Talk:Coastal Road massacre

How many died?

I've seen sources claim 9 died and two were captured. Presumably, Yahya Skaf was among those captured? Anyone got an RS? -- Kendrick7 01:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

good question. changed paragraph. also used heb wiki. Amoruso 13:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I found one cite that said 9 dead Palestinians (presumbly the terrorists, though it failed to say that in so many words), 34 dead Israelis. I found a page on Google books that began "and 78 wounded. Four survivors were severely injured." but no way google was going to serve me the previous page. But, combined with the unsourced 36 figure for passengers, and the unsourced 11 figure for the terrorists -- that hints at the numbers adding up somehow. But it's still rather mysterious. If you have Hebrew citations port them over. -- Kendrick7 09:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

---

The mysterious bit is that the Israelis thought that one or two terrorists got away, while the Arabs thought that the Israelis were hiding one or two captured prisoners or their bodies... AnonMoos 19:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a mystery see the Shabak web site "Bus 300" affair. The 1 Palestinians was photographed being arrested uninjured put in the vehicle but the turned up dead at the other end of the journey. The second Palestinian was executed in the area as noted by the reporter. It was on the "this month" section of the Shin Bet site when it opened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley kennedy3 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Bias

This article relies almost solely on Israeli sources and is biased. There is a need to introduce other perspectives on these events, particularly since so many of the claims lack citations. --Tirpse77 (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it was extremely biased; it hardly even scratched the surface of this horrific event. I've added more detail from a non-Israeli reliable source. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll go through it later to make sure that the sources of the information you inserted are clear as well. Even with RS, there is a tendency to rely on official Israeli sources, which at the time were subject to heavy military censorship. I agree it was a horrific event. --Tirpse77 (talk) 02:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Claiming that one cannot use "official Israeli sources" in describing this is like claiming one cannot use "official American souces" in describing 9/11. Official Israeli sources are as or more reliable than any others; Israelis don't shy away from assigning blame to the relevant parties, even if they are Israeli. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I made no such claim, but given the poor truthfulness of Israeli hasbara, one does have to be cautious and aware of the context. As you can see, I have used official Israeli sources, so obviously I do not believe they are always unreliable. Please do not try to assume my "emotional state" on Israeli sources. --Tirpse77 (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't made any assumptions or comments about your "emotional state", about which I have no interest; please stop using meaningless mimicry instead of meaningful rhetoric. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have added some more material to this article. I think it is not perfect but better. Let me start by affirming that I hope no one disagrees that this was a horrific event in which many innocent people needlessly lost their lives. My personal view is that all attacks on civilians, regardless of their motive, the identity of the perpetrators or the identity of the victims are absolutely wrong and unjustifiable. This applies to Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians and the much more numerous and lethal Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians. Too many innocent people have died in this conflict. Having said that, I think the key points that were evident in the contemporaneous coverage of this event, but absent from the article previously were that (a) the purpose of the hijacking was not to carry out an indiscriminate "massacre" of civilians, but to seize hostages to exchange for prisoners -- a terrible tactic that has unfortunately been used by both sides in this conflict, and (b) that most of the deaths resulted from the botched Israeli response to the hijacking. I have introduced those elements now, and I think they provide a more complete and balanced account of this incident. I am open to other suggestions for how to improve the article. --Tirpse77 (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't fill Talk: pages with false equivalences. This was a horrific terror incident, period. No excuses, and we're not talking about any other events. As for the deaths, the TIME article says it wasn't security officers who tried to stop the bus, but "30 traffic cops, armed only with .38 revolvers and UZI submachine guns". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Who was making excuses? Surely you agree that all violence directed at civilians is wrong? I think you should save your anger and misplaced indignation for somewhere it is needed. I am going to focus on fixing this article. Thanks. --Tirpse77 (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please focus on the incident and on the article describing it, not suppositions about the emotional states of other editors. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Pots and kettles, Jayjg, it was your original sarcastic comment that prompted my response, and your further indignation about my alleged "false equivalencies" that prompted my further comment. If you are uninterested in other people's views, then keep yours to yourself as well. Let's leave it there, ok? --Tirpse77 (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I made no "original sarcastic comment". Don't comment about me again; restrict your comments to discussions of article content. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, there's a number of claims that need citations. I could not find an RS for the claim that the Palestinian Authority named a school after Dalal al-Mughrabi. This claim is made on a number of non-RS pro-Israel websites, and they seem to refer to an article in arabic. I could not find that original article. --Tirpse77 (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC) the claim that Ehud Barak participated in the shoot out contradicts the Time article which says there was no time to call out the troops and contradicts the statement in both this article and the Time article that it was a Police roadblock that stopped the attackers. Telaviv1 (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wine

The hijackers were not "Muslim militants." They were members of Fatah, which like the rest of the Palestinian national movement at the time was Marxist. This event pre-dates the 1979 revolution in Iran. Prior to that anti-occupation fighters, resistance movements, and so on almost never identified as "Muslim." Hamas was not established until 1988. At the time, Palestinians and others Arabs and Muslims drank wine as many still do today. --Tirpse77 (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That's nice, but we still need a source for the dubious claim that terrorists en route to an hijacking/murder spree would pause for a meal with wine on the beach. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well if you actually bothered to check the sources before engaging in fanciful speculations you would know it is in the Washington Post article cited (specifically the wine). The Time magazine article also says they lunched on the beach but does not list the menu. It would be nice if you actually checked the sources before jumping to ignorance-based conclusions. Thanks. --Tirpse77 (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no need for this kind of uncivil personal attacks (especially ironic in light of them coming alongside assertions that Fatah was a Marxist organization, or that the Islamic prohibition on wine consumption is somehow related to the Iranian revolution) - and I see you've been warned about this earlier. I asked for a source - all you had to do was provide one. The Time magazine article does not support the statement about wine, and the Washington Post is not available on line for me to verify it. I'll take your word that it says they had wine, and kindly request that you take more care to be civil in your talk page participation. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm... Fatah is/was a Marxist organization. Fatah is a member of the Socialist International Perhaps you should also WP:DGF by attempting to verify a source before disputing it. Your local public library probably has archives of the Washington Post from 1978. Bangpound (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This getting further off-topic, but, no, Fatah is not/was not a Marxist organization. The Socialist International is an umbrella organization for socialist and Labour parties. It includes such members as the British Labour party or Israel's labour party, who are center-Left and who would shudder at the thought of being described as 'Marxist'. Fatah is, as its wikipedia article states, a nationalist organization, not even predominantly socialist, let alone Marxist. The factionalism within the PLO is, to an extent, due to deep ideological rifts between Marxist organizations such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine or the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and Fatah, which is not.

Back to the topic at hand. Our core policy of Verifiability states that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source". I found a statment that seemed dubious to me, and tagged it per policy, giving my rationale. It was not clear to me that the Washington Post article is the source for this statement, nor is that source available on-line for easy verification. All Tirpse77 had to do was state that this is sourced to the WP article, and I would have taken his word for it. Instead, he provided a lenghty piece of erronous and misleading original research, which, even if correct, would have been an inappropriate response. And he topped it off with some gratuitous personal insults. He has done the same wirth another editor who has complained about it, above. You are both reminded that Wikipedia:Civility is also policy. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the stuff about the wine and the figures regarding civillians shot by the police as the article gave the impression that it is defending the attackers and shifting moral responsibility onto the israelis. I think that is not a sensitive approach and that this article should not be a tool in politicking. In this incident moral responsibility clearly lies with the attackers and that shold be relflected by the text. Readers who are interested in the finer details can read the cited magazine articles. I appreciate that some editors were amused by the wine details or that they wished to emhpashize Israeli malpractise but I don't think this article is the place. the quotes from Time make it clear that many of the dead were killed by the police and that is sufficient. There are no reliable figures as to how many died from which source and unreliable figures giving high estimates of the number of those killed "by police fire" convey the impression that the editors are trying to defend the attack.

Telaviv1, there are no grounds whatsoever to remove this sourced material simply because you do not like it. You cannot impose your POV of what is tasteful/tasteless, amusing/not amusing. This is material reported in contemporaneous sources. Your editing fails to give the complete picture of the event. This is an encyclopedia article and not a memorial to the victims of this horrible event.--Tirpse77 (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yediot Ahronot in Hebrew recently took some of the children who survived the attack (now adults)to the site and had them tell their stories. the article is available online and if we are forced to keep the lines I object to then I will try to balance it with personal stories by orphans who survived the massacre. Telaviv1 (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Censorship of sourced material

