Talk:Mossad assassinations following the Munich massacre/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

This used to be a redirect to the page Munich Massacre. Since the two topics are substantially different, I figure that that should warrant separate articles. Joshdboz 15:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you believe that Black September existed? Do you believe Yuval Aviv's story?Scott Adler 03:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

--Nobody said that he/she believed in Black September or Yuval Aviv's story. As much as you disagree with the existence of the knowledge, they are on Wikipedia as a reference for the general audience to decide whether they are real or hoax. Regards, Vic226 06:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

--Well said Vic. Scott, below you say you are an expert on this subject, but your comments (with all due respect) are amateurish. You are reacting emotionally. I have taken courses on intelligence and espionage and feel qualified to say that this is a respectable article. Moomot 14:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What qualifies you to judge? I say again, find one independent source for the separate existance of Black September or that the term "Wrath of God" was anything but an invention of Yuval or Juval Aviv -- go ahead. Any article that refers to a hoax is a sham, an exercise in propaganda. It doesn't matter how many times it is implanted into Wikipedia, if it has no basis in fact, it shouldn't be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Adler (talk • contribs) 22:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ostrovsky

Can we please remove all the references to Ostrovsky? The guy has no credibility, just because someone claims to be a Mossad agent doesn't mean he was. Drsmoo (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Eliminated

I am very unhappy about the use of this word. It is a euphemism. In my opinion it dehumanizes the victim. I'm not sure what should replace it, perhaps simply "killed". Brainfood 20:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed every occurrence of "eliminated" to either "assassinated" or "killed". Articles such as this are remarkable in the sense that they successfully (excuse the clichés) walk a tightrope over a minefield. However in this case I think the repeated reference to "successful elimination" was not balanced. Brainfood 13:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

terrorists in the black september are anything but victims. Amoruso 18:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed completely with Brainfood, thanks for the reverts. Joshdboz 22:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I can see this as a difficult one, and I'm not sure of the correct answer, eliminated, neutralised or terminated are what words that would be used in millitary speak and I feel that the first two of these words do work well as they carry a NPOV. Assassinated is a charged word, as people remember it in connection with the JFK or MLK assinations and it is generally related to something which is generally politically motivated rather than security related. Killed is emotive as people will relate it to killings as reported in the media. In reference to "successful elimination" that is what this would have been regarded as by the people undertaking the operation, so it may have merit, but in a specific context. MattUK 20:20, November 28 2006 (UTC)

My view is that the most basic description is "they died". If we are interested in cause and effect the phrase would be something like "they were killed". In this field there is no term without emotional conotations. Eliminated, neutralised or terminated all claim the person deceased was solely a military/security/strategic object and no other dimensions or aspects to their humanity existed. While this may be the optimum belief for state sanctioned killers, or terrorists, it is POV. A human being is multidimensional and to deny this is POV. We look for the least worst term to describe those who kill innocents to further their cause. We say "they killed" or more commonly "3000 people died". But we dont use euphemisms. They didnt "involuntarily enroll, in a glorious sacrifice, 200 people". Even if that was the way the killers saw it. In the same way here I think taking the POV of the killers in OWOG and using eliminated, neutralised etc in our narration would not be neutral. SmithBlue 02:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Two posts above signed Joshdboz contradict each other over "Eliminated" use. Second of the posts was actually by MattUK according to "history". SmithBlue 03:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, the second one was by me, New to this and wasnt sure how to sign the comment, so as I have on the previous ones I copied the sign from the one above so I had the correct formatting and changed the details, unfortunatly, due to doing this while on the phone and getting distracted I forgot to change the name section, sorry for being slow on this, and sorry Joshdboz for the mess up and any confusion. I've changed it so the comment above is correctly signed by myself. MattUK 19:26, November 29 2006 (UTC)

Never existed

I just deleted a sentence put in by User:Greenday121: It should be noted that this operation, officially, never existed. First of all I there is no source to back up this claim, it is possible Israel has admitted to this campaign. Also, given the fact that this is described as a covert action, I think it is implied that this was done secretly and with full denials. Joshdboz 10:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted a pretty obvious vandalism attempt -- it refered to serving Satan and "stupid PHUCKS", among other things.--Icewolf34 14:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Passed GA nomination

I noticed this pop up on my watchlist after a short while of inactivity, with a request for GA status. As I have peer reviewed this before, and the stage it was in at that time was already very good, and it has only improved since then, I feel it passes GA criteria easily. --Lethargy 22:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hoax and should be eliminated

This whole article is based on a hoax. It should be eliminated and merged into Munich Massacre.

