Talk:Use of child suicide bombers by Palestinian militant groups

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Misc

I am aware that sending children over minefields was a common tactic used by the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war (and I added that to the article), but I do not recall ever hearing of this tactic being employed by the Iraqi side. Can someone provide a cite or at least vouch for the authenticity of this claim? Perhaps some of this stuff would be best moved to Military use of children, anyway. Everyking 19:58, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

All links to statements from IDF website are currently broken since the website moved to a new server.

Child suicide bomber = child abuse ?

Apart from the general problem of suicide bombing, many consider the exploition of children by brainwashing for fataly dangerous activitie as a form of child abuse. MathKnight 13:35, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Let's keep the pop psychoanalysis out of the article. Also the comment about child abuse sounds puerile. Is there a point being made? Did anyone suggest that killing children is good for them? --Zero 23:31, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Zero. -- Viajero 10:51, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It is clear that the use of children as suicide bomber is not disturbing as equally as using adults. Of course, the results of both suicide bombing are terrible, but while an adult is aware of his action, a child - in most cases - is not. Children are easy to influence and there is a serious case of explotatin here - which may harm the child's health (and probably kill him). This harms the children's right and thefore constitute a child abuse. Using children as combatants or suicide bombers is considered a war crime. Therefore, the issue that a child performs the suicide bombing is itself very disturbing (that is why Hussam Abdo's picture caught world attention) and it should be mentioned in the article. MathKnight 09:43, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Out of the over 150 Palestinian suicide bombings I've found, there were: three bombers aged 16 or 17, none under 16, and the rest seem to have been adults. Your idea that kids are easier to use for this is not reflected by the reality. The only kids under 16 were all stopped before detonating anything. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. SilverLocust 💬 12:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Apart from the general problem of suicide bombing, many consider the exploitation of children as a war crime and violation of children's rights. Some even consider this exploitation as a form of child abuse.

See also explanation above. MathKnight 09:16, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Viajero, don't you consider exploitation as some sort of abuse? A specially when the result of the exploitation can be a dead child? Secondly, as you can see - there are indeed people who consider the exploitation of kids for suicide bombings as a form of abuse. Thirdly, I think it well help to clear issues if you say what "abuse" include according to your views. MathKnight 10:56, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Let's not commit reader-abuse by telling them they can't form their own value judgements and labels for child suicide bombings. --Zero 17:18, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think the act speaks for itself. There is no need to give it additional labels when, as you say, the result could be be a dead child. @Zero, I agree labeling the bombings is patronizing, but the less obvious potential exploitation situation might be worth drawing the readers' attention to. No suicide bombings by Palestinians under 16 have ever actually happened. The ONLY evidence we have that they have even been attempted are searches of young Palestinian children by Israeli security forces, and statements given by Palestinian children to armed Israeli police or military. Evidence obtained in this way shouldn't be taken at face value when there are no other sources that confirm these were real attempts and happened the way one side claims. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. SilverLocust 💬 12:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, you can't deny that using a child as suicide bomber is more disturbing than using an adult. There are two aspect of the problems,

1. The suicide bombing.
2. The exploitation of child, to an action that harms the child welfare and health.

The readers can form their own values, and saying that many people regard the child bombers as kind of abuse (sending a child to die) doesn't "abuse" the reader's value. They can judge from themselves it child abuse is moral act or not. MathKnight 20:38, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Considering the importance of Psychoanalysis during the XXth century, erasing it's very existence and reducing the phenomenon to "Pop psychoanalysis" would be not only a misunderstanding but also a conscious way of denying it. The fact that anyone would associate immediately suicide to child abuse is already a way to fastly conclude to an unsusbstential answer for a complex problem. Sigmund Freud did not explicitely talk about suicide even if Death Drive is an important concept. Jacques Lacan said something about it in his 12 February 1958 seminar : suicide is an important problem to overcome in analysis when the child undesired by his mother will start being aware of it. As he will try to face his desire of recognition, he will also get closer to a Recognition of desire. Fetih Benslama says the absence of Allah as the father in Kuran, where important characters are mostly sons, provoques a denyial of the kid's desire for his mother and create not only Frustration but Privation that can create Psychosis ans Perversity. 82.224.195.211 (talk) 07:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Use of the word "terrorism"

Hey guys! I have noted and removed the word terrorism several times here, as it carries heavy connotations and undermines NPOV in this case. I am sure that this conversation has happened many times before, and there is an unresolved wiki policy being formulated on the matter.. For here and now, could we use alternate language that conveys the disgusting practices of targeting civilians? Otherwise, I hope that those who use the term are sufficiently clear-minded to define Israeli war crimes against the Palestinian civilian population (e.g., Collective punishment) as terrorism. Tarek 21:38, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know there is a general problem of using the term "terrorism" because "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" stuff. But if we define terrorism as

a deliberate targeting of civilians (i.e. intensionaly trying to kill civilians) in pursuit of a religious\national\political goal

then there should be no POV problem, such the definition regarding the tactics and not the motives. MathKnight 22:22, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By that definition, of course, the state-sanctioned collective punishment (punishing Palestinian families or cities for the militant activity of one member) is also terrorism.. I think we are doing a decent job of describing what's happening while avoiding such a loaded and hijacked term.. Tarek 00:52, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No it wouldn't, that would depend on deliberate targeting. If it was deliberate targetting of civilians... yes, if not, no. He presented a perfectly NPOV defination, and your reply was clearly not a NPOV. And I questions your neutrality in any edits or discussion here.Cliveklg 20:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Israeli collective punishment is the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians. they are subject to home demolitions. the attitude by the IDF is that destroying these peoples homes will deter them from defending terrorists in their (new) neighbourhoods. It's also against international law. There should be an article for war crimes on both sides of the conflict as no group in this conflict is innocent of crimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.148.209 (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Mate are you seriously saying it wasn’t deliberate. Israel is a terrorist state factually. 216.213.162.217 (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Tag

1. Factual Accuracy Dispute = A living person can not be a suicide Bomber.
2. NPOV = Completely israeli Centric.

Tag removed.

1. Simple reason: the term include also people who tried to commit a suicide bombing but failed.
2. The article gives the POV of both sides in the begining and is based on various sources.

MathKnight 17:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The term suicide bomber is used to descrive someone who has killed themself, using a bomb, so as to kill others. A living person, thus can not be a Suicide Bomber. --Irishpunktom\^talk 22:11, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Why would failed suicide bombers not be suicide bombers? Is there something that supports your contention? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A bomber is someone, or something, that bombs. That which does not bomb is not a bomber. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:14, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

It is ridiculous and redundant to change any title in this issue to "suicide bombers and would-be suicide bombers". Any reasonable reader can deduce that article on suicide bombers phenomena disscuss both suicide bombers that managed to blow themselves up on people and suicide bombers who failed to do so. We don't have to treat our readers as stupid, and therefore that tag is unneccesary and unjustified. Your quarrel is about semantics, not about the facts, so the "factual dispute" tag is out of place here. MathKnight 11:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 15 arrest of 4 child suicide bombers

Another factual error - On June 15, The Israeli Shin Bet (SHABAK) arrested a Palestinian terrorist cell in Nablus. The cell included eight members, four of them were child suicide bombers. The cell was directed and funded by the Fatah's Tanzim branch and Lebanese group Hizbullah. It was involved in May child terrorists attacks. [43] [1]) --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:15, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any factual error in it. MathKnight 11:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Check the source provided, then read it agin, then tell me how that assertion was made? --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:23, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I checked and double checked and clarified the issue, adding a third link and done a little copyedit and rewording. Still, these are things you (or any other Wikipedian) could have done by reading the sources. All in all, the case is well established for the "disputed tag" be removed. MathKnight 11:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The link above is dead - I think there's a problem with using Haaretz as a linkable source here. It wouuld be fine if the article is quoted, but Haaretz links often bring up a 404 error for some reason. It's a shame, as its preferable to many of the other sources found here (including many that are in Hebrew). illWill 15:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know. It is realy a plagueing problem. While they Haaretz links that do endure, it seem some of them are not, and as time passes it is hard to find another link (though it is possible via googleing it takes more and more time). In this case, I forecure the problem and added a Ynet link (Ynet in the online version of Yediot Aharonot newspaper) that should endure. MathKnight 16:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zionist Propaganda

Although there are rare cases of the use of minors in the Palestine/Israeli conflict. And I'm against that of course.