I do not appreciate the attempts by Canadian Monkey to remove sourced material in order, apparently, to whitewash the contemporaneous criticism that severe blunders in the Israeli handling of the incident led to more than two dozen deaths. Have you even read the Washington Post article cited before making your totally unwarranted changes? The Washington Post article talks about an "ambush" and the deaths of 25 people as a result of botched Israeli decision making. Unless you can show some reason why the Washington Post is not an RS on this then please stop removing sourced material and trying to massage the article in this POV manner.--Tirpse77 (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I similarly do not appreciate your attempts to subtly (and not-so-subtly) shift the blame for this horrendous act of terrorism from the perpetrators to the security forces who stopped it. You have been warned about this by another editor, above, and your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, it seems that it is exactly what you are trying to do. The bus was not ambushed, and I have added a reliable source (TIME) that correctly describes the incident as being stopped at a roadblock. I will shortly add several more that state the same thing. Perhaps you’d like to explain why you insist on changing a factual, neutral description of the event (the bus was stopped at a roadblock), into a non-factual one (Ambush involves the use of surprise, hidden forces, which was not the case here) which subtly shift blame by making the roadblock operators into the aggressors, when he have multiple reliable sources using the neutral, factual description. The criticism of the security forces is still there – without your attempt at shifting the blame to them.Canadian Monkey (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's clear that it's not irrefutable that that Barak shot the dead body of Mughrabi and as a result, we cannot at this time put that claim in the article. And we can't make a WP:SYN by acting as if there's some debate upon this subject when no source mentions there is any sort of dispute. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ehud Barak

Noticed that the part about Ehud Barak leading or being in the Israeli team fighting the hijackers was gone, saw it was reasonably enough removed 1 1/2 years ago because it wasn't supported by the ref, a 1978 Time story. Found it remarkably hard to find RS's on it, but I remembered seeing a photo of him at the scene, so finally found something on it. It isn't consistent with the part now in the article about it being the police only there, which is based on the old TIME report, so I'll change it. Needs work to get it better.John Z (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Good call. I can help with further revisions if you have a section in mind that needs work. ShamWow (talk) 03:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Its BS and has no basis in any Israeli sources.Telaviv1 (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, there were three sources, including Fisk, in the article for it, and I know I've seen a photo, probably in a book, of someone who looks remarkably like Barak at the scene. I could find references for the photo on the net, but couldn't find a url for it that worked when I last looked a few months ago. Fisk says there is a videotape. Do you have a source that says that Barak was not there? John Z (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The sources you refer to are all much later and don't explain how they got the information except to say "there is a videotape" however none of them has seen it. Fisks article contains other factual errors and is not reliable. The whole thing is based on a Lebanese source which is clearly not got any real evidence to back it. I located the picture you refer to at http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Dalal-Mughrabi http://www.daylife.com/photo/05Q8c5zdae4a7

The officer does look vaguely like Barak but it was 30 years ago and you don't know what he looked like then. Even if it is that doesn't prove he commanded anything. You would have to find another photo of him from that period and make a comparison to say it was him. As it is "looking vaguely like Barak" is not evidence. none of the sources you cite date from the period but refer to something made up years later.

Note the reference here to libel of Barak: http://www.pmw.org.il/specrep-39.html

BTW check out the Al-Jazeera program http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2008/07/al-jaeera-dedicates-program-to.html "Palestian republic was established on the bus"

I was a kid at the time at school in north tel-aviv. The next day all the schools and the main coastal road were closed and there was a night time curfew in certain areas while the army double checked that no-one had got away. Later Israel invaded Lebanon for the first time (I don't remember how much time passed but have read that it was 3 days). If there was such a TV program as claimed I am sure we would have seen it by now. I think what happened is that Lebanese TV showed the picture from the Israeli magazine and gave it an 'interpretation' eg that the israeli officer was shooting her dead body etc. and then years later someone must have added that it was Barak.

I had this whole discussion 2 years ago during the exchange. In my opinion someone removed my links to the picture probably because the links went dead.

As an Israeli my understanding of the event is that the Palestinians/Arabs set out to either murder as many people (Jewish people that is) as they could and/or take some hostages and it made no difference to them how old the victims were etc. Those sort of attacks took place every so often in those days and they usually resulted in the death of the attackers and murder of various Israeli non-combatants. Telaviv1 (talk) 10:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

My recollection may be entirely in error, but I think I remember seeing a different photo, where the Israeli is some distance away, holding a gun, in half-profile, looking rather more like Barak. Haven't seen the photo you link before. It could be a case of making a story up from photograph(s), but it is most natural to read Fisk's article as saying he has seen the videotape. There's no indication it was ever aired. There is one ridiculous error or typo, suggesting that Barak fought them as part of the Lebanese army, but it doesn't seem to me to be enough to make it unreliable. The PMW article doesn't say he wasn't there, and the sentence written here certainly wasn't libellous, it just stated he led or was present. Could be right or wrong, but wasn't pejorative. Barak didn't become a famous politician til later, so if it is true he was there, it still makes sense that there would be no contemporary sources. Don't know at the moment what would be best to do here; better sources would be nice.John Z (talk) 10:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

All this talk is pointless. We have two relevant sources citing a relevant event linked to the article's subject. That is enough to have it included. If there is another reliable source refuting the claims, we should also include it, instead of removing the whole subject altogether. Wikipedia doesn't have to be minimalistic.Froy1100 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, I challenge the notion that the pic only looks 'vaguely' like him. It's him. Dlabtot (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You need an academic source. see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources given how much material exists on this stuff two sources is not a lot. Fisk's article quite definitely does not say that he has seen the video, it just says that "a surviving videotape". You are assuming he has seen it. Telaviv1 (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not assuming anything. I'm just including relevant information provided by a relevant source. I didn't write that Fisk saw the footage, just that he reported that it exists. Being a professional journalist working in a renowned journal, the information he reports complies with WP:RS and must be included, specially taking into account tha there are at least two relevant sources reporting the event.Froy1100 (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I re added it since its sourced and relevant info. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The only photograph existing at the Web depicts an Israeli officer at the rank of Major over the dead body of Dalal al-Mughrabi. It is obviously not Barak who at that time was a Colonel and in a year got promoted to a Brigadier General. Moreover, the article Ehud Barak explicitly states that at the time of the raid he was studying at the Stanford University. So all allusions to Barak are patently false and, being harmful to a living person, must be removed from this article. --Deinocheirus (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ehud Barak case amended

This is quite obviously a case of fertile imagination. Completely contradicted by other sources, not to mention that Ehud Barak was in Stanford University at the time. This was probably inspired by a photo showing somebody similar in appearance to Barak with rank of Captain removing weapons from the dead body (according to the English caption on the bottom left). As mentioned above it is obviously not Barak who at that time was a Colonel and in a year got promoted to a Brigadier General.In any case I amended the article with some more details. The Hugh McLeod sources are full of factual errors and I might remove those sources, or if there is any objection here, take them to RSN . Marokwitz (talk) 09:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC) P.S. The claim that Ehud Barak had a bayonet on his weapon is almost amusing. Marokwitz (talk) 09:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Use of word terrorists

Wikipedia policy is that this term requires in line citation. I will carry out the required changes. Note this is wikipedia policy, so probably not subject to the 1RR as any revert would be vandalism.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 09:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Responding to NMMNG's edit summary in which he/she restored the multiple references to the word "terrorist" in the article, it doesn't matter if sources used the word terrorist. We don't use that word (or freedom fighter, etc.) in wikipedia's voice. See WP:Avoid (specifically WP:Terrorist). These are pretty clear-cut policies. Pretty sure many supporters of the PLO and certainly the PLO itself did not view the perpetrators as terrorists. "Terrorist" could be used if it is quoted and attributed to the source. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

List of fatalities

Could someone explain why the home page of the National Insurance Institute of Israel is listed as a reference for each fatality? Thanks. Dalliance (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coastal Road massacre. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090808113829/http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1105308.html to http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1105308.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

39+9=48

It seems to me, that the info box ought to list 48 dead. Certainly the article explains how many on each side were killed. If we wanted to break down those killed in the info box, we might want to use the battle box format. Or not. I am not an expert and will not make the edit myself. ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 06:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2018

Change "political settlement uniting of the Arabs with the Palestinians" under the heading "Motives" to "political settlement uniting the Arabs with the Palestinians". [The wording is still a bit awkward, but less grammatically so with the change] Coreybchapman (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: Replaced ungrammatical phrasing with: "...political settlement which would have the effect of uniting the Arabs with the Palestinians..." Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Imri Tel-Oren

(First time I'm commenting and English is not my native language, sorry if I break some conversation rules, it's unintentional). Imri Tel-Oren, who was a relative of mine and died in this attack, is misnamed twice in this article: "Omri" in 'Bus Hijacking' and "Omry" in 'Fatalities'. The article also mentions his father Hanoch getting injured, but his brother has been injured as well in this attack so it could warrant a mention. I tried to correct the mistake but the article is locked, probably because it's a political battleground, but I don't think this particular minor change would be controversial, so can anyone with access make this edit for me? I would be grateful. For further proof, reference number 14 in the article mentions his name being 'Imri', while reference number 55 (in Hebrew) mentions his brother getting injured. Thanks Helpmechooseauser (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Fatalities should be tagged, sourcing should be improved, soldier should be noted in article body

This section should be tagged with {{incomplete list}} to avoid the impression that the list is exhaustive. Additionally, and to reiterate a point from above, the sourcing of each fatality to an insurance company is inappropriate, not least because no supporting information is actually found at that source. The infobox notes that 1 soldier died, but this fact is not noted in the article text.130.233.213.199 (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Non-notable victims of disasters should not be listed, so the section has been removed. The soldier in the infobox has been marked as not verified in body. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)