those rebels. If Israel gives material support to Al-Nusra thats state sponsorship of terror and belongs here, your demand that the source literally say “Israel is a state sponsor of terror” is ridiculous and a higher standard than has ever been applied to sources on wikipedia. All that needs to be said is “Israel has provided support to Al-Nusra,” if you want to find a WP:RS to support your original argument that Al-Nusra/Hayat Tahrir al-Sham is not a terror group or recognized as such by states other than Syria and Iran you’re welcome too. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH - which is what you did above and we avoid. Unless you have a source saying this - it stays out.Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam Stop removing tags if you don't understand the underlying issue. Are you aware that this entire discussion is about POV issues in the article? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920 the issue is not about a POV and this discussion was closed long time ago. You are not aware of what this discussion about. It's about whether the inclusion of Israel supporting al-Nusra is WP:SYNTH or not which is not related to the point of view and yet no explanation from you why you tagged this article with POV tag--SharabSalam (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Read Template:POV (when to use) then explain why you tagged this article with POV tag .--SharabSalam (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: When Icewhiz says The lead is decidedly non-neutral in that a small group of Arab and Muslim states are presented as something more than that., that's called raising a POV issue, and it's one which I agree with completely. NPOV which means representing the views of all secondary sources on a subject and not giving undue weight to any of them. By citing views to primary sources and placing them in the lead, we are giving them undue weight and violating NPOV. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, the above discussion on NPOV was not closed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

What's "more than that"? And didn't Icewhiz just changed the lead? Should we add more content to the lead? Yet that's not a good reason for the POV tag seems like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and yes the old discussion was closed the current discussion which you referred to in your edit summary is about al-Nusra inclusion.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Closure does not mean some time has passed. A lead being unbalanced towards certain views very much indicates a POV issue, but I'll apply the due weight tag since that one seems more specific. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I apologize, I took us down the tangent of 'Wait you guys don’t think Al-Nusra are terrorists?’ by responding to Icewiz with: "This is a bit of a tangent but Al-Nusra Front/Tahrir al-Sham are generally considered to be much more terrorist than rebel, and are designated as such by pretty much every country and international body. The statement "the Sunni rebels in Syria (whom most of the world do not regard as "terrorist", the Baathist regime in Syria being the exception to the rule along with Iran” is wrong on multiple levels, in addition to making a mockery of Neutral point of view. Yikes level 100.” Since then the entire discussion has been about whether Israel’s support of Al-Nusra counts as state sponsored terrorism. Whether or not Israel sponsors terrorism in general isn’t being debated here, if editors genuinely believed that they would have nominated the article for deletion. There are numerous sources throughout the page that cover the general question “Is Israel a state sponsor of terror?” see www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/israel-and-proxy-terrorism/252971/ and www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/how-terrorism-becomes-entirely-defensible/. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Israel and state-sponsored terrorism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israeli-mossad-agents-posed-as-cia-spies-to-recruit-terrorists-to-fight-against-iran-1.407224
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090314053000/http://www.babylonjewry.org.il/new/english/whats.htm to http://www.babylonjewry.org.il/new/english/whats.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Bolivia declared Israel as a terrorist state

In 2014 the Bolivian president declared Israel as a terrorist state after the bombing of Gaza. Is this relevant to this article? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/07/30/bolivia-israel-terrorist-state/13384989/ --SharabSalam (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Seems like mostly talk by a politician, and more importantly criticism of actions in a war - as opposed to covert acs of terror.Icewhiz (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

His opinions are not relevant, this was not the official stance of the Bolivian Ministry of Foreign Affairs but rather the personal beliefs of a politician. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 18:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Source misrepresentation

The following - The assertion that Israel is a state sponsor of terrorism has also been made in the American press in both left and right publications. In addition writers such as Johnathan Tobin have defended Israel’s right to ally with any group it wants to regardless of terror designation. was added to the lede. Beyond weasel attribution and use of opeds, the cited sources do not support the text. Specifically, Tobin indeed supported Israel's right to ally with whomever. This view of Tobin was criticized by Larison. Larison and Tobin's opeds were then commented on by the Atlantic. None of the two sources makes an assertion that "Israel is a state sponsor of terrorism".Icewhiz (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Don’t they? "In other words, Israeli state sponsorship of a terrorist group is acceptable because it’s in a good cause.” I'm also still waiting for you to give a WP:RS for your assertion that only Syria and Iran consider Al-Nusra/Hayat Tahrir al-Sham to be a terror group. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

You also misrepresent the sources, all three are commenting on an NBC report. Just take the opening lines of the Atlantic piece "Should Israel be classified as a state sponsor of terrorism? That question is being debated in the wake of a story that NBC News broke late last week.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

You should refer to the source/subject in this talk page heading and not use the word "misrepresentation." I agree with you, but that's WP:TPG. That said, this statement shouldn't be linked to an op-ed anyway. Frankly, I believe this article should be subject to AfD nom. It's based on a bunch of thinly sourced statements strung together to emphasize an implied connection. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The broader issue is source misuse. Claims about Israeli participation in "state-sponsored terrorism" require citations to SECONDARY sources, not PRIMARY sources like press releases, statements by governments, and op-eds. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The Atlantic piece is a full article in a WP:RS not an op-ed. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

While preferably we would have the NBC piece itself I cant find it and the link to it on the page takes me to the MSN homepage not the article. Why does "Citing unnamed US officials, NBC reported that Israel has used an Iranian opposition group to carry out those much-publicized assassinations of Iranian scientists. The group in question is the M.E.K. (Mojahedin-e Khalq, or People's Mujahedin of Iran), which since 1997 has been designated a terrorist group by the United States because of its alleged assassinations of US citizens.” from the Atlantic not suffice? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

And MEK is no longer a US designated org. The Atlantic article does not support the text you affixed to it. It discusses Tobin's and Larison's viewpoints and does not make a factual assertion - it poses a question - with a question mark. It does not make an assertion - it asks a question on attributed reporting (i.e. even possible use of MEK is according to anonymous sources). Misrepresenting sources is a rather big deal on Wikipedia.Icewhiz (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

If we needed 100% positive attribution there would be almost no articles on either terrorism or espionage on WP... Op-Eds also fall under “made in the American press” it doesn't say "made by the American press” as you seem to think it does. I don’t really have the stomach to be lectured on source misrepresentation by someone who wrote "Furthermore, we are presenting various FRINGE or minority views regarding the Baghdad bombings (made by tue Iraqi regime) or the Sunni rebels in Syria (whom most of the world do not regard as "terrorist", the Baathist regime in Syria being the exception to the rule along with Iran).” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920 I wouldn’t be unsupportive of putting all “_______ and state-sponsored terrorism” articles up for AfD as a block because I’m sympathetic to the argument that the format is inherently WP:SYNTH but to single just one article out for deletion when the issue is with the category not the individual article seams like a weak argument. Iran and state-sponsored terrorism, Pakistan and state-sponsored terrorism, Qatar and state-sponsored terrorism, United Arab Emirates and state-sponsored terrorism, and United States and state-sponsored terrorism are the ones listed at Category:State-sponsored terrorism but there may be more. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way about mainstream views on the Baathist regime's widespread killing. However, your editing here is misrepresenting sources. Larison says nothing on what Israel may or may not have done - he merely attacks Tobin's view that such an action would be defensible. This article is not about Tobin's views, and if we use an oped from commentarymagazine (described as "press in the right" in the edit) - we represent the cited piece accurately or not at all.Icewhiz (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The source describes as "press in the right” in the edit is the American Conservative not Commentary (magazine). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Change opening statement to a resume of the article:

Ok the opening statement could be changed to a few facts instead of a call to authority from one time speech of a few dictators. Maybe put the list of countries who have Israel as a "terrorist State" and which countries have not? That would a bit more factual.

Also. let's be a bit rigorous here. The opening statement is just political statements from leaders of dictatorships; that's a sophism, a call to authority, an argumentum ad potentiam, (of dictators, no less) and such thing has no place in an encyclopedia; especially not in the opening statement of an article.

In the first sentence, all the countries mean Israel is doing state terrorism and not that Israel is a "state sponsor of terrorism". Using an army to bomb different places is not the definition of state sponsor of terrorism. It could however be the definition of state terrorism if it is targetted solely on civilians to instill fear. State sponsor of terrorism is the funding of subnational or clandestine groups that do international terrorism.

According to US law, to be a state-sponsor of terrorism, Israel needs to : repeatedly provide support for acts of international terrorism.

And what is international terrorism : premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents (terrorism) involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country (international terrorism) (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/R43835.pdf)

So state sponsor of terrorism is : a state which repeatedly provides support for premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents (terrorism) involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country (international terrorism) (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/R43835.pdf)

So anything related to state terrorism should be put in another page called state terrorism in Israel.

Completely agree, you will find however that there are those who don’t want us to cover statements from sources other than less than democratic countries. See the section Source misrepresentation above this one for more on that. The weird thing about this page is that the conflation of State Terrorism and State Sponsored Terrorism is being done by both groups of partisans so it just gets endlessly reinforced. The support of Al-Nusra/Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and MEK is clearly State Sponsored Terrorism, bombing Gaza clearly isn’t yet the second statement has been allowed to remain in the lede while the first two have been repeatedly deleted. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 October 2019

Add a new section after Lavon affair:

Header: Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners

After the 1979 massacre of an Israeli family at Nahariya by Palestine Liberation Front militants, Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan instructed Israeli General Avigdor Ben-Gal to "Kill them all," meaning the Palestinian Liberation Organization and those connected to it. With Eitan's approval, Ben-Gal charged Meir Dagan with running the operations. The operations, approved by the Chief of Staff, were kept secret from the IDF's General Staff and many other members of the Israeli government. David Agmon, at the time head of Israel's northern command, was one of the few people who was briefed on its operations. Lebanese operatives on the ground from the Maronite, Shiite and Druze communities were recruited. The aim of the series of operations was to "cause chaos among the Palestinians and Syrians in Lebanon, without leaving an Israeli fingerprint, to give them the feeling that they were constantly under attack and to instill them with a sense of insecurity."

Beginning in July 1981, with a bomb attack on the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) offices at Fakhani Road in West Beirut, these attacks were claimed by a group called the Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners. The FLLF was itself a front for Israeli agents, and it killed hundreds of people between 1979 and 1983.

By September 1981, the Front's operations consisted of car bombs exploding regularly in the Palestinian neighborhoods of Beirut and other Lebanese cities. Particularly deadly attacks include an October 1, 1981 attack in Beirut that killed 83 and a November 29, 1981 attack in Aleppo that killed 90. FLLF operations came to a sudden halt just prior to the June 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, only to be resumed the following year: first a 28 January 1983 strike on a PLO headquarters at Chtaura in the Syrian-controlled Beqaa Valley, killing 35, coupled by a second on 3 February at West Beirut that devastated the Palestine Research Center offices and left 20 people dead, including the wife of Sabri Jiryis. A third bombing occurred on Syrian-controlled Baalbek on 7 August 1983, which killed about 30 people and injured nearly 40, followed by another on 5 December 1983 at the Chyah quarter of the Southern suburbs of Beirut that claimed the lives of 12 people and maimed over 80.

The FLLF disbanded after 1983. Amplifysound (talk) 03:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Sceptre (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Nothing about bomb attack on iranian nuclear facilities?

As in title — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.30.244.59 (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2020

Addition to MEK and Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. The recent assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh should be included in the topic. Iran alleges that Israel and Mujahideen-e-Khalq were behind it (no proof yet, only allegations at state level. Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-55128970 Ashleycoo (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Reliable sources exist that there is suspicion of Israel, but it is yet too early to include that there are reliable sources for this having been attributed to Israel. The statements by Iranian officials in the BBC article are certainly meant to invite the reader to put together allegations that it was carried out by remote control with knowledge of Israeli technical competence but we have a policy against putting 2+2 together that way. Until there is an official or semi-official statement that says this is an Israeli action, it would be WP:UNDUE to include it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

More info

Should Israel attacking anti-ISIL forces and timber Sycamore be added? GrandBotBoi (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

No, unless there are reliable sources that describe Israel's actions against the Iranian presence in Syria as a form of state-sponsored terrorism. If such sources exist, please present them. I am not aware of Israel having played any role in the defunct Timber Sycamore program, namely the joint CIA-Jordanian-Saudi effort to arm/train anti-Assad Syrian rebels during President Obama's second term.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Syrian Rebels

Israeli backing of Syrian rebels, which are Salafists, also Israel's previous funding for Hamas. Al Farwazirip (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Syrian rebels =/= Terrorists. Neither does Salafism equal terrorism. There is also no solid evidence either that Israel funds the Free Syrian Army. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 18:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit History vs now

As a non-jew, non-white, and non-muslim, I find this article is extremely weasel worded with hedging language when there is already more than enough evidence confirming that there is state-sponsored terrorism against innocent scientists and civillians where Israel is directly or indirectly involved. It should be clear that these are no longer allegations, but facts which this article must shamelessly state. It is not to denounce but to inform the reader of historical fact. Looking at the early edit history of this article, this has been heavily edited in favor of, if I may say, “protecting israel”, and key sources, and incidents have been deleted, and I do not believe the omission of such data is in good faith, but to HIDE and mislead the reader, hence creating collusion. Since it this is about Israel, this is a volatile partisan topic that would need nonjews and more senior wiki editors to impartially rewrite this article with unfiltered hard facts and sources 204.197.182.226 (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Terrible article

As much as I'm in favor of holding any country accountable for acts of "Terrorism", this article is really terrible. It confuses accusations with confirmed acts of "Terrorism". For example, Iran accused Israel of killing 4 nuclear scientists, the article says there are suspects, and that the Iranian government accuses Israel, but no confirmation was ever given about who carried this out. In this article, however, it portrays it as if Israel was the confirmed assassin. Why? JoseJan89 (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Information to be added (Done)

Information from the page Dahiya doctrine which should be added to this page.

"[...] the 2008–09 Gaza War, with the Goldstone Report concluding that the Israeli strategy was "designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population"."

Richard Falk wrote that under the doctrine, "the civilian infrastructure of adversaries such as Hamas or Hezbollah are treated as permissible military targets, which is not only an overt violation of the most elementary norms of the law of war and of universal morality, but an avowal of a doctrine of violence that needs to be called by its proper name: state terrorism." [1]

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Iskandar323! IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 December 2023

I think good context is added for israel decisions, but that treatment is not afforded whatsoever to other parties. More neutrality would help, especially simplistic to call hamas an "Iranian proxy" without recognising the years they existed prior to any Iranian support and the essential grassroots element of the group. That's just one example where neutrality is sacrificed. Mohammed Al-Keesh (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)