But this article was written in its totality in a zionist propaganda tone to emphasize the zionist myth the Palestinians send their kids to death (and hense no problem the the Israeli ocuupation army killed around 4000 kids in Palestine).

1. The article was written with a pre-assumed notion that the use of kids by Palestinians is a fact and is wide spead.

2. The article stated what the IDF (the Israeli Army) claimed as a fact. Ignoring the fact that some of the IDF reports are fabrications or exageration as part of it propaganda war against the Palestinians.

3. There is lack of reference in many paragraphs.

4. The article failed to illustrate the miserable life the kids live due to occupation.

5. The article failed to mention the targetting of kids by the IDF and the hundreds of kids who were killed by the IDF.

Thameen (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

While there is no doubt that there was propoganda used in the original article. With the way Zionist is being thrown about here, I have to wonder about the neutrality of those editting the article also. cliveklg

Yes, fake news. RoisínDubh20 (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

100% true. Whereas in instances 17 yr omds have partook in this it is making out like Hamas groomed kids into it etc which is incorrect. Israel also doesn’t class 16+ as minors. As usually propaganda citing a totally unreliable source in the IOF which by all definitions is a terrorist group themselves. 216.213.162.217 (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Moved comment from article page

Dear Wikipedia,

I feel it is not quite accurate to refer to these suicide bombers as 'Child'.

A child is a person between birth and puberty.

The average age of these bombers seems to be approximately 15 years, an age at which a large majority of 'children' have achieved puberty.

I feel that these adolescents have beeen re-labelled as 'children' for propaganda purposes.

While I do not approve of suicide bombing, especially by adolescents, neither do I approve of propaganda or sensationalism. The latter is stock in trade for the newspaper industry.

I think you should re-think the title of this article. The word 'child' in this context conjures up a picture of a 10 year old. Clearly this is not the case with young suicide bombers. Wikipedia is by no means a newspaper and should avoid falling into the trap of sensationalism.

Yours sincerely

Mutandis —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Mutandis (talk • contribs)

False information

removing false information until it is verified by the UN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.225.9 (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The U.N. is not the final arbiter of truth. You don’t have to wait for something to be verified by the U.N. for it to be true. 74.83.67.36 (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no report of systematic use of children by Palestinian resistance groups. RoisínDubh20 (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

"Use of child suicide bombers by Palestinian militant groups" is misleading. I might suggest "Youths Age 16+ Recruited by Palestinian Armed Resistance Groups for Suicide Bombings"

The report cited from Amnesty is dated Nov 1 2004. It states that Palestinian suicide bombers included several ages 16 and 17. However - and this context is utterly elided - Amnesty goes on to explain that Palestinian authorities argued that minors are those under age 16. Their interpretation received support from Israel's own policy of treating Palestinians as minors until age 16, while its own citizens were considered minors until 18. In its October 2004 incursion in the Occupied Territories, Israel killed 130 Palestinians, including more than 30 children. The report explains that the 16 and 17 year-old suicide bombers were motivated to avenge the killing of their own family members by Israeli soldiers. As odious as suicide bombings are at any age, this hardly seems consistent with the title, which evokes the sense that militants are ripping children from their mothers' arms for use as cannon fodder.

In sum: Yes, international law prohibits recruiting minors, defined as persons under age 18. To that extent, the claim is correct that militant groups allowed young adult minors to act as suicide bombers. But the gravity of the violation is mitigated by Israel's own discriminatory policy. The laws imposed on an occupied population are relevant in assessing the nature and method of armed resistance. GrantLeeEdwards (talk) 10:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Brilliant answer this article clearly is heavily propagandised. They join the groups willingly as they often were orphaned by Israeli TERRORISM which they fail to mention. 216.213.162.217 (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

Please remove the following paragraph:

"At the height of the phenomenon, Avraham Burg, former chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel, speaker of Israel's Knesset and interim President of Israel, stated his view that, given Israeli indifference to the tortured lives of Palestinian children under occupation, suicide bombings come as no surprise. [4]"