The entire "Wrath of God" concept is based on a widely discredited book by New York Publicity hound Yuval Aviv. The destruction of the Fatah terrorist network in Europe by the Mossad is a valid entry, but "Operation Wrath of God" is a joke, an insult, mere propaganda. My favorite part is a claim that "Black September retaliated against the Israeli government"

Uh-huh. Black September never existed. If it did, who were its leaders? Where was its headquarters? Who were its sponsors? Black September was FATAH.

And if there was one group Fatah NEVER attacked, it was the Israeli government, out of fear that if a government official was killed, Arafat would be next.

You just contradicted yourself. If Fatah wasn't the ones retaliating against the Israel Government, then who was? Climie.ca 20:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review? I wonder who did it? Yuval Aviv?68.5.64.178 07:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that this article is somewhat controversial, but it would serve you well to read the article and look at its sources before criticizing it. Almost this entire article is based on the consensus of many sources. Because Yuval-Aviv's book is so controversial and verifiably questionably, I have only used it when talking about the possible organization of the Wrath of God teams, and in a seperate section devoted entirely to the controversy. You're correct in that Black September was very close to Fatah, although people disagree as to how close the links where. Black September carried out numerous attacks against Israeli targets, and the evidence is well documented. Please refrain from shouting before you check you're facts.--Joshdboz 11:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just reverted the recent edits you've made to the article, because they readded the word "terrorist" in many places where it was purposefully removed, and because you change statements to mean different things without references. As for you're complaints about the title, all I can say is what it says in the footnotes, this was a name given to the operation by the press years after its occurence, and was probably never used by the Mossad. However, it has become the standard name in most books and press stories used to describe the events which occured, so I believe it is a suitable enough title.--Joshdboz 11:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

A question regarding the sequence of events: It is said that OWoG was planned after the hijacking of a Lufthansa plane and the subsequent release of the remaining Munich terrorists. However, the hijacking took place on October 29th, and the first "target" of OWoG as reported in the article was Zwaiter, on October 16th. This doesn't work, does it? Either OWoG was already planned before (and ostensibly modified after the Oct 29th events to include the three released terrorists) or Zwaiter's death cannot be considered part of OWoG. Or am I missing something? 82.83.202.198 12:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that. Obviously no one really knows when all the background events actually took place, but I think I've rearranged the wording to reflect this. Feel free to improve. Joshdboz 13:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Staged operation

"After the three surviving perpetrators of the massacre were released just months later by Germany in compliance with the demands of the hijackers of a Lufthansa aircraft, Golda Meir created Committee X, a small group of government officials tasked with formulating an Israeli response, with herself and Defense Minister Moshe Dayan at the head."

Shoulden't we mention that the German goverment is reported to have staged the Lufthansa hijacking in order to prevent genuin terror attacks? --Boris Johnson VC 12:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe anything's been proven but if you can reference it go ahead. Joshdboz 13:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

In both ESPN/ABC’s documentary The Tragedy of the Munich Games and in Kevin Macdonald’s Academy Award-winning documentary One Day in September, it is claimed that the whole hijacking episode was a sham, concocted by the West Germans and Black September so that the Germans could be rid of the three Munich perpetrators. The view is that the Germans were fearful that their mishandling of the rescue attempt would be exposed to the world if the three Fürstenfeldbruck survivors had ever stood trial[2].

Found this on the Munich massacre page, though i'm not sure if this counts as evidence. --Boris Johnson VC 15:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added this line The suddeness of Germany's capitulation to the demands has since aroused suspicion as to whether the entire hijacking was simply a show to allow West Germany to rid itself of the possibility of future retaliation.[8] Please adjust it to how you see fit. Joshdboz 16:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks--Boris Johnson VC 17:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This article should be scrapped

This article is based on two obnoxious hoaxes -- the Yuval Aviv novel "Vengeance" and Yasser Arafat's "Black September" cover story.

There was no "Wrath of God" operation. The Israelis attacked the Fatah network. There was no "Black September", it was a cover for Fatah, nothing more. Yes Arafat included operatives from other organizations, big deal. If it actually existed, who were its leaders? Where was its headquarters? Why did it suddenly disappear?

