Talk:Operation Damocles

Incorrectly removed categories

The following categories have been incorrectly removed by an editor: 'Category:Political scandals in Israel', 'Category:Espionage scandals and incidents'.

Reuters considers Operation Damocles an "espionage scandal", including it in this timeline of Israeli espionage scandals.

Matt Webster in 'Inside Israel's Mossad: The Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks' states that

'In March 1963 Operation Damocles became a public embarassment for Israel...".

The Guardian's obit of Harel states

'Many loyal operatives resigned in protest, including future prime minister Yitzhak Shamir; the strength of the resulting controversy in the Knesset was a principal cause of Ben-Gurion's resignation the following June. '

And regardless of these sources, a public controversy that results in a political uproar, the resignation of the head of an intelligence agency and contributes to the later resignation of the Prime Minister of a state is the literal embodiment of a "political scandal". The fact that this operation was covert means that it was also an "espionage scandal or incident". This is not synthesis. It is obvious, logically uncontestable and a correct usage of the English language. Factomancer (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Speculation presented as fact

Sirrs writes: "...Krug's disappearance undoubtedly created supply problems for Egypts rocket program, although there is no written evidence to document that."

HupHollandHup inserted this information as if it were a fact, rather than clearly labelled speculation by Sirrs ([1]). I am removing it, because it is an opinion not a fact. Factomancer (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not an opinion , it is presented as fact ("undoubtedly created..). Facts can be facts even when there is no written documentation. I'll provide some better wording. HupHollandHup (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It is clearly an opinion **since there is no evidence for it** as Sirrs clearly says! What is wrong with you? Factomancer (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

there is no Written evidence - just like there is not written evidence that Hitler ordered the extermination of Jews. Both are still facts. Please stop the personal attacks. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

So now you are claiming that there is non-written evidence for Sirr's opinion. Where is this evidence and what is it? Again, Sirrs makes it very clear that he is stating his opinion. It is hard to believe you are not being disingenuous here and not just wasting my time. I think you'll find that objective criticism of disruptive behaviour is not a "personal attack".Factomancer (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

the latest version I added to the article, which you again disruptively removed, attributed the claim to OwensOwen Sirrs. Continuing with the personal attacks is not going to get you far. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Who is "Owens"? I believe we were talking about "Owen Sirrs". Factomancer (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Sirrs, sorry. HupHollandHup (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the missile program's only goal was to "destroy" Israel

Given that Egypt had recently been invaded by Israel during the Suez Crisis the missile program was likely intended for the defence of Egyptian territory. All military weapons can be used both for defence and offense depending on the situation on the ground. To claim that the program's only and singular goal was to "destroy" Israel is counterfactual propaganda that is not be supported by any serious source on the subject. Please do not keep restoring this ludicrous propaganda, NoMoreMrNiceGuy. Factomancer (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't add or restore the word "destroy". While your opinion on military matters is very interesting, what do the sources say was the goal of the missile project? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The source used for this contentious statement (Lavy) says "Nasser's declared aim was also the destruction of Israel". I don't necessarily think this belongs in the article, but we should certainly remove the unsourced original research, currently falsely attributed to Lavy, that the aim was to achieve parity with Israel's rocket technology. That's not in the given source. HupHollandHup (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

There was no "chemical" weapons development

The only source that mentions chemical weapons development is the Guardian obituary of Isser Harel, and it only mentions **alleged chemical weapon development**.

The other much more in-depth sources make no mention of chemical weapons but clearly point out that Israel was making many false claims about Egypt's missile program. The Guardian mention of "alleged chemical weapon development" is clearly a reference to Israel's anti-Egyptian propaganda.

Again, HupHollandHup, stop making disruptive, false edits to this article and join this discussion. Factomancer (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've discussed all my edits. I first entered this info the day the article was created, with the source (Guardian obit). You removed it without explanation. I re-added it. You removed it again, claiming it was not sourced, so I added the source again - and you still removed it. I am fine with clarifying that the chemical weapons claim is only alleged, but you may not remove sourced material. You may also not comment on editors and their motivations, as you did in your edit summary. This is disruptive behavior that will get you blocked. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You are inserting material that is poorly sourced and misrepresenting it's factuality. I have every right, indeed am obligated, to remove it. Your account is behaving as a single-purpose Israel advocacy account and I have every right to comment upon that. Factomancer (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I am inserting impeccably sourced information, from a history book on the topic by an expert, (Sirrs), and from a mainstream newspaper (Guardian). I am also open to various wording that clarifies the material you have objected to. You, OTOH, are removing sourced material and using personal attacks. I've had a look at your block record and it ain't pretty. Looks like another one is not to far off. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

If I'm reading the sources correctly, the only source for the chemical warfare angle was Joklik. Sirrs seems quite skeptical about the guy. The Guardian also uses "allegedly" when referring to this issue. I suggest we do the same. I don't feel comfortable with the way it's stated as fact now, particularly in the lead. I think we could use a section about this issue explaining the details. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

there's also the Morris/Black book, which states the Mossad obtained a document, written by Pilz, which discusses research into chemical warheads. But I am fine with the way it is stated now- in the article body, not in the lead. HupHollandHup (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with this edit. It does not matter that the source does not mention Operation Damocles. It does mention German scientists. If there were no German scientists helping Egypt with the CW and radioactive weapons, there would not have been Operation Damocles.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The source talks about nerve agents, not radioactive weapons. It also talks about a completely different facility. I don't think we can use it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)