Misplaced Pages

Talk:International reactions to the Gaza War (2008–2009): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:18, 5 January 2009 editGary (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers102,842 editsm moved Talk:International reaction to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict to Talk:International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict: en dashes← Previous edit Revision as of 18:32, 5 January 2009 edit undoChesdovi (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users22,098 edits →Attacks: brick wall?Next edit →
Line 87: Line 87:
:"any preventitve measures" are not understandable. Rubber bullets are understandable, tear gas is understandable. Beating protesters with baton is also understandable. But killing them, by opening gunfire is not. :"any preventitve measures" are not understandable. Rubber bullets are understandable, tear gas is understandable. Beating protesters with baton is also understandable. But killing them, by opening gunfire is not.
:I urge you to stop differentiating between Palestinian deaths and Israeli ones, I don't understand why you would not accept violence against Arabs/Palestinians as similar to violence against Jews/Israelis.''']''' <sub>]</sub> 15:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC) :I urge you to stop differentiating between Palestinian deaths and Israeli ones, I don't understand why you would not accept violence against Arabs/Palestinians as similar to violence against Jews/Israelis.''']''' <sub>]</sub> 15:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
::Vice regent - you are troubled. Seek help. ] (]) 18:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


== Vatican / Holy See == == Vatican / Holy See ==

Revision as of 18:32, 5 January 2009

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the International reactions to the Gaza War (2008–2009) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIsrael
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPalestine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Middle East
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: not checked
  2. Coverage and accuracy: not checked
  3. Structure: invalid parameter
  4. Grammar and style: not checked
  5. Supporting materials: not checked
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Middle Eastern military history task force

Czech Republic's Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg supports Israel

Taken from this website: http://praguemonitor.com/2008/12/29/czech-formin-israel-has-right-defend-against-hamas
Karel Schwarzenberg said that "Israel has the right to take military action against attacks on locations where its civilians live" and that "no political dialogue is possible because of Hamas's attacks on Israeli settlements. However, " Schwarzenberg also said, "it is unfortunate that the living conditions in Gaza are very bad. These conditions need to be changed in such a way that they do not make young people join radical organisations."

This appeared also in Israeli news sites (obviously), including Haaretz. I think that this source relevant and reliable, so I'll add it to the list. Boris "Nomæd" Aranovič (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Split between official country reactions and popular reactions

I think this would be useful to place the statements from country officials in one section and the popular reactions of their citizens via demonstrations and other actions in another. The demonstrations sub-section could also be organized in three sub-sections: 1) Demonstrations in solidarity with Palestinians and denouncing Israeli actions, demonstrations in solidarity with Israelis and denouncing Palestinian actions, and demonstrations calling for an end to violence from both parties. Thoughts? Tiamut 15:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea, but were there demonstrations supporting Israel? --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I know of some in NYC. PluniAlmoni (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Western Wall: Hundreds pray for soldiers' wellbeing and the residents of Israel's southern communities. Chesdovi (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Blames section

Is the blames section really needed on this article? Why do we need a tally show how many blame Israel, how many blame Hamas and how many blame both. Especially when some of the entries have been inaccurate. All of this is covered in detail in the actual tables below stating countries position. Why the need for the stuff before the two tables showing international organisations and countries views. ? BritishWatcher (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Its ridiculous. It seems like a competition and is not very encyclopedic. I'll remove them now. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I removed them last night as well then when i came back this morning it was back up there. Its been fairly inaccurate considering someone just had to remove one country from the list and earlier this morning when i came back on it was saying that everyone in the blame both sides section had "condemned them", The UK certainly had not condemned Israel so i had to change the wording. Should remove straight away again if its readded, i really dont think it contributes anything to the article apart from making it seem like a competition as you say. Damn, i got lost in the redirect then lol BritishWatcher (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

See Also section

Notwithstanding its status as an AfD, what does International reaction to the Christmas massacres in the Democratic Republic of Congo have to do with this article to justify it being in the See Also section? Kari Hazzard (T | C) 06:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It happened over the same period and culminated in the same number of deaths. It is of interest to show the reaction to both events. Don't you think? Chesdovi (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, mainly because the two events are unrelated in terms of what they are. "See Also" implies a relationship between two things. Just because two events occurred at the same time and have vague superficial similarities does not mean they are related. On 26 February 2004, Microsoft's offices in Japan were raided by the government on antitrust allegations. Just a day later, the former leader of Aum Shinrikyo was sentenced to death for his part in the Tokyo sarin gas attacks. Are the two events related? They both occurred in close proximity and they were both in Japan, right? Kari Hazzard (T | C) 22:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but these are both pages about international reactions to the killing of civilians. Don't tell me that they are not remotely related. They occured over the same period and have elicited diverse responses. They are two separate events, but they are linked by the common reaction to them. Although both museums, The Museum of Art (New York) is not related to the Museum of Warfare, but it is related to the Museum of Art (Paris). The international response is the common denominator here. Regards, Chesdovi (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
If the common denominator needs to be "International response", like you claim, should be include International response to the Holocaust too? There needs to be a criterion other than "international response".VR talk 00:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
That together with the fact that both events occured during the same period. I really don't see what the major fuss is here. In all my editing days I have never come across the See also section being so vigerously vetted. Chesdovi (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Civilian Demonstrations and Protests to separate article

I suggest moving that section to a separate article.