I don't know what kind of fools engaged in the "peer review" process that approved of this nonsense. I'm an expert in this era-- I was only 50 miles away from the the "Black September" war while it was going on. Anyone who supports the work of Yuval Aviv or believes that Black September actually existed should be working on articles about vegetables.Scott Adler 03:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Even though I have no opinion about this yet, if you are unhappy about anything in the article (or, in this case, the article itself), please, for the sake of civility, don't include taste of personal attacks in your commentary. Thanks, Vic226 04:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Scott Adler, this article has been criticized several times before for relying on Yuval Aviv and been called a hoax. If you read the article and look at the footnotes you'll see that none of this is true. Yuval Aviv (in the book Vengeance) is only used as a source in small subset of the "Organization" section and in the final section entitled "Vengeance". Because it is an unverified account, it is never used for any information with regards to background, operations, etc. You're correct in that there was no official "Wrath of God" operation; this was a name that started floating around the press at the time to describe the series of assassinations conducted by Israel. As for Fatah and Black September connections, yes many people have concluded through research and the accounts of senior Palestinians that Black September was nothing but an armed front organization for Fatah. However, that conclusion is somewhat contentious, so it is more neutral and verifiable to continue to use the label Black September. This issue is addressed somewhat in one of the first few footnotes. Joshdboz 12:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the book Vengeance is not written by Yuval Aviv. It was written by a Canadian Journalist George Jonas. The book has been attacked, yes. We've seen it on this discussion page. However, it has never been proven wrong. Second Question: If Black September didn't commit the Munich Massacre, then who did? Black September was not part of Fatah. The two were linked closely, but Black September was a fanatical terror group led by Ali Hassan Salameh. This topic is controversial, yes. However, there is no reason for anyone to blow a gasket against the article.

Vandalism

I request for protection of this page due to recent vandalism (Why is it not protected anyway? Isn't it on the Front Page?)--kenobi.zero 04:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

{{sprotectedTalk}}-ed. I was considering not since it wasn't that frequent yet, but I changed my mind after the last 2 edits by 24.65.3.116 almost killed my computer just to load his vandalized version. Vic226 05:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a longstanding policy to not protect the main page featured article, regardless of how severe the vandalism gets. Daniel Case 15:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The use of Nigger is completely inappropriate and should be immediately removed. I wonder why Wikipedia tolerates the use of Nigger but has completely removed derogatory refernces to Jewish people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.181.156 (talk • contribs) 25 November 2006

What are you talking about? If you were talking about the vandal by an annonymous IP user that has been automatically reverted, since nowhere in the article mentions anything about the word "nigger". And why did you mention the seemingly unrelated thing about the "removal of Jewish people" references here? Vic226 05:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't ageee that that Wiki or the community in any way sanctioned making a page about "Operation Wrath of God" pages and pages of the word "nigger" as you can see it was reverted immediatly. If you think that using the word "nigger" to fill pages is some kind of Wiki policy then you obviously don't understand this site at all. The page is now as it should be and will probably be semi protected as most pages which are put on the front page usually are. MattUK 05:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I will agree -- this page NEEDS to be protected immediately, I clicked on the link from the home page and was directed to "DO A BARREL ROLL"

Critcism

There is an extremely long passage at the beginning of "Criticism" that uses a simple book review from a periodical as its reference. This should be removed or checked for additional sources, such as the sources cited in the book itself. Avery 06:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This section of text used to be in the Munich massacre article and was copy/pasted over by me. I have read the book and have confirmed all of the book review's assertions, although at that time I didn't think it was necessary to replicate sourcing from the book itself. I could change that in the future but unfortunately I don't have a copy of the book right now. Joshdboz 12:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Joshbodz! I will try to find a copy for sourcing.Avery 22:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Now

All of you seem to have high critism's of this article what do you have to back up your critism besides critism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.169.250.83 (talk • contribs) 25 November 2006

Hoax?

The following discussion was previously posted on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors -- Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC).

