Talk:Lavon Affair

1. REDIRECT Template:Archives

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 October 2023

Template:Edit extended-protected Hi. Informative article about the Lavon Affair. Just finished re-reading "The Spymasters of Israel" by Stewart Steven, where the Lavon Affair is described blow-by-blow. A citation could be added to show the inefficacy of official Israeli denial.

^ Asnarb (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Who are the egyptians?

It says: "Avri Elad allegedly informed the Egyptians, resulting in the Egyptian intelligence agency following a suspect to his target, the Rio Theatre, where a fire engine was standing by."

Who are the egyptians here? Does Elad inform egyptian police or the egyptian jews and the police intercepted the information?

Would be nice with som clearence.

greetings. Herr X (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

It was the Egyptian State Security Investigations Service (Amn El Dawla) that interrogated the perpetrators. RoyalCream (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Problem with the Lede

Is that it does not make any sense, that isolated attacks here and there would justify a major shift in British policy, unless the British government were in favor of the shift in policy, and needed a pretext. Otherwise the first sentence in the Lede fails basic logic. There's no way this operation could have had it's intended outcome without the willingness of the British to use it as a pretext for the change in policy with regard to the Suez. It's a different world now. We're aware, and we remember, and your bullshit doesn't work anymore. You should consider stopping with your bullshit, and tell the WHOLE truth. At minimum, the Lede fails basic readablility standards, because it's fucking bullshit, but at worst it's just a straight-out lie. Wikipedia should stop pissing on the heads of it's Readers, while trying to pretend that it's raining.

Now apply that same reasoning to the 9/11 attacks, and how they were used as a pretext to invade Iraq, and find the common denominator.

66.25.69.185 (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

You may or may not be right, but in Wikipedia we are obliged to follow what sources say and this is cited to a strong source that has a large amount of content on this affair. You should also consider why this risky operation was undertaken at all if there was no overriding motivation. Zero^talk 03:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)