There are many references, and much info, for such an article.

There are many photos too. See

Here are some advanced Flickr searches that pull up only free images posted or taken after Dec 26, 2008 with "gaza" or "palestine" or "palestinian" somewhere on the image page:

Of course, one has to ignore all the images uploaded by Amir Farshad Ebrahimi. We have found out that he is uploading copyrighted photos. Also, one should search for the image caption via Google if the image seems questionable.

Other search words can be used. Use Flickr advanced search:

At the bottom of that search form check all the boxes for "Only search within Creative Commons-licensed content". These all should have checkmarks:

- Find content to use commercially
- Find content to modify, adapt, or build upon

Then upload the images that are acceptable to the Commons,

and categorize them under

Search for free images from multiple sources:

--Timeshifter (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Attacks

Attacks against Israeli embassies etc. are certainly relevant to this article, when they are a response to the conflict. However, some of the attacks listed seem to be anti-semitic incidents pure and simple. Unless and until it is credibly believed that the perpetrator committed his act in response to the conflict, it should be here, but rather be in another list of antisemitic attacks. Arguing the motive was to punish Israel, when no reliable source says so, is a violation of WP:NOR.VR talk 23:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If you refer to the Attacks against Israeli and Jewish interests section, all but one have been directly blamed on the Gaza situation. I was careful to reference each one before they were listed. If you are so bothered, check first and then discuss. Thanks, Chesdovi (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm wondering if this should be incorporated into the main protests section. Recently, Israel killed a Palestinian protesting by stone-throwing. However, I don't it would be appropriate to call it "Killings of protesters". I'm going to incorporate this into the section outlining protests.VR talk 12:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
These actions are indeed protests, however they differ in that they are not organised demonstrations. Rather they are individual attacks, specifically targeted against uninvolved civilians. Included are Israeli persons, although we must differenciate between demonstrators who gather at Isralei embassies and consultes which are listed in the main table. I will add the Qalqilya incident you mention in the main table as the protest was directed against an involved party, namely the Israeli military. Regards, Chesdovi (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
For now I have moved the Qalqilya event to the section which i renamed as violence. I don't agree with your argument.
"specifically targeted against uninvolved civilians" Civilians are always uninvolved, and attacks against them are always wrong.
"although we must differenciate between demonstrators who gather at Isralei embassies and consultes" Why? Such attacks are also wrong, and in any case would count as "Israeli interests".
I don't see any reason to distinguish events that were "organised" versus those that were poorly so. Finally, given the limited number of events, I think its best to put it in prose form as opposed to a table, so that we can explain the nature of the attack.VR talk 19:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I do not understand your response to me, but then again, I may have not made myself too clear in the first place! I think it is correct to have separate lists for organised demonstrations against Israel and those protests which have been directed against uninvolved civilians. Violence which evolved at any protests against Israel is listed in in small. It is important that acts purportrated against innocents be listed separately. I will not wait for your reply, as you did not see fit to wait for mine before you made your changes. Best, Chesdovi (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
All violence in the scope of this article, whether against embassies, or is against "innocents". Secondly, how does one define "uninvolved"? Finally why is that criterion necessary?VR talk 00:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I *strongly* disagree with focusing on violence against Israelis/Jews but not on violence against Arabs. That's exactly what you did, when you removed the incident in which a Palestinian was shot dead in Qalqilya from the violence section and re-named it.VR talk 00:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
When the violence is directed against police or by police against civilains, that is one thing. This goes hand in hand with the main protests. The difference is when civilians attack other civilans. Violence against Arabs would be noted in a separate table if pro-Israel activists target Arab or Muslim civilians in response to Hamas rocket attacks. Chesdovi (talk) 03:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
That is but a technicality. I really don't understand why you're trying to down-play the death of a Palestinian man by using such arguments (that he was killed by Israeli soldiers not civilians). I'm including his death in the section.VR talk 06:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Wait a minute. In the section, you are including act where some people said "Jews out", but are excluding an incident where a man is killed?VR talk 06:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to overplay a palestinian death, make a new section: Protestors killed, or something. The fact is that the man you want to imortalise was a protestor bearing stones. He is therefore a combatant, not a civilian. He was invovled. He was directing his protest against a "legitimate" target and therefore made himself a target for attack. Attacks against uninvovled civilians must be separated from those made against armed-civilians. This is obvious! The former is more notable because violence is directed against innocent bystanders who are totally and utterly detached from events in Gaza. Such attacks are just not justified. You are trying to equate a Jew walking down the street minding his own business in Antwerp 3,000 miles away from Gaza, with a stone thrower against police, and its consequence, in Qalqilya. Police have the ability to respond and their response is expected. Violence against non-protesting civilians most certainly is not expected. The main point of this section is to highlight the global repercussion of the events in Gaza against innocent Jews. Violent protestors in a standoff with police put themselves in danger and any preventitve measures taken agaist their violent acts are understandable and therefore less notable. Thanks, Chesdovi (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No Chesdovi, it is obvious from your edits that the point is only to highlight violence against Jews, but remove it when it comes to Arabs. A stone-throwing civilian is "armed"? Are you also going to tell me that the Londoners who threw shoes were also "armed"? What about those who throw tomatoes?
"Such attacks are just not justified." So you are saying that it is ok to kill Palestinians just because they throw stones?
"any preventitve measures" are not understandable. Rubber bullets are understandable, tear gas is understandable. Beating protesters with baton is also understandable. But killing them, by opening gunfire is not.
I urge you to stop differentiating between Palestinian deaths and Israeli ones, I don't understand why you would not accept violence against Arabs/Palestinians as similar to violence against Jews/Israelis.VR talk 15:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Vice regent - you are troubled. Seek help. Chesdovi (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Vatican / Holy See