The paragraph gives undue weight to an opinion that practically justifies Palestinian suicide bombers. The opinion does not represent the majority Israeli opinion, but an opinion of a politician who is considered a radical leftist. The paragraph gives undue weight to a fringe opinion. 2A0D:6FC0:6E5:2F00:354E:3006:9087:2E1D (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Source for the claim about youngest bomber

https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-1908534,00.html Article in hebrew, 2002

הראש (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@הראש Thank you. Google translate works very well on it, do you know if the translation is correct? It says he was 16 years old, but it doesn't directly say he was the "youngest"? Is that right? Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 07:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. SilverLocust 💬 12:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

צעיר המתאבדים = "young of the suiciders"

It looks like it lacks a word such as הכי or ביותר ,but this is a way to hint for "most", "the youngest among the bombers". Try to ask another Hebrews

Better new year! הראש (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Citations Needed for most of this article

In the section detailing suicide attacks some 20% of the 1000 words has no citations. All of that should be removed until valid citations are found. Of the rest of the citations, none are from third parties: they are all from the Israeli Defense Ministry, some washed through notably censored media. This is for the section beginning with "According to the Israel Defense Forces, 29 suicide attacks were carried out by youth under the age of 18 in 2000–2003" to the end of that part. Mcdruid (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mcdruid This claims to be a list: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/teenage-suicide-bombers but it's just 8, not 29, and they're all 17-year-olds except one, and the BBC source it claims is a dead link. Industrial Metal Brain 11:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. SilverLocust 💬 12:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@Mcdruid: @Industrial Metal Brain: Probably this is the BBC report, which says it is based on a Human Rights Watch report. Finding the HRW report would be the best option. Of course JVL can't be used, and the IDF is thoroughly unreliable. Without a source, the 29 claim should be removed anyway. Zero^talk 12:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

This page really needs updating and better structuring with some scholarship, if it exists, on the topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Zero0000 Why "of course"? Is JVL on the "do not use" list? That list page has barely anything to cite, but other things on the website look ok? But I don't know much about JVL. Industrial Metal Brain 23:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. SilverLocust 💬 12:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@Industrial Metal Brain: JVL is on the "generally unreliable" list, see WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. In any case, a bland list with a dead link is hardly the type of source we should hope for. Zero^talk 01:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Zero0000 If we took out all the uncited there'd be almost no page? so I have been trying to find sources for some first. — I.M.B. (talk) 09:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. SilverLocust 💬 10:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Unsourced material can be removed. Those are the rules. If there is something unsourced but you know it can be sourced, an alternative is to add {{subst:cn}} to it, but it can't remain like that indefinitely. Zero^talk 01:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

"Child suicide bomber" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Child suicide bomber has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 4 § Child suicide bomber until a consensus is reached. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 1 January 2025

Use of child suicide bombers by Palestinian militant groups → Suicide bombing by minors in the Second Intifada – This page can readily be moved to a much more precise and specific title. The current title is somewhat vague and broad in scope when the topic itself is quite narrow and discrete. The topic in question is suicide bombing by minors in the Second Intifada. "Minors" is more useful here than "child", as it pertains to the internationally defined (and most common) age of legal adulthood as being at 18, and the topic here is bombings by 16 and 17 year olds, so shortly below this legal threshold. The qualitative terminology of "children" or "childhood" is vaguer and conjures up the sense of individuals in their early teens or younger just as readily as it does the sense of those in their late teens but prior to legal maturity. The "Second Intifada" is the very precise and discrete time period in question, the when of the topic and a delineation that should obviously be mentioned in the lead (as part of the WP:NCWWW of the topic). This is very explicitly not a general topic page or broad concept article, but one very specifically linked to said time period. The mention that the subject involves "Palestinian militant groups" is lengthy and unnecessary. This element is naturally outlined as part of the WP:SCOPE in the first sentence of the page, but is in any case implied by the context of the "Second Intifada", which makes it clear that the broader topic is the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, where such tactics in the relevant period were the preserve of only side. This makes the specific mention of this element of the subject fairly redundant and unnecessary in the title. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked sock (with replies). SilverLocust 💬 10:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Strongly oppose when but strongly support other changes: "Suicide bombing by minors in Israel and Palestine". — I.M.B. (talk) 09:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC) @Iskandar323, I agree with all of your other points, but I am opposed to restricting the dates. Is there a reason you chose when instead of where? I assume this is not your intended result, but "Second Intifada" only includes the Arabs / Muslims who have done this, when they are not the only people who have. So narrowing "when" creates a massive and unnecessary NPOV problem. There's no need to make the scope "people under 18 committing suicide with explosives in Israel / Palestine between 1999 and 2006" because "people under 18 committing suicide with explosives in Israel / Palestine" is already a rare combination. The title does not need to imply or specify that this is during conflict, or connected to terror groups, or with a plan to also kill / wound other people, because the number of times that it happens for other reasons is close to zero, and if it ever did happen for another reason it would be relevant to mention briefly on the page. Naming the place is contentious, but "Israel and Palestine" covers: Palestine (region), Green Line (Israel), the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and Mandatory Palestine. Anything much earlier than that is getting into eras when "minors under 18" was not a concept, but from the terrorism sentencing controversy about the teenager who blew himself before the intifadas, minors under 18 not being allowed to be killed for conflict-related reasons was clearly a very important concept in that era. WP:NCWWW says: "the year is a useful identifier as constitutional crises reoccur, and other incidents in Russian history could be construed as a constitutional crisis", but this page doesn't need that, because any further events that happen should be added here, not on a new page. — I.M.B. (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC) I don't think the timeframe of the "Second Intifada" is excessively narrow given the concentration of existing sourcing on this period. Whether it is independently notable is another question. It is possible that it ultimately merits merging either into the Second Intifada or Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict pages. However, the material you have added on the actions of Lehi and Irgun in 1947 merely blurs the topic with an entirely non-contiguous series of events in the Mandatory Palestine period. And the geographical term "Israel" incidentally doesn't cover this. A better way to cover all this, if that were to be the objective, would be to use the "in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" suffix, which I suppose is an alternative. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC) @Iskandar323: I added "Israel" to cover the intifada. "Mandatory Palestine" and the "Palestinian Territory" are both covered by "in Palestine", but 2/3 of suicide bombings during the second intifada happened on the Tel Aviv side of the Green Line. — I.M.B. (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC) When you place Israel and Palestine alongside each other, the sense that that conveys is the two present polities, not Israel, Palestine and Mandatory Palestine. My broader point was that in putting events from 1947 and 2000-2004 together, the scope has been broadened from the initial content. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. Without comment on other aspects, changing it from "use of" to "by minors" carries unfortunate implications. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

"Use of" isn't encyclopedic phrasing. It's a symptom of poor, unconcise titling. You won't find a single "Use of" article on Encyclopedia Britannica. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Not saying it is ideal but it makes it seem far more consensual on the part of the children than the article does. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: The meaning of the word "minor" is a person who is not old enough to consent. "Child" implies that, but "minors" says it more directly. The word "minors" also gives a more realistic impression of the kids in Palestine who actually committed suicide this way, about ten were 17 and two were 16. I.M.B. (talk) 08:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. SilverLocust 💬 10:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't dispute changing it from child to minor but the way the rest of it is phrased again, makes it seem far more consensual on the part of the children than the article does. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Do not rename -- The current title describes it precisely with concrete terminology. I'm not sure what the advantage of changing it to abstract terminology is. It reminds me of the old joke about changing the job title of a janitor to a "sanitation engineer". AnonMoos (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The current title has an un-encyclopedic, twice-compound phraseology, and the suggested terminology isn't abstract. The term "minor" is totally normal speech, bears no relation to the terrible analogy above, and could only cause issues for people too unfamiliar with English to make proper use of en.wiki. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Strongly support renaming to Suicide bombing by minors in Israel and Palestine. References to child suicide bombings by Zionist groups during the British Mandate were previously present before their removal by BePrepare1907. Firecat93 (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support expanding the scope to "Israel and Palestine". I actually prefer "children" over "minors" as that's the more commonly used term.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Palestine was not a colony

Blocked sock (with replies). SilverLocust 💬 10:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Zero0000: Is there a better word? It seemed to be much less autonomous than somewhere like Canada? But I did not put much thought into "colonial". "Mandate" seems to be the specific legal term, but "mandatory authority" sounds confusing, it was martial law at that specific moment, but is there a good word to describe the long term situation? I.M.B. (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC) First, I don't see why the 1947 incident belongs here at all. Committing suicide by bomb does not make one a "suicide bomber". To your point, I'm not sure that a word is needed. Already "Mandatory" indicates what type of authority it was. An alternative wording could be "mandatory authorities in Palestine". The proper word for the Government of Palestine was "the mandatory". Also, I don't think you are correct that there was martial law then. As our article says, martial law is "the replacement of civilian government by military rule", but this did not happen. The Defence (Emergency) Regulations introduced a number of measures that are in common with martial law, such as the existence of military courts, but the civil government did not yield authority to the military. There was a parallel system of civil and military courts (like in Israel+territories now). The Palestine Gazette does not contain a declaration of martial law as far as I can find. Zerotalk 06:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Now I see that martial law was imposed on Tel Aviv and parts of Jerusalem on March 2, 1947 and revoked on March 17. I have the exact boundaries. There was another short period in Netanya in July and another in September. I don't have the full story. Zerotalk 11:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC) @Zero0000 Yes, short term, but I didn't realize it was localized. Sorry I think that appeared while I was writing the other message. I.M.B. (talk) Where you accessing the Palestine Gazette? Do you mean this: https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C4931 There seems to be a version in Israel and a few other countries. That UK one doesn't seem to have anything available other than the record saying it exists? But it does label it "Colonial Office: Palestine Government Gazettes". I've seen Colonial in a few places in UK sources, but I possibly still used it wrong, colony doesn't seem to describe it well. I.M.B. (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC) Committing suicide by bomb does not make one a "suicide bomber" That was not the plan. The mission they'd been given was a suicide bombing, that included killing other people. Other militants gave them the task and they accepted, but then either the boys changed the plan or the bomb malfunctioned, and they died in the cell with no other casualties. I.M.B. (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC) The only real problem I see with including it is that it is very complicated. I am having trouble even explaining how it's relevant in a way that doesn't take over the entire page or leave out something important. On a page with a simple scope a lot of those things can be left out, "Lehi did a thing on date", but here they all need explaining: child + suicide + bombing + however we define the place or conflict. I.M.B. (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC) The plan was to bomb the gallows of Jerusalem prison, killing other people as well. Being at their own execution is another weird layer of complexity, but they weren't really "going to die anyway" as such, they sabotaged their own trials. The suicide bombing plan went wrong somehow. The bombs went off early, when the two were alone together in their shared cell. The sources, reliable but all Israeli, say the boys changed plan to avoid non-target casualties. It's become a somewhat elaborate national legend of a romanticized double suicide. The legend is the boys abandoned their mission to avoid harming a Rabbi who insisted on attending the hanging in an attempt to be supportive, and also sparing "The Good Jailer". But this doesn't seem to be based on much, they died in the cell with no witnesses. But there being a suicide bombing plan is said very directly in multiple sources. That for Commander / PM Begin gave his approved, as in the Lehi waited for his response. The story is in detail in every Israeli newspaper. In 2013 The Times of Israel says they planned to kill the warden, the executioners, and themselves. Haaretz (English) "…the Lehi had envisioned a suicide operation during the hanging of one of their men prior to this incident: "They called it Operation Samson, in an allusion to the suicide of the biblical figure." DiedRecently, who prepared the makeshift orange grenades while he was imprisoned along with the two men, confirms that the plan was to turn their ascent to the gallows into an action that would harm the British authorities" … "Of course, we needed the condemned men's approval", DiedRecently recalls. "Moshe [the Lehi fighter who died] agreed right away, but since there was an Irgun man with him we had to request their approval, too. We asked the person responsible for Irgun prisoners in the jail, [an Irgun militant], and he said they needed the consent of the top command. We had to wait a few days, despite fearing that they would be taken to the gallows in the meantime, until approval arrived from the commander of the Irgun, Menachem Begin". I don't think we should use the name of DiedRecently, he died in August 2023. I have never seen him mentioned outside Israel, and I've seen nothing to suggest his family supported his controversial actions. That article doesn't mention his age, most don't, some give ages that the family have explicitly said are wrong. The family have said 17 from the original trial to now, various sources from Israel have given an assortment of ages ranging from 18 to 20. There is a recent interview in Hebrew with his nephew in a conservative Israeli newspaper. כל הדרך לגרדום: ימיו האחרונים של מאיר פיינשטיין [All the way to the gallows]. www.makorrishon.co.il Makor Rishon (in Hebrew). 