Talk:2010 Tapuah Junction stabbing

Terrorism

What is it that makes it a terrorist attack rather than simply a murder? Clearly defining terrorism is in itself controversial but our article on the subject says common definitions refer to terrorism as "those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians)". Is there anything to suggest this attack was motivated by an intention to create fear or for an an ideological goal? Reports that the attack "said he was tired of living" might suggest this was perhaps a suicide by cop attempt. I don't think it is entirely clear that it is appropriate to describe this as terrorism. Adambro (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

An attack by a Palestinian on Israelis, whether military or civilians, is automatically very likely to be ideologically motivated, unless another motive is established (such as business or drug related). Another attribute by which this is distinguished from a simple murder is the fact that the victim was chosen at random. - BorisG (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we should be careful not to make assumptions, we don't know whether or not this attack was for an ideological goal. I'm also not sure why the victim been chosen at random, or at least to some degree since I recall reading suggestions that the attacker waited for the solider, makes it any more accurate to describe it as terrorism. Indiscriminate killings aren't exactly unheard of outside the context of terrorism. I think this question is particularly important in light of, for example, comments from Brigadier General Nitzan Alon that "I met this murderer shortly after the stabbing. He said he was tired of living and this looks like something that was related to his personal circumstances." Adambro (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

We use the terms of reliable sources, not our own opinions.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about the Jerusalem Post and CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network)? The other media cited in the article including Haaretz doesn't mention the stabbing as a terrorist attack. Also see WP:TERRORIST why we avoid contentious labels.--Jmundo (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it isn't WP:OR to consider the appropriateness of this term, rather it is in line with our WP:NPOV policy to ensure we don't give undue weight to a particular point of view. Just because some of the sources may suggest this is terrorism, it doesn't mean we should blindly follow them without looking at how other reliable sources describe this incident.

On a related note, if those edit warring could instead focus on discussing any disagreements it would be appreciated. Adambro (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Not terrorist incident

The attack was by Muhammad Hatib, a Palestinian soldier, killing a foreign soldier occupying the Palestinian territories, Hatibs home, therefor the attack was not a terrorist attack as he killed an invading soldier. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Um. I think not, given that his actions were disavowed. Soldiers act under chains of command. For that matter, it doesn't matter all that much - the category is for alleged terrorist incidents, and we've got at least two RSes calling it one, so that means that as a navigational aid, the category is merited. Ray^Talk 20:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if he is a soldier or a civilian, he is a Palestinian in occupied Palestinian land, when a foreign soldier invades his land, he has a right to defend his land, so when he killed the invading foreign soldier, this act was not a terrorist act. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Simply repeating your POV statement is not going to help here. We have here a disavowed action that reliable sources have mentioned in the context of terrorism. Since the action was disavowed, we need not go into the question of whether the perpetrator was acting at the behest of a state authority, which is a minefield. I have re-inserted the category. Ray^Talk 17:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Ray. Its reliable sources that count, not personal opinions.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you describing the Christian Broadcasting Network as a reliable/neutral source on this topic? What about the Associated Press, BBC and The Telegraph? Stick to the main sources and stop using Wiki-lawyering and contentious categories to push POV. --Jmundo (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Stick to content, not personal attacks.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"at the time of the incident was the head of bureau for the Palestinian Authority's chief of Police " if this is terrorism then so are all the drone bombings, the rapes and murders committed by soldiers (nato and iraqi) in the iraq war (soldiers were also stripped of their rank and prosecuted), un troops in the congo, afghanistan, etc. the point being the office he represented, at the time of the attack, was legitemately recognized by both the usa and israel as being the security apparatus.Lihaas (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

in like measure this should be included too [1]Lihaas (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Lihaas: the action was disavowed by the Palestinian authority, turning this into a loner's action. That causes it to satisfy our criteria. If the PA had not disavowed his action, then we would have to address whether the PA constitutes a state entity or not, which is a somewhat knottier issue (to put it mildly!). Ray^Talk 15:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You have valid points too. but, for perspective, at the time of the attack he was part of the recognized force. in the same vein there are soldiers that been stripped of their rank/court-martialled for such action (american soldiers in iraq). if they are no longer backed by a recognized group (us armed forces) then there are actions are thus "lone" and liable to be here too. there also numerous cases (one above) of israeli soldiers in the same.122.167.182.246 (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

