Talk:Israeli deaths due to palestinian terrorism 2000

Terrorism against Israel: 2000 - 2001 2002 2003 2004

This page is a partial listing begun in September of 2000. Additional terrorist incidents not recorded at the time are being added over time.

Total Death Toll in 2000: 43

February (death toll: 2)

February 9: Dov and Gabriella Weiss of Givat Ze'ev, a suburb of Jerusalem, were found bludgeoned to death in their home. Police confirmed the attack was terrorist in nature.

September (death toll: 2)

September 27: an Israeli soldier killed in Gaza Strip..
September 29: an Israeli border patrolman killed by his Palestinian counterpart on a joint patrol near Kalkiliya.

October (death toll: 10)

October 1: an Israeli soldier of Druze descent killed while guarding a Jewish sacred site in Nablus.
October 2: an Israeli civilian and a soldier are killed in separate attacks by gunfire in West Bank.
October 8: an Israeli settler found dead in Nablus.
October 12: two Israeli reserve soldiers lynched by Palestinian mob after erroneously entering Ramallah.
October 19: an Israeli settler group touring near Nablus is fired upon, and one of them is killed.
October 28: the body of an Israeli citizen is found in his burnt car.
October 30: an Israeli security guard is killed while protecting the local Social Security office. A Jerusalem resident is found dead near Beit Jala.

November (death toll: 21)

November 1: two Israeli soldiers killed in a shooting incident near Bethlehem, and another one while guarding a town in Jordan Valley.
November 2: two Israeli civilians killed in a car bombing in Jerusalem. The Islamic Jihad claims responsibility.
November 8: an Israeli citizen is killed while driving to her job in Gaza.
November 10: an Israeli soldier killed by a Palestinian sniper while guarding a Jewish shrine in Bethlehem.
November 11: an Israeli soldier killed in a shooting attack in the Gaza strip.
November 13: two civilians and two soldiers die in three shooting incidents in West Bank and Gaza.
November 18: an Israeli soldier killed by a senior Palestinian preventive security officer while guarding a settlement in Gaza strip. Another dies of his wounds obtained earlier.
November 20: two adults killed while escorting a schoolbus in Gaza. 5 children and 4 adults are injured.
November 21: an Israeli settler youth killed by sniper in Gaza.
November 22: two Israeli women killed and 60 civilians wounded in a car bomb attack in Hadera.
November 23: a soldier killed by sniper fire in the Gaza strip. An Israeli officer killed in an explosion at the joint Israeli-Palestinian District Coordination in the same region.
November 24: an Israeli officer killed by sniper fire in Gaza strip, and an army-employed civilian killed in the West Bank.

December (death toll: 8)

December 8: An Israeli teacher travelling in a van and the van's driver killed in a drive-by attack in the West Bank. An Israeli soldier killed in a gunfire attack on a civilian bus.
December 21: an Israeli civilian ambushed and killed near Jerusalem.
December 28: a soldier and a border police officer killed while dismantling a road-side bomb, by another explosive device, in the Gaza strip. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
December 31: Binyamin Zeev Kahane (the son of Meir Kahane) and his wife, Talia killed in an ambush by Palestinian snipers. 5 of their children driving with them injured.

Discussion section

Can’t we merge this with another article?

And can’t we use the terms “violence” or “uprising” rather than the term “terrorism”? (I’m hoping that within the articles we can make it clear that various advocates consider certain acts of violence to be “terrorism” or “unjustifiable” or “crimes”, etc. --Uncle Ed 16:56, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The listing is one of "deaths", the number of "acts of violence" is greater by a factor of 6 or more. This is one of two ways in which "acts of violence" is inaccurate. The other way is that "acts of violence" is needlessly uninformative. By the same argument one could/should argue for the term to be "actions" or "acts". Why call it violence? "acts" is certainly less perjorative than "acts of violence". The central issue is that one group objects to calling murder because it makes the murderers "look bad". If only the both sides would engage in the same acts of terrorism, we would not have this problem, there would be no hesitation to call the acts by their name: terrorism. OneVoice 18:39, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

How can killing a soldier of an occuping force (in Gaza) being called terrorism? Most would agree detonating bombs in buses with civilians is terrorism, but sniping soldiers in Gaza?

Will we be removing "terrorism" from all other articles as well? such as Israeli terrorism -> Israeli Acts of Violence? OneVoice 19:11, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

’’If only the both sides would engage in the same acts of terrorism, we would not have this problem’’

How do you mean? --Uncle Ed 19:38, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If both sides engaged in numerous acts of terrorism, both could agree to call the acts terrorism or to call none of them terrorism....when only one or predominently only one engages in acts of terrorism using the word terrorism becomes an issue...its not fair to one side. they wont agree on which acts are terrorism but will agree that terrorism is occurring.

regarding the issue at hand. If we are going to remove the terrorism label from Palestinian actions we should remove them from Israeli actions as well. This is not "the right thing to do" but if we cant call a rose a rose (blowing up buses terrorism) then we should not call anything a rose. OneVoice 19:46, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for you prompt answer. I confess I still can not follow your "both sides engaged" reasoning, but I've had a busy day. I guess I should sleep on it. Anyway, no one can really think clearly when discussing murder; it's too upsetting.

that is exactly what we ask criminal court judges to do frequently. as with Truman...it choices might all be bad choices, but the situation must be addressed.

As for the "remove the label" thing, let's try to build a consensus. Most of us contributors consider blowing up a bus to be "violent", but whether article titles or article text should label it "terrorism" is a big and wide-ranging issue. It affects dozens of articles. --Uncle Ed 20:14, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Can all these pages be protected on versions that retain the langauge before the edit war....so that consensus can be reached without an edit war in place. as long as the edit war lasts, no consensus will be reached, per my reading of human nature OneVoice 20:17, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In my home country, we have a saying: It takes two to tango - which means, essentially, you are just as much at fault in an edit war. Considering the factors that Viajero is a known contributor, and that you are chosing to delete information rather than add information, you have a strike against you in the eyes of the community. Me, anyway. But yes, discussion is better than reverting, and thats a good idea, as long as everyones clear on the concept of NPOV -戴&#30505sv 20:24, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I dont keep a "brag page" of articles that I have worked on. Nonetheless on e is [available] automatically at Wikipedia. If you ignore the edit war with Zero0000 and Viajero, you will see that there are hundreds of edits. Zero0000 and I have been making progress on the Amin al-Husayni and the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement pages as well as others. Unforutnately I have not been able to engage Viajero in a dialogue. Attempts to do so can be found at Talk:Violence_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict_2004 in both the Talk:Violence_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict_2004#Vote and the Talk:Violence_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict_2004#Violence and Terrorism sections.

It does indeed take two to tango...forgive me if I have anywhere indicated otherwise. I would be very happy to have the status quo ante (vis a vis the edit war) restored and discuss the matter. OneVoice 20:37, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I would like to thank OneVoice for his attempts to dialogue with Viajero and for his continued -- even eager! --willingness to dialogue with me. Also, Viajero and I have a healthy private e-mail dialogue going. So maybe I can be a mediator of sorts, kind of the grease between two gears in the WikiMachine, eh? I'd rather facilitate cooperation than conduct a Formal Mediation, anyway :-) --Uncle Ed 21:45, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Has there been any progress in deciding what to do with this article? Should it be deleted? This is the only page from the list of blank pages that I couldn't fix. Wmahan . 08:58, 2004 May 1 (UTC)

Should this page be deleted, reverted, ...?

What's going on with this page? Should it be on VFD or reverted? It's been blank for a long time, and I don't like blank pages. Dori | Talk 06:19, May 9, 2004 (UTC)