27 July 2017. Archived from the original on 2024-12-31. מאיר פיינשטיין נולד וגדל בירושלים. אם שואלים את אתר הזיכרון הרשמי של חללי צה"ל או את ויקיפדיה, תאריך הלידה שלו הוא 5 באוקטובר 1927. לדברי אחיינו, המועד הנכון הוא יולי 1929. [Meir Feinstein was born and raised in Jerusalem. If you ask the official IDF memory site or Wikipedia, its date of birth is 5 October 1927. According to his nephew, the right date is July 1929.] I think the IDF memorial page now says he was 20, the date above would make him 19, and Hebrew dates confuse me but I think his tombstone says "18 years old". I.M.B. (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC) @Zero0000 ongoing political relevance? Distorted versions of the story keep showing up in PM speeches. Olmert I.M.B. (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC) I don't see any ongoing political relevance. We also don't have a reliable source that Feinstein was a child. Testimony from a relative doesn't count as reliable by Wikipedia rules. Zerotalk 08:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC) @Zero0000, "Testimonials from family" not counting as reliable would mean using the memorial site run by his nephew a citation for "he was 17" as a fact? But it's not saying that, it's secondary sources reporting testimony of relevant people. That's usually allowed? The sources are Jewish Telegraphic Agency and Makor Rishon and the statement they support is that "the family have consistently asserted that he was 17". Those sources are niche, but I can't find anything to say they're disreputable? and if there was any bias I would expect it in the other direction. A lot of diaspora and local media is very critical of Israel, but those are both fairly conservative, they highlight his age in the context of condemnation of the British. I.M.B. (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC) I'm actually undecided about whether it "fits" here. It's relevant enough to warrant a brief mention but difficult to explain accurately without dominating the page. There being notable ambiguity in his age is enough to make it relevant, but it also makes it complicated, and it's like that for every other factor. I.M.B. (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC) It depends how the page deals with the modern events. It's not very relevant to a statistical account of the real events. In that context it probably belongs in a history section, if at all. But that doesn't seem to be what the people who want this page to be it's own page think the page should be about. The topics that keep coming up are "Palestinian leaders support this", "glorification of martyrdom", and "indoctrination of children". It's very relevant to those even if he was actually older. In 2010 they introduced a high school curriculum unit about those two and the ten who got themselves hanged. It was criticized within Israel using the exact same words that keep showing up in the more emotive older versions of this page. I.M.B. (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC) @Zero0000 A few sources said there was martial law specifically in a narrow window at that time. But they might have been using the term in a hyperbolic way. If it is inaccurate then maybe check some of the related pages, I think I have seen "after the declaration of martial law" or similar somewhere here. I think the boys who got sentenced were in a military court. The British seem to have done a mini "war on terror" against the Irgun and Lehi. I.M.B. (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC) Yes, people like them were tried in military courts. The British government authorised the trial of civilians in military courts under some limited circumstances in 1931 and the circumstances were expanded in several steps later. During the 1936-9 rebellion a large number of people (mostly Arabs) were tried in military courts. The 1945 regulations had a long list of "Military Court offences" which would automatically imply trial in a military court. None of this involved a formal declaration of martial law. Zerotalk 05:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC) The trials don't overlap with the times you gave above. I.M.B. (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose removal

I don't agree with this removal. Why only consider Arab child suicide bombers and not Jewish ones? Of course, the material should be covered in accordance with WP:DUE weight. It is better to cover both at the same article then to create separate articles, one for Jewish children and one for Arab children.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)