Jump to content

Talk:Murder of the Hatuel family

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Page protected

[edit]

I have protected this page due to a dispute over cited sources. Please resolve differences here. --Viajero 08:42, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

They are terrorists, not militants. Murderers, not martyrs.

Both The Popular Resistance Committees and Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the deaths. The terrorists videotaped the children as they bled to death. This has become a common practice of Palestinian terrorist groups. The New York Times has reported the practice of filming attacks on Israelis on both 12 May and 13 May, 2004 "The militant Islamic group Hamas claimed responsibility for the shooting and said they would release footage of the attack." New York Times. Reuters news agency reported on May 11 that Hamas filmed an attack: "Hamas said in a statement...it had film of the attack..."[1]

establishes the new practice of terrorists filming their attacks. NYT and Reuters cite two examples. INN cites one example.

---

Of all the citations brought by OneVoice, only the extremist settler mouthpiece Arutz Sheva claimed that this particular attack was filmed. No other source claimed it, not even the usual array of right-wing Israeli media outlets. In such cases, the usual explanation for the discrepancy is that Arutz Sheva invented the information. This has happened many times in the past and OneVoice has been (all too willingly) misled by them several times before in Wikipedia. The details of the claim are also extremely doubtful and not at all like cases where an attack is known to have been filmed. If it was filmed that would have been from a distance and the filmers would have left immediately for obvious reasons. The claim stinks like standard A-7 lies. The "terrified toddlers" quote is also unacceptable. Anyone who knows anything about children will know that toddlers are the last people to be scared of gunfire. --Zero 05:05, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the above paragraph seem to focus on invective against a single news source and deal with the filming and the nature of this terrorist attack secondarily? It would be called ad hominum. A method of argumentation known as a logical fallacy.
But when their parents are running around screaming, as one normally does when one is being shot at, I would expect the toddlers to be more than a little bit terrified. Not that this is particularly relevant to the discussion at hand.
While I can understand why 209.135.35.83 finds it important to mention the filming of some terrorist attacks, I havn't managed to find any particularly reputable source that reported filming of this particular attack. I think we should mention it on any pages documenting terrorist attacks in which it is widely accepted that the attacks were filmed, but that is not the case in this instance. In addition, I don't think it is necessary to write quite so much about it. The murder seems, to me, to be far more important than the filming of it. --Caliper 22:51, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

To Be Added

[edit]

June 16 2004, Ben-Gurion University in the Negev will award Tali Hatuel, murdered by Arab terrorists, a posthumous Masters of Arts degree in Social Work. Her husband, David Hatuel, will receive an MA in Jewish Philosophy at the ceremony.

Tali Hatuel, her unborn son and her four daughters - aged two to eleven - were shot dead at point-blank range by Arab terrorists from Gaza on May 2, 2004.

Is this still disputed? If so, what? It's been protected for nearly two months. Ambivalenthysteria 10:37, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I will certainly continue to delete the same crud if it is inserted again, but one can always hope that it won't be. --Zero 12:54, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to unprotect the page, and we'll see how it goes. Ambivalenthysteria 12:58, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

murder vs kill

[edit]

Jay, I do not think "killed at close range" does the truth the complete justice it deserves. There is a difference between the definition of kill and murder. "Kill" can be construed as justified and murder cannot. We use different terms for politicians, such as assassinate, because they are specific, in this case, a defenseless woman and her four daughters was shot at point blank range with AKs. It is a clear cut case of murder, there was no self defense, the people were unarmed civilians, the people who committed this were of "sound mind." Calling it anything else is whitewash.

Guy Montag 7 July 2005 17:55 (UTC)

First, stop throwing out the noncontroversial edits with the controversial. You keep restoring a spelling mistake, as well as a reference to a separate attack as a "killing" despite nobody dying except the attackers.
On the main issue, you've just answered your own question. "Kill" can be construed as justified and "murder" cannot. So by describing something as "murder", we are making a statement that it was unjustified. I believe that it was murder, jayjg and Cragmont presumably do too. But as long as there are large groups of people who see the situation differently, we can avoid the appearance of bias by using a strictly factual word. – Smyth\talk 7 July 2005 18:09 (UTC)

Then find someone who thinks that it was a justified attack. Are you going to quote Hamas or the perpetrators? Do you see how ridiculous this fear of offending goes to? We have a definition for murder, it fits the case, it should be labeled with the defintion it fits, not a morally amigious whitewash.

Guy Montag 7 July 2005 18:15 (UTC)

Yes, it is ridiculous, but people hold ridiculous beliefs. You yourself display with approval on your personal page a poster depicting the borders of Israel encompassing the entire area of the West Bank and Jordan, above which is superimposed a hand holding a rifle. I don't think I need to say anything else. – Smyth\talk 7 July 2005 18:24 (UTC)
It does not follow that because someone holds a ridiculous belief, that one should refrain from calling a murder a murder lest the person with the ridiculous belief take offense.

In other words, you last argument is an ad hominem poisoning the well run around. Do you have an actual argument that can defend using one definition when there is a specific term in place for the exact instance listed in the article? It appears that you do not. Murdering civilians is against both state and international law, not to mention all standards of human morality. It is also the mainstream standard with which we judge actions of others. Wikipedia does not hold into account fringe definitions when others are available.

Guy Montag 7 July 2005 18:28 (UTC)

I already made my argument. "Kill" can be construed as justified and "murder" cannot. So by describing something as "murder", we are making a statement that it was unjustified. This is not neutral. Normally I wouldn't be so pedantic, but on a topic like this where you and your opposition have such strong feelings, it's necessary. – Smyth\talk 7 July 2005 18:37 (UTC)
And now, without waiting for an answer, you have broken the 3RR, assuming that applies to repeatedly changing one word of an article. – Smyth\talk 7 July 2005 18:47 (UTC)

Guy, you've now duplicated the opening sentence, which is extremely bad form. We don't have to call it murder, because by simply saying "pregnant woman and four young daughters shot and killed at close range by Palestinian gunmen", we give an entirely neutral account of the facts, yet also a horrific example of murder. Jayjg (talk) 7 July 2005 19:12 (UTC)

Perhaps I had my emotions take the better of me. I just wanted to make sure that this wasn't glossed over in the name of neutrality. I hope everyone understands. Anyways, I will self revert to Jay's version.

Guy Montag 7 July 2005 21:32 (UTC)

Did you mean to remove the images? – Smyth\talk 7 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)

Not at all. It was a bad copy edit on my part.

Guy Montag 7 July 2005 21:39 (UTC)

"Murdered .. by terrorists"

[edit]

This one has cropped up again. I'm sorry but it's not necessary to use this kind of language - it's a value judgement and it's out of bounds according to any Wikipedia policy or guideline you care to look at (take your pick - WP:TERRORIST, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP etc). With these killings, or any other killing in any other conflict, we only need to use the most simple and neutral language to describe what happened. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for outrage (whether justified or not). And in this case the facts pretty much speak for themselves as to how horrific this was in any event. However I'm tired of edit-warring over this sort of thing, and also tired of having to have endless debates about it, so would be grateful if someone else would comment or act, here and on Koby Mandell as well, where we have the same issue. Thanks. --Nickhh (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a lot of sympathy with your comments. However "shot and killed"—what the introduction currently reads—leaves the possibility that her death was not intended (eg. they were only intending to shoot her legs). In this instance "murder" is the correct word. www.merriam-webster.com has this as the first definition: "to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice". For this word, no value judgement is required, surely? almost-instinct 15:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I submit this for approval:

Tali Hatuel (June 28, 1970 - May 2, 2004) was an Israeli settler in Gaza who, along with her four young daughters, was murdered at close range by Palestinian ambushers in the Gaza Strip. She was eight months pregnant with her fifth child.

I've removed the repetition of the date of her death, and removed the specification of her daughters' ages, as that is covered later on. almost-instinct 15:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ambushers? I really think "terrorist" explains what they are and what their intention is (even if they are "freedom fighters", they are acting as terrorists, and anything else is a POV suggesting otherwise. However, if for some reason, the Wiki community likes to express a POV, how about making it a little more realistic and use "militants". However, in all honesty, the only correct term is terrorist IMO. I won't fight "militant", although I disagree. I am more interested in "murder" being upheld rather than "kill" or "shot".Sposer (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's why I put "ambushers". Since no documentary evidence vis-a-vis intentions is currently cited, they aren't our business (WP:NOR). As "ambusher" is irrefutable there's no need for IMO or POV. Just plain facts. They ambushed, they murdered. As Nickhh said above, the facts are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves. almost-instinct 21:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is POV when you hide that they are terrorists or militants. Even the pro-Palestisnian media outlets like BBC call them militants. I can understand -- although I disagree with -- wishing to tone it down from terrorists and use militants, but what is an ambusher? It doesn't describe what their aim is or what they are. A militant/terrorist group claimed responsibility. So, I don't understand how there is no documentary evidence. Sposer (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've read your conversations with nickhh, so I guess I not surprised at this. Its not a question of toning it down. An ambusher is someone who ambushes. This is what happened. Then they murdered. I said "there no evidence of their intentions". We can't ask them because they're dead. Anyway, its clear from nickhh's attempts to explain to you that there's no way of making you understand. I've tried to smarten this page up. Maybe people who care so clearly about this should spend their efforts on making the page look less amateurish. All the refs need a proper cite template and some of them need renewing. I'm wiping this page from my watchlist. almost-instinct 23:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you are missing I guess is that groups that claimed they were part of their organization make it clear what the intention is. Whether it is revenge or not, whether it is justified or not, it is terrorism. I have never used the term "innocent women and children" because the terrorists that executed these people certainly do not consider them innocent. However, what they did was a terrorist act and it was murder. Since terrorist -- rightly so -- has a negative connotation, which is the explanation for not using it in the Wiki guidelines -- I unhappily am willing to deal with militant. Not sure why one shouldn't use negative terminology here, since murder, last I looked, is bad, but out of respect for Wiki guidelines, I have not reverted to terrorist. I will let somebody else with a greater moral compass that I have eventually do that, as I am sure they will.Sposer (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't use the word 'terrorism' of many eminent murderers on both sides of this conflict, people whose political lives have been marked by great distinction. Earlier killers justified their acts as political acts of terror (Begin, Shamir, Sharon, Arafat, etc....). So what you are endeavouring to do is to make a class distinction. If you are a gunman down in the ranks of those groups that perform these acts of terror, you argue they are terrorists (as indeed they are, just as the poor woman and her family were squatters living on stolen land, but we call them 'settlers' as a neutral term). Those who, for example, belong to the IDFs sniper squads who have shot through the head several dozen children at school or play,(the one or two who earn a page in Wiki are usually subject to Pallywood editing, and their murderers or killers are simply soldiers performing orders). To avoid endless litigation, one choses neutral language, and, as several editors have noted, let the readers judge for themselves. Unlike several thousand victims on the other side, the family has its wiki page. That is, in itself, sufficient. It should not be spoiled by any attempt to use the tragedy, one of several thousand, for political ends. Morals, unlike ethics, cut both ways, and compasses point to the direction, analogically, of greater rhetorical magnetism. Nishidani (talk) 11:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you saw the discussion I had with nickhh, I wrote that I felt that Sharon, Begin, et al, were terrorists during the struggle with Britain for the establishment of the State of Israel. As far as IDF goes, I am not going to incite a riot here, because I honestly do not know enough about it. I have been careful also to not legitimize, in any of my statements, anything about the settlers. However, murder is not a valid response to anything.Sposer (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the discussion. What we know or feel is not material to wiki editing which has peculiar rules, but ones that safeguard against the danger of editors substituting themselves for reliable sources, instead of simply harvesting them. I'm sure you have the best intentions, but the point made by Nickhh comes from long experience as an editor, and is accepted by all sides. It isn't controversial. Good luck.Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Nishidani, is a "settler resident" some sort of non-human creature? Or perhaps sub-human, and therefore worth being shot at point-blank range, along with her 4 daughters? Jayjg (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're reading too quickly. If you slow down a tad, you'll note that in phrases of the type 'settler resident in/ at', 'resident' is an 'adjective' not a noun doubling the substantive 'settler' pleonastically, as is shown by the at, which personally I disliked, but used because 'in' would only create stylistic problems with the following 'in'. Actually PhilKnight's text was the sensible one, Amoruso mucked it up though adding the town name, which I've now retained. As for your remarks, I know that Israeli flesh and blood is, as several rabbinical thinkers influential with these squatters have stressed, 'ìnfinitely more valuable' than Palestinian or other human flesh and blood, having that extra nefesh, etc., but this knowledge did not inform my edit, as it shouldn't influence your counter edit.Nishidani (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are talking about, and don't really care about your religious beliefs. Please don't use talk pages as a soabox. In any event, she was a resident of Gush Katif, and a regular human being, just like everyone else - she doesn't need the special designation "settler", just as her murderers don't need the special designation "terrorist", as you have pointed out above. Jayjg (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have no idea of what I am talking about, perhaps that explains why you make certain edits. Why complain of WP:SOAP when you yourself are potshotting at the proverbial black kettle. Your remarks show you did not understand the point of my edit. Phil Knight's text had 'settler', which Amoruso suppressed. I restored the word 'settler' but this created a problem with the rest of Amoruso's edit, which supplied Gush Katif. Restore 'settler' with Gush Katif and you get ugly English ('settler of Gush Katif': you can say 'Gush Katif settler', which may have been the way to go, but then again, like you I was busy, watching Tom Hanks in the New York airport.) So being a reasonable man, I wrote she was a 'settler' (who was) resident at (better in) Gush Katif in the Gaza Strip'. You didn't see that the point of my edit was to restore 'settler', and mistook 'settler resident' as two nouns. No big deal, we all have misprisions. As to the word 'settler' implying she was not a regular human being, take that to some wiki arbitration court. It's too weird an illation for me to handle at this late hour. In fact I took your sardonic rejoinder implying I was trying to make out by restoring 'settler' (resident in) that she deserved killing absolutely off-the-planet. Unfathomable, except as a prickly riposte to an innocent edit. Hence my rejoinder, in a parallel tone, alluding to your improper refusal to have Ian Lustick used as a reliable source on remarks made at Baruch Goldstein's funeral, simply because you dislike having a well attested if rather radical rabbinical opinion registered on wiki pages. Other editors have no problem with the word 'settler', only Amoruso did, and now you.Nishidani (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She was a resident of Gush Katif, not a special species of human being, and please stop soapboxing about poorly sourced POV you kept trying to insert into unrelated articles. B'Tselem has no trouble saying her daughters were "residents" of Katif,[2] and the word "settler" in this context is used as a way of justifying her murder. Quite distasteful. Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many sources, B'tselem, included, also call such people 'settlers', and no one has accused (well one never knows) B'tselem of regarding them as justigying murder. I repeat, I find your objection incomprehensible. Does it mean all uses of 'settler' in the West Bank contexts in Wiki are invitations to a Nabokovian beheading? I believe you reverted my edit by misreading it, and have failed to simply look closely at what happened.Nishidani (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, there are lots of sources that call the attack a terrorist attack:
In May 2004 Tali Hatuel, a pregnant 34-year-old mother, was killed with her four daughters in a terrorist attack at the Kissufim crossing in the Gaza Strip
In the four years since the terrorist attack, Hatuel has grown more and more connected to One Family and its activities
Mourners gathering for the 2004 funeral of Tali Hatuel and her four daughters, who were shot to death by Palestinian terrorists in the Gaza Strip.
Let's use the more neutral terms, o.k.? Just like "militant" vs. "terrorist". Jayjg (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, Ian Lustick is one of the world's foremost authorities on the issue of Jewish settler fundamentalism. Nothing to do with WP:SOAP, nor poorly sourced POV. GOod evening Nishidani (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, please stop soapboxing about poorly sourced POV you kept trying to insert into unrelated articles. Jayjg (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could I suggest that you consider some form of dispute resolution, possibly a RfC? FWIW, the Washington Post article uses 'settler', and the New York Times article describes those who attended a memorial service (who themselves were attacked) as 'settlers', so I'm not convinced the term is being used to 'justify her murder'. PhilKnight (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok to say that she was a settler, but we can also begin the sentence by saying that she was "a murder victim of horrible Islamic terrorism who".... so it's better to use factual neutral language like "resident". Amoruso (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just as not calling the executioners terrorists is POV whitewashing murder, not calling her a settler ignores the fact that she lived in a place disputed by many. That does not justify the act or make her any less human. Might be better though to drop settler and say; " a resident of Gush Katif, a town in (whatever is current allowable terminology for parts of Israel won/taken/annexed during war with its enemies)" Sposer (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The executioners"? Was she a criminal, then, lawfully executed by the State? Jayjg (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added that gush katif was a settlement bloc. Although in wikipedia where there are wiki links I think it's redundant. Btw, I think you can sense the problem. You say - "in a place disputed by many". The truth is , that a person trying to push the term settler for her is trying to say that her right for being alive is disputed. Amoruso (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is becoming slightly heated; could I suggest that you focus on the article content, instead of making comments about other editors? PhilKnight (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not make any comment about any specific editor... if it was referred to me. I meant a person who would try to use such a term will be making this point. Amoruso (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked the term "Israeli settlement" in the lead, so it stands out even more. Everything O.K. now? Jayjg (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth (and as the person who kicked off this latest bout of editing a while back) I think - subject to Nishidani's point below - it's much better phrased now all round. It clarifies what happened to who, without using judgemental language, or any language that might be perceived as making a judgement or comment of any sort. --Nickhh (talk) 10:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AgreedNishidani (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although having said that, I notice "murder" is back in. A variation on the phrasing in the Washington Post article cited in the lead might be better - "shot at close range and killed after being ambushed by Palestinian gunmen while driving on a local road". It gives more immediate detail. Also I'm not sure we need "Israeli" twice in the space of five words. --Nickhh (talk) 10:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've argued for this exact wording in the past. I'll fix it. Jayjg (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Shot and then killed at close range by Palestinian gunmen, in an ambush, while she was driving on a local road.' Generally the reduplicative hammering effect (Israel etc.) should be avoided everywhere. It's the first lesson journalists learn from copyeditors.Nishidani (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was murder, plain and simple. It was planned and premeditated with intent, which is the definition of murder and not a synonym for shot and killed at close range. Any another verbiage requires the reader to read further to find out the horrific details and figure out that it was murder. Shot and killed at close range could be justified to avoid harming people in other vehicles nearby, etc. She and her children were murdered. Even from the terrorists' perspective, where they think it is the right thing to do, it is still a planned killing - a murder. Sposer (talk) 01:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it was murder. I don't think anyone has a problem with that, and you persistently fail to see what the problem is. Throughout wiki I/P articles a different language has been employed. I don't like it, you don't like it, but in thousands of exhausting debates people before us have arrived at a consensus to employ different terms. Baruch Goldstein coldly premeditated the murder of 29 Arabs. It is called 'a perpetration' of a massacre, massacre because it is over 5 people, but he is not, if I recall correctly called a 'terrorist' or a 'murderer'. The word 'murderer' bizarrely occurs only in reporting his own death, as after spraying a crowd of Muslims at prayer in a mosque for several minutes, some of them managed to kill him. You want to change all these episodes? Make a general argument on the relevant Wiki debate forum about language propriety. Nishidani (talk) 07:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thank Jayjg for doing the right thing here, and I will restore his version shortly. Yes, she was murdered, a horrifying and nauseating crime in my view. But we need to be consistent across Israel-Palestine articles. To take another example, James Miller (filmmaker) was found by a coroner's court to have been murdered by the IDF, but our article does not mention the M-word, except in reporting the court's proceedings and the verbatim quotes of participants. On the other hand, criminal murders such as that of Jack Drummond we do call murder, so you would have a legitimate case for arguing for a change - but you would have to do so throughout the whole gamut of I-P articles.
--NSH001 (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good, change Goldstein and Miller to murder. Hatuel is murder too. So, basically what you are saying is that it is better for Wikipedia to change history than to state what happened. The problem is in the less clear cases, where it will be pure NPOV violations to call it murder. The ones you stated are not such cases.Sposer (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What we are collectively saying is that, while most of us would, as you, call a spade a spade, the conventions of wiki usage, reflect policy. Neither I you nor anyone else in here had much to say in determining that policy, but since its guidelines are those that will be invariably invoked if one alters this or any other text (see Eden Natan-Zada, Asher Weisgan) to insert the word 'murder', we don't waste out time and that of other editors. This can only change, not by insistent editing of the word on one article, but by recourse to arbitration to alter the policy guidelines. This has nothing to do with personal bias, the politics of the region, or morals, or indeed normal linguistic conventions. Work in wiki, and you have to work by its rules, just as if you play chess, you don't move according to the moves operant in checkers.Nishidani (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebody please point me to the Wiki policy that says you cannot say a terrorist commited murder (especially when you are not even allowed to call a terrorist a terrorist). Sposer (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well ask Jayjg on his talkpage, if no other editor in here sees your request or can oblige you in the meantime. I don't read the wiki rule book, but work empirically and note what the administrators say in irascible disputes over this issue. But generally, your bewilderment may be clarified by perusing a work put out by a theorist in 2003, which I downloaded and read off the Centre for Strategic Studies website at the time. I've gone and clipped out just one of many relevant sections in that analysis (remember this is a scholar within the American Defence Establishment writing). I recommend reading the whole text, which, I note, can now be also accessed fully on Google Books.
Jeffrey Record, ‘’Bounding The Global War on Terrorism’’, Dec 2003, Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 122 Forbes Ave, Carlisle, PA, Diane Pub.Co. ed. pp.7-9

'Perhaps inadvertently, the contemporary language on terrorism has become, as Conor Gearty puts it, “the rhetorical servant of the established order, whatever and however heinous its own activities are.” Because the administration has cast terrorism and terrorists as always the evilest of evils, what the terrorist does “is always wrong [and] what the counter-terrorist has to do to defeat them is therefore invariably, necessarily right. The nature of the [established] regime, the kind of action that is possible against it, the moral situation in which violence occurs--none of these complicating elements matters a jot against the contemporary power of the terrorist label.” Thus Palestinian terrorism is condemned while Ariel Sharon is hailed as a man of peace. Richard Falk observes that:

“Terrorism” as a word and concept became associated in US and Israeli discourse with anti-state forms of violence that were so criminal that any method of enforcement and retaliation was viewed as acceptable, and not subject to criticism. By so appropriating the meaning of this inflammatory term in such a self-serving manner, terrorism became detached from its primary historical association dating back to the French Revolution. In that formative setting, the state’s own political violence against its citizens, violence calculated to induce widespread fear and achieve political goals, was labeled as terrorism.

The definitional mire that surrounds terrorism stems in large measure from differing perspectives on the moral relationship between objectives sought and means employed. It is easy for the politically satisfied and militarily powerful to pronounce all terrorism evil regardless of circumstance, but, like it or not, those at the other end of the spectrum are bound to see things differently. Condemning all terrorism as unconditionally evil strips it of political context and ignores its inherent attraction to the militarily helpless. This is not to condone terrorism; it is simply to recognize that it can reflect rational policy choice.

Terrorism, like guerrilla warfare, is a form of irregular warfare, or “small war” so defi ned by C. E. Callwell in his classic 1896 work, Small Wars, Their Principles and Practice, as “all campaigns other than those where both sides consist of regular troops.”18 As such, terrorism, like guerrilla warfare, is a weapon of the weak against a “regular” (i.e., conventional) enemy that cannot be defeated on his own terms or quickly. Absent any prospect of a political solution, what options other than irregular warfare, including terrorism (often a companion of guerrilla warfare), are available to the politically desperate and militarily helpless? Was Jewish terrorism against British rule in Palestine, such as the 1946 Irgun bombing attack (led by future Nobel Peace Prize Winner Menachem Begin) on the King David Hotel in Jerusalem (killing 93, including 17 Jews), justified as a means of securing an independent Jewish state? “Terrorism may be the only feasible means of overthrowing a cruel dictatorship, the last resort of free men and women facing intolerable persecution,” argues Laqueur. “In such conditions, terrorism could be a moral imperative rather than a crime--the killing of Hitler or Stalin early on in his career would have saved the lives of millions of people.” In short, in circumstances where the choice is between one of two evils, might selection of a lesser evil be justifi ed? The United States chose to fight alongside Stalin to defeat Hitler, and it effectively became a co-belligerent with Saddam Hussein in Iraq’s war with the Ayatollah Khomeini’s Iran. In both cases, the United States allied itself with two of the 20th century’s greatest practitioners of state terrorism for the purpose of defeating what it at the time regarded as the greater evil.

Morally black and white choices are scarce in a gray world. One man’s terrorist can in fact be another’s patriot. “Is an armed Kurd a freedom fighter in Iraq but a terrorist in Turkey?” asks Tony Judt. “Were al-Qaeda volunteers terrorists when they joined the U.S. financed war [against the Soviets] in Afghanistan?” To be sure, consensus on the definition of terrorism is hardly necessary to prosecute counterterrorist operations against specific terrorist organizations. We know a terrorist act when we see one, and we know that al-Qaeda is an enemy. But lack of definitional consensus does impede the study of terrorism, which is a necessary component of dealing with the phenomenon itself.

Not quite what you asked for, but I hope not irrelevant to your reflections.Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for well-thought-out reply. I do get the terrorism thing (and removed my initial rant regarding that in the talk page). I disagree with it, but abide by it (I do consider Irgun, Sharon, et al terrorists, by the way, along w/al-qaeda volunteers when the U.S. was involved). However, murder is murder, terrorist or not. The lunatic that ran down people is Israel the other day murdered those people, though I would not call him a terrorist. Same for the soldier who murdered him. I will look at the talk page.Sposer (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly dissent from any attempt to put on a linguistic par a man who runs down a bus full of people with a bulldozer, driven by homicidal intent, whatever the obscure motives that pushed him over into that insane rage, and the soldier who, as the former still pressed the peddle to crush the mother, killed him. The former is obviously 'murder', the soldier killed the murderer: he did not 'murder' the murderer.
I thought the reports I saw had the guy driving the bulldozer under control by another officer. If that was incorrect, I take my statement back. Now, back to your comment. Cheers. Sposer (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My sincere apologies. I must admit I just, exceptionally, read the headlines about this. If it is, as you say, and I trust your word, then you are right, and the soldier murdered the bulldozer driver, just as the bulldozer driver murdered. Were a novelist or God (much the same thing, since both assume omniscience) to look at these things, probabaly they would not think of these categories at all, but of a by now diffuse pathologization of psychological tipping points, where all 'actors' in these events are driven by all but unfathomable, if in the last analysis, highly coherent templates of history. That reflection does not, however, absolve us, as sublunary beings, from calling a spade a spade, and a murder a murder.
Not so much laziness, my, having read so much gruesome lunacy on all sides, I have reached saturation point, and rage vanquished by melancholy. But that is no excuse. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Believe me, I am not 100% sure either, and this stuff kills me. As an American and a Jew, if what I thought I saw (in the supposed pro-Israel U.S. media) is correct, it is very disturbing. If the Israeli courts sentenced the bulldozer driver, then, even if you believe a Palestinian cannot get justice in Israel, there is at least some sort of review of what happened. If he was summarily executed by a soldier, without a trial, it is wrong and the soldier should be arrested and go to trial. I will try to dig into the reports and understand what the media has said. Either way, actually getting at the "truth" in anything in this conflict is virtually impossible as I do not think there is a single fully objective neutral group on this subject anywhere. Regards. Sposer (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, only a very occasional article in the US mainstream media says something useful on this. I think it's best to check the Israeli media on things like this, (Ha'aretz for the NYTs line, The Jerusalem Post for a more conservative view,etc.) since they are less 'politically correct', give a wide range of perspectives, and often adversarial reportage of the kind you rarely find abroad. Perhaps someone has already made a wiki article on the incident. It's the sort of thing that gets an instant page, and if so, you could look at their sources, and indeed contribute. Summary execution is, I'm afraid, rather typical in this area. For Christians and Muslims doing it, together or independently, see the Eden Natan-Zada article, so in that regard instant 'justice' of the kind you mention about the soldier is, culturally, a part of the scene, and an index of how badly the perennial conflict has stressed democratic principles in the area. As to objective neutral reportage, quite true. B'tselem reports on injustices only to Palestinians, as do CPT in their various newsletters, that's their brief, but both Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, though under attack by most governments, do supply on their websites fairly comprehensive coverage of all abuses by all parties, be they Hezbollah and Hamas, or Israel, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and at least strive to use stringent criteria and objectivity. Before signing off, I'd like to thank you for your contributions to Wiki in your professional area of expertise, which I knew zilch about. Best wishes and have a fine Thanksgiving day (Shabbat has passed (European time of wrting), so best wishes for next week's). Nishidani (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final note. Just remembered an incident of murder similar to Tali Hatuel's, since it is registered on the Hebron page, a city in whose history I've long had an interest. I checked and it actually has 'murder' in the title, but the text talks of a killing. This is quite exceptional. Murder of Shalhevet Pass. One could raise objections to this, (I happen to be sympathetic, generally speaking, to the plight of the Palestinians of that city, and highly critical of the community from which that innocent victim came), but to do so would be in extremely poor taste. Regards Nishidani (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the rest, I don't think you will find anyone disagreeing with you that these ambushes of civilians constitute murder. Language is not logical, conceptualisation tries to be. Each language makes over time its culturally-specific categories, where killing, murder, assassination are blurred or distinguished according to natiove juridical traditions. In modernity, with homogenization and emergent global rules, all sorts of problems arise when one uses terms in one's own language or worldview, that are 'natural' and 'obvious' but, outside of that language, worldview or hegemonic framework, are neither obvious or natural. I happen to subscribe to a universalist perspective: we must find common definitional ground for things like this. In areas of conflict, as specialists like Reading remind us, this is no easy task, philosophically, in fact, as the works of Michael Walzer (and his critics) show,to name another authority. 96 children were 'killed' from IDF fire last year in the Palestinian Territories, as opposed to 4 (I have read one, but I will give the upper figure) in Israel from Palestinian fire. Some of the former can be dismissed as what is euphemistically called 'collateral fire'. A lot can't, given the situations as described by Amnest and B'tselem, and, over the long term, the extraordinary (statistically) precision of headshots at children in conflict-neutral locations (schools). The standard impression in newspaper accounts is that in the one case, a legally constituted state is defending itself, and an insurgent population is engaging in terror, and therefore only acts by the latter can be read as terror. Though popular, this doesn't work for serious analysts interested in a theory of conflict, terrorism, and concepts of the state. (The modern liberal state being classically a government that is given a monopoly of violence in exchange for the legal assurance that the exercise of that power will not be arbitrary against the citizens who constitute it, as opposed however to the residual right of early modern states to exercise their prerogatives of violence against other states and their citizens.Napoleon was a mass murderer, but once he lost, he was never executed. The pattern is still with us). It does not require much reflection to see how this creates, for conceptualists, great difficulties, for the categories become political, and instruments of discursive power in the battle over public opinion. Conceptualists seek, given their logical and mathematical approach, neutral terms with the widest referential comprehensiveness in analysing conflict. Anyone who kills children, women and the unarmed is, notwithstanding contexts, theories and the like, what is euphemistically called a murderous c.... But there are a lot of men regularly enrolled in armies, who do their duty, and wittingly in the course of that duty, kill the innocent. The case on this page gives an instance from the periphery. It is not, for that, alien to the nature of national armies, as a perusal of any recent memoir from grunts in Iraq will remind us. Regards Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Text to be fixed.