This article is based on an infamous hoax. There was no "Operation Wrath of God" -- the claim is based entirely on the ravings of a man by the name of Yuval (or Juval) Aviv, a poseur discredited twenty years ago. Aviv was never a member of Mossad, but his ravings have been made into two separate films. The Mossad did not target the perpetrators of the Munich Massacre, but the Fatah terror network that European governments illegally permitted on their soil, a specific violation of the Hague Treaty of 1907. (Check the text, if you like) How the hell did such a rediculous scandal become a "featured article"? Please respond. Scott Adler 01:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that most historians would agree with you. In any event, Wikipedia cares about verifiability over truth. So if you can find reliable sources that argue for the above claim, we could then consider adding the viewpoint that it was "hoax" to the article. JoshuaZ 02:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me turn this around. Find me a single reliable source that supports the existance of Black September as distinct from Fatah or a single participant in the events who backs up Yuval Aviv (or even met him). He was exposed in Haaretz 20 years ago. More recently, try "Spielberg could be on the wrong track" by Yossi Melman, (Haaretz 06/09/2005) http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=596350

Or perhaps "'Striking Back' says 'Vengeance' botches history" by STEVEN ZEITCHIK in Daily Variety (Dec. 12, 2005) http://www.variety.com/ac2006_article/VR1117934484?nav=news&categoryid=1982&cs=1&query=munich+and+spielberg&display=munich+spielberg

I have many, many, others. There was no "Black September" and there was no "Vengeance" -- the Israelis went after the Fatah network to prevent further attacks on European soil. They succeeded.

You want VERIFIABLE -- What more do you want. It's now up to you. YOU verify the existing article or withdraw it. Go ahead -- who was the leader of Black September? Who can back up Yuval Aviv's claims? Who? Scott Adler 19:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Scott, you may notice that the article has very little emphasis on Black September and that Aviv is used only once as a source in the article. Everything else is sourced to others. JoshuaZ 03:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Scott Adler: Nothing is going to be accomplished peacefully if you keep up the pressure and stress on other editors with disruptive behavior. Please keep a cool head if you want to resolve controversial disputes. Thanks, Vic226 03:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It was never said that Yuval Aviv wasn't a member of the Mossad. The Mossad is an extremely secretive and private organization, and it is likely that any major accounts of their dealings have been discredited by them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Climie.ca (talk • contribs) 23:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

HBO

The lead says that this was made into an HBO film; the film was not actually an HBO movie but a miniseries that was originally broadcast in Canada. I'm changing it from "HBO film" to "television film". Hope this is okay - this is a great article. Rmj12345 01:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I believe that that line was a holdover from the original article that was part of Munich massacre. Joshdboz 11:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

common sense

This article isn't a hoax. It doesn't take a genius to put events together.

1: Munich Massacre, 1972 2: Golda Meir, in a speech, says "Send forth the Boys" 3: between 1972 and 1974, a number of PLO and Fatah leaders are killed 4: April 9, 1974: Operation Spring of Youth 5: Salameh is killed in 1979 6: All of the methods of target elimination involve assassinations and/or explosives 7: Israel hated all of the people who were killed.

Now I'm no Einstein, but i AM capable of putting 2 and 2 and 2 and 2 and 2 and 2 and 2 together. To say Operation Wrath of God was a hoax is to throw simple common sense out the window.

Climie.ca 20:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Cam

Use of Image:Ap munich905 t.jpg in this article

Image:Ap munich905 t.jpg was nominated for deletion. Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_June_27#Image:Ap_munich905_t.jpg consensus was reached that use of the image needed to be restricted to where it contributes significantly to an article. My opinion is that this is not the case for this article. The image was being used in a decorative manner. The is no commentary on the image. -Nv8200p talk 17:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

During the deletion discussion there were 4 votes as Keep with the rationales:

• Keep. In this case, I believe the image is acceptable. Yes, it's borderline in regard to NFCC #2, but it obviously passes all the rest, and I think the benefits outweigh the costs. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but remove from articles for which there is no specific fair use rationale written WP:NFCC#10-c. Videmus Omnia 14:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep fix fair use rationale as needed. No need to process-wonk too much. -N 23:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per above. Raul654 02:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

When this image was nominated for deletion there were two fair use rationales written, one for the article Munich massacre and the other for Operation Wrath of God. Even though a new rationale was added, this image was subsequently deleted from Operation Wrath God because it was claimed to breach WP:NFCC#8, which states that:

• Significance. Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative, and is thus unacceptable.