In this case, it's quite clear that his act belongs according to our criteria. He took the action while wearing civilian clothing, without orders or sanction, and was promptly disavowed. You raise an interesting gray area point concerning US and Israeli soldiers who have been court-martialed for illegal activities; those cases should be addressed as they come up. I think it's quite conceivable that some of those actions may fit our criteria as well. Ray^Talk 06:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point. Why not list the fellow who was killed in Dubai? A political assassination (said the dubai police) perpetrated by people in civilian clothes (affiliation with israel) and disavowed by the state.

im not arguing with one against the other, but in the itnerests of consistency they both follow Lihaas (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

notable?

how's is this even notable? 1 person got stabbed without repercussions either (shalit's kidnapping or the killing that started the war in 2006 are notable). all stabbings and deaths in wartime are hardly warranted for an article on its own. (a mentions on the Palestinian political violence page maybe warrant, however.122.167.182.246 (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do remember to log in. As it says at the top of the page, this article has survived a deletion discussion; hence, the notability tag is inappropriate. If you think this article doesn't belong, you may wait for a decent interval of time to elapse from the AfD/DrV discussions, and then nominate it for deletion. Best, Ray^Talk 21:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

yes, you are right. Lihaas (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think this incident is notable...i read the debate from a month ago and am amazed that some people think this is a notable event that will be remembered for years... what press has this received since the time it occurred??. Really, cite something, a speech by BB or some govt minister prominently mentioning this act and the need for retribution or stricter measures, etc etc. Essentially, this is a suicidal man attacking an israeli soldier in hopes of being killed, at least thats how the IDF presents it and i fail to see any reliable report citing a primary source familiar with the investigation of the incident that documents any terroristic motivations to the actions after the investigation. Unless someone wants to contend that the IDF is now covering up for PA terrorism, it is hard to plausibly assert that this represents an act of terror.
• Nonetheless, if this article is to remain, it should meet NPOV criteria. However, after reading the 7 cited sources, its rather remarkable that the slant of this article does not match any of the mainstream media sources on this incident. According to IDF sources quoted from the telegraph, BBC, Haaretz and the AP (i.e., the majority of the reports), following the Israeli investigation, the probable motive for this act was personal problems leading to the perpetrator apparently wanting to die and using an israeli military target in hopes that he would be killed in the midst of his action. Israeli civilian targets were nearby and the attacker waited until a military target appeared, hardly the sign of someone looking to inflict mass casualties. Further, no idealogical angle was confirmed or even put forth by the IDF. Given the majority of the reports make this clear, it is interesting that the current version of this article does not make this point clear at all. In addition, taking partial quotes with only certain aspects included is not NPOV. If you are going to quote someone who both praises and criticizes the PA security measures, then the quote should contain both, not just the criticism. Wikipedia is not here to advance peoples agendas; intellectual honesty is required. Similarly, to tack on at the end of this article a statement about possible terrorist attacks averted by the IDF, when IDF sources state this incident was not viewed as a terrorist act, seems to be advancing a specific POV (again insinuating that this was a terror attack). The terror statistics at the end of this story are not relevant to the incident given the IDF findings that this was not a ideological/organizational act (hence terror stats are not germane to this article since the IDF doesn't view this as an act of terror). But, if someone wants to open that door, then the info in the telegraph article chronicling the violent actions of settlers against palestinians should also be included to present full coverage of the events leading up to this incident.
• I have made changes to make the article more NPOV including further details on the assailant and the IDF comments regarding his motive and balancing the "response" section of the article. Finally, all but one of the media outlets report the assailants name as Khatib (or don't give it at all). Since there are likely to be many more numerous corroborating media reports of this "notable" incident, has someone even confirmed that the assailant was actually named hatib and not khatib?(Kitkat21 (talk) 05:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC))

Legal assessment

Adambro, how is this not relevant? [2] Article is about a Palestinian attack against an occupation soldier on occupied land, and the UN resolution is about "legitimacy of the struggle" - "peoples under alien domination to exercise their right to self-determination and independence by all the necessary means at their disposal" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That may be appropriate for a more general article on the wider conflict. It isn't appropriate to include it in every article about a specific incident which may form part of that wider conflict. Inclusion in articles about specific incidents would seem to border on original research/synthesis unless a reliable source makes this "legal assessment" in relation to this specific incident. Adambro (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)