[edit]

terrorist may indeed be 'off their rockets' but normally do not, except in Japanese idioms from the 30s/40s (human torpedoes) behave like rockets, launching themselves, as in:

The Palestinians attackers had launched themselves from a group of nearby . . .

One 'launches an assault/attack'. 'Launch' as a reflex verb means the person is catapulted. It should therefore be modified to idiomatic, and less gruesomely 'comical' English.Nishidani (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of "launch" in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary goes:

vi 1 a : to spring forward or take off b to throw oneself energetically

so it seemed perfectly apt to me. Though to be fair, that was a supposition on my part, and they might have languidly sauntered out of the buildings, whistling and telling jokes. Anyway, this just goes to confirm that this kind of page really isn't my natural milieu. I'm very glad to see it being looked after. almost-instinct 13:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani is right though - while perhaps technically correct, it does sound a little odd when used in that way. Language matters, whether it's provoking heated political debate or just an issue of making sure it reads well! --Nickhh (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a matter of a nicety of idiom, and I appreciateAlmost-instinct's ref to Webster's definition, because my point needed refining. What it, like most dictionaries, doesn't go on to explain is that 'to launch oneself'+ in/to is one thing, as per Websters, but to 'launch oneself'+ from cannot help an English ear from prompting the mind's eyes to imagine an act of catapulting oneself. In linguistic analysis, reflexives have some of these curious properties retroactively entailed from the postpositional forms that accompany them. Compare 'To throw oneself into' a game/ 'to throw oneself from' (...into as game). Perhaps I am oversensitive, and most readers will not, as I did when first setting eyes on the passage, start at the image, because it conjured up an image of cartoonish ninjas that jarred with the tragedy we are reading about. This is not a political point. It's purely a matter of style and, above all, good taste. Any such comical undertones should be rigorously guarded against, especially in describing a violent assault.Nishidani (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record may I point out three things?
  • "Cartoonish" or "comical undertones" were far from my intention.
  • My ear is English, too.
  • I am not arguing for this word to be reinstated: I appreciate that pages such as these must have the most neutral language.
But may I defend my ability to use the English language? I still think that "they launched themselves from" is far from incorrect in terms of usage. In a way they did catapult themselves. They made the decision that this attack should be made—and then they sent themselves out to commit the violence. But anyway, let's stop being distracted from more important matters. almost-instinct 19:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No offense intended, sir. We have, like most other peoples, a very rich and nuanced language at our disposal, with dozens of ways of describing essentially the same thing. One of the vices of Wiki is that, esp. in I/P type articles, content is all the rage as amateur historians rush to do battle over the black and white approach to history: and style, the tactful ear for le mot juste goes by the way. It is not a distraction. When violence, and the dead, are the subject, clear, precise language is almost de rigueur, not least out of respect. I gather you are rather young. Language takes a long time to yield up its secrets, ask anyone, or read Helen Vendler, or Christopher Ricks Still, apologies for my paternalism.Nishidani (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know not whence cometh the intelligence that I am unburdened by years, but your source is a false friend. Still, its entertaining to be reminded of the narrative voice of The Debt to Pleasure almost-instinct 22:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just between the two of us, it was phrasing like 'languidly sauntered' that caught my attention. Your choice of language bespeaks a good familiarity with literature, but not the edgy obsessiveness of a lifetime's passionate folly. For 'saunter' (a verb beloved of James Joyce) implies already the insouciance intended by 'languidly', and yet, while reminiscent of the Baudelairean flâneur of, by now, Benjamian fame, it jars ever so slightly with its companionate adverb, in that 'saunter' is nuanced towards 'sprightly' whereas 'languid' hints at sluggishness, even if, in the prose of the 1890s, it betokened a cultivated air of aristocratic otiosity worn disarmingly to épater les bourgeois. The effect is to conjure up intuitions of relative inexperience, confirmed by your subsequent defence of the usage.
Perhaps, in noting such things, as Hardy advised in Afterwards, I risk sliding towards the vapid cavillings of the Casaubonesque as your allusion to Tarquin suggests. One thing is certain: to allow, in a narrative of lethal assault, a choice of idiom that evokes catapulting action, airborn terrorists closing on their unwitting prey like spirited ninjas, or Harrypotteresque ghouls materializing out of nowhere before their victim, is to undermine the sobriety required for the tragic by the resonant caricature, typical of, if not limited to, adolescent taste, which such language trails in its connotative wake. I wouldn't point this out were it not for the fact that, swept up into the hurlyburly of wiki editing, my own impromptu prose strikes me, once the edit is made, as suffering from all of the defects of hectic composition, something I associate with an unbridled immaturity, a still unmastered past of amateurism returning with mocking vengeance. Nishidani (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

proper article name

[edit]

The article is not a biography as the name suggested therefore I renamed the article to a more appropriate name which was used in the media to describe the event. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"settler" in the lede

[edit]

moved from User_talk:AgadaUrbanit#Murder_of_Tali_Hatuel_and_her_four_daughters and edited, discussing this edit

For interest...

  • given that the sources cited say
    • Palestinian gunmen shot and killed a pregnant Jewish settler and four of her children in Gaza as Israel's ruling Likud Party rejected Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan to pull out of the area.
    • Palestinian militants killed a pregnant Jewish settler and her four young daughters as Israel's Likud party voted on proposals to pull out of Gaza.
  • ...and given that both sources make it clear shortly thereafter that they lived in a settlement in Gaza
  • ...and given that the Wikipedia article said "Jewish Israeli settler" followed shortly by "near their home in Gush Katif bloc of Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip"

...I think an intelligent wiki-rules based bot tasked with identifying a redundant word while maximizing consistency with sources and policy would have ranked "Israeli" as having the same or a higher degree of redundancy than "settler". On the other hand I would expect the majority of Israeli editors and supporters of Israel to remove the word settler from an article like this no matter what.

Also, given that we describe where people lived, their ethnicity/nationality and what happened, I think a bot that was informed by its human coach that ignoring source based labels is okay if they are implicit would therefore conclude that the source based labels used to describe the Palestinians (e.g. "militants") must also be redundant because the label is implicit from the nature of the act. I would not expect the majority of Israeli editors and supporters of Israel to draw that conclusion. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you're well too, Sean. AFAIK "Settler" in I/P context is an Israeli who's home is inside Israeli-occupied territories. I think "settler" is a redundant definition, considering the context: we say their home was in Gush Katif bloc of Israeli settlements next sentence. Stay well. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC) edited for article's talk page: 17:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do you reconcile the inconsistency between what you think and what sources say ? Why is only the first instance of "settler" a redundant definition, considering the context, and not all instances of "settler", considering the context ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Sean failed to address why do we need "a settler ... living in a settlement" stylistically. Noone argues, saying "settler" is reliable, however quoting RSes in a reply to a stylistic remark is besides the point. Policy wise, WP:LEAD requires a concise summary of the body: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. Why do we need to repeat ourselves obsessively? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The word is relevant because reliable sources make it relevant. And they likely think it is relevant that they were settlers because that is a rather important detail in their killing. It isnt obsessively repeating. nableezy - 19:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have anything useful to say about personal perceptions of style. If style and conciseness in the lead is your concern, you can remove the unnecessary Israeli prefix from Israeli settlement in line with the sources or remove details like the names/ages of the children. If the word settler is removed from that sentence, it should be put it back somewhere else in the lead because that label was selected by multiple sources for reasons that don't matter from a content decision making perspective. If anything, the label appears less frequently in the article than it appears in sources that discuss the subject. I would suggest adding the following to the lead from the article body "Hatuel and her children were the first settlers in Gaza to be killed since 2002 and the attack "provoked extreme tension in Gaza".[10][11]". Sean.hoyland - talk 15:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Murder of Hatuel family. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murder of Hatuel family. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murder of Hatuel family. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 February 2022

[edit]

Murder of Hatuel family → Murder of the Hatuel Family – I believe this is the grammatically correct term? Correct me if wrong. Dunutubble (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, strong support to the move. Super Ψ Dro 16:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-controversial request, just doing it. nableezy - 20:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_the_Hatuel_family&oldid=1252287184"