I would argue that this image is significant to the article considering that

• The Munich massacre and its iconic aspect was the direct cause of Operation Wrath of God (see War on Terrorism with picture of WTC).
• This article was rated a GA, FA, and placed on the main page without this significance being questioned.

--Joshdboz 13:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The way the image is used makes it look like the picture is part of Operation Wrath of God which occured later.

Wikipedia rules for fair use images are tightening up, especially for press photos. What may have been acceptable yesterday is not acceptable today. When it is fair use, it will constantly be questioned. -Nv8200p talk 14:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

A fair use rationale was added on the image talk page for this article by Joshdboz. This was a cut and paste of the rationale for the Munich Massacre article. The rationale for this article was removed from the image talk page for now until this dispute is resolved. -Nv8200p talk 14:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The WTC image is freely licensed, while this is one image that news agency Associated Press licenses for a fee for anyone wanting to augment an article, book or webpage related to the events depicted. --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This valuable Associated Press's image can only be fairly used to illustrate a discussion about the notoriety of the image itself, and there's no reason to duplicate this discussion in two articles.

At the time this article was rated GA, FA, Main Page, etc, was the fair use status of this image discussed? Were the concerns raised in the recent IFD been questioned and addressed? If so, this discussion must contain valuable input for us. If not, I don't see the point in arguing that "as these issues were ignored before, they should be ignored now". --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

A few comments. Yes, the War on Terrorism article uses a picture of the Twin Towers, but it's a free image. We can use free images without having to deal with our non-free content criteria. I can see both sides of the dispute on whether this image passes NFCC#8 in this article. I personally feel that the image does not pass NFCC#8 here -- but if it did, it would have to go in the "Background and planning" section, where it is relevant. But that section doesn't seem to have room for another image. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. While I can concur with usage per NFCC#8 on the Munich Massacre article, I don't think it passes that for this particular article. Videmus Omnia 14:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The image is iconic, but I have never seen it used in the context of discussion this particular event; it is always in the context of the Munich massacre itself. A Google search for "Kurt Strumpf" (the photographer), while not to be treated as a deciding factor, seems to suggest as much. (It is actually used in quite a few locations, but I assume when it is used by a professional website, they are actually paying for the license to redistribute the photograph; we are, instead, using it without a license under "fair use".) So I don't think that it is appropriate for this article.

On a separate note, is the copyright to a photograph distributed by AP held by AP or by the photographer? (I thought it would be the photographer, but maybe photographers sign away their copyrights?) --Iamunknown 16:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It depends. If the photographer is an employee of the AP, then the AP holds the copyright (see work for hire). Independent contractors may or may not sign away their rights, depending on their contract. The AP also sometimes distributes photos for which they don't own the copyright (like "family photos" of people who made the news somehow, like getting murdered, where there is no opportunity for the AP to take its own photo). howcheng {chat} 16:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion; although I am still against the conclusion, it was completely unfair for the image to be deleted without a discussion of significance pertaining specifically to this article. For the record, Nv8200p, please do not accuse me of simply doing a copy/paste job, for had you looked more closely, I did adjust the rationale as I believed and believe fit to accomodate this article. Joshdboz 17:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup, my mistake. -Nv8200p talk 21:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I must say I'm totally lost as to why this image does not pass FU#8 for this article. The said event was extremely relevant as an underlying cause for the operation. I seriously don't understand - can someone explain how the image fits the ratioanle for the massacre article, but not this one. The Evil Spartan 18:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

To make things simpler, "fair use" doesn't mean we can use an Associated Press picture just because it fits like a glove to some of our articles. Associated Press has commercial interests in this image and neither fair use law nor our policies allow us to ignore these interests.

Fair use allows us (among other things) to use this image to comment the image itself (like mentioning the impact or historical importance it had). --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The image was taken during the Munich Massacre not during Operation Wrath of God. There is nothing in the Warth of God article that is commentary on the image or the role the image played in Operation Wrath of God. If sourced text can be added as to a role the image played, then including the image might be useable here. -Nv8200p talk 22:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Avner a "Hoax"?

How do you explain IDF Colonel Muki Betser getting trained by the same American firearms instructor as Avner? Mr Betser's description of the instructor in his book Secret Soldier, first published in 1996, on page 100, is similar to Avner's, and he was trained at the same time as him. The weapon that both men were trained on was the Beretta .22 cal pistol.121.218.162.11 (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)