Regarding International reaction to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict: The Vatican has no international relations (though the Holy See is member of organisations like the IPU on behalf of it), so I doubt any statements about the Gaza conflict were made on behalf of the Vatican City state. --JensMueller (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It was my understanding that the Vatican City is recognized as a nation state while the Holy See is not. I assume that it would be the nation state which does the diplomacy. I am not an expert on this so I may well be wrong. --Tocino 22:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
From Vatican City: "Vatican City State is a recognized national territory under international law, but it is the Holy See that conducts diplomatic relations on its behalf, in addition to the Holy See's own diplomacy, entering into international agreements in its regard.", "Given the distinction between the two entities, the Holy See's immense influence on world affairs is quite unrelated to the minuscule size of the Vatican City State." See also Holy See#Relationship with the Vatican City and other territories: "The Holy See, not the Vatican City, maintains diplomatic relations with states and participates in international organizations." --JensMueller (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


A Picture from Tehran

I've taken this picture. It's from a billboard in Tehran supporting Gaza people. I thought it might be useful for th article. Amirreza 11:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Amirreza, please be kind enough to tell us who Abi Abdellah Al-Husayn is. Thanks, Chesdovi (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggested split of protests: major and minor

I suggest the list of protests be split into the more and less notable protests. Say, protests of 500 people or more?

This is so that the very notable and internationally reported protests (mainly the ones which were first added to the list) are not 'drowned out' amid the hundreds of small protests (which are equally important but perhaps should be in a seperate list). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why we would need to do a split. Chesdovi (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Why don't we just arrange the protests in order of numbers attended?VR talk 17:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Is there any way of doing that automatically? Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

President of the United Nations General Assembly

Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, though one can forgive him, as a diplomat, for using understatement and euphemism, did call the incursion itself today a 'monstrosity'. Given his institutional role, this should be registered here, surely. Nishidani (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Gush Shalom ssays 10,000 demonstrated in Tel Aviv I think this is not adequately evidenced in the text, or in the Ynet refs.Nishidani (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced claims in 'Violence' section

Not quite sure how to treat these. No news source will likely report the more obscure ones. If they are unsourced should they be deleted.

Esp. as some are written in in non-neutral language - 'rampaged' Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

All the cases listed here have references. (You can view them by clicking on the number in the first box) Chesdovi (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Does this count

Does the Lebanese protest against Israeli blockade on December 19th count?VR talk 22:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This for sure is notable. Does it belong here? Probably not as this is about events after the 27th. Maybe add it as background on the main article? Chesdovi (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sakhnin demonstration

The figure of participants in Sakhnin has been reported as between 10,000 to 150,000:

There is no doubt that the figures of 100,000 and over are grossly exaggerated. There are only 25,000 living in Sakhnin. This happened in London as well, where the organizers over-estimated the numbers. Police in London said 12,000 demonstrated, while the organizers said it was 60,000. We can make note of the higher figures, but the more likely figure should be put in the box. I will put it as ~30,000 as most reports say “Tens of thousands” and other reliable sources, (The Guardian and Jerusalem Post) say “up to” or “over 10,000”. Chesdovi (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, we have to go by the sources. None of the sources say 30,000. We could write over 10,000 to 150,000. Also, remember, that the demonstration could have drawn thousands of other Arabs from cities, towns, and villages in the Galilee and Triangle, as it had many MKs from different Arab parties participating. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Every source, technically, agrees with the 150,000 figure, except guardian. "Over 10,000" includes "150,000" so there is no disagreement there. Also, no source quotes 30,000, so we shouldn't quote that figure either.VR talk 00:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Over 10,000 also includes 1m! The fact is that "dubious" (cringe!) sources quotes 100,000 and over. I totally agree with Al Ameer son that others probably gathered in the town. However, if the 150,000 figure is to be used, I would like more RS's. 30,000 was a compromise. At present I am not sure how to proceed. We have to remember that some sources do tend to inflate these figures. Best, Chesdovi (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The way I see it, is we could start attributing the numbers to the sources, or use the "Over 10,000 to 150,000" format, or simply state "tens of thousands". Also remember (and its unfortunate the BBC, AFP, and YNET were not specific), tens of thousands could be 150,000. Also, I believe, it was noted as the biggest (or one of the biggest) demonstration in Arab Israel's history. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Well Chesdovi, I wish we had more RS's as well. But unfortunately we don't. So thus we should quote the only figure available to us *by a reliable source*. And Al-Jazeera is a reliable source.VR talk 06:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Dispute - Official Reaction of Australia

There is disagreement over the inclusion of the following sentence in the Official Reactions section under Australia:

"The Australian government faced criticism from Australian Greens leader and senator Bob Brown for not condemning the bombing of Palestinians, and called for an immediate ceasefire."

Please list your comments below:

  • Exclude because they are comments from individual politicians that were not part of the "official reaction" of that country. shirulashem (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Include because the politician is an elected representative. He holds office (from which I believe derives the term official). He is a Senator of Australia.VR talk 06:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Exclude. We can't have a list of everybodys reaction. This section deals with the country's official ruling party's response. Anything else will snowball into hundreds of individual responses, however importatnt they may be. What does the Queen think about it? Hey, where am I mentioned! (For this reason I think we must add Israel's offical response and not just what Olmert had to say about it). Chesdovi (talk) 13:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Chesdovi you didn't read my arguments. I was talking about leaders holding office. You are not such. And yes, if the Queen of UK had a reaction we' include it just as we include Peres' reaction in his capacity as the head of state of Israel.VR talk 15:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Exclude - only official reactions. Otherwise we can feel the page with nazi organisations reactions.--Avala (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No section in the table for Melbourne, Australia pro-Israel demonstrations

Should there be a section for the Melbourne, Australia pro-Isreal demonstrations? Source: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24871812-2,00.html "About 500 supporters of Israel gathered at State Parliament chanting "no more terror", with banners calling for Gaza to be freed from Hamas' control." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.111.146 (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Added. Chesdovi (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Tabular format trivializes the responses

The tabular format:

  • artificially limits our reporting to one or two sentences. The slaughter could go on for months. Participants in that length of time could have MANY responses. The table will force us to consign all but one or two to the "memory hole".
  • artificially suggests that all responses are equally important -- and therefore equally trivial. The response of the victims is put on the same level as the response of minor disinterested parties on the other side of the planet

Because I believe that it is necessary to resist aggression, I do not wish to see condemnation of aggression trivialized. If we were living seventy years ago, would it be morally appropriate to trivialize criticism of the Axis Powers, say? Misplaced Pages exists to PRESENT essential information. Formats that trivialize, suppress, or artificially constrain information are inappropriate. NonZionist (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

U.S. more involved than PA, yet not listed

The U.S. is one of the PRIMARY involved parties. It is more involved than the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, since the U.S. role is active, while the PA role is passive. The U.S. operates as Israel's satellite or colony: It arms Israel, it funds Israel, it shields Israel in the U.N., and it even makes war in Israel's behalf -- as it did in Iraq.

Contrast the U.S. involvement with the involvement of Iran, say. The U.S. gives Israel at least $3,000,000,000 a year, plus the most deadly weapons ever invented, weapons to be used against stone-throwing peasants. What does Iran give Hamas besides moral support? The "involved parties" section should list ALL of the significantly involved countries, their level of involvement, and their actions. The fact that the U.S., for example, has blocked Libya's ceasefire proposal at the UNSC needs to be mentioned! -- Unfortunately -- or conveniently, if one favors aggression -- the format forces us to censor or suppress this key information. Our purpose is to present information, not suppress it. NonZionist (talk) 08:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see Iran listed in the involved parties either. It is just Israel, Hamas and Fatah for obvious reasons. Americas response is clear and available in the country resonse table underneath. How anyone can look at this article or the main article and think it is pro Israel or biased in favour of them i do not know. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Table problems

The size field in Pro-Israel demonstrations does not seem to be working and I can't figure out how to fix it. Chesdovi (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Categories: